House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Penola Pulp Mill Authorisation Bill PENOLA PULP MILL AUTHORISATION BILL Final Stages Final Stages The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly: No. 1. Page 8, line 22 (schedule 1)—Delete '221-0-2011' and substitute: 221-0-2101 No. 2. Page 8, line 23 (schedule 1)—Delete '250-0-2101' and substitute: 250-0-4401 Rev B No. 3. Page 8, line 25 (schedule 1)—Delete '441-0-2121' and substitute: 415-0-2121 No. 4. Page 11, after line 25 (schedule 1)—Insert: (3)	The minister must ensure that copies of a report provided to the minister in accordance with subclause (2) are tabled in both houses of parliament within 6 sitting days after the receipt of the report by the minister. Consideration in committee. The Hon. R.J. McEWEN House of Assembly The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I move: That the Legislative Council’s amendments be agreed to. In so moving, Madam Chair, I note in the gallery the presence of students from the Ardrossan Area School who would have listened to your earlier guidance and who would not have made the mistake I did, because they actually listen to their teachers. Equally, I can indicate to them that they have a very fine member in this house. It is lovely to have them with us. The amendments are acceptable. One actually asks that, when a report is given to the minister in relation to dioxin emissions, that it be tabled in the house within six sitting days. In the interests of transparency, the government has no difficulty with that; it is just another addition to all the conditions already imposed on the developer and we are happy to accept it—it may or may not be necessary. The only point I need to make is that I think the select committee of the two houses of parliament, as a consequence of the work it has done, has actually set a model that should be adopted elsewhere in terms of the way to proceed with such significant developments. It is certainly a win for the environment, a win for the state and a win for the South-East because it says that resources grown in the South-East will be processed in the South-East at the highest possible standard. They will not be shipped overseas to be processed in circumstances beyond our control, and certainly at a much lower standard. I think all those who have participated in the debate in the highest court of the land should compliment themselves in terms of what we have now done. We have said to a developer that the 'bar is set at pole-vaulting height' (to quote one of the members of the select committee); that if someone wants to build a pulp mill in this state we will not compromise the environment, that these are the standards that they must, by law, satisfy. Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly Mr WILLIAMS: I support and endorse the comments made by the minister, and in doing so I would like to make a couple of comments about the establishment of pulp mills. I strongly suspect that the successful campaign to stop the Wesleyvale pulp mill being built in Tasmania some 10 or 15 years ago has given a small group in our community, and groups in communities across Australia, some idea that pulp mills are intrinsically bad and should always be opposed. The reality is very far from that. I certainly agree with the minister that the process that we have recently been through in coming to this position on this particular matter is a worthwhile one. I will not go into that again—I talked about that in an earlier contribution on the matter—but I do wish to acknowledge that both houses, and a whole range of members from different backgrounds representing different political parties and philosophies, have, by and large, supported this measure. We are now at the final hurdle. I received a phone call this morning from a very happy John Roache, the man behind the proposal and the man in my electorate who has been, for a long time now, working up this proposal. He told me that things are now full steam ahead; that they are going gang-busters and hope to start construction some time next year. I wished him every success with that. This will be a great development in my electorate, and the sooner it is up and running, processing the resource currently in the ground and growing in my electorate and in neighbouring electorates, as well as across the border in Victoria, the better. I commend the amendments from the other place. Several of those amendments correct typos; the amendment of some consequence merely obliges the minister to table a report given to him, a report which is already an obligation on the proponent to give to the minister. The amendment further obliges the minister to table that in the house within six days of receiving it in, as the minister said, the interests of openness and accountability. The opposition supported the amendment in the other place and it supports the amendment here. Motion carried