DESALINATION PLANT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:07): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. M. PARNELL: —Minister for Industrial Relations, representing the Minister for Water, about carbon neutral commitments for the Port Stanvac desalination plant.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Lucas will put a sock in it.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The 2008 environmental impact statement for the Port Stanvac desalination plant contains an express commitment for the plant to be 'carbon neutral'. This commitment was repeated many times by Premier Rann and the water minister Karlene Maywald in 2008 and 2009 as part of an attempt to convince a sceptical South Australian population that the plant would not have a negative impact on the environment. For example, in a media release from 17 March 2009, minister Maywald said:

The state government is absolutely committed to the plant being carbon neutral and meeting the highest environmental standards.

This recommitment was made some nine months after I specifically warned the minister in this chamber that the government's claims were contrary to the advice from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in their then recently released guidelines on bogus carbon neutral claims entitled 'Carbon claims and the Trade Practices Act'.

I have since been informed that the Minister for Water (Hon. Paul Caica) has recently advised the Conservation Council of South Australia at a forum that SA Water has quietly shelved the commitment for the Adelaide desalination plant to be carbon neutral. Minister Caica also indicated at the same forum that the decision to abandon the carbon neutral commitment was made over two years ago in early 2009 when four energy suppliers were shortlisted to deliver on the state government's commitment to achieve carbon neutrality for the Adelaide desalination plant shortly after the approval to build the plant was granted.

In fact, it appears now that there was never any serious attempt at delivering on the carbon neutral promise. As far as I am aware, no budget allowance was made to manage the emissions during construction with either renewable energy or offsets and, with the exception of the green power commitment (as measured at the boundary), no provision was made to offset ongoing emissions such as from fuel use, chemical use and transport emissions. This is in direct contravention of the ACCC advice against misleading carbon neutral promises. My questions are:

1. When was the minister intending to inform the people of South Australia that the government had abandoned its commitment to make the Port Stanvac desalination plant carbon neutral?

2. In the light of this decision, when will the minister correct the parliamentary record, which contains this commitment as recently as April 2009?

3. What date was the decision to abandon this commitment actually made, who made it and what were the reasons for the decision?

4. Do you accept that the government should lead by example in fulfilling commitments made through an environmental impact statement process?

5. What confidence can the public have in commitments made through an EIS process, such as the recent decision to approve the Olympic Dam expansion, when overt backsliding on promises is done by government itself with impunity?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (15:11): It would have been a little gratifying if the Hon. Mr Parnell would for once had given credit where credit was due. During a time when we had one of the longest and harshest droughts in this state's history, this government made a commitment and has built a desal plant to ensure the future water supply of this state. That was a big commitment and one that we kept. It would be good if for once the Hon. Mr Parnell acknowledged the good work this government has done over the last nine years, not just pick on the so-called negatives he has picked out. With regard to the carbon neutral element, I will refer the questions to the Hon. Mr Caica in another place for an answer.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! The Hon. Mr Ridgway has a supplementary question.