DESALINATION PLANT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:45): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, a question about the Port Stanvac desalination plant.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The 2008 environmental impact statement for the Port Stanvac desalination plant refers on a number of occasions to the minimum dilution value of the salty brine discharge from the plant of 50:1. This is the minimum dilution requirement for the discharge at the edge of the 100-metre mixing zone. The state government's own departmental assessment of the EIS in 2009 reinforces the same species protection trigger value specifying that:

In conclusion, should the project be approved it is recommended that conditions ensure the final diffuser location and design achieve the Environmental Objectives and Performance Criteria outlined in the EIS, including a minimum dilutions of 50:1 at the seabed, which includes the subtidal reefs.

Yet, when Flinders University marine expert Dr Jochen Kaempf attempted to verify the dilution criteria in the actual operating licence granted to the operators of the Port Stanvac desalination plant by the EPA in 2010, he discovered that it had, in fact, been significantly lessened. He found that the dilution values were significantly lower by a factor of 1.7 or up to 3.8 times than originally assured by the proponents and the state government. Essentially, the water to be discharged could be at least twice as salty as what we were led to believe in the original EIS. This means that the operating licence is much softer than initially promised with the consequence of a substantially increased risk of environmental harm. My questions to the minister are:

1. Why are the EPA operating licence conditions for the Port Stanvac desalination plant significantly weaker than what were promised in the environmental impact statement for the project?

2. What confidence can the citizens of South Australia have in the EIS process if a critical environmental protection measure is negotiated down only after all public consultation opportunities have lapsed and the approval has been given?

3. What precedent does this watering-down of species protection trigger factors set for other desalination projects in state waters, including the proposed BHP Billiton plant at Point Lowly?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for his question and I will take it on notice and relate it to the minister.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Lucas, do you want to have a go? See what you can do.