WHYALLA STEELWORKS

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:10): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development a question about dust exceedences at the Whyalla steelworks.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On 5 December 2007, the Whyalla Health Impact Study report was finally released. The study was undertaken in response to widespread community concerns about the possible health effects of red dust from the nearby OneSteel works. It found an extremely worrying cancer rate: 95 cases of lung cancer in Whyalla between 1999 and 2004, which was a rate 50 per cent higher than expected. It also found higher than expected hospital admission rates for asthma and chronic lung diseases.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, I discovered that cabinet had actually signed off for release of the Whyalla health study in July 2007 and the report itself was completed by the department six months before that. The reason for the 12-month delay in releasing the report, given in the documents I obtained, was to enable:

...negotiations between government departments and OneSteel about dust emission management, Project Magnet and new standards to be incorporated into the indenture.

In fact, on the same day that details of the health study were released, minister Holloway and minister Hill announced that new conditions would be placed on OneSteel to restrict the number of days the Whyalla steelworks would be permitted to emit elevated levels of fine dust, so that exceedences of the national health base standard would be reduced from around 30 days a year (currently) to 10 days a year in 2008, and reducing to five days a year by 2011. In the minister's press release of 5 December he said:

These stricter requirements negotiated with OneSteel will be incorporated in its indenture, which needs to be formalised by state parliament.

As members would be aware, section 15 of the Whyalla Steel Works Act provides:

If the environmental authorisation is varied, the minister must cause a copy of the variation and the environmental authorisation as varied to be laid before both houses of parliament.

Yet as of today, some four months down the track, the new licence conditions have not been tabled. Contrary to what the minister told this council earlier in response to another question on OneSteel, rather than the last five months getting better for the dust situation in Whyalla, members should note that there have already been five exceedences, out of the possible 10 allowed for 2008, in just one eight-day period between 9 and 17 March. That is recorded at the EPA's monitoring station in Wall Street, which is just across the road from the primary school. On 18 March, which was the day after the highest of those readings, minister Foley was in Whyalla, stating:

The changes brought about by Project Magnet are leading to a significant reduction in dust, which has been a problem for Whyalla residents for many years.

My questions to the minister are:

1. Are the new environmental conditions for OneSteel formally in place for the year 2008 and, if so, on what date did they formally come into effect?

2. If the new conditions are in place, why have they not been tabled in parliament, as required under the Whyalla Steel Works Act? (I note that we have had 11 sitting days since the announcement was made.)

3. Why did you choose to announce the new environmental conditions for OneSteel on the same day and at the same time as the release of the Whyalla Health Impact Study report?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Police, Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning) (15:13): It is probably inevitable that a member of the Greens would seek to raise this matter, when there is good news, when Whyalla is now, in fact, economically thriving for the first time in 20 years, and when they are actually building new houses—after 20 years it is finally happening. What is more, in Whyalla the environment has never been so good. When you fly in you do not actually see the huge clouds of dust.

If the Hon. Mark Parnell had still been there at the environmental defender's office, he would still be fighting away on this in the courts. There would be taxpayers' money and other people's money going into the court system, rather than having investment to actually fix the problem.

I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the Greens can find a negative in this situation, when we have had the successful investment in a new industry, which has not only improved the employment and economic outcomes of a city but also significantly reduced the fugitive dust problem in that city. Indeed, the Greens are about the only people who can find a negative in that news.

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: We have just had—what was it—15 days of temperatures above 35 degrees in this city. This state has gone through one of the driest periods in the state's history. It is not surprising that, in such a period of the worst drought ever recorded since white settlement in this state, one would get dust in remote regions of the state; that is scarcely surprising. Whether that is due to fugitive dust is another matter. Whyalla does have, and always will have, a dust problem because of the nature of the environment around there.

We have been seeking to significantly reduce the fugitive dust problem from the works that are associated with the steelworks, that is, the crushing plant. In relation to that, the old equipment has to be demolished. That is why we are putting in the new standards, which, to answer another part of the honourable member's question, I think apply from December or some time in January this year (I will get the exact date for the honourable member).

In relation to those new standards, we have seen that they did allow for the fact that, during the dismantling of the equipment, when those huge old buildings that enclose the crushing plant that is situated right next to East Whyalla are being taken down, that will inevitably create some dust. I believe that work is already underway, but it will take up to two years or more for that work to be done, so there could be some problems then.

There also has to be some remediation of the area where the ore was formerly stored and, as I understand it, that work is underway, but it has not helped that we are in the worst drought in this state's history. Of course, in relation to using precious water to suppress dust: first, it is less effective when the temperature is high; and, secondly, there are, of course, limitations on water use in the area.

The new slurry process is up and running and has been since last year, and that will eliminate the need to have the crushing of ore at the edge of the town rather than having it at the mine site some 30 or 40 kilometres away.

The other matter the honourable member raised was in relation to the health study. As was pointed out at the time, the findings of the health study were inconclusive. However, we took the opportunity presented by Operation Magnet to ensure improved environmental conditions for the people of Whyalla and the use of world's best practice at the upgraded OneSteel operations.

Contrary to what the honourable member said in the press (the question he has asked today is something he has already raised through the Independent), OneSteel was never in a position to negotiate the contents of the health study and was informed of its outcome only shortly before the public announcement of the air quality conditions in December, despite the honourable member's outrageous and unsubstantiated claim.

There was no reason that negotiations with OneSteel on the environmental standards and other issues related to the indenture should have been put on hold while a thorough analysis of that health study was being carried out. The honourable member well knows that that health study is inconclusive in relation to the cause. In fact, the areas of Whyalla that have the highest rates of cancer are not those at East Whyalla, adjacent to the crushing plant, where one would expect the dust level to be high. There are a number of possible reasons for health issues in Whyalla, and they are the province of my colleague the Minister for Health.

In relation to this government's actions, what we have done is enable fugitive dust issues to be addressed through the indenture because, whether or not they are the cause of ill-health, they are certainly an issue in relation to the quality of life for people in Whyalla.

We have had $400 million of investment, and it needs to be pointed out that that is not just for the capital works of the new crushing plant at Iron Duke. I think up to $60 million of that is for work specifically designed to improve the environment and the quality of life of the people of Whyalla. A significant amount of that $400 million expenditure was for enclosed rail carriages and other environmental measures specifically to reduce the fugitive dust issue.

I said in my answer to a question earlier today that the proof will be in the pudding in the long term when we get those results over the next couple of years, because that will facilitate issues such as the dismantling of the plant and the rehabilitation of the dump sites. It is certainly my expectation and, indeed, the environmental standards require that there be that significant improvement in the levels of fugitive dust and they have to meet those standards which are world's best practice.