Antinuclear

South Australia’s rushed discussion of draconian new legislation for BHP’s Olympic Dam uranium mine

Nectaria Calan, 27 Oct 11, The most concerning and indeed contentious parts that I am familiar with at this stage relate to the water and freehold clauses, and continued exemptions from the Environmental Protection Act and the Aboriginal Heritage Act.

Re: water –  the much publicised water levy for Great Artesian Basin Water (and perhaps water from other sources) does not address the increased volume of water to be taken from the GAB (increasing from 37 million litres per day to 42 million), nor the impact that even the current volume is having on the mound springs in the region. …

Clause 24 provides for the Minister to grant the entire 49, 700 ha of the proposed expanded mining lease (as estimated in the EIS) to BHP as freehold title free of charge. This is a huge area to be simply given away by the State Government to one mining company, and amounts to a huge subsidy for the company. The most contentious aspect of this clause is that it absolutely dispossesses the Aboriginal custodians of the area by simply giving the land away. One may ask, if the government is so keen to give it away, why they don’t return it to the Aboriginal communities of the region?

This is a new addition to the Indenture – it is not in the current Act.

In particular, the subclauses state that for the minister to grant freehold title he must first be satisfied that either Native Title has been extinguished or that the act of granting freehold will extinguish it. So the intention is clearly to extinguish Native Title if possible. Additionally, I believe (although I am not certain) that once Native Title is extinguished it is extinguished permanently – however this fades in significance when you consider that the land will be returned to the Crown (at the mines closure) contaminated with almost 9 billion tonnes of tailings and after the company has destroyed sacred sites by virtue of digging the biggest hole in the world.

The exemptions from the Aboriginal Heritage Act carry through to the amended Bill (from the current indenture). Both the Indenture Act and amended Bill exempt BHP from key parts of the main piece of legislation in the state providing protection for Aboriginal heritage sites – there is a conflict of interest here as a company with a commercial interest in the land is left to adjudicate the validity of competing non-commercial interests.

Despite the state government claiming last week in a press release that the expansion will be subject to the Environmental Protection Act (by removing the exemption from the Indenture), the amended indenture still lists the Act as one over which the indenture prevails. BHP’s environmental Management Plans are to be over-seen and approved by the Minister rather than the Environmental Protectkion Agency (which would be the norm). This is essentially the same as the current Indenture Act. There is arguable a conflict of interest here also, as the Minister (for Mineral resources and Energy) is a proponent for mining.

The Select Parliamentary Committee established to further inquire into the Indenture Bill is having its first hearing tomorrow. It will be hearing from BHP, the Olympic Dam taskforce (which is a department within the state government, and the Chamber of Mines (an industry body). Clearly all witnesses are uncritical of the Indenture, and at this stage it looks like it will be held behind closed doors. it is also unclear whether they will call for more witnesses on another day.

October 27, 2011 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Australia, uranium | South Australia