Government Seeks Approval for Mining in Yumbarra Conservation Park

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
11 November 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Spring Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

That this Council requests His Excellency the Governor to make a proclamation under section 43(2) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 that declares that rights of entry, prospecting, exploration and mining under the Mining Act 1971 may be acquired and exercised in respect of that portion of Yumbarra Conservation Park being section 457, north out of hundreds, County of Way (Fowler).

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I must say that I am doubly saddened: first, in terms of the general approach that the government takes in relation to national parks and, secondly, because of its incompetent handling of issues where there are diverse points of view. In speaking to this debate, first, I will make some comments about Yumbarra itself. I will make some comments about the national parks system more generally, and then talk about the way forward, or the way things could have progressed if there were a minister with half a brain anywhere in the vicinity. Perhaps I will talk about the parks system more generally to start with. There is a great mythology in this state about areas which are closed to miners. The mining lobby bring up these maps which show areas of the state which are national parks, areas of the state which are under Aboriginal ownership or guardianship, and say, `This is denied to us'. That is simply not true.

In relation to Aboriginal lands, what the mining companies needed to do, and they are doing it at long last, was to actually sit down and talk. They found that when they finally got serious about it, it was indeed possible. One of the great anomalies that I discovered after listening to Australian mining companies complain for sometime about having to deal with Aboriginal people was that when I visited the Navaho country in the United States, the biggest company operating there was BHP. The Navaho country is land that is essentially self-governed by the Navaho nation in the United States within perhaps three or four states. I think it is quite extraordinary that Australian companies complained about what they could not do in Australia, that they could not possibly negotiate with indigenous people, yet the same sorts of companies were capable of doing it overseas. That aside, that is part of the mythology about parts of the state which are locked up.

The other mythology is in relation to national parks. One needs to understand the fact that most of our national parks are open for mineral exploration right now. Every park proclaimed since about 1982-in fact, a sizeable percentage of parks area was proclaimed after that date-had a joint proclamation, which meant that mineral exploration could occur within it, despite the fact that it was a national park. There is only 4.6 per cent of the state within which miners cannot explore. I stress that figure. While maps that they like wheeling out show 20 per cent, in fact there is just 4.6 per cent. Having said that, I am on the record in this place in previous debates in relation to national parks suggesting that our national parks system generally speaking has grown as much as anything by accident. In fact, the only areas that have become national parks are largely areas that nobody else wanted. So, if it was not good for farming, mining or anything else, it became a national park. That is the truth of the matter.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There are interjections about people becoming cynical. I can assure members that it has nothing to do with the parliament. If you go and look around South Australia at national parks, they consist largely of land that nobody wants. That is why-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: But over half of that was grazed, and you have to acknowledge that that is probably an exception. But if you go through the Lower South-East, you will find a couple of very small pocket parks, largely where there used to be swamps, or right up against the shore in coastal dunes.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That is right. If you go to the Upper South-East where you find bigger parks, such as Ngarkat and other areas which were part of the Ninety Mile Desert-and they were the worst parts of the Ninety Mile Desert- that country was not touched either and became national park.

All the state's big parks are in the north of the state and largely in the areas that not even the pastoralists wanted. The one exception is probably the Coongie Lakes area, where the Kidmans have a pastoral lease that overlaps the national park. The point I make in all this is that land has ended up in national parks not, in the first instance, for biological reasons but largely because nobody else wanted it.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It would be true to say that governments in more recent times set about producing parks in any places they could do it in the dark areas. Having said that, the next thing that needs to be acknowledged is that within the existing parks in the state there are probably some biological systems which need protection but which are not in the parks, or very little of them are in the parks. It might also be true to say that some areas of the parks may not be particularly significant.

I have been arguing for much of the time that I have been in this place that we urgently need a review of our entire parks system, asking the question: are there areas within the parks system which have very little protection and which actually need more? There are places such as Coongie Lakes, which still have cattle rambling around in it, which is part of a regional reserve and of a wetlands of international significance, with rhamsar trees, etc. It is highly significant, yet we have cattle romping all over it and mining companies have had pretty open slather there until fairly recently.

There are some areas that clearly are important, which have virtually no protection at all even though they are theoretically in national parks. It might also be true that there are some parts of parks which might be enjoying high protection but which may not need it. That may or may not be true of Yumbarra. My concern is that, whilst areas have got into the parks system by accident, if we make any decisions from here on they should be quite deliberate and well informed about whether or not we are prepared to further protect them and what level of protection we are prepared to give.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: We will wait and see. What I have advocated is a review of all our national parks and, as part of the statewide biological survey, perhaps, identification of some areas outside parks that might still, even at this late stage-there is not too much of it-be brought in. Let us give real protection to those areas of very high biological significance and perhaps be prepared to review areas that have high levels of protection that may turn out not to be significant. But let us do it in a scientifically based, independent, impartial manner. I have been on record in this place before, long before the Yumbarra issue came up, calling for a review of the national parks system: it is not an argument of convenience.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I don't know whether it's ever since I came in, but the first time we debated national parks in this place I certainly argued along those lines. My concern when we start to look at Yumbarra is that, whether or not it got into the parks system by accident, the government is saying, `The aerial testing has suggested that this looks interesting: we want to go in there.' We do not know a lot biologically about this area: there has not been intensive work done.

The statewide biological survey went in there for two weeks in April, as I recall, several years back. I have spoken personally to several of the scientists who went in there and know what they did and did not do, and what scientific value they placed upon what they have done, etc.

In terms of the statewide biological survey and the reports that most people are seeing, it is based upon two weeks work in April: you have been right through late spring, no rain, and you have been through summer and autumn, a time when all the annuals are gone and anything which is dependent upon the annuals also, at that stage, is missing. Of course, the work that one does in two weeks will be extremely superficial and, in fact, very little of the work was in the area where they now want to do the exploration; probably a couple of days work at the most. It has to be very superficial.

Aside from the two week biological survey, herpetologists and birdwatchers have been into the park on a few occasions, largely in an opportunistic sense, but there has been no deliberate survey of reptiles or birds. Despite the dearth of work that has been done there, and despite the fact that we know very little about this park, on the basis of the small amount of work that has been done we do know that this park has more bird and reptile species than any other park in South Australia. It has very rare and endangered species such as the mallee fowl; and we do know that the sandhill dunnart, which is also considered endangered, is immediately to the north and south of the park, and extrapolation would suggest that it would be in the park as well.

We know all those things on limited knowledge. It will almost certainly turn out that the Yumbarra region will be biologically more complex than places such as the Daintree, and it may well have more species than places such as the Daintree. The uninformed eye says that this is nothing but mallee. Mallee is a term which usually relates to eucalypts, and I think there are at least 10 mallee species growing in the park-and there may be more. Indeed, it is very complex and, if you get on your feet and start walking through the park, you will see it changing as you go up and down dunes and into dunal areas-and there are greater layers of complexity as well.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I am sorry but I studied botany and zoology at university. The reason that it is complex is, first, that people often talk about the eastern and western floras of Australia, and the Nullarbor region, to some extent, acts as a divide. But, in fact, the eastern and western floras tend to meet in the general region of Yumbarra and Yellabinna. Yumbarra is within this region where the eastern and western floras overlap as you move from one to the other.

Although the park is dry, there is still a gradation as you go from north to south; so you have east-west variation and north-south variation. In addition to that, you have sand dune country and interdune areas, rock hole areas and a range of other things. Indeed, it is not surprising that it is possible to have a great deal of biological diversity. It is not only diverse but also relatively untouched. It was nominated for wilderness status prior to suggestions by government that it might want to go in there to explore. It was nominated because it is, unquestionably, the best wilderness area in South Australia- there is no question about that.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Well, the reason why it is such good wilderness is obvious: people have not been in there. There are few tracks; there are a few cats, but very few; and weeds, generally speaking, invade an area by animals' carrying them up tracks. In fact, the area is fairly well untouched. I recall appearing before the lower house select committee on this matter and hearing the comment, `Surely, if we put in the mine we would then have the money to look after the park.' I make the point that, as long as there are no tracks running into the park, it is looking after itself just fine. The suggestion that we will have money to look after the park is a nonsense because, for the most part, the park looks after itself. Four- wheel drives-and probably too many of them-go up and down the few tracks that are in the region, up Googs Track (which is outside Yumbarra and into Yellabinna) and another track that goes up to the painted lakes area and some of the rock holes.

For the most part there are no roads there. If there are no roads, there are no pest plants, largely no pest animals and no vandalism, so the park looks after itself. When you have to start spending money looking after the park that is when you start putting in more roads and when you have more people going into it. Until then, it is fine. It is a nonsense to say, `Let's go in there and get some money so we can look after it.' It is absolute nonsense. That was one misunderstanding.

Another misunderstanding I encountered with this committee-and I have heard some locals say this-is the comment, `Why are you bothered, because it has just been destroyed by bushfire?' Bushfire is part of the Australian ecology and Australian plants have adapted to bushfire, which is why mallee reshoots from its roots: it is an adaptation to bushfire. It is capable of getting burnt out and sending out shoots straight away. Other eucalypts often resprout from their stems, but they usually have much thicker branches that are capable of withstanding the heat and not getting totally damaged. Australian flora has adapted. Many other plants beside those reshoot, where the seeds germinate only after being affected by fire.

Anyone who has looked at a year 11 biology book (or at least the one they were using back when I was teaching) would know that there are animal species that disappear if you do not have fires occasionally. There was a bandicoot in Victoria (the example used in the year 11 geology book) that only fed on grubs that fed on particular roots of plants that only grew after bushfires. Once you got into an area where there had not been a bushfire for a long time the bandicoots virtually disappeared. Yet, after a fire its population exploded. It was ignorant of people to say, `Why should you worry about this area? It's been destroyed by fire.' They do not understand that fire itself is not destructive unless you have an unnatural frequency. If the eucalypts got burnt every year they would eventually die because their root system would become exhausted. Some people advocate burning out national parks on an annual basis as a bushfire control method. They say that fire is natural: why worry about it? They are showing their ignorance also.

The argument I am constructing so far is that, while we have done very little biological assessment work in the park so far, from that little work we know that the area is ecologically complex, that there is a large number of species, and we also know that it has high wilderness value.

The Hon. T. Crothers: Why was it declared a national park in the first place?

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I answered that before you came in. I will not go through the whole speech again, but I discussed that earlier. You should do what I do when I am in my room-I sit and listen to you on the speaker when I am in my room. It would be fair to say that the government's going in as it proposes to do, without doing proper biological assessments, is setting a bad precedent, and we are already aware (and I have seen departmental files) that the government sees several other national parks as being more prospective than Yumbarra. For instance, the Flinders Ranges National Park- one which is very important in the South Australian context and psyche-is considered prospective for lead and zinc. They have followed traces of it outside the park and they are very keen to get in.

There is another park also. It is understandable that people are worried about precedent-that this issue is being handled in isolation and that we are not developing a policy that looks at the parks system as a whole and says, `What do we have parks for; what are the goals of parks; when will we protect them and when will we not; what levels of protection will we offer to what parts of parks?' That is a sensible rational path to follow. Instead, we are treating this as a one-off isolated incident with nowhere enough information on the table. It is understandable that people are extremely nervous about this and the precedent it sets.

Long before the numbers in this place changed, I approached both Minister Kerin and Minister Kotz, met with each of them separately, and told them that there might be a way forward, and that is to carry out a comprehensive biological survey so that then we could have an argument with the information on the table. However, they did absolutely nothing. That offer, as I recall now, was made some 20 months ago. They did nothing. It is sheer laziness. They complain bitterly about how long they are being held up, yet there was a way forward and they were not prepared to go down that path.

What if it turns out that Yumbarra, whilst biologically complex and diverse, has nothing special? What if Yellabinna, which has a lower level of protection, and areas outside Yellabinna and outside the parks system are as biologically complex, of a similar ecological type and even have some species which are seriously endangered but which are not in Yumbarra? Clearly there might have been somewhere to go, and it would have been a responsible way to go. I discussed that point with the ministers and with Mr Kerin's officers from mines and energy, but they did nothing.

I was critical of the previous biological survey, not only of its brevity-two weeks-but also of the time of year during which it was undertaken. There could not have been a worse time of year to do a biological survey than at the end of autumn. Since then, two winters and two springs have gone past, periods in which comprehensive biological work could and should have taken place. I hope that parliament does not reward incompetence by letting them get off the hook, by letting them do things haphazardly and by rewarding their laziness and incompetence, because that is what the parliament would be doing if it said yes to this motion. It would reflect badly on this parliament, and I think that history would judge us very poorly.

It is time that we took a comprehensive view of the goals of national parks. Why do we have them? Are they there because we do not want them for anything else or do we have national parks because we believe that we should seek to maintain and protect biological diversity and endangered species, or do they just look good on a map? Any number of polls that have been done by independent people show that close to 90 per cent of South Australians do not want mining in national parks. The parks are valued very highly by the people of South Australia.

The role of this parliament is to take on board the high level of importance that the community holds, to make sense of it and to create a sensible policy for national parks. Then we could address issues such as Yumbarra in that context, and that is what I urge members in this place to do.

I saw in files from mines and energy that, even if there were to be a degazettal, the advice of the former head of the department was that the government should degazette only that part in which it is particularly interested. I note that the motion before us degazettes the whole of Yumbarra. Why? The aerial surveys identified a relatively small target area, yet all of Yumbarra is to be degazetted. The government is just going for broke and trying to get as much of the parks system out of protection as it can. As I said, that is contrary to the advice that was given to the government when it first considered this idea.

I note also that, in the same lot of correspondence, this departmental person stated that the prospectivity of this area was nowhere near as great as has been claimed and that there are far more important areas elsewhere. That person is no longer with the department. There is nothing like giving advice that the minister does not want to hear. I might add that that was the previous minister. I think it might have been minister Baker, not minister Kerin-spot the difference.

I am aware that some deals are being struck, but at this stage I have not seen the details. I urge members not to sign a blank cheque. If consideration is being given to allowing this motion to pass, the first thing that should happen is that proper biological work be done, and then a motion such as this might be carried. That is my first observation.

I said to one person with whom I discussed this issue, `Would you like to swap your car for mine?' I could see by the look on her face that she had no idea what my car was like. I had a fair idea of what her car was like, so I knew that I would get a good deal. I made that observation because part of the deal that I was told about was that the government was offering to swap another area of park lands for this. The first stupid thing about that was that the area that was offered was situated a significant distance away. It was still on Eyre Peninsula, but biologically it was totally different: it was not a swap of like for like.

That was the observation I was trying to make when I asked, `Would you swap your car for mine?' From such a swap you would like to think that you would get something of equivalent value. We were being told, `This is a good deal; we will give you this area of national park for that'-yet it was not like for like. At this stage, we do not know fully what is contained in Yumbarra let alone the area that is being offered. We do know something about it because of the distance involved and because one area is situated against the coast and the other more into the Nullarbor, but they are not the same. Whether one area is more important because it contains a lot more endangered species, I do not know. The other point I make is that the other area that is being offered for national parks is not under threat. It is not being mined or farmed. In fact, this is an offer of protection for something which is under no threat for something which now is under threat.

The first important thing is that biological work must be done. The ministers should do what I suggested they do 20 months ago. Then, if it is found that Yumbarra is not more important than similar areas outside of or adjacent to it which are of greater biological value, we might be able to go forward. We should not go off and sign blank cheques for the government. One suggestion was that this motion would be agreed to and the government would carry out the biological survey afterwards. So what? In what way is that binding? What are the consequences of that? Perhaps the government is saying, `Trust us', but I have heard it say that in respect of other matters. For the most part, with a few exceptions, I do not trust it. The ministers involved are people for whom I do not have a high level of trust.

I urge members to oppose the motion and to insist that before anything else is done biological work is carried out. On that basis, there may be a way forward. At that point, discussions might take place about whether if there is to be a degazettal surely it should not be a degazettal of the whole park but only that part which is of interest. If there is to be a road into the park to carry out exploration work, discussions could be had about whether it should be brought in from the south, which would be an invitation for amateur four wheel drivers to go up and down through the park, or whether it should be brought in from one of the tracks to the north which are used far less. You would then have a lot less visitation to the area. It is possible that they will find nothing of value but the tracks will remain. Once a track is put into the scrub, it does not go away: people go up and down it all the time-that is a fact of life.

You would then start talking in terms of what might be done to minimise the harm. From what I have heard so far,

none of the deals that have been around the place has really addressed issues like that, either. For that reason, the Democrats are opposing this motion at this time and calling for proper biological survey work to be carried out before we go further.