HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2017-02-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

National Parks and Wildlife (Co-managed Parks) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 February 2017.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (11:54): I understand that all honourable members who wish to make a contribution to this bill have done so. I would like to thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her contribution to this debate in amending the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. Co-management brings together traditional Aboriginal and contemporary western perspectives to take care of the cultural and natural values of our parks. It certainly allows Aboriginal people to look after and use land in accordance with their traditional values.

In recognition of the success of this initiative around the state, the state government has entered into co-management agreements that cover 35 of South Australia's parks and wilderness areas, covering approximately 13.5 million hectares or about 64 per cent of the state's reserve system. The National Parks and Wildlife (Co-managed Parks) Amendment Bill 2016 strengthens co-management by making amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and the Wilderness Protection Act 1992 that clarify co-management governance arrangements and allow co-management boards to be established to manage multiple parks. Instead of the situation at the moment where one board has to manage one park, what we are seeking to do with this amendment process is to enable the same board to be in the co-management of several parks for which they are responsible.

This amendment will provide greater flexibility certainly for the government and also for the Aboriginal people who enter into co-management agreements with the state. For those reasons, I commend the bill to members and look forward to its speedy passage today.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I just make a very quick observation. To assist the quick passage of this bill, we did not speak at the second reading, but I would like to put on the record that the Greens strongly support the co-management of national parks and believe that these amendments strengthen and clarify the co-management arrangements. The question I am hoping the minister might be able to answer without assistance concerns the provision of this bill that seeks to retrospectively approve two existing mines in the Flinders Ranges. I understand that it is generally regarded to have been an administrative oversight. It appears that people thought these mines were being regulated under the Mining Act for some 44 years.

My question is: how did it come to the attention of the government that these mines were not regulated? More specifically—and in fact, I do not know the answer to this question—is it the case that a mining operator discovered that they were not regulated? The question that flows from that is: was any harm done? When I say 'harm', did they say, 'We don't have to obey the directions of the Department of State Development anymore. We don't have to pay royalties'? Was there any practical consequence that flowed from the fact that these mines have technically been unregulated for 44 years?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for his most important question. I will give him a little bit of background on this and try to reassure him about this process. Whilst we do not like to apportion blame to a decision that was taken so very long ago—and to some extent it is very hard to pin down who may have been responsible back in 1949 for some of these oversights—the bill includes an amendment, as the honourable member knows, that provides a retrospective approval for two existing mining leases in the Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park that were issued under the Mining Act 1971.

It goes back further than that. I am advised that these two leases were granted by the then minister for mines in 1949 to allow the extraction of barite, a mineral that I am advised is used for both medical and engineering purposes. In 1970, the Oraparinna national park was established under the national parks act 1966 over the two mineral leases, which preserved the existing mineral rights. When the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 came into operation, the Oraparinna national park ceased to exist and the now Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park was constituted by statute.

I am advised that—and here is the important phrase—by administrative oversight the new National Parks and Wildlife Act did not contain any transitional provisions in relation to the preservation of existing mining rights. The mines have since been operated, bought and sold, regulated and renewed as if they were valid. So, the state has gone on and regulated the mines as it would any other mines established under the private mines act, I think it was, or indeed the Mining Act 1971. To correct this oversight, the bill includes an amendment that preserves and validates the operation of these two existing mineral leases, while confirming that the extent of mining operations in Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park cannot be extended beyond these existing leases.

I can also advise that the administrative oversight only became apparent in 2007 when the former leaseholders, Unimin Australia Limited, applied to extend the mining lease area to allow safety works to be undertaken outside the leased area. Upon receipt of that application, it was identified by a proper and correct public servant, I believe, that a proclamation pursuant to section 43 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act over mineral leases 3413 and 3414 in Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park authorising prospecting, exploration and mining had not been made.

In 2012, a draft amendment bill to the National Parks and Wildlife Act was released for consultation that included a broad suite of amendments to the act. I am advised that it included an amendment that would have provided retrospective approval to the leases and restricted mining in the park to the leased area. However, the amendment bill did not progress at that time. That is the explanation that I think the honourable member was seeking. It was an administrative oversight going back quite some time. It was discovered by diligent work of the responsible public servant charged with investigating the application by Unimin Australia Limited to extend the mining lease area—hence, the amendment we have before us in this amendment bill to rectify that situation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his comprehensive answer which goes part way to answering the questions I asked. I think the minister is shortly to get some assistance, which he might find valuable. The part of the question I am not sure the minister has answered is: if, as he said, this error was discovered 10 years ago in 2007—in other words, the mining companies have known for 10 years that they were not technically bound by the Mining Act—have they in any way taken advantage of that hiatus in mining regulation? That would include compliance with standards, compliance with provisions of the Mines and Works Inspection Act, and payment of royalties.

The first question is whether there is any activity to the detriment of the state that has resulted from 10 years of knowledge that they are not properly regulated. The second question is: the minister said that the bill to fix this up some time ago did not progress. Could he expand on whether or not the bill was, in fact, defeated or whether the government changed its mind and pulled the bill? Was it that this fixing provision was attached to some other provisions? What were the circumstances? It does disappoint me that something can go for 10 years without rectification.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for reminding me of the second part of his question. Was any advantage taken by the mining companies? Was any further damage done? Did they extend their brief during this period of uncertainty? My advice, which I have now received, is that there was no change to their activity in those mining leases during the whole time. In fact, I am advised that both companies have deferred activity they wanted to complete pending the outcome of this resolution. I am advised that there was no damage or negative outcome from this delay in the process—in fact, just the opposite.

In terms of the delay, it is regrettable. I do not have a huge amount of advice in front of me going back to 2012 about the amendments to the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, which I think preceded my occupation of this position. I understand that there were some issues involved with the legislation that did not apply to mineral leases. There were some complicating factors, and I am not sure whether they resulted from community consultation not being as successful as we would have liked or whether in fact it did not meet the government's timing schedule for legislation. I cannot confirm that, but my advice is that it was not related to any issue with these mining leases; there was some other factor involved in the legislation.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: I thank the minister for his answer. I guess we could go back and look through the archives but I do not really want to pursue that point. What we need to pay some attention to are the lessons to be learnt. My question is: given that the Sherlock Holmes of the department has discovered this, has there been any other process, any audit process? There are lots of mineral exploration licences and mining leases and I think that the licences tend to expire on a fairly regular basis but the leases can go on for a very long time. Has there been an audit to see if there are any other mining leases in South Australia that are technically unregulated and would also require either administrative action or legislative reform to normalise them?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that in fact, yes, we did as a department go through our historical records. It is important to take up the Hon. Mr Parnell's phrase that these were technically, perhaps, unregulated. They were in fact regulated per se because both the mining companies and the government continued, in these instances at least, to proceed as if they were regulating them anyway. However, I am advised that through that extra audit we picked up about half a dozen other mine tenements that were not working. They were not being worked and, in fact, I am advised that the mines were totally grown over and closed but were not closed off in the books. That work was formally undertaken and I am advised that those mining tenements were then closed down formally but, of course, they had in fact closed many years before.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My question to the minister is in relation to the co-management of parks. It is really a generalised question, if the minister can advise. These arrangements are a relatively new concept in South Australia, through their establishment in the national parks and wildlife and wilderness protection acts. Perhaps the minister could give us some general advice about what sort of trends we are seeing in terms of co-managed parks in South Australia and whether there are tourism opportunities that some of the Aboriginal groups have been able to take up as part of these co-managed arrangements.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I thank the honourable member for her most important question regarding comanagement. I am advised that we have been involved in co-management of the national parks with Indigenous communities since about 2005—

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! Can we avoid alternative conversations in the chamber. The minister does not have the strongest of voices today and I am having difficulty hearing him. The minister has the call.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr Acting Chairman, for your protection—when we took our first tentative steps in this direction. Fundamentally, co-management is about shared decision-making and it requires the traditional owners and the government to come together and learn from each other and develop a shared vision of what they want to see for that park and that environment.

A successful co-management structure and arrangement has the capacity to combine incredibly well the traditional knowledge of the people on the land and their traditional land management practices with contemporary approaches to park management, and for each to learn from the other about why those practices are important still. A number of co-management boards and advisory committees have been in place for several years and have played a significant role in helping to upskill boards and to help them help us manage what they know as their traditional lands.

It has given those boards and those communities a fantastic involvement and a feeling of control, I suppose, over lands that in their minds have always been theirs and always will be theirs, and it has given our land managers and national parks a fantastic ability to learn from local Indigenous communities more about the land than it ever learnt through working alone and solo in the department.

The Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park Co-management Board is a great example of co-management. The great landscape of the Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park is part of the traditional land ranges of the Adnyamathanha people, and their culture is incredibly welcoming and sharing. They want to share their land with visitors and want to educate visitors about their long ancestral heritage on that site, their stories and their attachment to their land.

A recent achievement of the board was to work in partnership with the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources negotiating the surrender of part of the Manawarra pastoral lease, which includes the site known as Sacred Canyon. This site includes significant Aboriginal engraving and paintings, and is an important area for the Adnyamathanha people. There is a desire on behalf of the Adnyamathanha and the co-management board to develop that area for increased tourism potential, and to drive more tourism into the area and, hopefully, take advantage of the Wilpena Ranges accommodation and to learn more about the local community and their ongoing desire to manage what is their land.

Sacred Canyon will be included, hopefully, within the Ikara-Flinders Ranges National Park shortly to afford it the protection provided by the National Parks and Wildlife Act. It will be managed by the parks co-management board. The process of taking it out of pastoral lands and putting it into national park has been a co-management success, and we look forward to bringing that forward to parliament for its support in the future.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: At the risk of giving the minister a potential Dorothy Dixer on this issue, can he advise the house of the progress of the reintroduction of the quoll and the possum into the Flinders Ranges National Park? I am sure the minister's adviser can provide the information.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I always take advantage of potential Dorothy Dixers, but today I will desist. I thank the honourable member for this really great question. The reintroduction of quolls (or idnyas, as they are known) has been incredibly successful. It seems that the success has come, at least in part, from our ability to take quolls from the environment in Western Australia where they are already aware of and alert to predation by cats and foxes. Instead of rearing a population of quolls in captivity and then putting them out to take their chances, we have found a population from which we can source quolls that are already smart about how to avoid predation from foxes and feral cats.

We are through multiple generations now of quolls—the population is growing—and it seems to be a great success story. In terms of the possum, I do not have any figures in front of me, but I have not, to my recollection, received any negative feedback about the reintroduction of the possum. I was advised about that in a briefing note last year, and I am hopeful of getting an update on that shortly. But the reintroduction of quolls has been a fantastic success.

We also put, of course, great pressure, in terms of our management programs, on keeping down populations of predators, so we have a very concentrated program of shooting and trapping feral cats and foxes to give the quolls and possums every chance to make a success of their rewilding.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: I've got some possums eating my tomatoes you can have any day, if you like.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, David.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 16), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (12:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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