Parliamentary Committees

Environment, Resources and Development Committee: PFAS Contaminated Waste Disposal

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:03): I move:

That the first report of the committee, entitled Briefing Report on the Disposal of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contaminated Waste in South Australia, be noted.

I rise as the Presiding Member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee to speak about our report on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known in this place as PFAS.

In May 2021, the ERDC of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament established an inquiry into the disposal of PFAS-contaminated waste in South Australia. The committee I now chair has continued and finalised that work. I would like to start by thanking the members of that former committee, in particular its Presiding Member, the member for MacKillop, Nick McBride.

What was apparent upon my arrival as Presiding Member was that the situation had progressed quite considerably in the interim between elections and between re-establishment of the committees. The member for Mawson ably and emphatically raised the issue of inappropriate siting of PFAS waste disposal facilities in sensitive areas such as our winegrowing regions, and that triggered the initial inquiry. I thank the member for his work in raising this important issue and for so successfully campaigning for change.

I am pleased to report that the impetus for initially establishing the inquiry, with the arrival of this Labor government, has now resolved, with much work done to establish stringent guidelines and identify more appropriate locations for this waste—which, of course, needs to be disposed of safely and responsibly. To that end, I thank the Minister for Environment, Susan Close, and her agency, the EPA, for the work they have undertaken and whose work forms the core of this updated report to the parliament.

The acronym PFAS refers to a group of over 4,000 synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1950s. PFAS have been used in a wide range of applications, from non-stick cookware to cosmetics, stain protection on carpets and firefighting foam. They are often called forever chemicals, due to their high thermal, chemical and biological stability; that is, they do not break down. They are also highly mobile and capable of travelling vast distances in soil or water, making them a threat to our natural environment.

Because of their widespread use and mobility, PFAS contamination is extensive. However, areas like defence bases and airports, where firefighting drills using foams containing PFAS were carried out, tend to have the most concentrated contamination. It is understood that PFAS are present in the bodies of most humans and animals, but research into its effect on our health is ongoing and so far inconclusive.

Since the early 2000s, Australian governments have employed a precautionary approach in managing existing PFAS contamination and working to reduce or completely prevent environmental and human PFAS exposure where possible. Proudly, South Australia was the first state to implement an outright ban on fluorinated firefighting foam and foam products, back in 2018, and our agencies continue to lead the way.

There is considerable and understandable public concern about the presence, spread and possible health effects of PFAS in communities across our state, nationally and, indeed, across the world. Their prevalence in everyday products and well-frequented sites, as well as the minimal amount known about them, fuel community fears. This was evident in 2020, when landfill operators Southern Waste ResourceCo lodged an application with the EPA to begin accepting PFAS waste at their landfill on Tatachilla Road.

The McLaren Vale community expressed great concern regarding this application and, as I mentioned, found their champion in the member for Mawson. The proposed site sat only a short distance from vineyards and wineries that characterise this unique part of South Australia. The community and the council opposed the application, based on an unacceptable level of risk, and petitioned the state government and the EPA to refuse the application.

After an application process in 2021, the EPA ruled in the petitioners' favour: that the McLaren Vale landfill would not be permitted to accept PFAS-contaminated waste. However, at that stage, there was still nowhere to safely dispose of PFAS waste in South Australia, with most of it either having to be stored in situ temporarily or transported to disposal sites interstate. This was the case when an interim report was tabled by the ERDC on 4 February 2022.

During this time, the EPA was working towards a solution, drafting new siting guidelines for the disposal of PFAS waste in South Australian landfills. So, rather than continue with the inquiry, the new committee chose to be briefed by the EPA. On 29 May this year, the ERDC received a presentation from the EPA providing an update on the management of PFAS in South Australia.

Staff from the EPA talked the committee through the new guidelines, which serve as primary controls to minimise environmental and health risks from hazardous waste disposal and determine a site's suitability for permanent waste disposal, both while the facility is in operation and after it has closed.

The guidelines contain colour-coded maps, which can quickly demonstrate the suitability or unsuitability of a site by providing a visual reference for potential applicants looking to license potential PFAS disposal sites. These maps illustrate geological stability; flood risk; risk to people and the environment; and protected areas, such as national parks and wildlife areas, water protection areas, character preservation areas, heritage sites, food production areas—importantly, prescribed wells areas and Indigenous lands. I am pleased to report to the parliament that the new EPA siting guidelines render landfill sites such as McLaren Vale ineligible to accept PFAS waste.

Together with the site suitability guidelines, the EPA have also been working on guidelines for industry and the community on the re-use of waste soils containing very low or so-called trivial levels of PFAS. Both sets of guidelines have been through an exhaustive consultation process and the final versions are expected to be released in coming months for further public consultation before being finalised.

The committee also heard about the licence change at the Cleanaway Inkerman landfill site, allowing it to now accept PFAS waste. This means that PFAS waste can now be disposed of safely in South Australia and will no longer need to be transported interstate for disposal.

Inkerman is situated between Port Wakefield and Dublin, around 85 kilometres north of Adelaide, and the landfill has been in operation for over a decade. EPA staff walked the committee through the licence change process for Inkerman, a process that took several years and required groundwater testing; 12 months of groundwater monitoring; a formal assessment of the potential risk to human health and the environment, including three potential failure scenarios; and extensive community engagement. Inkerman's location is consistent with the new siting guidelines and provides an ample buffer between the disposal site and neighbouring properties and wetlands.

The report also addresses the topics that the previous Environment, Resources and Development Committee recommended be followed up by the new committee, these being:

perceived and actual public health risks of PFAS (a limited understanding of these risks remains, but research into health effects is ongoing);

storage and transportation of PFAS-contaminated waste, including current and future practices; and

economic issues in segregating PFAS in municipal solid, construction and demolition, and commercial waste.

Fascinatingly and encouragingly, the committee also heard about the potential for breaking down PFAS to render it benign in local, cost efficient and environmentally sensitive ways. There is exciting research being conducted into this, including work being done with the University of South Australia, in partnership with the CSIRO and the University of WA, into how constructed floating wetlands can be used to remediate PFAS-contaminated water.

Importantly, the EPA is also planning to do ambient testing of waterways—essentially proactive investigation to identify previously unidentified sources of PFAS contamination. This received some media coverage from The Advertiser.

Until now, the process of identifying PFAS has largely run through the planning processes, where a high-risk location is identified in the course of a development application, flagged with the EPA and then investigated as necessary. This approach will see a more proactive approach undertaken and that can only be good for our community.

In closing, I would like to thank my fellow committee members, as well as its secretary, Mr Patrick Dupont. I would especially like to thank Dr Amy Mead, who is our very talented research officer. I thank her sincerely for the excellent work she has done in putting together this report. The report is very well written, and it provides an excellent resource for anyone investigating the issue of PFAS, the current thinking and developments. I highly recommend to all in this house to read the report. I commend the report to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:12): I rise to make a contribution to the briefing report on the disposal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contaminated waste in South Australia, which I will refer to as PFAS in the future.

On 4 May 2021, the House of Assembly of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament of South Australia passed a motion requiring the Environment Resources and Development Committee (ERDC) to investigate and report on the appropriate and safe disposal of PFAS-contaminated waste in South Australia. At this time, all PFAS-contaminated waste had to be transported interstate, as no South Australian landfill was licensed to accept this waste. Southern Waste ResourceCo, the operators of a McLaren Vale landfill, had applied to the EPA to have their licence changed so they could accept PFAS-contaminated waste.

However, this application was met with opposition by the local community and council based on an unacceptable level of risk and the EPA refused their application. On 17 October 2022, the ERDC of the Fifty-Fifth Parliament voted not to continue with or establish a new PFAS inquiry. The committee also resolved to obtain an update briefing from the EPA on PFAS management in South Australia.

Since that inquiry began in May 2021, the EPA has developed new siting guidelines, setting out where different categories of waste may safely and legally be disposed of. In May 2023, the Cleanaway Inkerman landfill, north of Adelaide, was granted a licence change to accept PFAS-contaminated waste. This is a good thing because it saves the transport of that waste interstate. This briefing report details the briefing given to the ERDC in May 2023 regarding these matters and follows up topics raised in the committee's interim report.

PFAS refers to a group of over 4,000 synthetic chemicals that have been in use since the 1950s, so a long historical use. PFAS are often referred to as forever chemicals due to their inability to degrade due to their high thermal, chemical or biological stability. These substances have been used in a wide range of applications, from personal uses, such as in cosmetics and sunscreens, domestic uses like stain protection for carpets, to industrial uses in the aviation and mining industries.

These chemicals are highly mobile and capable of travelling vast distances in soil or water. Due to their stability and mobility, PFAS contamination is widespread, although more concentrated in areas such as defence bases or airports. PFAS are also present in the bodies of most humans and animals. At this stage, the effect of PFAS exposure and contamination on human and animal health has not been fully determined, but research is ongoing.

Since 2002, Australian governments have employed the precautionary principle in managing existing PFAS contamination, working to prevent or reduce environmental and human PFAS exposure wherever possible. The precautionary principle dictates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment and an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of the various options.

In Australia, significant examples of PFAS contamination of soil and water have resulted from the historical use of PFAS contained in firefighting foams, particularly at firefighting training grounds. These foams were used in training drills and emergency response by the public and private sectors in Australia and overseas for more than three decades. Use of these firefighting foams has been significantly reduced and discontinued in most cases, akin to the use of PFAS in most industries where it has been gradually phased out since the early 2000s due to concerns regarding the effects of PFAS on humans, animals and the environment.

South Australia was the first state to implement an outright ban on fluorinated firefighting foam and foam products, which came into effect on 30 January 2018, with a two-year grace period for industry to phase out their use. Additionally, as referenced by the EPA in their submission to the inquiry, Australia is party to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. This convention entered into force on 17 May 2004 and is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife and have harmful impacts on human health or in the environment.

As we have been told in the house today, on 23 May 2023, the ERDC were briefed by representatives of the EPA and there was discussion around the disposal site suitability guidelines. The staff advised the committee that over recent years the authority has been drafting revised site suitability guidelines for the disposal of PFAS waste in South Australian landfills. While yet to be finalised, the guidelines drafted govern both process changes to existing landfill licenses as well as site determinations for new landfills. However, the EPA does have directive powers for referred waste disposal facilities with development applications—in short, the power to recommend refusal.

It was also explained to the committee that existing landfills that wish to dispose of PFAS waste, as in the case of the Cleanaway Inkerman site, need to apply for a process change to their licence through the EPA. These applications require a detailed human health and ecological risk assessment to be submitted to the EPA. These revised guidelines serve as primary controls to minimise environmental and health risks from hazardous waste disposal and determine a site's suitability for permanent waste disposal both while the facility is in operation and after it is closed.

It is significant that action is taken on PFAS, noting that it has been used, obviously, for firefighting operations and defence-based sites—for training and operations there. It is right that we need to get things in place to make sure that the waste is managed. It is good to see that the waste can be held at Inkerman in this state, and I look forward to hearing what other work is done into the future and whether other sites will open up in terms of the safe management of PFAS with the learning that has happened over many decades now over the use of this product.

I note that at times it has seen groundwater not being able to be used in various parts of the city and surrounds, especially where they have targeted hotspots. I hope that into the future we have better management protocols in place for PFAS.

Ms THOMPSON (Davenport) (11:21): I, too, rise today to speak on the Environment Resources and Development Committee's inquiry into polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS. As a member of the ERD Committee and also as the former Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga, I am very aware of the difficulties surrounding the safe disposal of PFAS and the devastating effect it can have on communities when mishandled.

Not only in South Australia but worldwide, there have been many examples of PFAS causing serious illness in people and animals, including cancer and developmental issues. South Australia banned the man-made chemical commonly found in firefighting foam and industrial waste back in 2018, but there was still a lot more work that needed to be done. It is so toxic and so difficult to break down that an investigation into safe disposal, landfill operators' licensing and transportation of PFAS was desperately needed.

For a bit of background, in 2020, as Mayor of the City of Onkaparinga, I worked with the member for Mawson and many other representatives of the McLaren Vale community to stop an application for PFAS to be dumped near homes, near schools and on top of a watertable that feeds a stunning food and wine region. The community feared the real risk of PFAS leaching into the groundwater and making its way to the Maslin Beach area, the Aldinga Scrub and the surrounding residential areas.

The mostly organic food and wine industry feared the region being identified as a PFAS landfill site, which could have had catastrophic impacts on McLaren Vale tourism and export. As well as council and environmental groups, hundreds of local residents, business owners and tourism operators petitioned the Marshall Liberal government to stop the application to dump the waste due to unacceptable levels of risk. There was public testimony from experts who stated the cells designed to capture the waste were just not fit for purpose.

Unfortunately, this fell on the deaf ears of the then Minister for Environment, the member for Black, now Leader of the Opposition, who showed no concern and chose not to intervene. In fact, he chose not to reply at all to the pleas from the community. He took no action at all. It was only after the community took to social media—to the former Premier's Facebook page—to beg and plead with the government to stop the dumping of PFAS toxic waste in a food bowl that, finally, common sense prevailed and the application was denied. It is pleasing to hear that there are speakers on the other side today acknowledging the real threat of PFAS, because it certainly was not acknowledged by the government of the day at the time.

In an effort for this kind of threat to never happen again, the ERD Committee established an inquiry, a vital investigation to identify better guidelines around the management of PFAS in South Australia, including suitable locations for disposal. I thank the EPA for their work on this inquiry. Their extensive investigations, specifically into licensing to receive PFAS-contaminated waste and the suitability guidelines for landfill sites, have provided revised guidelines for primary controls to minimise environmental and health risks.

The Cleanaway Inkerman landfill site is located between Port Wakefield and Dublin, 85 kilometres north of Adelaide. In 2020, they advised the EPA of their intention to apply for the addition of PFAS waste to their licence. The EPA's Dr Shaun Thomas, Principal Adviser, Compliance and Regulation, advised the ERD Committee that a rigorous assessment process was undertaken which included three potential failure scenarios, including catastrophic events. In the event of this scenario, any leachate would take 236 years to reach the nearest site boundary but, due to other environmental factors, it is likely to take nearly 1,200 years. The significant buffer around this site provides ample opportunities for authorities to intervene.

As well as the rigorous assessment process, groundwater monitoring and community engagement was also undertaken. In May 2023, the Inkerman landfill site was approved to dispose of PFAS-contaminated waste in compliance with those guidelines. In a briefing to the ERD Committee from the EPA's Ms Kathryn Bellette, Director Policy, Assessment and Finance, she stressed the importance of the Inkerman licence change to the committee, stating:

…it now means that South Australia has a disposal pathway for PFAS-contaminated soil for the first time ever. All of the other states have that pathway and we haven't, so this is a really significant step forward because now it can be disposed of safely and in a way that is economically viable because it doesn't have to be trucked interstate.

I again thank the EPA for their efforts in this inquiry, as well as my colleagues on the ERD Committee. PFAS is a problematic environmental issue, and this report will aid in the future protection of our land, communities, tourism, exports and health. I commend this report to the house.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:27): In speaking to this report, it does give me reason to raise concerns that have been raised by residents predominantly of Kingswood about artificial turf replacing grass at Unley High School. One of the selling points of those offering artificial turf was that the product itself would be made from recycled tyres. I have done some work on finding out just what goes into making tyres, and tyres actually contain PFAS. I think with any plastics, one of the things that this particular report—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley has the call.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: If I can have some protection, Mr Speaker.

The SPEAKER: I think you are fairly robust generally, member for Unley, but I have called the chamber to order.

Mr Pederick: He needs support.

The SPEAKER: Member for Hammond!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: We do not know what we do not know. People were spraying this stuff around, when fighting fires, for 50 years before we realised the damage it was doing to the environment. We know how difficult tyres are to manage when they are not being used anymore. Yes, more and more things are being recycled, and we all support the circular economy and we believe that is a good way of reducing waste and landfill, but we need to be very aware of what is in those products that are being recycled.

That is a major concern for people living adjacent to Unley High School—because, do not forget, that is right in the middle of a catchment for many of the streams and creeks that run through the Mitcham council, the Unley council, the seat of Unley, the seat of Badcoe, the seat of Elder and the seat of Adelaide. These streams are fed by the water that lies to their east.

We have seen damage to seagrass from the water that has gone through our metropolitan system here over decades, almost centuries, in South Australia. We are seeing that that is causing sand drift. Again, we did not know what we did not know. We are obviously a lot more aware of the impacts that the man-made world has on the environment. This report is timely because it tells us just how dangerous PFAS is.

We do know—it is a fact—that the artificial turf that is being used for the Forestville Hockey Club on the Unley school grounds is made from recycled tyres. It is a fact that tyres use PFAS. This is an opportunity for the member for Badcoe to use parliament—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Badcoe! The member for Florey!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —to actually reassure, make it absolutely clear and guarantee that there is no PFAS in the artificial turf that is going to be used for the Forestville Hockey Club surface—not any added PFAS, no PFAS at all in that particular product.

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Member for Badcoe!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: She can make that guarantee right here. She can be held accountable under the parliamentary system. She can make that claim right here. If she does not make that claim right here, then we have a lot to be worried about.

Ms Stinson interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Badcoe knows the rules.

Mr McBRIDE (MacKillop) (11:31): It absolutely gives me great pleasure as an ERDC member probably since I first came to politics to contribute to this motion. I have really enjoyed this committee. With the cases and the inquiries that we do, this is no different from any others, and I think it is very important. I thank all those who have spoken regarding this report and inquiry into finding solutions to an issue that was perhaps inhibiting developments and raising concerns for our community in South Australia as a whole but, most importantly, in the Southern Vales and southern areas of Adelaide, where it was proposed that PFAS was going to be stored, causing an immense amount of angst and concern for residents, including the local member, councils and the like.

I was the Chair of the committee at the time, or part of it anyway, and it has now been taken on by the member for Badcoe, who is doing a terrific job. We now have a report that gives some sort of guidance around the storage and safe handling of this product and allows Adelaide to develop further forward when these contaminated areas are discovered. I thought it would be pertinent if I just touch base with some of the issues that have arisen in South Australia around PFAS and the way it has reared its ugly head, which is a nice way to describe it, when these contamination areas are found.

I will not mention where in Adelaide because I do not want to set alarm bells ringing, but in Adelaide there was a hole dug in a backyard for a pool. Somehow this soil was tested—it was coming from an area that maybe had some concerns about it—and, sure enough, PFAS was found in that soil when a family pool was being put in the backyard of a house. What do you do with that spoil? What happens to that soil? How is it used? All of a sudden, the pool becomes a massive issue for that landowner, without any sort of understanding that they were going to meet such issues as the safe disposal of that soil. As has been described by those who have spoken, it had to go interstate.

Another interesting matter—and we can talk about our fellow jurisdictions alongside—is the Victorian road infrastructure projects. The tunnels have encompassed PFAS. It is noted here that when they came across PFAS in the tunnel soil it apparently cost an extra $3.3 billion worth of delays just because they came across PFAS-contaminated soil. With this type of infrastructure, there is a huge cost that no doubt Victorian taxpayers have already outlaid for their tunnel projects and this adds to the burden and complexity of such developments. We are talking about digging tunnels in Adelaide and, God forbid, if we were to come across contaminated soil during that process, what would then happen and what extra costs might be brought to bear? That may not have even been given any consideration thus far.

Another issue I have to touch base on is the Southern Waste ResourceCo McLaren Vale landfill site, where this came to a head and where the EPA and others suggested that this landfill could take place. In the end, because of community concern and the storage of that contamination in what is considered to be a food bowl, a residential area and a watertable area, it did not fit such a site. It gives me great pleasure and also a sense of belonging to this committee in the way that it functions in a bipartisan way across both the Labor government today and the former Liberal government of yesterday to find answers that the South Australian public are looking for.

I believe that the site that has been proposed, the Inkerman site north of Adelaide, 85 kilometres towards Port Wakefield and Dublin, has been decided as the best place for this type of storage. Hopefully, one day it does not come back to rear its ugly head and interact with Adelaide's future growth so closely that it causes issues. Hopefully, we will know a lot more about PFAS in the years to come, and perhaps solutions will be found to remove toxicity from the chemical so that, when we do have a greater understanding, these landfill sites can be neutralised for future developments.

That in itself is quite interesting because I was told during this inquiry that very minute portions of PFAS are not a problem to humans, society and the environment. It was reported that certain elements of PFAS are found even in saucepans with non-stick surfaces, for example. I do not suggest that we are eating the frying pan or the pot we are cooking in, but these surfaces deteriorate, and eventually we throw them out because that non-stick surface disappears. That is one area I heard where PFAS and those sorts of chemicals can be found in day-to-day life, but obviously in minute quantities.

That is probably all I need to say, except that I am very pleased with the Environment, Resources and Development Committee and the staff and members involved over two governments. I am very privileged to still find myself on this committee with its investigations, and that we have bipartisan support and a good outcome for development and the progress of Adelaide. We now have no need to take this sort of contaminated soil interstate, with the cost associated with that, and we are finding answers that everyone can work with that make Adelaide more in control of the issues that may be out there and that we actually understand the issues, their complexity, and find answers.

Mr BROWN (Florey) (11:38): I want to briefly make a contribution on the discussion of this particular report as someone who represents an area that contains PFAS contamination; it is a well-established fact. Parafield is Adelaide's oldest airport, and it is well known that firefighting foam that contained PFAS was used there for a number of years before the ban was put into effect, so the residents of Mawson Lakes and also Parafield Gardens I used to represent have long had to deal with issues of PFAS contamination, particularly in groundwater.

I will say one thing, though: my dealings with Adelaide Airport Limited and also the EPA, particularly in the last term of the parliament, have been nothing but professional. I have actually appreciated the way that Adelaide Airport Limited in particular, but also the EPA, have dealt with groundwater PFAS contamination issues around the Parafield Airport. However, we can always do things better.

I think the work that the ERD Committee has done has been very, very welcome. On behalf of the people of the local community, I would like to thank not only the committee but also the previous Presiding Member of the committee, the member for MacKillop, and also the current Presiding Member, the member for Badcoe, for their diligent work. I commend the report to the house.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (11:40): I would like to thank members for their contributions this morning in relation to this report. The member for Hammond made the point about continuing to work and make sure that we get better practices when it comes to PFAS, and I could not agree more. The member for Davenport, herself a former mayor: I would like to take the opportunity to thank her for her work on behalf of her community over many years, and of course that continues now.

I would also like to thank the member for MacKillop for his work. He did the bulk of the work before I came along as Presiding Member. I would like to thank him for his leadership and also for his wise counsel. I am very lucky that he is still a member of the committee and can assist me in my role.

However, I would not like to thank the member for Unley, who unfortunately just contributed a whole heap of nonsense and drivel that only serves to scaremonger in our local community and also, of course, trivialises the very serious issue of PFAS. This report is one that sets the record straight about PFAS. It provides some very useful fact-based information. I would urge people to read that and then reflect on some of the complete nonsense that has been put forward by the member for Unley.

The member for Unley says that this is some sort of hazard to his community. Well, I would contend to those in this place that the only hazard to the people of Unley is the member for Unley. He is the hazard that is presented to the people, particularly of Kingswood. He is the one who is spreading complete and utter garbage—

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Badcoe, personal reflections of the type which you are now engaged in are contrary to the standing orders. There will be an alternative way to express the same subject matter.

Ms STINSON: Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Unfortunately, we now have information being put through those communities that is not based in fact whatsoever and is, in fact, completely contrary to the information that is publicly available about the project at the Unley High School site.

The proponents involved in it have gone to some effort to put together a website and have published all the reports—including traffic and also environmental reports, water, air quality—and also have a statement there from Polytan, the manufacturer of the surface, who certainly attests to the fact that it is a safe product and does not contain PFAS. So, while the member might challenge me to make such statements in this place, he might like to refer to the people who actually make the product, who have made clear statements to try to counteract the complete drivel that has been put out by the member opposite.

I must say, not all members opposite, because this project had the support of those opposite previously. There is certainly much correspondence, which the member for Unley would be aware of. The former Minister for Education in fact penned a letter supporting that project prior to the last election, even to the point of licensing on the site, yet that seems to have escaped the member for Unley, who is out on his own fanciful journey there.

We know he has his own internal challenges going on in Unley, but that should not be a reason to scaremonger and to frighten people when there is nothing to be scared of from a sporting project that assists young people in his community. It is quite remarkable that a member of parliament would advocate against children at his own school—against a $4 million investment from state, federal and local government as well as the club itself, and advocate against sport in his own community.

He is advocating against his own local hockey club. The Forestville Hockey Club is the local hockey club for the inner south area. In fact, the Kingswood Hockey Club folded into the Forestville Hockey Club not too long ago. It is absolutely preposterous that not only would the member advocate against his local sporting, youth, school and community groups, but that he would purposely and intentionally mislead people in the community when the facts are available for him to look at.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Badcoe—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Unley is present in the chamber but has not raised a point of order. Nevertheless, I have closely in mind standing order 127 which concerns personal reflections on members and in part provides:

A Member may not

1. digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion,

2. or impute improper motives to any other Member,

3. or make personal reflections on any other Member.

It is possible to engage in a discussion about this matter and also to reflect on the public business that the member for Unley has reflected on without imputing an improper motive to the member for Unley.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: An excellent ruling, sir, but if a member is going to accuse another member of effectively misleading the house that should be done by a substantial motion.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! This is not a matter as well that ought be resolved by proxies. The member for Unley is present and can raise a point of order and has not.

Ms STINSON: Indeed, sir, he does not make a point when I get up and make these remarks because he knows that the information that I am putting forward to the community is based in fact.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Badcoe, order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: Point of order, sir.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: I have been refraining from making points of order because I was very keen to hear what the member for Badcoe had to say. She is not speaking for me, so for her to claim that I have particular motives—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —or alternatively if I have—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. D.G. PISONI: —particular meanings, she is not qualified to do that and so I object to her attempting to speak on my behalf.

The SPEAKER: That may be. I am not sure that necessarily sounds immediately in the standing orders. However, I have in mind standing order—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I have in mind the standing order that I immediately previously referred to, as well of course that a member can take offence. It may be that the member for Unley is guiding me towards that point, but it has not been made concretely. In any event, the member for Badcoe may be closing her remarks. There are 30 seconds remaining and we can dispose of the matter in a practical way.

Ms STINSON: The member opposite advocates a sentiment of, 'If you don't know, just say no.' Well, I would say to the community, 'If you don't know, find out.' The information is available about this project; plenty of facts and information are available publicly to our community. I would urge our community to ignore what the member for Unley is putting out and to get the facts themselves, which are readily available. I commend this report to the house, but I condemn the remarks of the member for Unley.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! We got there.

Motion carried.