HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE (ARKAROOLA-MT PAINTER SANCTUARY MINING PROHIBITION) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:50): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

During the winter non-sitting period I was very pleased to pay a visit to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in the company of Doug Sprigg, his sister Marg Sprigg and ecologist Lorraine Edmonds. That visit showed me that an area that I had been talking about for some time and espousing the virtues of was even more important when I got to visit at first hand than it was in reading other people's accounts of it. I have had a fair bit to say about the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary in the past. I have asked a number of questions in this place. It is one of those causes that I am determined to see through. I am determined to see this area protected in perpetuity.

I think it is useful for us to start by looking at why the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary was set aside as an area for preservation in the first place. As members would know, the founder of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary was Dr Reg Sprigg. Dr Sprigg has been described as the original 'rock star'; 'rock' in terms of his passion for geology rather than any musical ability. A few weeks ago, nearly 200 invited guests attended a recent book launch at the South Australian Museum. The book was entitled Rock Star: the Story of Reg Sprigg.

Most significantly, one of the speakers at the book launch was Professor Ian Plimer, who is a noted advocate of uranium mining, a person who is frequently in the media, almost universally taking a view on different issues that is the opposite to mine. Yet, on this occasion, at the launch he stated, 'I'm all for uranium mining, as you know, but not here, not in this place.' That is telling, given that it is coming from someone who is one of the most passionate advocates for uranium mining in this state. Even Professor Plimer says that Arkaroola is too important to mine.

The sanctuary was created by Reg Sprigg and his wife, Griselda, with the support of long-time friends such as Sir Douglas Mawson. It was created in recognition of the unique geological properties of the location. As a staunch proponent of mineral exploration and the exploitation of natural resources such as gas, petroleum and uranium, Sprigg was nevertheless cognisant of the need to protect significant sites of geological and environmental importance. He established the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary as the state's first ecotourism resort. It has now become one of the icons for tourism in this state, and it has won numerous awards for the tourism services that it provides.

Whilst the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is in a rugged location, it is a fragile ecosystem, and it has been one of the most important sites for the successful program of saving the yellow-footed rock wallaby from extinction. It is also part of the traditional lands of the Adnyamathanha people. The Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary is situated in the vicinity of the Paralana fault line, and it is subject to regular seismic activity. In fact, when you go to the visitors' centre, one of the first things that strikes you is the seismograph opposite the reception desk which records that seismic activity.

What I would like to do now is go straight to the bill and talk about its mechanics before I conclude later with some comments about why this area is important and should be protected from mining. This is an amending bill to the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The reason that I have drafted the bill in this way is that the Arkaroola Mount Painter Sanctuary is a declared sanctuary under that National Parks and Wildlife Act. I could have approached it from the point of view of an amendment to the Mining Act, but it seems to me that the area is already recognised as being important for conservation and that, therefore, an amendment to the National Parks and Wildlife Act is the best mechanism to ensure that the status that it currently enjoys is further enhanced by protection from mining activity.

The bill is fairly simple in its effect. It says that no-one can acquire new mining or exploration rights over the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. The sanctuary is defined in the legislation in accordance with its gazettal. I do not need to go into the whole history, but the history of the sanctuary is that it was proclaimed many decades ago. It was then deproclaimed, for some unknown reason, and then reproclaimed again in 1996. That is the most recent and current reference, so my bill refers to the page in the Government Gazette that declares the Arkaroola/Mount Painter Wilderness Sanctuary. The minister at the time was the Hon. David Wotton.

The mechanics of the bill are such that no-one can acquire new rights, and that includes any new mining tenement, whether it be exploration or extraction. Currently the only mineral exploration licence over the Arkaroola sanctuary is that held by Marathon Resources. There are, however, a number of other rights (not being mineral exploration rights) that I need to refer to as well. The first is that there is a small number of geothermal exploration licences under the Petroleum Act. Only a small part of these licences overlaps with the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, however my bill also excludes that activity.

I have done that because, if the purpose of this bill is one of conservation of the area and its geological formations, its plants and its animals, then it is not appropriate for me to pick and choose the types of mining that I do like and the types that I do not like and say good mining is allowed in and bad mining is not. If we are serious about protecting the natural values of this area then it needs to be off limits to all mining. So even though I support the concept of geothermal or—as it is often better known—hot rock energy technology, I do not want it in Arkaroola, and neither do the Spriggs, the proprietors of the wilderness sanctuary. So, this bill is not just about banning uranium mining; it is about protecting Arkaroola.

I also need to point out one other exception to the ban that I have written into this bill. It is an exception that I found uncomfortable to write but, nevertheless, if I am to be consistent in my approach in protecting the core values of this area, I need to include this in the bill. This relates to the Four Mile uranium deposit, which is some eight or nine kilometres to the west of the currently operating Beverley uranium mine.

A small part of the mineral exploration licence that has been shown to have productive values does overlap with the wilderness sanctuary. A month or so ago, the owners of that exploration right applied for a mining lease, and some of that mining lease overlaps with the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, so I have excluded that from the operation of my bill. The effect of that is that my bill does not prevent any exploitation of the uranium deposit at Four Mile.


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


The Hon. M. PARNELL: Before the break, I was explaining how my bill, which seeks to ban mining and exploration in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, has an exception built into it; that is, if anyone applied for a mining lease prior to 3 September, they will be able to exercise that mining lease if it is granted and they choose to exercise it. The reason I have put that in is that a small part of the sanctuary overlies the uranium deposit at Four Mile.

The Four Mile deposit is in two parts: Four Mile East and Four Mile West. Part of the Four Mile West deposit is in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary, but it is not in the high-value hill area of the sanctuary; it is on the flats. The reason I chose 3 September is that some time prior to that date Alliance Resources and Quasar Resources lodged their application for the mining lease. They held an exploration lease, and they have now lodged an application for a mining lease. I do not propose that this bill stand in the way of that going ahead, if the companies choose to proceed and if Primary Industries gives them the necessary approvals.

However, I do not want it to be said that the Greens are going soft on uranium mining. The fact that I have exempted it shows that this bill is about protecting the high conservation values of Arkaroola. I will use other opportunities to criticise and campaign against the uranium mining industry. It seemed to me that the best chance I had of getting cross-party support for this legislation was for it to be squarely aimed at the most important ecological parts of the sanctuary.

This bill is different from the last bill I introduced, which sought to protect all sanctuaries under the National Parks and Wildlife Act; this bill protects only Arkaroola. Having explained what the bill does, and the mechanisms for its operation, I want to put on the record some observations about the situation with Marathon Resources in Arkaroola, because in many ways that was the impetus for this bill. It was the behaviour of that company in the wilderness sanctuary that has drawn national and, I think, even international attention to the fact that, as a state, we have allowed our most important sanctuary areas to be opened for mining.

I do not need to go through the whole history of what happened in Arkaroola, but members would be familiar with the fact that sometime around Christmas last year there was a discovery of the unauthorised disposal of waste and the police were called in. As members would know, police officers are also authorised officers under the Environment Protection Act. Eventually, a joint report was prepared by Primary Industries and the EPA. That report has not been publicly released; I had to get a copy of it under the Freedom of Information Act. There is important information in that report that is not in the public realm, and I want to put some of that in the public realm today.

When one reads the report, it raises many more questions about Marathon than it answers—about its behaviour and its dealings with public officials. For example, on 19 December last year, Marathon requested the use of two new drill rigs in the sanctuary at Mount Gee in order to fast track its drilling program. Shortly after that, Primary Industries first became aware of the inappropriate and, in fact, illegal disposal of waste in the pits at Mount Gee.

The new drill rig request was actually granted after Primary Industries and the EPA became aware of the unauthorised disposal. That request was granted on 10 January 2008, despite the allegations that had been made and despite the fact that a Primary Industries team of three and an EPA team of two inspectors were due to travel to Arkaroola only five days later, on 15 January 2008. The question that raises for me is: why, given the seriousness of the allegations, was the company granted an opportunity to actually accelerate its drilling program?

Furthermore, while there is a mysterious absence of a fixed date in the report, it is only defined as being prior to the first site inspection on 16 January. During questioning, Primary Industries obtained a direct admission from Joseph Mazzone and Brian Newell in Adelaide that trenches had been dug by the company and numerous calico sample bags had been disposed of, including bags that had been returned to the site from the laboratories in Adelaide. So, when exactly were these discussions held? Dates are expressed precisely in all other areas of the document, but not in this one case. So, the question is: why was an accelerated drilling program approved when important discussions were imminent? Or perhaps Primary Industries had already obtained an admission of a remarkable breach in the exploration licence.

The final report issued by Primary Industries in May 2008 states that on the morning of 17 January at Arkaroola (which is the day after the original site inspection on 16 January) PIRSA inspectors were told by Marathon staff that their drilling program, if confined to only those sites already approved by the declaration of environmental factors, would be completed by 28 January. Yet, on 24 January 2008, Dr Edward Tyne, Executive Director of PIRSA, wrote the following to the Marathon chief executive officer, Mr Peter Williams. The letter states:

Dear Mr Williams, Re: Approved Drilling Program—DEF Addendum 3. During the site investigation by PIRSA—EPA on 16 January 2008, Marathon staff advised verbally that drilling operations on the above approved program would be completed by 21 January 2008.

PIRSA was advised verbally by Mr Allan Younger on 23 January 2008 that your company's drilling activities at Mt Gee would now be expected to continue for another 18 days. PIRSA sought immediate clarification on this advice from Marathon via email.

Furthermore, an article published in The Australian on 23 January 2008 refers to 'the rigs operated by Boart Longyear, were still working around the clock' on 22 January 2008. In light of the active PIRSA—EPA investigation at Mt Gee, I consider your company's communication with PIRSA on this matter as being highly inaccurate, if not misleading.

That is remarkable language for a public servant to be sending to the CEO of a mining company, to say that their communications were 'highly inaccurate if not misleading.' He goes on in his letter to state that a PIRSA compliance team will arrive on the 29th and to require that drilling be terminated by 8 February.

I need to know the origin of the divergences of these dates. Were PIRSA officers originally told that drilling was to be completed by 21 or 28 January? Dr Tyne's letter is extremely strongly worded and is very specific about what PIRSA officers were told. I asked a question last sitting week in parliament about the missing fluorite that was unlawfully taken from Arkaroola. I asked a question of minister Holloway that included the following:

Where is the fluorite now that was taken, and what actions has PIRSA taken to find that fluorite and to return it to the Arkaroola Sanctuary?

In the minister's response, he said:

In relation to the fluorite occurrence, that is referred to in the investigation. If the honourable member has a copy of the report, as he has said, I would suggest that he read the detail there. As I understand it, and it is some time since I have read the report, there was obviously some dispute over who had taken this particular fluorite. Clearly, the expectation would be that it was someone within the company but who exactly had done it and what had happened to it, of course, was somewhat indeterminate. It would be very difficult to track down exactly what had happened in relation to that because there are also other people on the Arkaroola site who—

Then, an honourable member interjects. The minister continues:

Well, it may have been disturbed, but who actually took it is, of course, another matter. However, I believe that that matter is adequately covered in the report that the honourable member says he has in his possession.

Well, I did go back to the report after receiving that answer from the minister and the report absolutely begs the question of what exactly happened to the missing chunks of the unique fluorite outcrop which is really at the heart of the nationally significant Mount Gee geological monument. Students from all over the country would be keen to know what happened to this fluorite. The PIRSA final report itself notes that 'this unique mineral occurrence is well known to Australian geologists and mineralogists.'

But, further begging the question, the minister simply refers back to the same report that does not give us the answer. The minister then alludes to the notion that other people, presumably with access to the site, might have been responsible for its ultimate disappearance. This is really quite remarkable, because we are not talking about a handful of gemstones that someone scooped into a lunchbox. This is what the report states about this fluorite:

Identifiable machinery tracks to the site and an excavated area of approximately 2.5 by 2 m at the edge of a creek were recorded and photographed. From the track and excavation impact, it appears that a small excavator had been used to remove a substantial part of this unique fluorite vein occurrence. Mr Newell—

who is from Marathon—

was informed of this matter by PIRSA officers and he subsequently visited the site and confirmed verbally that the site had been accessed by a small excavator. There is no declaration of environmental factor authorisation for Marathon staff to excavate or remove material from this site. At the site, numerous tracks were observed immediately north and west of the investigation area, outside of designated zones used to access approved drill sites…

The report then goes on, in its summary of investigation findings, to state:

A Marathon representative inspected the fluorite vein and confirmed that the site had been damaged and had been accessed by mechanical digging equipment. The Marathon representative could not advise as to who damaged the site. Marathon's exploration operations are the only operations within Arkaroola that have this type of equipment available. The evidence indicates that the following PIRSA approval conditions for the use of Declared Equipment, dated 1 November 2006 have been breached:

It then goes on to set out those conditions.

So the minister has this notion that, while a Marathon employee may have actually used machinery (which, as the report notes, was only locally available to Marathon employees) and that this excavation was subsequently admitted by the company, other people may have been wandering around in this remote part of South Australia and may have made off with this deposit. That is a remarkable suggestion.

The question is: where is this missing fluorite? The PIRSA report, which the minister says adequately covers the issue, does not detail the Marathon response to PIRSA, so it is left to the company to tell us what it was. My source document is the company's own propaganda paper called, 'Learning from Waste in the Wilderness', quite a remarkable document. It reads:

Marathon had management at the Mount Gee site that did not properly appreciate the appropriate sustainable development standards. This is exemplified by the damage an employee of Marathon Resources did to a fluorite vein located within the Mount Gee geological monument area. He used declared equipment within EL [exploration licence] 3258 without written authorisation from PIRSA.

The region in general has a long history of gem and mineral fossicking, however, the actions of one of Marathon's employees in causing damage to this significant Mount Gee fluorite occurrence was unacceptable. The occurrence is an important educational and research tool for tertiary geology students and a unique Australian environmental monument for Arkaroola Sanctuary's international tourists.

Following the damage to this fluorite occurrence, Marathon conveyed the following information to PIRSA. It said:

In relation to Marathon's involvement at the site, we have found that at some time during February 2007 a quantity of surface material was pulled from a badly eroded water course onto the bank with a small backhoe by a Marathon employee. The water course which is up to 1.0m deep and 1.5m wide at an inclination of +/- 14 degrees has been eroded by water flow from a site excavated for exploration purposes by a party prior to Marathon Resources' involvement at Mount Gee. The quantity of material pulled from the eroded gully is estimated by us as a result of a visit to the site on 12 February 2008 as less than half a cubic metre—

note that half a cubic metre is not the same as the Primary Industries report, which talks about an area 2.5 metres by 2 metres—

or no more than 250kg [in other words, a quarter of a tonne of material]. We are advised that when the material was moved from the gully, no sampling took place. The Marathon Resources employee who removed the surface material…was on an activity not authorised by the company...His action was not in accord with our environmental policy. We are assured that he did not then subsequently remove any samples and has not returned to the location since February 2007. It is evident from…photographs that subsequent to the event of February 2007 a person or persons (and unknown to Marathon Resources) has/have made a further excavation of approximately 80 litres (four standard buckets).

That is from a letter to Primary Industries dated 27 February.

The geological significance of the fluorite occurrence was not explicitly detailed in Marathon's environmental control documentation. In order to ensure that there is no further damage to this or any other monument, Marathon employees need to be aware of the geological significance of the area and how their actions might directly impact on sensitive sites. Further, they need to be accountable for their actions at site level at all times.

I think it is remarkable for us to be told that this is an instance of fossicking. What I want to know is if there is a quarter of a tonne of this valuable material—and when I say 'valuable', one only has to go to any of the mineral sites on eBay and have a look at the value of fluorite on the market to see that it is an incredibly expensive material.

If Marathon employees are to be held accountable, what disciplinary actions are going to be taken? I do not think it is sufficient for the minister to say that it is answered in the report, when the report says no such thing. I would be amazed if PIRSA was satisfied with this situation. We have had admissions of excavation; we have enough material, I would have thought, in the hands of the company and Primary Industries to be able to work out who was responsible. I do not think it is reasonable to leave this unresolved. When something goes missing it normally would be regarded as a matter for police involvement, so I would love to know from the minister what further action they are going to take. However, Primary Industries' final response to this was to state:

In relation to the unauthorised sampling and damage to the fluorite occurrence at Mount Gee, the company is requested to consult with the landholders, PIRSA, and other stakeholders, in the development of a remediation plan for the damaged fluorite occurrence in the Mount Gee geological monument area.

My question is: how does one remediate the removal of a large chunk of a rare mineral, particularly given its mysterious apparent absence from the site? There is no indication as to how that is going to be done, and there is every indication that Primary Industries is washing its hands of this.

My bill is important because it is very clear that Marathon has an expectation that it will be allowed back into the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to continue its work. Marathon's chairman, Peter Williams, who has been with the company since 2004, states in an open letter to shareholders on 15 August this year:

I have led Marathon's review process to understand how this Mount Gee incident occurred and what we needed to learn. The results of this review, 'Marathon Resources: Learning from waste in the wilderness', is being made public so that our key stakeholders can hear from us about our understanding of what happened and what we plan to do to ensure that these types of incidents do not recur. Throughout the review process I came to the difficult realisation that this incident may, in fact, have been symptomatic of our culture and Marathon's overall approach...Our conclusion, after the Mount Gee issue, was that these incidents indicated that we had not instilled the appropriate level of awareness about the importance of our social licence to operate. When the company was formed in 2004, we should have worked harder to instil a culture, capability and systems for managing exploration in a way that was sensitive to the community and the environment. We needed management and communications that were up to delivering us this culture and approach.

This was all part of a strategy aimed at convincing the community and minister Holloway that they are reformed characters now, and that, if the state government and the community would only be prepared to let them back into the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary to drill again, they would be the best environmental performers that we have ever seen. The company goes on to say:

To win the right back to drill we must first change our understanding of the priorities for an exploration company in a sensitive environment. We must be able to rebuild support with key stakeholders through better management and communications. We must ensure our standards of behaviour are exemplary and that we deliver our exploration program to the highest safety, environmental and community standards.

The company has been saying precisely that forever; that was always its position before it was involved in this damage, and it is saying it again afterwards and expects us to believe it. It has not learnt a thing from any of its experiences. The company certainly did not learn from its experiences trying to mine uranium down on the Fleurieu Peninsula—the so-called Wild Dog mine. The Hon. Sandra Kanck and I drove down together to the public meeting. There was outrage in the community at what this company was proposing to do. At the end of the day, the Premier himself stepped in to make sure that there would be no uranium mine on the Fleurieu Peninsula.

I will not go through all the instances over the last four years where Marathon has claimed to be a sound environmental performer. Clearly, the rhetoric is at complete odds with its actions; Marathon is not walking the talk. As I have said in this place, and I will say it again, once Marathon has cleaned up its mess, it should not be allowed back into Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary.

The campaign to keep mining out of Arkaroola has, as I said at the outset, attracted a range of people from diverse backgrounds. I have mentioned Professor Ian Plimer, a big fan of uranium mining, but he does not want to see it in Arkaroola. Similarly, Iain Evans, the member for Davenport in the other place, has publicly said that he does not think there should be uranium mining at Arkaroola. Nick Minchin, leader of the Liberal opposition in the Senate, is on the record many, many times as saying that Arkaroola is too important to mine and it should be off limits.

But on the other side of the fence, Marathon has some powerful backers as well. Former state ALP president and federal minister, Chris Schacht, has held shares in the company for several years. He is credited with playing a fairly important role in overturning the ALP's no new uranium mines policy, and now we see that he is on the board of directors of Marathon Resources.

I will conclude shortly, but the main point I want to make about this legislation is that, even though I focused a great deal on Marathon, which has the only current mineral exploration licence, this bill is not just about getting Marathon out of Arkaroola: it is about the future protection of Arkaroola. It is not about uranium: it is about all forms of mining.

I thank Marg and Doug Sprigg for their hospitality when I was up there. I also thank Lorraine Edmunds, who showed us around. I acknowledge the work that has been done by the Wilderness Society, in particular, Peter Owen, and also Bill Doyle, who is perhaps known to some members as one of the lead campaigners trying to protect Weetootla Gorge, which was a very similar case. The government did, in fact, step in in that case to protect that important area of the Outback from mining. Bill Doyle has done a great deal of research to try to pull together the strands in this Arkaroola debate.

The final thing I want to do, and I will do it fairly quickly, is refer to the comments of a person I have never met before. When I was sitting in the Arkaroola Sanctuary flicking through the visitors' book, I saw that one book was almost totally devoted to comments from members of the public—South Australians, people from interstate and people from overseas—commenting on what they think about this idea of mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. I have a number of entries here, but I will read only one of them. I have never met this person, but Ann Ryan of Warrnambool in Victoria—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The Hon. Ann Bressington thinks she might know this person. I will show her the handwriting later, and we will see whether she can recognise it. Ann Ryan says:

No! to uranium mining in the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. This place of ancient culture and shape. This place of tranquil waterholes, exciting and spectacular gorges—a geological phenomenon of hidden treasures! But not for mining or any other destructive activity.

I encourage the Australian government, when considering any mining application for this place, to be courageous enough to rise above the economically-driven demands of companies and to listen to the voices of past visionaries with connections to this place, such as Sir Mark Oliphant and Reg and Griselda Sprigg, the latter being the transformers of this place into a sanctuary.

As a scientist, Sir Mark Oliphant was horrified and anguished for the rest of his life at the destruction of humanity in which he had played a part. He set his energies into humanitarian and environmental matters and begged us, all of mankind, never to use such destructive energy ever again!

He is honoured in this place with a peak in his name and a cairn accordingly placed. A cairn decorated by small stones placed on and around it by travellers in this place. Respecting the man and his philosophy.

Let's listen to his voice, to the voices of Reg and Griselda Sprigg. To the voices of the rock wallaby, the thrush, the magpie, the honeyeater, the willy wagtail, the emu, the fairy-wren, the bellbird, the pardalotes, the mulga parrot, the kestrel, the crow and the mistletoe bird, the crested pigeon and the ring-necked parrot. All heard or viewed by this writer in the past few days!

Documented history has established the extent of destruction of flora and fauna in this land since European settlement!

Let us make a stand for preservation over destruction. Let us truly respect the voices of our visionaries! No! to mining in this place of refuge.

And it is signed Ann Ryan of Warrnambool, Victoria, 3280. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.

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