Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 23 September 2020.)

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (10:54): I rise to support this bill. I did not think I would be doing so, because I thought we would be discussing the LPG debate, which this government have disgracefully stopped debating even though the father of the child is here in parliament.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna will resume his seat. The Minister for Energy and Mining on a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Mr Speaker, the member is not addressing the substance of the debate at hand and is also reflecting on a vote of the house, neither of which he is allowed to do.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order, particularly in relation to the second aspect. I was prepared to give the member for Kaurna some introduction. I do draw the member for Kaurna's attention to the matter that is before the house. The member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The member for Mawson has moved a very important piece of legislation in relation to PFAS, which is a very dangerous substance commonly known for its use as firefighting foam. We know of its effects across our community and also across the country in terms of the pollution of waterways. This bill seeks to make sure that disposal sites and dumps for PFAS cannot be located within metropolitan areas or next to townships across South Australia. This is a particularly important issue for my electorate.

At the moment, we have an application to establish a PFAS dump right on the border of my electorate in McLaren Vale, in the member for Mawson's electorate. This site is at the corner of Tatachilla Road and Main South Road, which is very close to the vineyards of McLaren Vale and also very close to the suburbs of Seaford Rise, Seaford Heights, Moana and Maslin Beach in my electorate. This is an environmentally sensitive area and also an area in which people have built their homes and established their families. These people want to live in a peaceful environment without this sort of contamination.

Here we have an application to establish a dump for this very toxic substance very close to their location and the community is absolutely outraged. I share their concerns, as does the member for Mawson, and we are doing everything we possibly can to stop this from going ahead. We hope that the EPA knock this on the head. It does not seem like this has happened yet, but we live in hope that it will happen.

Unfortunately, they did not get off to a very good start. In consulting about this, they did not actually consult with any of the residents. No notifications went out to residents in my electorate. I asked a question on notice of the Minister for Environment about what public notification was sent to residents. A handful of letters was sent out, even though there are thousands and thousands of people who would be living in proximity to where this dump will occur.

You just have to look at what has happened at the fire station in Largs, in terms of the contamination this substance has caused; it has entered the food supply there. Right around the country, particularly when you look at a number of RAAF bases across the country, it has got into water supplies and caused untold damaged. Without a doubt, we do need science to properly store and maintain PFAS, but why on earth would you decide that picking a site in the Adelaide metropolitan area is the right place to do it?

Why on earth would you decide that a site so close to new housing estates is the place to do it? Why on earth would you decide to do it without proper consultation with residents about what you are proposing? There are so many sites across South Australia—the huge, massive land space that we have in this state—that would be much better suited for a location.

Why would you choose to do it in an area which is world renowned for its high-quality food and wine district? Yet, that is what is being proposed for McLaren Vale. It is a concern for residents. It is a risk to that clean, green food and wine region of McLaren Vale that we have promoted so well in South Australia. Why would you choose to do it there and not somewhere more remote in this country?

The proponents of this have written to the member for Mawson and me saying, 'We are going to uphold standards. We are going to make sure it meets all the proper requirements.' I have no reason to doubt what they are saying but what I do doubt is that we can never know what is going to happen in 20, 50 or 100 years' time. This is exactly the sort of thing that people were saying about various sites, various types of chemicals, various approaches to managing waste 20, 50, 100 years ago.

We have seen time after time how promises have been broken, how science has changed, how we have learnt more as time goes on, and no-one can ever rule out that there is a risk with this substance. No-one can ever rule out that something might happen in the future when you have a site which is in that special environment, close to the coastline and waterways, and no-one can ever say this is the appropriate response.

We, in the community, say no. We will be fighting this with every breath we have. We have a community meeting coming up. The member for Mawson and I will be speaking to community members about this. We have a petition that has a significant number of signatures and we will continue to campaign on this. But this is important legislation. Let's pass this legislation and say let's not establish these dumps close to residents. I do not think anybody in this parliament representing people would want to see this dump established next to their suburbs or towns in their electorate.

So let's all join together and make sure that these dumps are in the appropriate locations and that they are not next to anybody's electorate, anybody's townships or suburbs in their electorate because, while it is the member for Mawson and I who are battling this right now, it could be you very soon.

Mr Knoll: So whose electorate do you want it in?

Mr PICTON: It could be in another township. It could be next to another suburb. What the disgraced member for Schubert is alleging is, 'Well, what electorate would you want this in?'

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir.

Mr PICTON: So is the member for Schubert saying—

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Kaurna will resume his seat. The Minister for Energy and Mining has a point of order.

The Hon. D.C. VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: I ask you, sir, to instruct the member for Kaurna to withdraw and apologise for that offensive statement about the member for Schubert.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert.

Mr KNOLL: I would ask the member to withdraw and apologise for those remarks.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert has asked the member for Kaurna to withdraw those remarks. I ask the member for Kaurna to withdraw—

Mr PICTON: I withdraw.

The SPEAKER: —and apologise.

Mr PICTON: But I think it is important to note that—

The SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, it was remiss of me: withdraw and apologise.

Mr PICTON: I withdraw and apologise. But I think it is important to note that the member for Schubert is suggesting that he does not want to support this legislation, which would not only protect the constituents of Mawson and Kaurna from this being dumped but it would also protect people in the Barossa. We do not want to see this in the Barossa in that clean environment, in that wine growing region either. If the member for Schubert is not going to support this legislation, then I think that raises a big question as to whether this could happen in the Barossa next. We will be making sure, and I know the member for Light will be making sure, that we fight to stop this happening in the Barossa as well.

Debate adjourned on motion of Dr Harvey.