HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE (MINING IN SANCTUARIES) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 27 February 2008. Page 1882.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:18): This bill has been triggered by concern about a specific matter regarding mineral exploration in the area of Mount Gee in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. The Minister for Mineral Resources Development has announced that the matter is being dealt with as a high priority by the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, and the company will not be permitted to resume activities on this exploration licence until a number of investigations, reports and rehabilitation works have been completed.

The government opposes this bill for a number of important reasons. First, the sanctuary program has been a way for conservation-minded landowners to be recognised by the government, as it provides a higher level of statutory protection for the plants and animals on that land than on other land. It is important to note that the sanctuaries program was developed to recognise and encourage private land conservation activities. This is an important distinction between sanctuaries and heritage agreements under the Native Vegetation Act 1991.

Sanctuaries are able to be withdrawn by either party, whereas heritage agreements are binding covenants registered on the title of the land and confer certain rights and responsibilities on the owner. Since their introduction, heritage agreements have been the preferred mechanism for conserving native vegetation on private land in the past 20 years. This is not to deny that sanctuaries, while few in number, are an important part of the suite of conservation measures available to the community for their land.

The amendment bill seeks to address two issues relating to sanctuaries and the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Currently a sanctuary can be revoked by notice of the minister at either the minister's instigation or at the request of the landholder. The bill proposes that sanctuaries would have the same level of covenanting as national parks and other reserves under the act, by which the land can lose its status only by resolution of both houses of parliament.

Sanctuaries are voluntary arrangements and are not registered on the title of the land, with no specific requirements for the owner of the land to meet certain management objectives or other requirements under the act. Those landholders who manage quality native vegetation on their properties, and who wish to protect those values in perpetuity, usually enter into a heritage agreement under the Native Vegetation Act 1991. Consultation with each sanctuary owner would be required before the government could support such a move. For these reasons the first amendment is not supported.

The second amendment relates to mining. The bill proposes that exploration and mining be prohibited in all existing and future sanctuaries, and to apply this amendment retrospectively to any existing exploration or mining rights in existing sanctuaries. Existing reserves under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 are proclaimed either with or without access for exploration or mining: a decision made at the time the land is proclaimed as a reserve, based on an assessment of conservation values and mineral prospectivity.

While there could be scope for some sanctuaries to be afforded a higher level of protection in relation to exploration and mining, exploration could occur on many sanctuary areas with little or no impact on the land. A proper assessment would also need to be made of any proposal that removes existing legally held exploration or mining rights, and whether significant areas of mineral prospectivity would be affected by such a move. Such an assessment would normally be carried out prior to the reserving of any land for government-managed conservation purposes.

There has also been no analysis of potential financial impacts on the landowner, land manager, or native title claimant—for example, loss of potential mining income or additional management costs such as fencing or pest control—that could become the future responsibility of the landowner. On this basis, the second amendment and the bill is opposed by the government.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:21): I rise to speak on behalf of Liberal members in relation to this particular bill, which seeks to amend sanctuary provisions of the Native Parks and Wildlife Act in two ways: first, to ensure that sanctuaries can only be de-proclaimed by resolution of both houses of parliament; and, secondly, to prohibit mineral exploration and mineral extraction in sanctuaries.

The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is some 610 square kilometres on a pastoral lease that the lease owners have dedicated to conservation and ecotourism. It is home to the threatened yellow-footed rock wallaby and reptile and plant species in danger of extinction. Arkaroola was granted sanctuary status in 1996 by the then Liberal government.

Marathon Resources believes that the Mount Gee area is one of Australia's largest undeveloped uranium deposits, and I note that this bill has been introduced in relation to that issue. Indeed, there have been a number of media articles—which I think have disturbed a number of us and probably do not place the mining industry in the best light—on some of the activities, whether it has been the contractors on that site or company employees, and we wait to hear from the government as to its investigation in those areas.

It should be a warning in the future that it ought to heed the respect that our community expects companies to demonstrate to the environment. That said, I am of the understanding that, in the agreement with the government, Marathon Resources may not have had some of the environmental expectations outlined as thoroughly as it could have, and for that I think the government ought to hang its head in shame.

This bill is to try to bring similar status to sanctuaries that apply to other environmental areas, such as national parks and so forth. I note that it does apply to private property. I think that the comparison can be drawn with the Native Vegetation Act and, indeed, heritage buildings, in that there can be some disincentives for private owners to have those areas specifically recognised in the way suggested by this bill, because it does limit them in some way.

A number of private landholders to whom I have spoken about the Native Vegetation Act have found some of the practices—and this would be well outlined by a number of my colleagues in the House of Assembly—so imposing that they are less inclined to actually participate in other native vegetation activities on a voluntary basis. I think it is very important that private landowners, who have these great assets which they look after on behalf of all South Australians and future generations, be given every encouragement to do so.

In terms of sanctuaries, my understanding is that the purpose of a sanctuary is largely to protect native flora and fauna and, in particular, to encourage private owners to be involved voluntarily, notwithstanding some of the negative activities that may be occurring in connection with the Marathon Resources lease. The Liberal Party will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:25): By way of summary, I think all honourable members who wanted to speak in this debate have done so, and I gave notice some three weeks ago that I would put this to a second reading vote today.

I had no idea, on 7 October last year when I introduced this bill, that the topic of mining in sanctuaries would take the turn it did between the Christmas and new year period. I introduced the bill as a matter of principle—that being that those important parts of our state that had been preserved for conservation purposes by, mostly, private landholders deserved a level of protection that they did not otherwise have in legislation. Certainly my bill was driven by the Arkaroola situation, but back in October we had no idea of the scope of problems that had occurred in that wilderness sanctuary.

We did not know, in October, about the 22,000 bags of radioactive waste illegally buried in shallow graves in the wilderness sanctuary; we were not to know, back then, that there would be a Primary Industries and EPA joint investigation into the activities of Marathon Resources, the company mining in Arkaroola. So, this debate has changed a great deal since I introduced the legislation. Nevertheless the scope and purpose of the legislation is as worthwhile now as it was back in October, and I will be testing the will of the council at a vote shortly.

A couple of other things have changed since I introduced the legislation. The first is that it seems that any person of prominence who has ever been up to Arkaroola for a holiday is now coming out, on the record, and saying that this place is too precious to mine.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: As the Hon. Sandra Kanck reminds me, the Hon. Iain Evans has been collecting signatures on a petition. He knows this area, he knows how important it is, and he has publicly stated his opposition to the mining of Arkaroola. Senator Nick Minchin has similarly come out supporting calls for the protection of Arkaroola. He is not usually known for his support of the Greens party and our issues, but he is right behind us in this case because he can see that there are some parts of South Australia that are just too important to mine, regardless of what economic benefits the proponents might claim will flow from it.

I will not go into all the detail of the Primary Industries and EPA joint investigation of 16 January this year—that has been raised on other occasions in this place—but I do want to refer to some of the correspondence from, and views of, the sanctuary owners, because these do address the point that the Hon. Ian Hunter made. In particular, he talks about the amount of consultation that would be required of all these different owners of sanctuaries. I refer members to a media release dated 13 February 2008 from the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Marg Sprigg is the contact point. I think it is worth all members noting what she says, which is as follows:

We genuinely believe that the whole future of Arkaroola as a carefully-managed, world-acclaimed wilderness sanctuary is seriously compromised by Marathon's clumsy practices.

I add that I think she is being very generous to talk about 'clumsy practices' because all the evidence points to a systematic abuse and disregard of environmental laws over a long period. I think that she is overly generous in describing it as 'clumsy'. The press release goes on:

Quite apart from the most recent incident, we've had to contend with a succession of inappropriate activity, including hydrocarbon spills, waste dispersal, safety issues, damage to our roads and unauthorised use of our scarce water supplies.

In summary, Marathon has a poor track record with us to date and we do not have any confidence that they will change their practices.

In this press release Marg Sprigg added:

We fully appreciate that Arkaroola was subject to mining activity many decades ago and that this opened up access to the location and defined water sources. But our parents, SA geologist the late Reg Sprigg and his wife Griselda, looked beyond the mining era and with great vision saw Arkaroola's potential as a lasting, largely unspoilt and magnificent environmental reserve for the benefit of all. We have devoted our working lives to achieve that end.

We ask the Premier to take urgent action to stop the further degradation of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and to withdraw all exploration and mining licences within the ranges of Arkaroola.

That pretty much sums up the views of one of the parties that would need to be consulted in relation to this bill. They are saying, 'Bring it on.' They do not want mining in the Arkaroola sanctuary.

On 13 February, Marg and Doug Sprigg wrote a letter to the Premier and circulated it to a number of members. I will read the last couple of sentences of that letter because it shows that this campaign or push to stop mining in sanctuaries such as Arkaroola is not a simple anti-mining campaign. In the letter Marg and Doug say:

Premier, we understand and appreciate that SA needs a mining economy to prosper. However, there are a number of other uranium finds and prospects in South Australia that are not located directly in the middle of a wilderness sanctuary and which do no not have the concomitant costs of operating in an extremely sensitive environment. Evidence of a backlash against a uranium mine on the Sanctuary from current visitors has already emerged, representing a potentially significant impact on an exemplary ecotourism operation in the future. The cost of losing this unique gem is too high a price for the world community to pay for the benefit of a few shareholders. We urge you to ban mining in the ranges of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Your sincerely Marg and Doug Sprigg.

But as if the revelations of the December-January period this year were not enough to convince us that this area should be off limits for mining, yesterday we find Arkaroola back in the news again for all the wrong reasons. I refer to the ABC online news report posted yesterday, Tuesday 4 March, at 11am. The heading is 'More contamination likely in Flinders Ranges'. This media story says:

Two more sites at Mount Gee in South Australia's northern Flinders Ranges will be investigated to see if they are contaminated. Investigators from the Department of Primary Industries (PIRSA) will travel to the mining exploration sites this week.

Marathon Resources had its exploration licence for Mount Gee suspended last month, over concerns the company incorrectly disposed of uranium drill samples near Arkaroola. A PIRSA spokeswoman says they are investigating another two sites, one at Hodgkinson and another at Mount Gee West. It is believed one site contains 16 sealed plastic and steel drums filled with drill samples.

My understanding is that at least one of those disposal sites is either in or very close to a creek bed and, in the event of a severe rain event (which we will inevitably have at some stage) that rubbish could be dispersed over a wider area than it is currently.

I would also like to briefly respond to some of the comments that honourable members have made about the economic impact of a measure such as prohibiting mining in sanctuaries. A good starting point for us to think about is: how many of these sanctuaries are there and what type of area do they cover? I am very much indebted to the Parliamentary Library for helping me to track down some of this information. What I found is that there are some 91 sanctuaries in South Australia. They range in size from a few hectares up to nearly 60,000 hectares, that being the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. In fact, half these 91 sanctuaries are less than 100 hectares in size; they are quite small. Arkaroola alone comprises more than half the total area of sanctuary. However, when we look at it in the context of the state of South Australia, what we find is that these sanctuaries comprise one-tenth of 1 per cent of the area of South Australia.

So, the question that we are asking ourselves in this bill is whether or not one-tenth of 1 per cent of South Australia is too precious to mine. Is that one-tenth of 1 per cent deserving of our protection, so that the goodwill of current and previous owners, in having set it aside as a sanctuary, is honoured thorough a level of legal protection? It is not going to destroy the economy of South Australia to protect one-tenth of 1 per cent of our land area from mining. I do not, for one minute, buy that this is an economic disaster about to befall South Australia. Perhaps I am overstating the case of the Hon. Ian Hunter—he did not use those words—but certainly the economic impact appears to have driven the government to oppose this legislation.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Michelle Lensink and the Hon. Sandra Kanck for their contribution to this debate. I have heard the contributions so I know where the numbers lie. Nevertheless, this issue is so important that I will be dividing on it. One final message that I leave with the council is that I will be back. I will be back with another bill and I will make it narrower in scope. I will bring the sort of bill to this council that the Hon. Iain Evans said he might bring before the lower house. In other words, let us focus for the moment not on those other 90 sanctuaries; let us just focus on the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and put in place a mechanism to protect from mining that jewel in South Australia's ecotourism crown. I urge all undecided members of the council to support this bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I indicate that the government will oppose this bill. We will obviously divide on the third reading but I think the convention in this place is that we generally allow a private member's bill to continue through into committee. One point I wish to make is that there has been mineral exploration on Arkaroola more or less, on or off, for at least 40 years. It has been almost continuous. There are existing rights so any change would obviously mean that a company with those rights would, under the Mining Act, have a right to compensation if they were arbitrarily removed.

But the important thing is that in this state we have a classification of national parks that are preserved. Some of them have allowed exploration and mining under strict conditions, while others totally prohibit mining. That is the regime we have developed. As my colleague the Hon. Ian Hunter has pointed out, sanctuaries are not part of that scheme. In fact, mining and exploration have taken place in Arkaroola, and it is almost a century ago that uranium was first mined in this area.

This government has made it clear that, although we have continued past policy in allowing exploration in the area—and, as I have said, we have allowed something like 40 years of continuous exploration—we have also made it clear to companies that we will not allow any mining involving significant surface disturbance; in other words, there would be absolutely no chance of getting any sort of open-cut mining or anything like that in the area. However, if companies wish to come up with other proposals, I guess that is their right to do so, knowing the risk.

Also, I think it should be pointed out in view of the Hon. Mark Parnell's comments that when the Spriggs originally had this, as I understand it, there was never any request made in those early days for prohibiting exploration or mining because it had been such an intrinsic part of the history of Arkaroola. However, notwithstanding that it is such a wonderful part of the state and the eco-tours have continued—incidentally, by using tracks provided by the mining industry for exploration, I think the fact that mining has gone on means that limited exploration can be compatible in some regions with the conservation values.

I know that this is an emotional issue and I know that the Greens are committed to stopping uranium mining in any form anywhere and they will attack it wherever it occurs using whatever arguments are convenient at the time. This government, as I am sure members are aware, has taken action in relation to the issues with Marathon Resources. The investigation of that is still continuing, so I am limited in what I can say about it, but clearly this government will not tolerate any mining company that does not adhere to the environmental conditions that are set out, not just in sensitive areas but in any area of the state. We will divide on the bill at the third reading for the reasons my colleague the Hon. Ian Hunter and I have set out in the earlier debate.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: In responding to what the minister has just said—and we are talking about not just about Arkaroola in this bill but also the other 90 sanctuaries—I will give an example of a landowner in the Adelaide Hills who knew he had native vegetation but he also found that he had some threatened species, so he fenced it off and got it declared a sanctuary. It was one of these very small ones that the Hon. Mark Parnell was referring to. As I understand it, that land declared a sanctuary could be mined, so if he had not incorporated it as a sanctuary would that land have had more or less protection from mining and exploration?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is not perhaps relevant to the—

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: It is.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, it is probably relevant to the bill but it is not my job to explain it, although I am happy to do so. Exploration is obviously subject to conditions. Should some exploration be successful and a company wish to move towards mining—in the situation to which the honourable member refers, involving native vegetation and the like, obviously, before any mining takes place, it is subject to an environmental assessment process in the form of a full EIS.

Any mine would be subject to that, and that is when any conditions in relation to native vegetation issues would have to come out, and either conditions would be imposed on the company or it would be excluded because of the value of that vegetation. However, that would all come out in any environmental assessment process.

I think what needs to be remembered here is that we have a system of national parks where we try to assess values and set the ground rules where mining, which includes exploration, can and cannot take place. Clearly, that system is imperfect. There are some regions of the state, for tourism and other values, that probably are not in national parks but where we still would want to restrict mining. I have certainly been talking to representatives of the Chamber of Mines and Energy, and I think we also need to involve some of the conservation groups, about identifying them so that we can manage it better.

By and large, the mining industry as a whole does not want to be involved in mining and issues which create public controversy and which create conditions that are to the detriment of the mining industry as a whole. They would rather avoid such issues. So, where there are areas of high conservation value or other aesthetic value that are not within national parks or are not within a classification of park that prohibits mining, we need to assess them. I know that my colleague the Minister for Environment and Conservation is aware of that, and we are trying to develop a system where we can ensure that we do not have these issues arise.

We should not be doing what this bill says and just taking some arbitrary classification of a sanctuary—which, incidentally, could easily create some loophole where, if someone does not want to permit mining, they could just declare it a sanctuary for the purpose of evading the Mining Act. If this bill were to be carried, that would create some loophole. We need a much better and much more sophisticated assessment about where mining should take place than that. That is something to which I will certainly be turning my mind, as will, I am sure, the Minister for Environment and Conservation, so that we do not get these conflicts. It is not in the interests of the industry as a whole to have land use conflicts, and we need a better system. However, this bill does not provide that better system.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: To deal with the specifics on which we are now focused—Arkaroola—would the minister be likely to grant a mining licence now in Arkaroola, first, to anyone and, secondly, to Marathon Resources?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This is not my bill, and I do not think it is really appropriate for me to answer those sorts of questions. This bill is not about those matters. This bill is about saying that you cannot mine in any sanctuary. I am just arguing that sanctuaries are not the appropriate definition that one should use for determining mining: there are other classifications.

In relation to Arkaroola, I had already indicated in answer to the previous question that, because of the sensitivity of the area, this government has made it clear to anyone exploring there that any mining activity that involves significant, or virtually any disturbance of the surface, other than perhaps a ventilation shaft or a safety escape tunnel or something, would not be favourably looked upon. I think that is pretty clear: I have already made that statement.

However, as I said, in an area where exploration has been ongoing for 30 or 40 years, if a company wants to come up with a proposal that it can find some way of mining it without surface disturbance, we have said, 'Okay,' and we have not stood in the way of that. But we have made it absolutely clear that significant surface disturbance in sites such as that would not be permitted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a few brief points in response to what the minister said. First, this bill is not specifically related to uranium mining. My view would have been the same in relation to Arkaroola, no matter what it was that they were looking for. My second point is that the minister said he believes that limited exploration activity is possible without causing damage.

My bill seeks to say that you start at the end. If a place is too special to mine, do not create an expectation in the mind of mining companies that they will be able to mine so, therefore, do not let them explore. If you let someone explore, you pretty well have to let them mine. It is very difficult for government, notwithstanding the EIS process and all the things the minister said, having allowed someone to spend a lot of money on exploring, to then not let them mine.

The second point in relation to the difference between sanctuary status and other reserves under the National Parks and Wildlife Act is that these sanctuaries are, mostly, not public land. To be declared a reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act—that is, a national park, conservation park, etc.—it has to be public land. Most of these areas do not qualify. I know from many years dealing with the National Parks and Wildlife service that they do not want little tiny parcels of land and to have to try to create parks out of them. They are not interested in someone coming along with just 50 hectares and inviting them to make it a national park. So, really, this level of protection, sanctuary status, is the most appropriate status.

In relation to heritage agreements, I agree that is a method of protecting wildlife and vegetation. It does not protect an area from mining. It protects the vegetation and the animals, but that is about it. But the other obvious point, I guess, is that those heritage agreements only apply to private land. Whilst I said that most sanctuaries are private land, they are not all. My understanding is that Arkaroola is a mixture of private and public land, the private part being a small freehold part where the buildings are, but the remainder as I understand it is an old pastoral lease, so still technically public land and therefore probably not eligible for a heritage agreement.

Finally, the minister talked about the sophisticated assessment that the government undertakes in relation to the declaration of reserves and the appropriateness of mining in them. My point is that practically all new reserves in the last 10 or 20 years have been declared under what is known as the joint proclamation provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. When you add up the area of national parks and work out how much of that area is open to mining and how much is closed off, something like 21 per cent of the state is declared reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act and it is about 4 or 5 per cent that is protected from mining. Interestingly, it is the historic parks—the oldest parks, before the government realised that it could have its cake and eat it too by declaring parks for both conservation and mining—that are completely protected. It is the newer parks that have been declared with joint proclamations. I would just like to put those things on the record.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will give two examples of recently declared areas where no mining occurs. One is the Coongie Lakes and the other is the Yellabinna wilderness area. They have both been declared during the life of this government and are both very significant areas. I think Yellabinna is one of the largest. They are just two areas, and there have been a couple of other smaller areas, and I am sure my colleague would say they have been declared by this state because of their importance. The Coongie Lakes is a good example of where the mining industry, in this case Santos, which has been the main explorer up there, led the way, in a sense, in negotiating that agreement that ensured those areas would be preserved because of their sensitivity.

The CHAIRMAN: I remind members that during discussion on private members' bills they have the right to question anyone who is on their feet in opposition, but only about the subject rather than the bill. The minister did not introduce the bill. He was quite right in what he said. Also, I remind members that if they have a problem with it, or anything that is debated in the council, they should ask the Chairman or President for an appropriate ruling.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (4)

Evans, A.L. Hood, D.G.E. Kanck, S.M.
Parnell, M. (teller)

NOES (16)

Bressington, A. Darley, J.A. Dawkins, J.S.L.
Finnigan, B.V. Gago, G.E. Gazzola, J.M.
Holloway, P. (teller) Hunter, I.K. Lawson, R.D.
Lensink, J.M.A. Lucas, R.I. Schaefer, C.V.
Stephens, T.J. Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
Zollo, C.

Majority of 12 for the noes.

Third reading thus negatived.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:45]


PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT