House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Water Lead Levels WATER LEAD LEVELS Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN House of Assembly Stuart Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (15:52): I rise today to speak about a very alarming issue to do with water quality affecting people I represent on the Barrier Highway in the electorate of Stuart and to advise the house that between 19 January 2010 and 2 February 2012 there were 573 routine quality tests for lead content in Cockburn, Manna Hill, Olary, Oodla Wirra, Terowie and Yunta. Thirty-two of these tests showed results that lead had exceeded the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. Four hundred and fifty-seven of the tests occurred in the towns where they are advised that they can drink the water as long as they boil it first. Twenty-three of these samples showed the Australian drinking water guidelines recommended had been exceeded. Let me state very clearly that the people in those four towns are advised that 'your water must be boiled before being used for human consumption'. So the inference is very clear: if you do boil it, it can be used for human consumption. The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines health guideline for lead is 0.01 milligrams per litre. Let me explain, reading directly from the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, the 95^th percentile test. It states: For health-related characteristics, performance could not be regarded as satisfactory if the guideline values were exceeded more than rarely. This is consistent with using a high percentile such as a 95^th percentile. Very importantly, water quality testing for Manna Hill, Olary, Oodla Wirra and Yunta (the same four towns) all failed the 95^th percentile test as well. Madam Speaker, I am sure that you will remember that back in February this year I raised exactly this issue in this house with the minister, and his answer was along the lines of, 'Well, lead every now and again isn't such a big issue. As long as it is just rarely consumed, it is not a problem.' Now we know it is a problem. It is failing the 95^th percentile test. I also know that the minister has been aware of this, because I raised it with him in February. He has known about it since then. He would know of the freedom of information requests that I have put in since then. He would know of that information and yet he has done absolutely nothing yet to correct the situation. On another very important issue, the residents of this town pay $13 per kilolitre for this water—$13 per kilolitre for water that you cannot even drink. That is an issue that I raised with the minister back in February as well. It is a disgrace that they are paying approximately four times the price of metropolitan Adelaide customers, who can drink their water, for water that these people cannot even drink. This FOI has uncovered some more information. Let me read to you from an internal SA Water email. It says: ...it troubles the Board that we charge customers in these towns more for non-potable water than we charge customers in other towns for potable or non-potable supplies. This is a very important issue. These towns may be out of sight, out of mind to the minister, but they are not to me and they are not to members of parliament on this side of the chamber. People living in small towns deserve to be looked after properly. I understand the economics and the difficulties, but let me say that, in my opinion, the big problem the minister has here is the poor quality of water that he has supplied to the people living in these towns. The bigger problem that he has is that the water that he is supplying does not meet the quality guidelines that he has set for himself and his department. However, the biggest problem that the minister and the government have, which is completely inexcusable, is that they have known about this and they have not advised the residents. SA Water told the health department, but they did not tell the people who consume this water. Let me tell you again very carefully: 'residents are advised that your water must be boiled before being used for human consumption'. Very clearly, they can expect, if they do boil it, that it is okay for human consumption, and we all know that boiling water will not remove the lead. The minister knows this, SA Water knows this and the government has been very well aware of this. I have only just become aware of the freedom of information material. It is inexcusable that the minister and the government did not tell the residents that this water was not safe to drink and consume—used for washing their vegetables, for bathing their children, even if they did drink it.