Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Aldinga Turkeys ALDINGA TURKEYS The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council ALDINGA TURKEYS The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, representing the Minister for Environment and Conservation, a question—it has nothing to do with Burnside—about the enforcement of EPA licence conditions for Aldinga Turkeys at McLaren Vale. Leave granted. The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH Legislative Council The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: A resident of McLaren Vale faces the possibility of 60,000 litres of Turkey effluent (that is, water filled with the waste left after processing turkeys) flooding into her backyard from Aldinga Turkeys. Aldinga Turkeys has expanded its operations dramatically in the past eight years and, in the process, has damaged the quality of life of nearby residents with noise, smells and effluent. To give one example, a visitor to Aldinga Turkeys on 22 April 2009 asked about the putrid smell coming from Aldinga Turkeys and likened it to rotting flesh. Three years ago the EPA approved the installation of a 30,000 metre tank without requiring it to be bunded as per guidelines for abattoirs, slaughterhouses and poultry processing. The bunding is a wall to guard against spillage or a rupture of the tank that would create a tsunami of turkey waste. When residents complained, the EPA said the company would be told to bund the tank. No bund was built. Last year, Inghams installed another 30,000 litre tank, also without bunding. The company's licence expired on 31 October 2008, and the new licence required the installation of bunds by 31 March 2009. On 20 March 2009, the company wrote to the EPA requesting an extension of the time allowed to install the bunds to 30 September 2009, citing 'cash flow availability'. I have a copy of that letter, and I will read two paragraphs from it, as follows: We write to advise you that while the company is very mindful of its obligations it has had to cut its capital expenditure in line with cashflow availability and there will therefore be delays throughout its Australia/New Zealand operations in the completion of many of the current projects. The waste water bunding project at Foggo Rd is one such example of a project on delay. Inghams is hereby requesting that we be granted an extension until 30 September 2009, by which time we will have completed all the bunding required in compliance of licence condition. As discussed previously at our meeting on 26^th November 2008 at the EPA office located at 77 Grenfell Street Adelaide SA, it is the intention of the Company to comply with the EPA Licence (EPA 19422). However as clearly stated at the time, the coming effect of the economic climate could possibly delay the outcome of the Waste Water Bunding project. The letter provides only general assertions and no evidence about the economic circumstances of Inghams, which, by the way, has a turnover of $1.5 billion and around 7,000 employees across Australia. On 22 June 2009, two larger tanks were delivered to Aldinga Turkeys without the neighbours being consulted or notified. The residents' concerns about whether Inghams is able to control its turkey waste are borne out by this email that I received on 15 May 2009: At the moment there is a torrent of water running down Foggo Road past our drive and onto the Kangarilla Road from the Aldinga Turkeys stormwater pipe. There has been no rain. There are turkey feathers strewn all over the verge. My questions for the minister are: 1.	When the EPA approved the delay in building the bunds, did it audit Inghams' finances to see whether its claims of financial difficulties were accurate, or did it just accept the company's assertions? 2.	Does the EPA ever demand that companies open their books to validate claims of financial difficulty when those claims are used to justify breaches of licence conditions or appeals to relax licence conditions? 3.	Given that Inghams is simultaneously struggling and expanding its operations, how many other Inghams plants and factories are having their licence conditions relaxed due to current economic circumstances? 4.	How many other companies operating in South Australia that are the subject of complaints about pollution have had their licence conditions relaxed due to the current economic climate? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (14:51): I thank the honourable member for his important questions. I will be happy to refer them to the Minister for Environment and Conservation in another place and bring back a response.