EDWARDSTOWN GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:13): My question is to the Minister for Environment and Conservation.

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I'm not as bad as you were yesterday.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.O. Foley interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the Minister for Police will be quiet!

Mr WILLIAMS: My question is for the Minister for Environment and Conservation. Will the minister advise how far contamination at the former Hills site has spread? For example, can he assure residents of South Plympton that there is no danger to their groundwater?

The SPEAKER: The minister for the environment and conservation.

The Hon. K.O. Foley: Why didn't you do something about it when you were in government?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked of the minister for environment.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (15:13): Just to put this into some context, I do want to reflect on a little bit of history, if I can, and I ask the opposition to bear with me, because I think it is important. I have been researching a lot of matters, as you would expect me to, since I became the minister for environment, but in particular that which relates to the Hills site and Edwardstown in general—

Mr Pisoni: You didn't even know about it until February.

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: No; I said I've been researching.

Mr Pisoni: What are you researching? You didn't research very well, did you?

The SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member for Unley!

The Hon. P. CAICA: He's a classic. I do notice, when reading some articles that date back as far as 1995,1994 and 1998, where the erstwhile member for Elder at that stage, a Mr Wade, said he planned to take the issue to the environment minister, David Wotton. That was in relation to, amongst other things, the lack, if you like, of soil tests that were being done before selling land. What he was saying was—this is Mr Wade—'Basically I have a bunch of private firms that can sell to similar firms and there's no requirement for a test.'

In 1998, an article headed 'Our water scandal' detailed how Mr Olsen, the then premier, ordered a review of communication procedures within the state government after two senior ministers failed to tell a cabinet colleague about the Hope Valley reservoir shutdown. It was confirmed that Mr Olsen's comments came after it was confirmed that Dr Armitage and then human services minister, Mr Brown, had not told him or the environment minister that the plant had been taken out of operation.

But also, too, as we go on, an article headed 'Community anger grows over cadmium contamination' from The Advertiser 31 August 2000 talked, among other things, about cadmium contamination on Delfin Island. Another article from 26 August 2000 related to West Lakes as well. They were very interesting comments that were made by the then protection authority about not informing residents. Stephen Walsh QC, as the authority chairman, was quoted to have said, 'We want to ensure that there is no misinformation in relation to what has occurred and the extent of concern is clearly understood by the community.'

But getting to Edwardstown now, there was an article on 17 October 1996 headed 'Firm may be fined $1 million over toxic leak' and that related to automotive giant Bridgestone. Again, it was raised by that former member for Elder, Mr David Wade, who was livid that local residents had not been told about the spill for two years.

There was another article on the 16 October 1996 headed 'Factory's two-year toxic leak: residents not alerted', and then there is other information that relates to—and this is very interesting—the then minister for environment and heritage, the Hon. Dorothy Kotz, talking about site contamination. She goes on to talk about a draft cabinet submission that 'will be forwarded to you'—that is her—'as soon as DEHAA has signed off on current negotiations' on matters that relate to contamination.

I will go on for a little bit longer. I found this very interesting and I will again refer back to the matter of the former member Mr Wade. It was quite an interesting first speech that he made; it was very emotional. He said that the Dark Ages are over, that we are entering a new era and that new era will address all the problems associated with site contamination over an extended period of time. That was in 1994 in what was his inaugural speech. The point is that, during that time through until 2002, precious little was done by the opposition—that 'precious little' meaning absolutely nothing.

It was only this government that introduced legislation that forced the issues that Mr Wade was talking about—namely, getting polluters to pay. It was us who did not only that but also mandatory notification in regard to pollution, the registering on land titles of pollution that was known. They come in here holier than thou about what they would do, but evidence shows that they did nothing during their period of time in government and it was up to us to make sure that we had necessary legislation that they said they might have been considering but never got around to in order to address these sorts of issues, not even telling their own cabinet ministers about other issues that related to pollution and contamination and other types of things.

Quite frankly, I think it is more than just annoying for them to come in here with this high moral ground position when evidence has shown that they did nothing during their period of time in government. Of course, it was us when we came to government who addressed all those—

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, Madam Speaker—No. 98, that you must answer the question directly and not debate. He is clearly debating and he has not answered the question which was: can he assure the people of Plympton?

The SPEAKER: I uphold that point of order. Minister, I think you need to very quickly get to the end of your answer.

The Hon. K.O. FOLEY: Madam Speaker, may I also rise, respectfully, on a point of order: the member referred to my colleague as 'he'. He should, in fact, refer to him as the minister.

The SPEAKER: Yes, I will uphold that. Member for Stuart, you have to be careful how you respond to questions. Minister, have you finished your answer?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, Madam Speaker.