HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ROXBY DOWNS (INDENTURE RATIFICATION) (OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:58): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. M. PARNELL (19:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is probably about the simplest bill I that have introduced into this parliament—in fact, that has ever been introduced into this parliament. It seeks to do just one thing, that is, extend the period of public comment for the proposed Olympic Dam expansion to a period of at least three months. The reason I say that is a necessary amendment to make to the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act is that this is the biggest project that we have ever seen in South Australia, and it deserves a deal more scrutiny than the government and BHP Billiton are intending with their proposed eight week public consultation period.

At present, eight weeks is the period the government has announced. The company has it on their website that that will be the public comment period. I have asked the minister in this place why we cannot have longer, given that we know that the document is being printed and that it will be the biggest document ever printed in this state. It is ready; it is not yet released, so we can in fact have a longer period of public consultation without unduly delaying the process. In other words, we can add time to the front of the process, rather than add it to the back of the process.

In response to my questions of the minister about why we cannot have longer to comment on this document, the minister has reminded us that the standard period for public consultation in the Development Act is six weeks—in fact, it is described as 30 business days—and the government by providing an extra two weeks (up to eight weeks) is doing more than it has to and therefore we should be grateful. The legal situation is as the minister has explained; that is, there is a statutory minimum period, but there are also some provisions which we need to think about which arise from the fact that the environmental impact statement is not just being prepared under South Australian law but it is also being prepared under commonwealth law.

Members may be familiar with the fact that, last year, the state government entered into an agreement with the commonwealth government under section 45 of the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, an agreement relating to environmental impact assessment. This agreement and that which has been entered into with other states is known as an assessment bilateral agreement. The agreement was signed by the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Peter Garrett) on 28 March 2008 and signed by minister Holloway (representing the state government) on 2 July 2008. This agreement provides that the commonwealth environmental impact assessment requirements will be met by the state government and the proponent following the regime set out in the South Australian Development Act.

When it comes to setting the public comment period, this bilateral agreement requires at least 28 business days, so it is a pretty minimalist provision. However, there is another provision in this agreement which I think should inform members' consideration of my bill as to an appropriate length of time. Under the heading 'Groups with particular communication needs', paragraph 32 of the bilateral agreement states:

The State of South Australia will, in giving effect to the requirements in Schedule 1, make special arrangements, if appropriate, to ensure that affected groups with particular communication needs have adequate opportunity to comment on actions assessed in the manner described in Schedule 1. The parties note that indigenous people affected by a proposed action may have particular communication needs, and will ensure, where appropriate, that affected indigenous people have adequate opportunity to comment on actions...in Schedule 1.

That provision calls for the state government to be mindful of the fact that these projects generally might attract interest in a wide section of the community. Indigenous people are pointed out for special noting, but the Hon. Caroline Schaefer raised in parliament that a number of industry groups have special needs, such as the need to assess scientific information that will be presented to us in the environmental impact assessment thoroughly. So, when we put clauses such as this in conjunction with the requirement for a minimum consultation period we can see that there is no bar to the government's giving people longer to comment on the EIS.

It is also important to note what this EIS is about, because the range of topics that will be covered is incredibly extensive and any number of these items would, under normal circumstances, require an EIS of its own and its own special public comment requirements. For example, the EIS will cover expanding the special mine lease, increasing the amount of ore from 10 million to more than 70 million tonnes per annum through the establishment of an open pit mine. We know that this is likely to be the largest open pit mine in the world. The overburden that has to be extracted before the ore is even reached will be of such a magnitude that it will effectively create its own mountain range in central Australia. We know that there will be a much larger tailings dam.

We also have in the EIS an assessment of an increased on-site mineral processing capability. Most importantly, much of the discussion in the mining press and the business press has been around the so-called China option; the idea that the ore might be exported and not processed in South Australia.

Whether the company goes down the China path or the on-site processing path has massive implications for the economy of this state. It has huge implications for the people of Roxby Downs and Port Augusta and, in fact, for all people in South Australia. So, we are awaiting the release of this EIS to find out exactly what those implications will be. Depending on which option BHP Billiton goes with, it is not only jobs; there are also implications for water and energy and other aspects of the project.

We know that the EIS will also cover the question of how to source an extra 200 megalitres of water a day. The option that has been flagged is the construction of a desalination plant. That will raise questions about energy use. There will be pipes to transport the water. All members would be aware of the giant cuttlefish that live in the locality of the proposed desalination plant. There are impacts on tourism. I have mentioned the impact on the fishing industry, which is a matter that the Hon. Caroline Schaefer raised the other day. There are impacts on the aquaculture industry, which occupies an adjoining bay to the desalination plant.

In addition, there are impacts on groundwater; sourcing additional water from the Great Artesian Basin. Currently, they are not extracting every drop that they are entitled to under the indenture. There is every chance that they will go to their maximum allowed extraction.

We also have the impact of sourcing and supplying 520 megawatts of additional energy a day. That could include (we will know when we see the EIS) on-site co-generation, construction of an additional power transmission line and construction of a gas pipeline from Moomba to Olympic Dam, for example. The Australian newspaper estimated that this project will use up to 42 per cent of the state's entire electricity demand. We know that it will use more electricity than every house in Adelaide combined.

We know that the EIS will also cover transport infrastructure: a new railway line. The preferred transport infrastructure option is a new line from Pimba to Olympic Dam, which would link to the Adelaide-Darwin rail line and the national rail grid. Under that option, some materials would still be transported by road, so road upgrades would be on the cards as well.

There is the potential need for a vessel landing site in the Upper Spencer Gulf and, in particular, a facility to bring in large pre-assembled modules. We have raised in this parliament before the question of a wide haulage road from Upper Spencer Gulf to the mine to transport those components. There may well be a storage handling facility required in Darwin in the Northern Territory. A new airport is part of the proposal, big enough to accommodate Boeing 737s.

The Olympic Dam construction village will be a huge undertaking in itself. The existing village needs to be relocated and expanded to accommodate the development of the open pit and the influx of new workers.

We also have, again, at Point Lowly, as well as the desalination plant, the idea of extra port facilities. The existing village and infrastructure at Roxby Downs will need to be considerably expanded; in fact, a huge range of issues will be dealt with by this EIS. In normal circumstances, any one of them singly would itself attract a full EIS and a full period of public consultation, so why on earth, just because we are lumping them all together, do we say that it is sufficient for the people of South Australia to have only eight weeks to comment on it?

I have not even touched the surface of other issues that relate to native vegetation clearance, radiation safety for workers, or even mine tourism, which is something that needs to be dealt with. I have focused on economic and environmental issues, but the social issues as well. It is a very different prospect to have a fly-in/fly-out type of mine, compared to a mine where the workers are predominantly families who live in the locality.

Of course, indigenous issues will be important, because we know the current indenture overrides the Aboriginal Heritage Act, and there is every chance that the new indenture will do likewise.

I have gone into some little detail to try to impress upon members the vast scope of this document, which we are told will require a wheelbarrow to deliver. I have not been able to work out exactly how many thousands of pages or how many volumes it will be, but it will be immense.

The Hon. David Winderlich: What is its carbon footprint?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I am asked what its carbon footprint is. It will probably be the first time that the production of an EIS requires an EIS itself, just in terms of the forests of paper and the carbon that go into it.

I do not think I am overstating the case. This is the biggest project that this state has ever seen. We are about to embark upon digging the biggest hole in the ground in the world. It is a massive proposal. What I am saying, and what my bill provides, is that the period of time for the public to be able to comment on this project should be at least three months.

We do not need to add that to the end of the process; we could bring it forward, because we have been told by the minister that the document has already been printed. Given that it has taken almost four years for the proponent to write this document, it is not too much to ask that we have an extra four weeks to comment on it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley.

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