PENOLA PULP MILL AUTHORISATION BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 27 September 2007. Page 843.)

Schedule 1.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Before the committee considers the schedule of the bill, I would like to provide some answers to the questions raised by members the last time we considered this measure. I would also like to provide some clarification regarding the proposed power use of the mill relative to domestic and household electricity consumption in metropolitan Adelaide. The Hon. Mr Parnell asked about further testing with regard to draw-down from a test bore at Kalangadoo. I understand that the Hon. Mr Parnell refers to the testing of a confined aquifer well at Kalangadoo which was established during 2006. This was a short-term test on a new well that had been established in the area. With any pumping from a well there is a draw-down in the aquifer as water is removed from the system, particularly in the immediate area of the well. The test conducted resulted in localised draw-down, which is normal for extraction responses in this aquifer. Further testing of the confined aquifer in the area of the production wells will need to be undertaken by the developer as part of the ongoing monitoring requirements under their licence conditions.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck asked when the further research being undertaken on the aquifers in the South-East will be completed and available to the public. I am advised that a project is currently being conducted in the South-East region jointly funded by the National Water Commission, Water Smart Australia and the state government. Part of this project to which I think the Hon. Sandra Kanck refers is the resource sustainability component. This project aims to improve our knowledge of groundwater in the South-East unconfined aquifer. There are three principal objectives: improving our ability to estimate the replenishment of aquifers in the region by rainfall; improving our knowledge of how the geology of the region impacts on groundwater flow and salinity, including developing a better understanding of the interaction of groundwater with different geological units; and structural features such as faults, as well as developing a better understanding of groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the region, including wetlands, coastal ponds and sink holes. This is a three-year program due for completion during 2010.

As to the Hon. Mark Parnell's question as to whether we are aware of the content of the draft water allocation plan, and whether it includes an across-the-board cut of 30 per cent for water users, I provide the following response. The Natural Resources Management Board for the South-East region is currently reviewing the water allocation plans for the area. The review documentation is not yet in a final draft format. It is not possible to pre-empt what the outcome of the plan review will be. However, it is possible that reductions to water allocations will need to occur in some management areas to bring them back to more sustainable levels of allocation. At this stage there are no plans to review allocations for the combined aquifer management areas from which the pulp mill will take water.

In response to the Hon. Sandra Kanck's statement as to the interest expressed in the previous tender process for opening the South-East railway, I provide the following clarification. In the 2001 tender process there were three expressions of interest from:

Australian Southern Railway (later to become Genesee & Wyoming);

Freight Australia (later bought out by Pacific National); and

Gateway Rail.

Australian Southern Railway (ASR) was selected as the preferred tenderer by government. However, ASR decided not to proceed with its proposal for commercial reasons. The government then went back to Freight Australia and Gateway Rail seeking further proposals. Gateway Rail submitted a further proposal, which the government assessed, but the parties could not reach agreement for a number of reasons. Of course, what has changed significantly with this proposal to open the railway is that there is now the potential to have a minimum 750,000 tonnes of freight underpinning the financial viability of this optimal freight solution.

In response to the Hon. Michelle Lensink's request for further detail on certain flora and fauna species, I provide the following information. With respect to the species mentioned I make the following points: significant recent regional survey work has been undertaken on the species of interest to the honourable member. The eastern pygmy possum is not a nationally threatened species and the likely impact of the proposed mill on eastern pygmy possums is likely to be minimal. The southern bell frog has been surveyed recently in the South-East and is not limited to the South-East. Populations in the South-East continue to exist in reasonable numbers, although the drought has impacted on the population. The smooth frog is not considered to be nationally threatened and is at the western limit of its range in the Lower South-East. According to the recent census of South Australian plants, plains joy weed is not considered to be a distinct taxonomic entity in South Australia, as it is taxonomically classed here. It is considered to be at a secure level nationally and, as such, it is neither under threat nor deemed necessary for inclusion in a species recovery program.

The committee should note that the proposed pulp mill site is a pastured paddock and the Department for Environment and Heritage has advised that the habitat of the pulp mill site is already 'highly degraded, as are the pastoral lands adjacent'. I further remind members of the requirements for the pulp mill proponents to rehabilitate and set aside an area of more than 200 hectares as a conservation reserve in perpetuity and that this area provide a significant habitat for all native species in the vicinity of the mill. If the honourable member wishes I can provide a copy of the advice I have received.

In response to the Hon. Mark Parnell's question as to the national standards or regulatory regime for the manufacture of hydrogen peroxide, I inform the council that the requirement for running any plant in connection with any dangerous good, such as hydrogen peroxide, is described in section 12 of the current South Australian Dangerous Substances Act 1979. Under the current conditions it would be expected that persons responsible for the plant would apply world's best practice in reducing possible risks by using information such as that published on 29 April 2004 and 7 June 2004 in the Official Journal of the European Union

With respect to the Hon. Mark Parnell's request for confirmation of the measurements of the proposed hydrogen peroxide plant, I am advised that the size of the hydrogen peroxide plant, as set out on page 32 of the report detailing the Penola pulp mill, provides for the reservation of an area of land for the peroxide plant to be built. It is envisaged that the peroxide plant itself will be smaller than the total area reserved for construction of the peroxide plant. Reservation of the larger area will ensure that all statutory requirements with respect to buffers, setbacks and site containment can be achieved.

I would like to move to the issue raised by the Hon. Mark Parnell in the media and in this place regarding proposed power use by the mill relative to domestic and household electricity consumption in metropolitan Adelaide. The last time this issue was discussed here, the Hon. Mark Parnell provided figures to support his claim that power use by the proposed mill was about 70 per cent of the residential power use in Adelaide. Firstly, I would like to clarify that the figures I quoted, as provided by the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council, were for domestic consumption of power in metropolitan Adelaide and that these figures are correct; that is, the proposed power use of the mill would be about 22 per cent of the domestic, as opposed to business, customer energy requirements for metropolitan Adelaide.

However, the Hon. Mark Parnell has wanted this figure to be as large as possible and, as such, has gone to the residential power use in metropolitan Adelaide. Accordingly, I have gone back to the Electricity Supply Industry Planning Council and asked for its estimate of the mill relative to this category of power use. On the basis of the data available for the 2006-07 financial year, the planning council has provided me with calculations and a final figure of about 52 per cent—a far cry from the 68 per cent proposed by the Hon. Mark Parnell. This figure would reduce to about 46 per cent if we used the estimate of residential power use for 2009-10, which is the year that the mill is likely to become operational. Having said all that, a more sensible approach would be to look at the potential power use of this mill in relation to the total power use in the state. If we do this, the proportion it represents reduces to about 13 per cent for 2006-07 and 12 per cent for 2009-10. This is without factoring in the increased demand associated with the anticipated full expansion of Olympic Dam.

With regard to the job ahead of the committee this evening, which is to consider the schedule of the bill, I would like to make the following brief comment which, hopefully, will help to frame our discussions. The relevant state technical experts have put the content of the schedule together over a period of time, which has allowed each of them to feel comfortable with its content and the approach they have prescribed. Furthermore, each of those experts has had the opportunity to modify the content and the approach taken through the rigorous consultative process of the parliamentary select committee with respect to this bill. As a result, what we have before us today is process and content that has already been the subject of significant scrutiny, and we believe that it should not be unreasonably delayed, given that the 13 main clauses of this bill have already been adopted by both houses of parliament.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Sir, before I move my amendment, can I seek your guidance on how we will deal with the schedule, because I understand that we do not go through it in its component clauses one by one?

The CHAIRMAN: No.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: So, we can just range all over the whole schedule in questioning?

The CHAIRMAN: No. It is up to you to move your amendment, and that will be debated and voted upon. So, we will do that first.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: And then we can question the rest of the schedule?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, you can ask questions on the rest of the schedule.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I move:

Page 11, after line 25—Insert:

(3) The minister must ensure that copies of a report provided to the minister in accordance with subclause (2) are tabled in both houses of parliament within six sitting days after the receipt of the report by the minister.

It is, I suppose, a simple accountability process, because dioxins are one of the things that are produced in pulp mills as a matter of course. I think most people know about the state of Lake Bonney in the South-East as a consequence of its being used as a dumping ground for pulp mill waste from the mid-1950s. I understand that it is in a slightly better state than it was some years ago, but it still has a long way to go. This amendment requires the reports that are provided to the minister about dioxin emissions to be tabled in the house. I included this amendment because I know that, in the past, groups associated with assorted projects that had been trying to get information about dioxins have found it very difficult. Really, when you are thinking about something of this nature, it should be very accessible. When I am talking about the problems that dioxins cause, I refer to a note from Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith of the National Toxics Network. She refers to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2001. That convention obliges countries to:

...reduce the total releases of the byproducts dioxin and furans from man made sources with the goal of continuing minimisation and, where feasible, their ultimate elimination.

There is good reason for that because, when one checks to find out what dioxins do, there is a list of what I suppose you could call some of the major side-effects. These include immune system toxicity, central nervous system toxicity, hormonal disruptions, impact on kidneys and liver, learning delays in children, breast cancers, birth defects, endometriosis and diabetes. It is a fat-soluble product which means that it bio-accumulates in humans and it is transferred through the placenta from mother to baby. In the environment movement dioxins are known and described as 'poisons without passports' because of the way in which they are able to move from one species to another and from mother to baby. Because of the danger of dioxins, I think this information does need to be publicly available.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a number of matters that relate to the schedule but, first, I would like to thank the minister for her response—

The CHAIRMAN: We are actually dealing with the Hon. Ms Kanck's amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will support the amendments but I will not speak to it. I will speak to the schedule once we have dealt with the amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The Liberal party supports this amendment. I cannot see any reason why, if there is a report produced for the minister, it should not be provided to the parliament in the interests of accountability.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: I also rise to support the amendment and to indicate that I fully concur with what the Hon. Sandra Kanck said about these dioxins. I also add that it was only two days ago that there was a discussion about the longevity of dioxins and their carcinogenic effect and that generational carcinogenic effects have not even begun to be understood as yet. I believe that makes the need for this amendment and this report to be adopted by parliament as a safeguard and as a public health measure as well.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I indicate that we will not be supporting the amendment. The EPA has categorically stated that, with this type of pulp mill, dioxins will not be produced at all. There is no way that dioxins can be produced with this type of mill. It is regrettable that the honourable member has gone down this path.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I reject that, in fact. The process of burning lignin, which will occur in this pulp mill, produces dioxins.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: For the clarification of the committee, I will read out the submission (No. 103) to the select committee from the Chief Executive of the EPA in relation to dioxins as follows:

Dioxins are formed through incomplete combustion in the temperature range 300 to 400 degrees centigrade. The formation of dioxins has been extensively studied but the reactions which lead to their formation is not fully understood. What is known is that if the combustion gases contain both carbon and chlorine in the desired proportions in this temperature range then dioxin-like chemicals will occur.

When the EPA was initially informed of the construction of the pulp mill very little information was supplied outlining pulp production processes. Anecdotal evidence on the operation of pulp mills led the EPA to believe that dioxin-like chemicals could form and to ask whether they would form by 'de novo synthesis' in the boiler off gas.

The EPA has held numerous meetings with the proponents of the pulp mill since and has concluded that the mill will be built to a satisfactory standard. The process with the highest potential for dioxin formation is during the combustion of wood fibre waste in the boiler. The EPA is of the opinion that a purpose built boiler for the combustion of this waste would avoid 'de novo synthesis' by rapidly cooling the exhaust gas through the critical temperature range. Rapid cooling ensures that the chemical reactions which lead to the formation of dioxin-like chemicals will not occur. Thus dioxin-like chemicals will not be emitted into the atmosphere at a level which exceeds the international standard of 0.1 nanograms per cubic metre.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It is interesting to hear the minister make these statements when clause 7 of the schedule is specifically related to dioxin testing. I find it most peculiar. If the government is saying that dioxins are not going to be produced but it has included a clause in its own bill that relates to dioxin testing, I want to know why clause 7 of the schedule is there.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Very simply, the select committee recommended it as a precautionary approach.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Then I commend the select committee. It is probably the only decent thing it did, and we should continue that precautionary approach. Why would the government not agree to have the findings of the testing that are referred to in this clause to be made publicly available?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Mr Chairman, I think I have made my comments.

Amendment carried.

An honourable member interjecting:

The CHAIRMAN: Questions can be asked from that point in the schedule.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You did not say before that we couldn't ask—

The CHAIRMAN: Four amendments have been move to the schedule. The questions asked now will be after those amendments.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her response to the questions that were put on notice and I express some concern if, having been prevented from immediately responding to the minister's answer to the questions, we are somehow now bound not to discuss anything in this schedule prior to what must be about the second or third to last clause. I do not think that is the best way—

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable member might go back through Hansard and see the normal way that the council operates through the bills. Questions can be asked on any parts of the schedule that are after the Hon. Ms Kanck's amendment. I am not going to allow speeches: I am going to allow questions on the remainder of the schedule.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: With respect, Mr Chairman, at the end of Hansard when we concluded, we had passed the government's amendments to clause 1, part 1 of schedule 1 which related to some minor numbering changes. You then allowed the minister, I think quite properly, to respond to the questions which, at our last committee meeting, she said she would take away and answer. You then insisted, sir, on Sandra Kanck moving her amendment, relating to the parts of the schedule that refer to specified conditions, reservations and requirements; general conditions, reservations and requirements; conditions relating to stormwater and surface water; conditions relating to groundwater; soil testing up to dioxin testing.

If you are saying that we are not allowed to ask questions on any of those topics, I would ask if you could reconsider, sir, as I have a couple of questions on those points. With your indulgence and with the indulgence of the committee, I would like to ask questions on those earlier parts of the schedule. I make the point that the project, the pulp mill, is described in the schedule: the schedule is the project. The questions that relate to the operations of this project are questions that go to the schedule. I do not intend to go backwards and ask questions about clauses of the bill we have already dealt with.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not intend to allow you to do that, either.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Quite properly, Mr Chairman. With your indulgence I would like to address some issues in schedule 1 prior to subclause (7) relating to dioxin testing.

The CHAIRMAN: There have already been three amendments on that section of the schedule and the honourable member had the opportunity to ask questions.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: You said I had to move my amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: The minister moved three amendments to that schedule last time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will not ask questions before those amendments—we have moved on from those.

The CHAIRMAN: I will allow you to ask a couple of questions—not to make statements but to ask the minister questions if you need answers on those matters. Your party will not last for long, I can assure you.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will be as efficient as possible. I wanted to put on record my thanks to the minister for answering the questions as she did. Whilst I may have been expecting a bit much for an apology in relation to the greenhouse and electricity figures, I make the brief observation that, when we recalculated we moved our figure down a bit, having found some more recent figures. We got down to 58 or 59 per cent, so with the government's 52 per cent we are very close together, but the fact is that this is a major greenhouse producer. We asked the minister about the water allocation plan and whether it had the 30 per cent cut to all users, and the reply was that it was a draft and she thought that there was a possible reduction in some management areas but, if I recall the response correctly, it was not likely in the relevant extraction areas for the pulp mill. Is there a level for water to drop to in the groundwater bores that would trigger the minister's intervention to reduce the allocation?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that there is always a trigger when it comes to sustainability of resources. However, the way in which the water has been allocated for use out of this confined aquifer has been extremely precautionary. We do not envisage that there is any real physical risk to the sustainability of this resource.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Can the minister clarify that there is no trigger? You are confident that there will be no problem and therefore you have no trigger for further intervention. In other words, it does not matter how far it might drop, there is no trigger for intervention. Is that what I understood you to say?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: With all due respect, there is always a trigger.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Are you in a position to tell the committee what the trigger is in this case?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I do not have that technical information with me, but we undertake to bring that information back to the honourable member.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Minister, in your response to the question about national standards governing the hydrogen peroxide plant, you referred the committee to section 12 of the South Australian Dangerous Substances Act. Do I take it from your answer that there are no national standards and, if that is the case, is a member of the select committee, Mr Tom Kenyon, wrong when he says there are national standards governing the manufacture and the operation of a hydrogen peroxide plant?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am not certain what Tom Kenyon in the other place has said but, as I said earlier about the national standards or the regulatory regime for the manufacture of hydrogen peroxide, the requirement for running any plant in connection with any dangerous good, such as hydrogen peroxide, is described in section 12 of the current South Australian Dangerous Substances Act 1979.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: What does that then require the pulp mill proponents to do? What sort of conditions apply?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As I said earlier, under the current conditions, it would be expected that persons responsible for the plant would apply world's best practice in reducing possible risks by using information such as that published on 29 April 2004 and 7 June 2004 in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: In schedule 1, paragraph 4, 'Conditions relating to stormwater and surface water', I note the Protavia report listed in clause 1 of part 1 of schedule 1. The report for the Penola Pulp Mill Authorisation Bill by Penola Pulp Pty Ltd dated May 2007 states:

Depending on rainfall patterns each year, it is possible that surface waters in late winter, early spring that differ annually in depth, extent and duration could periodically inundate the site.

My question to the minister is: what precautions will be put in place in relation to this potential for flooding?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: We believe this legislation sets out that requirements do have to be put in place. I am not here to give technical information regarding what exactly will have to be done, but the requirements are clearly stipulated and, of course, the EPA monitors that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I fear the minister's answer to my next question may be the same, because one of the requirements in clause 4 of schedule 1 provides:

The pulp mill must be designed, constructed and operated so as to ensure that at all times..

(c) there is a maximisation of stormwater reuse on the project site.

I would like the minister to tell us what those proposals for water reuse are and, if the minister does not have details, where they might be found.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think the Hon. Mark Parnell made some comment that he feared my response may be similar, and to some extent it is. Clearly, we state here the conditions relating to stormwater and surface water, and this is what this company will have to do. How it actually does it in terms of monitoring will be up to the EPA.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The same clause goes on to say that the mill must be operated such that 'there are no discharges, with the exception of treated stormwater, to surrounding waters'. What treatment are we talking about? What part of the project relates to the treating of stormwater? I do not recall seeing any details in any documentation that explains how that might take place—or, in fact, where that might take place. Can the minister please enlighten us?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Again, I do not think it is up to us in this debate to come up with the technicalities required. From this parliament's point of view (because we are not the technicians) it does not matter to us what techniques are actually used. They have to demonstrate to the EPA that they are treating the water in a way that is acceptable to the EPA.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Can the minister advise the chamber what on-the-ground presence the EPA will have once this project gets under way?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have to say to the honourable member that, like any other project that is licensed by the EPA, the EPA has a regime of monitoring and testing that is appropriate to the risk that it estimates for a particular project, and it will be dealt with by the EPA in its normal way. I place on the record, as I think we have before, that we do have an independent EPA in this state that is quite comfortable with the approach taken in this bill. I am not going to presume upon its expertise, nor do I think that parliament is the place to set the standards of pollution levels, etc.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Yes; leave it to the experts. The minister has not answered the question that I asked, which is about what the on-ground presence of the EPA would be. So, can the minister advise me of whether there is an officer of the EPA stationed at, for instance, Mount Gambier? In addition to that, what sort of monitoring stations will be set up in relation to groundwater and air quality by the EPA in and around the pulp mill?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Despite not wanting to get into the independent EPA autonomy, if you like, I am advised that the EPA will have one person completely dedicated to this project to monitor the mill.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: There was also a second part to my question, which was: will there be any monitoring stations set up in and around the pulp mill, both looking at groundwater and air quality?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Again, not wanting to get into the technical detail; I am advised that the EPA has established regimes depending on the density of the population around the project and the perceived risk around the project. It has a method of monitoring, and that is a technical issue. As I have said before, the EPA is an independent, autonomous body.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I have allowed enough latitude on those questions prior to the Hon. Ms Kanck's amendment. Any further questions should relate to clause 8—Conditions relating to air quality, and the rest of the schedule. Does the Hon. Ms Kanck have a question in relation to that?

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Mr Chair, I do protest. You insisted that I move my amendment; you gave me no choice but to move my amendment. I sought clarification; I asked you, if I moved my amendment, whether I would still be able to move around the rest of the schedule and ask questions, and you indicated that I would be able to.

The CHAIRMAN: I told you that you could move around the rest of the schedule from your amendment.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You did not, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: I thought I made that pretty clear.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: No, you did not; otherwise I would not have moved my amendment at that point.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you misunderstood my directions. I have allowed a number of questions on that, as I told the Hon. Mr Parnell I would, and I think the honourable member has exhausted that. The minister has answered those questions, and she keeps referring you to the EPA.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Mr Chairman, the government has said that this bill is a replacement for an EIS. We have a responsibility to ask some of the questions and put some of the problems, that would have been done if there was an EIS. It is outrageous to prevent questioning on something of this moment.

The CHAIRMAN: You have exhausted questions.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I have not exhausted questions, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: On this section, you have moved amendments and voted for amendments right up to clause 7. As I have said, I have been very tolerant, and I think questions should now be from clause 8 to the rest of the schedule.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: With your indulgence, Mr Chairman, I have one further question that relates to clause 5, and then, personally, I am happy to move on to questions after clause 7, although if the Hon. Sandra Kanck has questions up to that point, I do not want to tread on her turf. However, with your indulgence, Mr Chairman, I do have a question that relates to water. I am asking the question because the biggest single selling point of this project—what sets this project aside from every other pulp mill in the world and what sets it aside from the Tasmanian pulp mill, where we had a demonstration on the steps of Parliament House not long ago—is its interactions with water. So, I would like to ask one further question that relates to its water management, if the minister is happy to answer.

My question relates to the proponent's most important claim that we are going to have zero liquid discharge from this mill. As honourable members would know, most pulp mills are on rivers or they are on the sea, and they discharge to the sea or to the river. We are told that the big selling point for this pulp mill is that there is no discharge to groundwater or to surface water. The proponent has said that it has engaged leading international companies to make sure that this happens. If you go the Protavia website and look at its newsletters Nos 3 and 4, you will find a reference to a company called Veolia Water, as follows:

Veolia Water is the company in charge of designing and constructing the water and waste water treatment plant at the Heywood and the Penola pulp mills.

That is great; this is a leading waste water company. However, those of you who read the interstate press would have noticed perhaps that the Portland Observer of 20 July stated:

A multinational company involved with water effluent treatment services to the pulp and paper industry will seek to have its name removed from the website of pulp mill proponent Protavia.

It goes on to state:

Protavia has listed global company Veolia Water as one of several project partners for both the now scrapped Heywood pulp mill project and the current proposed $1.5 billion Penola pulp mill. However, Veolia Water Solutions and Technology's Marketing Manager, Sophie Nguyen, said in an email earlier this week, 'Veolia Water is not involved with the Heywood and Penola project. We will ask Protavia to remove the mention on their website.'

My question to the minister is: what confidence can we have that this proponent is serious about zero liquid waste discharge, and who is now in charge of ensuring zero liquid waste discharge? I would appreciate it if the minister does not just say, 'Oh, the EPA will make sure that it will happen.' If they have previously claimed that they had this world leading company helping them and this company is disowning Protavia, how can we be assured of zero liquid waste discharge?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is obvious that the report describes the project. This authorisation is about a project which delivers zero liquid discharge. If the project cannot deliver zero liquid discharge—which is one of the fundamental descriptions of the project—the licence is not guaranteed. For the Hon. Mark Parnell's information, there are two other pulp mills which deliver zero liquid discharge.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that that was your last question.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It was my last question prior to the Hon. Sandra Kanck's amendment, which was for clause 7; my next question is on clause 8. Clause 8 deals with conditions relating to air quality. Unless I misheard the minister, the words that I wrote down that she uttered a few minutes ago are: 'Parliament is not the place to set pollution standards', yet we find that those pollution standards are being set by this parliament in this bill. We can see that table 1 is, in fact, pages and pages of pollution standards. There are two things that are certain about pollution standards and tables such as this. The first is that new forms of pollutants are discovered all the time. If you want to compare, for example, the Australian national pollutant inventory with the United States' toxic release inventory, you will find that hundreds more chemicals are recorded in the United States and have limits set for them. We know that the list expands.

The other thing that is certain is that, as medical knowledge increases, exposure levels decrease. In other words, the amount that is safe to be exposed to decreases. We find that all the time in the nuclear industry, but also in other forms of pollution. My question for the minister is: having set these figures in concrete, and having set them in legislation, what assurance can she give us that, every time an EPA standard pollution table such as this has an extra item added to it or an exposure level is changed, those changes will apply to the Penola pulp mill?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that under section 5(1)(b) there is potential for us to do that—to vary or revoke conditions. Can I clarify my earlier comments. What we are doing in parliament is ratifying the standards set by the EPA.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for referring us to section 5, because it seems to refer to applications being lodged with the minister by or on behalf of the person undertaking the project. The person undertaking the project is not going to say voluntarily, 'Please make the pollution standards a little bit tougher. We note that the rest of the community is now to be exposed to a lower standard. Can you please apply that to us?' Perhaps that is not the area, but can the minister explain why the proponent is likely to take that action.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I advise the honourable member that if it is not varied under the section we are mentioning here, it can be picked up under the EPA licence. It can be varied under the EPA licence because the licence allows for variations and conditions as part of that licence.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Am I to take it that, as a matter of law, anything the EPA puts in its licence in the future will prevail over anything in this act? Is that what the minister is saying?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that, as the honourable member is talking about a new pollutant, a change would not be inconsistent with the act.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If we are not talking about a new pollutant but the same pollutant with a different exposure level, does the licence prevail over the legislation? We could get a situation where the rest of society has to comply with a tough standard in relation to a pollutant, but this company, with the benefit of this legislation, will be able to hide behind perhaps some ancient provision in this bill that we are set to pass today.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that, if it was to change the volume or the indicator—the pollutant concentration—that is in the table, then obviously the minister would bring it back to the parliament to amend under recommendation from the EPA.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Clause 8 deals with air quality. As the Hon. Mark Parnell has remarked, there is page upon page of different substances and it requires that any odours emitted from the plant are contained under certain criteria. Why is odour the only thing that matters? I mean, some chemical substances do not have a great deal of odour but can be very damaging, if inhaled. Why has it specifically focused on odour?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I understand that there are two classes: one is toxicity and the other is odour, so it is just not focusing on one.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: You have toxicity and odour. Why is there not, for instance, a table on flammability?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that these are conditions relating to air quality.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: In that case, I come back to hydrogen peroxide. Basically, the minister indicated that, because it is mentioned in some other department—something to do with the EPA or something—

The Hon. M. Parnell: The Dangerous Substances Act.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: — yes, the Dangerous Substances Act— we do not need to have it listed here. Are the substances listed in this schedule also listed in the Dangerous Substances Act, or are they here because they are not in the Dangerous Substances Act?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The table comprises everything the EPA monitors in regard to air quality. Just because we have this comprehensive table before us does not mean they are consumed or produced by this mill.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: If we are going to be talking air quality, I will mention a couple of things to which I referred in my second reading contribution, one of which is anthraquinone. In terms of exposure, and as far as inhalation is concerned, it says that there should be local exhaust or breathing protection, which indicates to me that there might be something there about air quality. With respect to hydrogen peroxide (which is also not listed), this document from Chemwatch states:

Inhalation of vapours or aerosols may cause lung oedema.

There are lots of pages here. That quote appeared on page 2 of 10 pages, and page 9 states:

Asthma-like symptoms may continue for months or even years after exposure to the material ceases.

So, why is it not listed here in the schedule?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that if anthraquinone and hydrogen peroxide are not on the list it is because the EPA does not believe they should be monitored. Every chemical that is on the list is a chemical that the EPA believes worthy to be monitored. Clearly, there are other chemicals, and they draw that information from the material safety data sheets and other sources of independent information. If they are not on the lists provided here it is because the EPA does not believe they are worthy of being monitored.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Will the minister advise whether the hydrogen peroxide plant will be associated with the manufacture of hydrogen on site and, if so, what chemical processes will be involved?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: The answer is no. I point out that the EPA's evidence to the committee is that it is the end impact on the ambient environment about which it is concerned. It does not matter where the impact originates. Whether it is a pulp mill, a refinery or a factory, it is the impact of the emissions (or whatever) on human health or the environment that is of concern.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have a question that relates to solid waste, but I would hate to prevent anyone from asking a question on clause 9 in relation to noise. Members would be aware that the Mount Gambier council has made it clear that it does not want waste from this mill in its landfill. What does the solid waste consist of and where will it go?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that confidential negotiations are underway with councils in the South-East as to the disposal of the waste, and they are progressing well. However, I would like to make the point that quantity and quality is not the issue. The issue is that the disposal of that waste must meet the EPA conditions for its disposal, to be duly licensed by the EPA.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I accept the minister says that confidential negotiations are underway, but I draw the committee's attention to page 91 of the Penola pulp mill report, table 19, 'Local and regional landfills', where it goes through the only three landfills close by. The first one is the Wattle Range Council and, basically, the notation says that it is probably too small and not suitable, and that the council has a preference not to accept this waste. It then goes on to the Naracoorte-Lucindale landfill at Naracoorte, operated by Cleanaway, and the notation here is:

Cleanaway advises it has a preference not to accept large volumes of ash waste, as landfill capacity is at a premium.

Then we get to Mount Gambier (and it is at Caroline), and it states:

The Caroline landfill is the only engineered landfill in south-eastern South Australia and, as such, is the only feasible landfill option should technical specifications of the waste ash not permit disposal as an inert waste.

It continues:

Council has a preference that the pulp mill ash not be disposed of to its landfill in order to maximise the working life of the site.

What can the minister tell us is new, given that none of the landfill sites in the region wants to take this stuff?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I have already stated that my advice is that negotiations are proceeding well. Again, I have to make the point that where it will be disposed of is not the issue: it will be required to meet the conditions set down by the EPA and that, to me, is paramount.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am also in possession of the report referred to by the Hon. Mark Parnell, and I am slightly bemused by the minister's response. If she is not able to advise, due to confidentiality reasons, as to where the negotiations are at, can she disclose whether the advice comes from the councils themselves or from the proponent?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Once again, I have to advise the honourable member that discussions are ongoing, and it is not appropriate for me to place on the record of this council who they are ongoing with. That is the concern of the company. Again, it will not be able to dispose of this waste without appropriate licence from the EPA. Where the disposal is undertaken will be taken into account. The licence is issued. Again, I can really only reiterate—and I am sorry that members opposite think this is very flippant—that this is an EPA licensing issue. It is an independent body in this state. It is an EPA licensing issue.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I think that we have been treated very poorly by the government in relation to the committee stage of this bill. So much of what we are asking about is about the environment and EPA licensing; yet the government has not seen fit to bring in an adviser from the EPA so that these questions can be answered. We are just getting information waved at us and we are being told to accept it without any proper scientific base. It is very clear to me that some of the waste that is going to come out of this is hazardous waste. There is not a hazardous waste facility in the South-East. I want to know whether the hazardous waste will be trucked from Penola to Adelaide (for instance, to the Dry Creek median temperature incinerator) or will it be trucked up to Brisbane where there are facilities for incineration of hazardous waste—because it cannot go in landfill.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Can I just place on the record that the EPA, at this time, does not have a proposal in front of it on which to issue a licence. What we have in front of us is this legislation. I refer honourable members to conditions relating to solid waste. I also place on record that there is no hazardous waste.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Without wishing to explore any further these confidential discussions and without wishing to be hypothetical, given that the relevant councils are on the record as saying that they do not want this waste, is there any capacity to force a local council to take this type of waste against its wishes?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: No.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I would like to express sentiments similar to those of the Hon Sandra Kanck. After all, with an indenture bill, we are really being asked to bypass a number of the usual practices in terms of planning and development and I think, therefore, it is incumbent upon the government to have as many answers for us as possible. I do find some of those responses, particularly in relation to waste, disappointing. In relation to the site at Mount Gambier (the Caroline landfill—which is no reflection on my honourable colleague), there is a report from the Mount Gambier council which is referenced as 'Groundwater monitoring 490/1/1'. The presiding member of the City of Mount Gambier has reported that:

Testing does not indicate any leachate issues at this time, although it is now becoming obvious that a groundwater mound exists within the site that was not known about (this mound may indicate a connection between the upper and lower aquifers).

Will the minister advise what advice the EPA has received regarding this and any linkage to the Caroline landfill being used as a potential site for waste disposal from the mill?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I would like to place on the record that this legislation is not approving licences: it is setting up a framework of conditions. In relation to the question the member has just asked, obviously, when a site is provided to the EPA, it will look at all the factors as to whether or not the site presents a risk to groundwater resources. Essentially, it is no different to council putting forward a simple dump. They must be licensed by the EPA. The EPA would look at the risk involved and it will license it depending on the risk.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: If there are no further questions on waste, I would like to move to clause 11 of schedule 1, which will no doubt delight the minister because it is on the very back page of the bill. This is the clause that relates to conditions involving greenhouse gas emissions. Subclause (1) provides for a report prepared by an expert. Who appoints that expert? Who is to say whether or not they are an expert? Does the government have a list of experts that it recognises as capable of writing such reports?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I am advised that, if they are not an expert, they have not satisfied the conditions of the clause. Someone has to be factually an expert. The minister has to be clearly satisfied that the person concerned is an expert.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: A related question: is the minister at present satisfied that anyone is an expert? Is there anyone you could go to who meets that criteria? Where would one start?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: As one would normally do in that situation, the minister will, no doubt, consider several names that will be put forward. Clearly he will look at the CVs, if nothing else, and take advice from the Office of Sustainability and Climate Change.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I note that the report to be prepared needs to report on scopes 1, 2 and 3 emissions. Scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse emissions from sources owned or controlled by the company; scope 2 are indirect emissions associated with the generation of purchased electricity; and, scope 3 emissions are indirect emissions that arise as a consequence of the activities of the company that occur from sources not owned or controlled by the company. Is it required that the proponent report on construction as well as operation under those three areas?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that it is unclear. However, there would be no problem in incorporating that under scope 3, other indirect GHG emissions, which is an optional reporting category.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: To clarify, rather than it being possible to do it, is it a requirement to do it? Will they be required to report their greenhouse gas emissions in relation to construction as well as to the operation? Clause 11(2) says 'the report must detail all measures applied in the design and implementation of the development to minimise greenhouse gas emissions'. An inference might be drawn that that only relates to the operation of the mill rather than its construction. I want to make clear that the government's requirement of a report under clause 11 is that under scopes 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions related to the construction of the plant will also be reported upon.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that the words that we have applied here in the design implementation are not clear enough to put an obligation on the proponent in relation to construction. Clearly, where we have the greatest concern in relation to greenhouse gas emissions is in the operations.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Just to follow that up, I agree with the minister that the words are not clear enough. I am looking for an assurance that the minister will ask the proponent to include in this report the greenhouse gas emissions relating to construction. I am reluctant to move amendments on the run, but I want the minister to make it clear that it is her expectation that construction greenhouse gases will be included in this report.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: My advice is that no other industry at the moment is required to produce a statement about the impact at the construction stage.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My next question is even simpler. What will happen to this report? What is this report for?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: I think we need to be very clear that this is one of the very few value-adding industries where the combination of plantation forests and this mill will result in a neutral to positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of this clause is to maximise the positive side of this impact at the design stage.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Still on this report, it is not a requirement in the bill that the report be tabled before parliament—in fact, it is unclear how this report will ever see the light of day or do anything other than sit on the shelf. Can the minister give us an assurance that this report will be publicly available—for example, published on the department's website—when it is completed?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: This report is really a positive dialogue between the government and the proponent to maximise the opportunities to minimise both greenhouse gas emissions and the costs of running this mill. What this clause also does is quite consistent with the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Act 2007. Once operational, the mill will also be required to report under the commonwealth's National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Obviously, this report will be a fundamental component of that reporting process.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I take it from the minister's answer that there is no guarantee that we are going to see this report, other than filtered through other documents, but the minister did allude to what was going to be my next question, which is the relationship between not just this report but this project with the new greenhouse legislation that is now in law—how those two interact. I am not so much interested in how the report might feed into some other process, but I am particularly interested in how the government sees this project as assisting it to fulfil its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

I say that in the context of a project that will be responsible for something like 3 per cent of the state's greenhouse emissions. Members might recall that that figure was originally 7 per cent, on the company's website, now reduced to 3 per cent. If we take the minister's figure, it is 52 per cent of the equivalent of the energy used by the household sector in Adelaide, if you take my figures 58 to 59—we are getting closer together—but both of them are more than half. This will use more than half the electricity of the households in Adelaide and yet the minister is saying that it is going to have a positive greenhouse gas effect. My question is: how can that be, and how does this project fit within the government's commitment to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by the year 2050?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: This is a value-adding opportunity which ensures the viability and sustainability of plantation forestry in this state, and we are talking about 150,000 truck movements that would otherwise take place if the chips were sent overseas. There are considerable savings for us and, furthermore, if we look at it globally, the pulp will be better produced here in South Australia rather than China, which has coal-fired power, and the carbon emissions that are, of course, associated with transporting the chips to China.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I note that there have been reports in the media in the last couple of weeks which indicate that the Penola pulp mill is looking to a hot rock company for its power and, if that were to happen, that may well be a very good thing. I will read a couple of sentences from an ABC online news report, which states:

The Penola Pulp Mill in South Australia's South-East is looking to hot rocks company Osiris for its power. The mill has struck an agreement with Osiris to buy its geothermal energy if the company can successfully set up a plant in the region. The mill's project director, John Roache, says geothermal energy will not power the entire mill, but will go a long way towards making the mill as carbon neutral as possible. '[It's] obviously a very environmentally friendly way of doing it,' he said. 'Totally carbon neutral, and our agreement with Osiris is if they manage to get the plant up and operational then we'll buy the electricity off them.'

That all sounds very encouraging. My questions are:

1. Is the minister aware of those developments?

2. Have they been factored into the government's thinking about the greenhouse implications of this project?

3. What is the expected time frame for something like hot rocks energy in the South-East to eventuate?

4. If it did eventuate that there was the ability to purchase geothermal energy or, in fact, any other type of renewable energy (maybe from a wind farm), will the government require the mill operator to also purchase the renewable energy certificates (REX), as well as paying for the electricity they consume?

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO: Yes, we are aware of the issues the honourable member has raised. However, I stress that where a company purchases its power is a commercial decision. We are unaware of the time frame. We understand that a memorandum of understanding has been signed between both companies. If and when Osiris is successful, consideration will be given to a contract to purchase power from that company. Clearly, one of the positive signs is that the company is thinking about reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. So, it is really all very positive but, again, I have to stress that it is really a commercial decision.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Mr Chairman, I have now concluded the questions that I have of the minister, but I know that in the excitement of the final stages of a bill we often rush things. I will make a very brief third reading contribution to this bill, but I have no further questions.

Amendment carried; schedule as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendments; committee's report adopted.

Third Reading

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (21:41): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:41): I wish to make a few brief observations on the third reading of this bill that relate to the process that we have gone through—the process for the approval of this important project. Members would not be in any doubt that I have been critical of the process from the start. Right to the end I have not wavered in my view that this is the wrong process to have followed, and that we could have done this much better. One of the consequences of going down the path of legislation rather than doing an environmental impact statement, as I have always called for, is that the information base available to us is very limited. That has meant that we have had to use vehicles such as the Freedom of Information Act to obtain information about this project. I am very disappointed that there is one application that I made back in July to the primary industries department under the Freedom of Information Act and, despite almost daily phone calls, it has still not been determined. I think that that is an outrageous situation, given that as a member of parliament I am one of the decision-makers for this piece of legislation. That the primary industries department can avoid determining my application for several months I think is outrageous.

I have been waiting on important correspondence. We have not yet been told whether we will get that. The correspondence that we have managed to obtain from other sources has been useful in framing our debate around this legislation. In terms of the lack of information, I have sought in my work in this chamber and in the community to draw attention to how poorly served we have been with information. I have used the example consistently of the hydrogen peroxide plant, bigger than the Titanic, and described in six lines of text in the report. I ask any honourable members whether they know of any developed country where such a major industrial facility would be approved on such a scant basis. In fact, there was much less information provided for this expanded $1.5 billion pulp mill than there was for the earlier incarnation—the smaller $650 million pulp mill. We had more information about that than we have about this big one.

We have been forced to take on trust the assurances that the proponent has made about the performance of this mill. But the more questions that we ask the more questions that arise. We have been told that there are other equivalent mills that perform well, including Meadow Lake, which we understand from Canadian media reports has been recently sold for much less than it cost to build—not a profitable enterprise at all. We have had the situation where I believe that the proponent has misled the government in relation to its dealings with Victoria. As members would know (and I have referred to this previously in the debate), the proponent wrote to the South Australian government and said, 'We already have assurances and approval from the Victorian government that expansion of the Heywood mill to the larger mill size can proceed.'

The letter went on to say, 'We need special legislation in South Australia.' But when some enterprising journalists actually asked the Victorian government whether it had, in fact, given approval for the larger pulp mill, the answer was: no, it had not. So, the South Australian government has fallen for the oldest trick in the book. It is like turning up to an auction, winning the bid and then putting up your hand again five minutes later and bidding against yourself. That is what appears to have happened here. We have been played for mugs the whole way along by a proponent who has been ping-ponging between Adelaide and Melbourne seeking the lowest common denominator and the best deal it can get.

The process of approving such a large project by way of legislation in this parliament has been quite rapid. People might think that we have spent quite a bit of time in the upper house and that we are doing our job in the upper house, with some two hours of debate in the lower house. Even though there was a select committee, it was, in fact, very selective in the issues it chose to deal with, and such a process can never replace a proper environmental impact statement. I make the point again that one little bit of the project—the hydrogen peroxide plant—was not mentioned even once in the report of the select committee. As we have been quizzing the minister today and previously, we have been told that the detail is being left for later. We are told to leave it to the EPA to set appropriate licence conditions and trust it to intervene if things go wrong. However, as we know, the EPA has never intervened in such a way. It does not deny licences to companies that have built $1.5 billion pulp mills, even if the conditions cannot be met. The EPA has no track record of denying licences and closing down operations that do not need standards.

So, the onus has been on us the whole time. The onus has been on us in parliament to do the best we can to manage this flawed process. In many ways, the debate we have just concluded is really a false one. The real decision making will come in the market and in the financing arrangements. I note that Timbercorp, which is listed as a project partner, has now signalled publicly that it opposes an expanded mill at Penola. We note from the media in recent days that an alternative woodchipping mill has been proposed back in Heywood and that that mill is likely to suck up a considerable amount of the available woodchips. In an article in the Border Watch of11 October, Jason Wallace talks about the proposed mill and states:

Forest industry enterprise Midway's plans for a $30m chipping mill across the Victorian border at Myamyn, northwest of Heywood, has added to already strong competition for the region's plantation resource. The company plans to process around 1.5m tonnes of bluegum annually—a similar amount to what is needed by the pulp mill. Progress on the Myamyn mill has strengthened concerns that a timber supply will not be available to secure the pulp mill.

Even though in parliament the government has insisted that the risk of a white elephant, the risk of constructing something that is not viable, is at the sovereign risk of the proponents, I still beg to differ. I say that, regarding any project which relies on community resources such as water, we do have a right to ensure that it is financially viable before giving it the go ahead. When it comes to pulp mills, we have had protests about the Tasmanian pulp mill but we have had very little concern at the state level about the Penola pulp mill, but it does not mean that this mill is not without its problems.

In conclusion, I say that there is a huge difference between a pulp mill—a pulp mill that is, for example, powered by geothermal or gas co-generation; that transports its pulp by railway; that is a genuine zero liquid waste discharge pulp mill; that uses plantation stock that has no negative impact on groundwater; does not release dioxins; does not have a hydrogen peroxide plant; and does a lot of recycling—compared to what we may end up with at Penola, which is a pulp mill which does have a massive chemical manufacturing plant with no risk assessment, which is powered by fossil fuel from the grid contributing to 3 per cent of the state's greenhouse gas emissions, which uses more than half as much electricity as all the households in Adelaide, which transports mainly by truck rather than by rail; which needs government subsidies to achieve its waste water benchmarks; which has hundreds of trucks going to landfill, possibly large distances, given that the local dumps do not want it; and which uses plantation stock that strips already fragile groundwater stocks. You could have a great pulp mill in the South-East. You could have a zero carbon, low impact pulp mill, or you could get the type of pulp mill that we are now likely to get because we have gone down this inadequate path and we will pass this inadequate legislation.

I have tried my best—and some of my colleagues have supported that endeavour—to get key questions asked. I particularly acknowledge the contribution of the Hon. Sandra Kanck. The Hon. Michelle Lensink asked some telling questions as well. It should not have been our job to go through the detail of this project as we have done but, given that the process forced upon us is that the parliament takes the place of proper planning professionals, we have really had no alternative but to ask the questions that we have asked. It is a very sad end to a very sad process, and I will put on the record one more time that, for the reasons of this poor process, the Greens will not be supporting this bill.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (21:52): My view of this bill and the way it has been dealt with by the parliament is that it is a disgrace. In the House of Assembly, once the select committee reported, from that point of its tabling in parliament to the bill going through all its stages, it took less than two hours. I think in the Legislative Council, with the committee stage, plus the second reading stage, we have probably taken about seven hours. Let us put this as a mathematical equation. The government said that this makes up for an EIS. Let me tell members that a select committee, plus two hours of debate in the House of Assembly, plus seven hours in the Legislative Council, does not equal an EIS.

I am still trying to weigh up which two bills have been the worst in the last two years: the Whyalla Indenture Act where, at that stage, parliament took away all the provisions that had been put in place for OneSteel, conditions set by the EPA; or whether it is this one where we have passed a bill that will have huge environmental ramifications without an EIS and before, as we have heard tonight, the EPA even has a proposal before it to consider. I invite others to try to work that one out. I really do not know which of the two is worse. We have had ministerial advisers here. As it is a forestry bill, it has been put forward by the Minister for Forests, and the ministerial advisers who have been here, although they have done their best, are not people from the Department for Environment and Heritage, yet almost all the questions that we were dealing with were about environmental issues. I do not know whether the government was deliberately dudding us by having people from Primary Industries to advise it or whether it suited it to have someone there so that we could not get all the answers.

It is also interesting to reflect on what I said about climate change predictions in my second reading contribution. The predictions to which I referred were made by the CSIRO, I think in 2001. A fortnight ago the CSIRO released its updated predictions which, of course, confirmed increased temperatures, reduced rainfall and general drying in South Australia. What that does, of course, is validate what I said in my second reading contribution, that is, that the South-East needs to become South Australia's food bowl. Instead, what we are doing with a project such as this is to encourage more forestry. It might be news to the government, so I should tell it, but human beings cannot process gum leaves, nor can we eat pulp. This is hardly the right sort of project to be putting in the South-East at this time in a drying climate. We in South Australia now have the dubious distinction of approving a pulp mill in less than a year, whereas in the rest of the world it takes five years. Protavia has now got itself a gift like no other pulp mill proponent in the world.

It has its own act which it can take and wave in front of an investment banker. Here we have an example of that old saying about laughing all the way to the bank being very true. Certainly, it is a gift from this parliament. It is a get-rich scheme for Protavia. Our Premier, Mike Rann, likes to style himself and his government as environmentally friendly. Let me tell him that, with the passage of this bill, his and his government's environmental credentials have gone out the window, and they are up there with the flying pigs!

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (21:56): I wish to make a brief contribution to the third reading. As previously indicated, the Liberal Party will support this bill, but I would like to echo some of the comments made by previous speakers. It is far from ideal to have required an indenture in order for this to proceed. I will be very impressed if this pulp mill jumps through all the hoops, that is, the schedules and various clauses within the legislation. On behalf of some of the local industries in the South-East, I am very pleased that the water issues have been addressed because, as we know, several parts of the South-East are overallocated. It does not make much sense in my book to provide a set resource to one particular industry when a number of existing industries must comply with what is a variable resource. I congratulate some of the locals in the area with whom I met (in particular members of the No Pulp Mill Alliance, Duan Butler and Ric Paltridge) on their valiant efforts to ensure that members of this parliament were made well aware of all the issues in relation to the South-East. Reluctantly, I support the bill on behalf of the Liberal Party. To those people I have mentioned, and having regard to such a beautiful and lush area where Angus beef and prime lambs are raised for export, as well as the dairies in the area, I completely understand their personal position in opposition to this bill. With those few remarks, I endorse the bill to the council.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (21:58): This is a significant piece of legislation which has set up a framework of conditions with good community safeguards. It is as a result of a team effort from people across government. It is an excellent example of how the new case management system for supporting complex projects can deliver results through a collaborative effort. I take this opportunity to thank some key people who have helped achieve this outcome: Bob Teague, Phil Smith and Simon Howes from Planning SA; Peter Torr and his team from the EPA; Bob McLennan and his South-East people from DWLBC; Alison Field; Dr Nicholas Manetta and Greg Cox from the Crown Solicitor's Office; Aimee Travers from parliamentary counsel; and Martyn England and Roger Hartley from PIRSA.

The council divided on the third reading:

AYES (13)

NOES (3)

Majority of 10 for the ayes.

Third reading.

Bill passed.