HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M. Parnell:

That this council calls on the state government to ensure that all waste management practices for the proposed Olympic Dam expansion, including the management of surplus ore and tailings, meet or exceed world's best practice.

(Continued from 6 July 2011.)

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (12:25): The Hon. Mr Parnell is seeking support for a motion that he has put forward that seeks assurance by this government that all waste management practices for Olympic Dam expansion, including the management of surplus ore and tailings, meet or exceed world's best practice. By using the resources of in-house and independent third-party experts the South Australian government already ensures that mining operations conform to world's best practice principles, including waste management practices. As such, the government is committed to ensuring that all aspects of an expanded Olympic Dam also conform to these principles.

Best practice includes two key components: best practice environmental standards and best practice regulations, which ensure that relevant and appropriate standards are set and are enforced. The operational parameters and regulatory practices and procedures for any mining project should be site specific, taking into consideration environmental, social, and economic aspects. In his speech, the Hon. Mr Parnell talked about the Ranger uranium mine, and I would point out that that mine is located in a region that is very different from Olympic Dam with respect to geology, geography, rainfall, ecology, etc. The point is that we need to make sure that our practices are relevant and appropriate to the circumstances.

Regulation in Australia has been based on a set of principles rather than fixing a set of practices for particular technologies. This has led to outcomes-based regulation which has been practised in South Australia and has been proven an effective and efficient process in this state and in Australia. Through this process, environmental outcomes are established. This involves consultation between the regulator, the mining company and other stakeholders. This approach is different from the regulatory process that occurs in the United States and other countries, where a more prescriptive regime applies, and is not considered to be best practice for Australia.

A prescriptive approach does not encourage innovation and assumes a 'one size fits all'. This outcomes-based approach has been fundamental to the assessment and approval of South Australia's new mines, enabling the state to go from four operating mines in 2004 to 17 operating mines as of this month following the recent approval of the Peculiar Knob iron ore mine near Coober Pedy.

I would now like to make reference to the proposed Olympic Dam expansion. As everyone would be aware, the Olympic Dam expansion project is undergoing collaborative environmental assessment by the Australian, South Australian and Northern Territory governments. The environmental impact assessment process has been extensive and rigorous. The EIS process, prescribed under the Development Act 1993, is a most rigorous process for assessing major developments within the state. There are some general principles that underpin best practice regulation and mining in South Australia, and indeed Australia, including:

1. comprehensive characterisation of the development;

2. consultation with all stakeholders;

3. identification of all risks;

4. plans to achieve best practice in environmental outcomes;

5. decisions are science based, transparent and publicly available;

6. rigorous monitoring with strong corrective or enforcement action; and

7. mine operator is required to demonstrate capability and resources to ensure best practice.

There are a number of procedures in place to ensure a thorough assessment is conducted including the production of joint guidelines by the South Australian and the Australian governments; a 14-week extended consultation period on the draft EIS extent from the standard period of six weeks; preparation of a supplementary EIS of the proponents' response to the submissions; and preparation of assessment reports in each jurisdiction based on the finalised environmental impact statement, and drawing on the combined technical expertise of all three governments.

In South Australia, the assessment is being undertaken as a whole of government process using the expertise of the Environment Protection Authority, PIRSA Minerals and Energy Resources, Department for Water, and Department for Environment and Natural Resources, to name a few of the key agencies. Coordination of the environmental impact assessment process in South Australia is being undertaken by the Department of Planning and Local Government with assistance from the Olympic Dam taskforce.

As I have said before, the environmental impact assessment process has been comprehensive and rigorous. For example, following the consultation process for the draft EIS, specialist staff from government agencies spent in excess of 1,500 hours undertaking an adequacy check of the draft supplementary environmental impact statement. This work was in addition to the extensive resources employed to review and make submissions on the draft EIS. There is now an extensive whole-of-government effort in South Australia and also in the other jurisdictions in the final assessment and preparation of the assessment reports for consideration and decision by the respective governments.

In assessing the project, the draft EIS prepared by BHP Billiton, the submissions received during the public consultation process and the supplementary EIS prepared by BHP Billiton in response to the submissions received will all be considered. It is inappropriate to get into the details and specifics of the issues raised by the Hon. Mr Parnell as these are currently under consideration through the comprehensive assessment process. The final decision is not just the responsibility of this government; separate decisions will also be required from the Australian and Northern Territory governments.

In South Australia this government may approve or reject the proposal or approve it with conditions. In addition, some matters of detail may also be reserved for a later decision; that regularly happens with such projects. The proposed expansion of the Olympic Dam operation is a project that is important to the future of this state. The environmental impact assessment process has been thorough and comprehensive and has been based on well-established principles for assessment and regulation. These principles have proven to be an effective and efficient process in South Australia.

On this basis the government does not support the proposed resolutions. This government has nothing to apologise for. We do not need resolutions like this to tell us that a project of this significance should be thoroughly and properly assessed: it is and it will be.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (12:32): I rise to place some comments on the record in relation to this motion and indicate that the Liberal Party will support the motion, but I will make some comments in which I will point out some of the mischief in the mover's speech. It is actually calling on BHP to do what it has already said it is doing, and I note that the honourable member made that comment in his speech of 6 July, in which he quoted the President of the Uranium Customer Group of BHP Billiton, Mr Dean Della Valle, and it is worth repeating these comments as follows:

BHP Billiton, as the world's largest mining company, is well placed to develop a project of this importance and magnitude while ensuring best practice in health, safety, environmental management and community engagement.

Further, the honourable member quotes the Chairman of BHP Billiton, Mr Jac Nasser, who had also made those sort of commitments, saying:

The Olympic Dam project uses world's best practice and many areas of the project will establish world's leading practice and set a new benchmark for others to follow.

Furthermore, in the supplementary EIS, BHP itself says in that document—and I quote from section 29.7 in relation to the 'Review, update and continuous improvement of the environmental management framework':

The Olympic Dam operation currently implements an ISO 14,001 certified EMS Environmental Management System, which provides a robust tool for environmental management and monitoring, ensuring legal and other requirements are met and facilitating ongoing checking, revision and improvement. The EMS would be revised and updated to ensure the requirements of the expansion project, the outcomes of the environmental impact assessment and the EIS commitments and approval conditions were captured.

Further, in section 29.9, 'Environmental reporting, transparency and independent verification', it states:

BHP Billiton currently communicates the environmental performance outcomes of the Olympic Dam operation publically in the annual environmental management and monitoring report. BHP Billiton also specifically reports against the objectives of the EM program to the relevant South Australian government agencies...These annual reports are available for downloading via the PIRSA website.

Because I have mentioned the mischief, I would like to refer to some of the advice we have received that raises several issues: best practice, which I have touched on; waste management practices; the tailings; the issues and concerns that he has raised with acidity; and overburden and surplus ore. I will touch on those issues.

Further comments in relation to best practice are that the advice that we have received is that the standards specified in the various acts and regulations that apply to Olympic Dam have been adopted as the minimum standard at the existing operation. BHP Billiton's objective is to exceed these minimum requirements by adopting lead practices in mining and minerals processing.

In relation to waste, there were comments again. I note that the former minister, who preceded me, the Hon. Paul Holloway, also touched on the issue of the Ranger mine, which I certainly understand has quite different geological issues and other things, which make comparisons difficult. The advice we have had is that the EIS demonstrated the ability to reduce impacts for risks and tailings storage to acceptable levels for the specific environmental conditions.

As to tailings and backfilling, the advice I have received is that to backfill the open pit, as the Hon. Mr Parnell has suggested, would take approximately the same time as the original mining operation—that is, between 40 and 100 years—and would re-expose the material that was already encapsulated within the rock storage facility (RSF) and the tailings storage facility (TSF). Not only would the cost of such an exercise be prohibitive but it would significantly increase the predicted environmental impacts, particularly greenhouse gas emissions, by operating electric rope shovels and a haul truck fleet. The proposed tailings storage facility has been designed to meet or exceed the Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD) stability requirements for tailings dams. The EIS analysis indicates that the proposed tailings storage facility will remain stable even following a one in 10,000-year magnitude earthquake.

In relation to the acidity issues, the advice I have received is that geochemical test work for the EIS to characterise potential seepage quality from the RSF overall found that the RSF and LGS would be net acid consuming, and therefore seepage is expected to be neutral and not acidic, as opposed to the Hon. Mr Parnell's suggestion that an acidic leachate would be generated. Both the LGS and RSF would be built on a benign material base so that water coming into contact with reactive material would have to travel through overburden material, which has a high acid neutralising capacity and an ability to attenuate any dissolved metals naturally before it leaves through the base of the facility.

On the final matter, which is the overburden, the advice I have received is that the Hon. Mr Parnell has suggested the use of a vegetated limestone cap for the TSF. The EIS outlines that vegetation growth on the TSF would be discouraged in order to mitigate the potential for plant roots to uptake metals that may expose native fauna and stock to risk while grazing.

While I have this opportunity, I would also like to make some comments in relation to some mischief, I think, that the honourable mover has made in relation to comments made by my leader on the issue of the desal plant. In a media release fairly recently, the honourable member says:

Recently on ABC radio, Ms Redmond said that the nearest cuttlefish to the outfall pipe for the proposed BHP Billiton desalination plant at Pt Lowly will be 3kms away, with 10kms to the main cuttlefish breeding grounds.

Yet, BHPB Uranium President Dean Dalla Valle has said the pipeline will be only 800 metres from the nearest point of cuttlefish breeding grounds.

'The Opposition Leader has a huge responsibility to get her facts straight on an issue as important as this one,'...

The facts of the matter are that the actual pipe is 800 metres long, not 800 metres from the nearest cuttlefish breeding grounds and that the end of that pipe is three kilometres from Black Point or Weeroona Bay and 10 kilometres away from Backy Point, which are the two main cuttlefish breeding grounds. My leader's statements do not deviate from the facts in any way, and I believe that in her interviews she has clearly stated that the outfall would be some three kilometres and 10 kilometres, respectively, from the cuttlefish areas.

I do note the time frame for approvals of this project. Obviously, we have been through the EIS, and the SEIS was released on 13 May. There is a process, internal to government, which members on this side of the house will not have access to until that has been completed. I note that a whole-of-government report to assess the EIS and SEIS (known as the assessment report) is being prepared for ministerial and cabinet consideration as required under the Development Act.

The Department of Planning and Local Government is coordinating this assessment report, and SARDI is one of the key agencies working on the report. Through that process a number of matters will be discussed, including all the environmental issues as have been raised, and that there are also concurrent processes which are taking place with the federal government and the Northern Territory government.

The time frame relating to this is that by December this year those three governments will be expected to deliver approvals with conditions. There will be negotiations on an indenture act governing the management of the area, which is something that will obviously come to this place to be considered. By March next year, the BHP board is to vote on whether the expansion will proceed. Following that, there will be the expansion of Roxby Downs, the building of the Hiltaba Village and commencement of removal of the overburden. In the meantime, there are ongoing discussions.

This is diverting a little bit from the subject (because the topic of the motion does not discuss the desalination issue), but I note that the fishing industry has released a report entitled 'Scientific Assessment of BHP's Supplementary EIS of a Proposed Desalination Plant for the Upper Spencer Gulf'. Ongoing issues will continue to arise, but I note that the company itself is working towards satisfying these matters and we look forward to those continuing discussions.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (12:42): In rising to close debate on this motion, I would like to thank the Hon. Paul Holloway and the Hon. Michelle Lensink for their contributions. I will briefly respond to some of the issues that were raised, firstly, by the Hon. Michelle's Lensink who, despite the very clear and unambiguous wording of the motion which calls on the government to ensure that all waste management practices for the proposed Olympic Dam expansion, including the management of surplus ore and tailings, meet or exceed world practice, suggested that there must be some mischief in it. There is no mischief in this motion: it is straightforward.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: No, it was just your speech that was mischievous.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I acknowledge that the Hon. Michelle Lensink said that they will be supporting the motion. She has interjected that the mischief, as she saw it, was in my remarks rather than in the motion itself, and it is those claims that I want to address briefly now.

I reflect on the notion of the cuttlefish and the distances that were quoted in the media by the Leader of the Opposition. I point out to members that, when it comes to the outlet pipe, we are talking about a diffuser situation. We are not talking about a very lengthy pipe with all of the outflow coming from the very end of that pipe. The fact that it is 800 metres and the fact that the cuttlefish are right along that area of coast I do not think lets the Leader of the Opposition off the hook. I note that the Hon. Michelle Lensink talks about this new concept of the main cuttlefish breeding grounds as opposed to the whole of the area where the cuttlefish are to be found.

At the end of the day, I feel that the Greens' response to the incorrect information that the opposition leader relied on was a fairly gentle one. It was an invitation for her to get her facts straight and to reconsider her position. That is not a courtesy that is often returned by the opposition. If they believe the Greens have been in error in some way, then it is usually a fairly brutal response—'Those Greens don't know what they are talking about.'

So, I am disappointed that the opposition has taken it that way. I do, again, invite the Leader of the Opposition to get her facts straight on the location of both the outlet pipe and the cuttlefish, and urge her to talk to the scientists, including Jochen Kaempf and others, who have raised and continue to raise serious concerns about the location of that plant.

In relation to the Hon. Paul Holloway's contribution, it is quite remarkable because, of course, his entire contribution was to agree with everything that is in the motion, but the government's line, and we are used to this now, is, 'Of course we are going to do what you ask for in the motion, but we are not going to vote for the motion because you have asked for it.' That was effectively the tenor of the government's response. I am sure the government will not want to divide on this, because it really is a fairly churlish response in a way, but I want to respond to some aspects of it.

The former minister referred to an outcomes-based approach. I say to the government, yes, but if we get this wrong the outcome will be an absolutely appalling toxic legacy for the environment and for future generations. So yes, let us talk about outcome-based approaches and let us make sure we put the right rules and procedures in place to make sure that we do get the outcome that we want, and that is to avoid this long-term toxic legacy.

One of the reasons for my bringing this motion on as I have, and bringing it on now, is that we do know that the commonwealth and state governments are considering their response to the environmental impact statement and supplementary environmental impact statement and that we will be getting some decision from both the federal and state governments in the near future. My very real fear is that there is no indication so far that they have understood the full implications of what it is they are about to approve.

The environmental impact statement that the Hon. Paul Holloway referred to was described by him as comprehensive and rigorous. Well, comprehensive? It is not just a question of size. Size does not matter in this context. What we are talking about is the biggest document ever produced in the history of this state, but it is woefully lacking in relation to some very important details—in this present case, in relation to waste management.

There is another matter—and I will not debate it now, obviously—in that it is also incredibly deficient in terms of the economic possibilities of processing here in South Australia, rather than exporting most of the jobs to China. The environmental impact statement and the supplementary EIS are neither comprehensive or rigorous while they leave these important issues unresolved.

We know ultimately that this parliament will get to revisit these issues when we debate the indenture legislation. I hope that, in that debate, we will not need to find ourselves in the position of having to fix the mistakes and to plug the holes that the government has left by not requiring the most rigorous environmental conditions, as we expect them to shortly approve this project.

The motion before us is no more or less than what it says. It is urging the government to ensure that world's best practice is met or exceeded. Despite the government wanting to technically say that, whilst they agree with it, they do not want to support the motion, I am confident that the rest of this chamber will see that this is just a common-sense motion that is deserving of support today.

Motion carried.

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