House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Algal Bloom Algal Bloom Mr ELLIS House of Assembly Narungga Algal Bloom Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (14:20): My question is to the Minister for Environment. Will the government use Hydro2050's nanobubble technology to treat the harmful algal bloom in the Gulf St Vincent? The Hon. S.E. CLOSE House of Assembly Port Adelaide Deputy Premier Minister for Climate, Environment and Water Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy Algal Bloom The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (14:20): Yes, it is a thoughtful question about one of the technologies that has been proposed in recent times that might be able to help address the algal bloom. Of course, the one that we are particularly interested in is the modified clay that we have discussed in this chamber, as well as elsewhere, but there has been a suggestion from, I think, three companies, including the company mentioned by the member, for the use of nanobubbles, which involves, essentially, putting ozone into the water to address harmful blooms of various sorts. I am speaking a little bit elliptically like that because it has not been used in a marine environment as far as we know and there's certainly no published research to say what its effect in the marine environment is. It has been used in freshwater systems in enclosed areas where there has been such a cyanobacteria, which is known as blue-green algae but which is actually a bacterium, not an algae. It has been proposed to be looked at for application here, whether in the maritime environment or somewhere like West Lakes. There needs to be approval. Because ozone is something that can be destructive in the environment, PIRSA has sought an application to have authorisation from the APVMA—which is the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—for it to be used in order to consider whether it might be appropriate. The APVMA has asked some further questions, as I understand it. That has gone through to the company. The company may have already provided the information to the AVPMA, but we are not aware of whether that has occurred or not as yet, although we are paying attention and following up to see whether that has occurred. It may be that that authorisation is given, it may be that it isn't, so we will wait and see on that. There then will be the question of whether its applicability, in any one of the three companies that are proposing it, but particularly obviously the one that the member has referred to, is seen to be acceptable, and will require, obviously, EPA authorisation as well. All of that is a long way round to say that we are well aware of the technology. It was first presented to me in the context of potential use with the Torrens and now it is a question of whether it might be applicable in any of the circumstances. I am not certain, when we talk about the open marine environment, of the extent to which something that is used in reasonably small scale would in any way be able to do anything, still less what impact it might have on the marine environment. But we are paying close attention, including seeking necessary authorisation in order to not preclude its further consideration by the state or agencies that are involved.