 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Sandra Kanck Deputy Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
MINING (PRIVATE MINES) AMENDMENT BILL
Second Reading
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: The Democrats welcome this legislation. We consider it to be a positive move. I understand that the concept of private mines was created at the same time as the passage of the Mining Act 1971 and that it was necessary because some land grants had been given with mining rights. At that time, there were about 350 such land grants. In the past 20 years, about 70 of these have been revoked, and quite a number of the remainder are not even being mined.
I am particularly pleased that this bill requires some form of duty of care to the environment, because until this time that duty of care has not been required. Whilst receiving a briefing on this bill from PIRSA officers, I discovered that section 63 of the Mining Act 1971 requires the minister to establish a fund called the Extractive Areas Rehabilitation Fund. I am told that 50 per cent of the moneys received in royalties from extrusive minerals operations is paid into the fund. Apparently, the minister is authorised to spend any portion of the fund for the rehabilitation of land disturbed by mining operations. The minister may also use money from the fund to implement measures designed to prevent or limit environmental damage caused by extractive mining operations. A committee oversees the administration of the fund.
Furthermore, section 62 of the Mining Act authorises the minister to require the holder of a mining tenement to enter into a bond with the appropriate security for the rehabilitation of mine sites not covered by the Extractive Areas Rehabilitation Fund. I am delighted to hear that this fund and the bonds exist. What I am not clear about is whether this will apply to the private mines that are being dealt with in this current legislation. In terms of this legislation, I would like to know the requirements for rehabilitation: there does not appear to be anything in the bill.
I refer to a copy of a letter from the Environmental Defenders Office sent to PIRSA and dated 15 October last year. It asks questions and makes suggestions about the need for third party rights, and in particular it suggests that third parties should be empowered to make application to the Wardens Court for clean-up orders and/or clean-up authorisations which exist under the Environment Protection Act.
At my briefing I was told that such third party enforcement rights are not required because the Environment Protection Act covers it, and again I would like a reassurance from the minister that the Environment Protection Act will prevail because it does concern me that this bill does not say anything about that. Also, the letter from the Environmental Defenders Office suggests that the bill should establish a public register of mine operations plans to which the community has a right of access and a right to obtain copies. It continues:
A public register is essential in providing information to the community about activities which directly impact upon the environment.
Therefore, I wonder whether the Attorney-General can tell us why this recommendation of the Environmental Defenders Office has been rejected. As I say, I think the bill is a step forward. I would have liked it to go further but, given that it is bringing in some environmental duties for groups that previously had none at all, it is a step forward. We support the second reading.
