House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Ministerial Statement Ministerial Statement BHP Desalination Plant BHP DESALINATION PLANT The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly Port Adelaide Deputy Premier Minister for Industry and Trade Minister for Federal/State Relations The Hon. K.O. FOLEY (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Treasurer, Minister for Industry and Trade, Minister for Federal/State Relations) (14:04): I seek leave to make a ministerial statement. Leave granted. The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: On 4 June, the Leader of the Opposition asked whether the state had backed away from its commitment to BHP Billiton's desalination plant. The state government remains in positive discussions with BHP and we have been involved in those discussions since 2006. I said, in answering the question on the day, that I would check my answer and, if there was anything incorrect, I would correct the record; therefore, I seek to clarify my previous statements regarding the quality of water being produced by BHP through this single-pass process. BHP Billiton has recently confirmed that it is proposing to produce water which, on average, will be at salinity levels of around 500 total dissolved solids. I am advised that, in terms of drinking water, this is well within the World Health Organisation guidelines and, for the most part, meets Australian water guidelines. An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Just listen. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. K.O. FOLEY House of Assembly The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: However, SA Water has advised that, in keeping with most other major desalination plants in Australia that supply water for local populations, a second-pass treatment will be required to ensure that the best quality of water is available to the Upper Spencer Gulf community. This additional second-pass requirement, should the government choose to proceed as a partner, is estimated to have a capital cost of approximately $50 million; hence, the answer I gave the other day that we are looking at the impact of that additional cost to it. The issue does revolve around definitions of 'potable' and what is acceptable for BHP in Roxby but what SA Water advise government is appropriate for the communities. Of course, we are yet to embark upon the EIS process, at which time this requirement and the requirement for the type of water will be flushed out, so to speak, well and truly. Discussions with BHP are continuing and, as I have said, there has been no decision to abandon these discussions. Visitors