PORT PIRIE SMELTING FACILITY (LEAD-IN-AIR CONCENTRATIONS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 July 2013.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak to the Port Pirie Smelting Facility (Lead-in-Air Concentrations) Bill. The Labor government has wasted a lot of time fumbling over securing the Nyrstar operation for South Australia. With a great deal of Port Pirie's future hinging on Nyrstar, there has been understandably a great deal of tension and nervousness for the people of Port Pirie. This much-needed upgrade is something the state Liberals have been pushing for over a number of years. We recognise that it is not just a plan for the facility but a plan for the whole city and the whole region as well. To quote a document we received under FOI, we saw that if Nyrstar were to:

...close or further restrict its operation, there is limited potential for significant numbers of displaced local job seekers to remain living and employed in Port Pirie. The nearest major town, Port Augusta, is 80km away. A 30% reduction in the town's population is a realistic possibility.

In addition to the social dislocation, the key economic impacts of a closure of Nyrstar's operation include:

up to half of the town's labour force of some 4,743 people may be adversely affected;

an estimated total annual wage loss to the community of between $70 million and $100 million; and

potential loss in house values estimated at $126 million for each 10 per cent drop.

Nyrstar is a great regional employer and exporter, which adds significant value to our mineral exports. These are important matters to point out so that we are aware of the significance of this bill. As mentioned, we do not believe the government has treated this issue with the urgency that it deserves. However, we are pleased that this action has now been taken and, from the moment of the announcement, we have supported it.

Over its 124-year history, the Port Pirie smelter has faced receivership or closure. It has progressed from servicing all production of lead, zinc, copper and silver and other precious metals. A major upgrade of the smelter is necessary, not just to meet the environmental standards but also to give Nyrstar the flexibility it needs to react to market changes and potentially process an increased number of products.

There has been some concern about the nature of the bill. Even though it talks about lead-in-air concentrations, clearly this is an economic bill. Some would say that, because it talks about air quality, it is an environmental bill, but it is not—it is an economic bill. This is one of the reasons that the Environment Protection Act is not being used. There are no economic provisions in that act for capital improvements. This is the advice we received from the department, including the founding director of the EPA.

As we know, Nyrstar sought considerable third-party investment for this project, $250 million in total. Those investors want a reasonable level of assurance, because without that assurance it could potentially be a high-risk investment. The first assurance made by this legislation is the environmental regulatory certainty. Once the EPA sets an air-quality standard (which on my understanding is after the new smelter is in place, it would take about six months of negotiation with the EPA), then they would not be able to change that air-quality standard without consultation with the minister and Nyrstar.

Importantly, we have to understand that this is a new enclosed bath smelting technology which, for these days, is the world's best practice. On my understanding, it reduces—or almost prevents—airborne emissions from the smelter. Studies so far completed predict the upgrade will achieve about a 50 per cent reduction of lead in the air which would be an excellent environmental outcome. My understanding is that, while virtually nothing would escape into the air from the smelter, some particles may still escape into the air with the bringing in of the material to be smelted and some of the other processes, but nonetheless it is a significant step in the right direction.

It is clear that Nyrstar is aiming for an excellent facility but, notwithstanding that, attitudes towards health issues like lead in air can change quickly and gain global traction, sometimes without any scientific basis. Nyrstar and its investors need the assurance that the EPA could not react abruptly in such circumstances to the detriment of the operation. Some people have asked, 'Why can't the reduction be 100 per cent?' There are matters to be dealt with on the Nyrstar site apart from the upgrade that will need to be addressed, but, as I said, this is a step in the right direction.

So lead-in-the air reduction is the target, and the specific target is to be set by the EPA, but, more importantly, is the outcome—a reduction in lead levels in the blood of young children. I think the current Australian guidelines indicate that the concentration is 10 milligrams per decilitre. I am advised that we hope to see an increase over time of between 75 to above 85 per cent of the children in Port Pirie with lead in their blood below that level. Understandably, it will not happen overnight and there perhaps maybe a time lag of some five to seven years.

Once the upgrade has taken place, deposits of lead will diminish as homes and infrastructure are upgraded and cleaned up. Members understand that it is often the dust that falls, and when small children touch something dirty they can lick their hands or touch their face and, of course, that is how the children ingest this lead. So with less and less going into the air over time there will be less and less for the children to pick up.

It is also promising to see that both the government and Nyrstar are directing money into a program called TLAP (Targeted Lead Abatement Program) which works further to reduce that last 15 or so per cent of children with lead levels outside the targeted range. As mentioned, the department recognises that continuous improvement of the smelter is needed and that we hope governments on both sides of politics will continue to work with Nyrstar and the Port Pirie community to achieve that outcome.

Speaking of working with the Port Pirie community, I understand that the Public Environmental Report—the sort of equivalent to an EIS—is in its final week of consultation and to date no comments have been received. I think it indicates that the community is very excited about the project and sees it as a great step forward because it secures the viability of the community and has some significant health impacts and benefits for the children. I was advised yesterday morning that throughout discussions over the upgrade the topic of the US standards has arisen and that the United States has a lower level of air quality, but a higher standard than Australia.

Firstly, there is an Australian air standard, which is the amount of lead to be emitted into the air. That level is 0.5 micrograms per cubic metre in Australia. It is a licence limit imposed on Nyrstar by the EPA based on a national environmental protection measure and it is currently the best practice. It is interesting that Nyrstar are only ever at about 80 per cent of that level. It is constantly about 0.4 micrograms per cubic metre from the information that we have been provided with. There is some word that the USA is moving to 0.15 micrograms per cubic metre. I would like to highlight that the USA has no smelters; they have all closed. Perhaps the signalled reduction of that limit was what closed them.

Secondly, the National Medical Research Council sets a guideline for lead in blood levels: it is 10 micrograms per decilitre. It has been raised that this guideline is under review and may be decreased to five, which is the guideline in the USA. I would like to highlight that this is not accurate. The equivalent guideline is 10, but five is a level to set for a trigger for a further review. It is a subtle, yet important difference. I have toured the Nyrstar facility several times and I am well aware of the desperate need for an upgrade. I have spent time in the Port Pirie community and I know they have been looking forward to this project.

With the outcome of Saturday's election, I am happy to see the eventual removal of the crippling carbon tax which will also breathe new life into Nyrstar's operation. Nyrstar will continue to endure the burden of the highest tax regime in the nation, along with our state's poor economic conditions. The public will now entrust this Labor government to properly manage the transformation of the Nyrstar operation. The public will look to Labor to succeed in areas of past failure. They will rely on Labor to thoroughly examine the environmental concerns. They will rely on Labor to oversee the development process, which is fully transparent and engaging of the community, and they will rely on Labor to make sure Nyrstar does not collapse. They will try to ignore the fact that companies like Mitsubishi and Holden have either folded or become less viable under Labor's watch.

As at June this year, Labor had lost some 18,500 manufacturing jobs since the 2010 election. Now we need a bipartisan approach to secure full-time jobs at Nyrstar. We simply cannot afford the collapse of another manufacturer. With those few words, I indicate the opposition will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (11:13): I rise to support the Port Pirie Smelting Facility (Lead-In-Air Concentrations) Bill on behalf of the government. The purpose of this bill is to provide regulatory certainty for Nyrstar at Port Pirie. Without this certainty, the proposed investment in the transformation would not happen and the benefits would not be realised. The ultimate progression of the transformation is dependent on the successful completion of the feasibility and engineering studies which are expected by the end of this year, with Nyrstar expected to make a final decision to invest in the transformation in early 2014.

A positive decision will see an investment of $350 million to transform the current smelter to an advanced state-of-the-art, enclosed bath, polymetallic processing and recovery facility, with the project moving into construction in 2014 and commissioning of the new plant expected by early 2016.

The current Nyrstar smelter at Port Pirie is a sinter plant and this is the primary source of lead emissions today. The proposed transformation project will replace the existing sinter plant with international best practice enclosed smelting technology. This best practice technology is expected to improve the lead in air by at least 50 per cent. This expectation is consistent with evidence from smelters currently operating in Belgium and Canada.

There is also an expectation of a 90 per cent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, an example of this technology is the Umicore smelter in Hoboken, Belgium, which uses the enclosed bath smelter technology and is located in a suburb of Antwerp. Such a technological transformation of Nyrstar Port Pirie's smelting facility is consistent with the move towards advanced manufacturing economy for South Australia.

As I said, this bill is aimed at providing the necessary regulatory certainty for Nyrstar to invest in the transformation of the existing Port Pirie smelter to a state-of-the-art ore processing facility that will be capable of not only processing lead ore concentrates but other ore concentrates in a way that substantially reduces the environmental impact on Port Pirie and its environs. This will ensure an ongoing future for the iconic town of Port Pirie and unlock substantial benefits for the local community and the broader region.

The current Nyrstar Port Pirie facility is one of the world's largest primary lead smelting facilities and the third largest silver producer. It plays an important role not only for the regional economy but also for the state's economy. The existing Nyrstar smelter directly employs more than 850 people, or around 17 per cent of the working population of Port Pirie. It is an integral part of the fabric of the Port Pirie community.

The existing smelter has been a significant contributor to the regional economy for over 120 years. In 2012, Nyrstar Port Pirie produced a significant amount of commodity grade lead, zinc, silver, copper cathode, gold and sulfuric acid. For the record, 158,000 tonnes of lead metal, 31,000 tonnes of zinc metal, 3,000 tonnes of copper cathode, 13.8 million ounces of silver and 56,000 ounces of gold.

Nystar's value-add contribution to the South Australian gross state product is around $518 million per annum. It contributes some $1.6 billion to the value of the state's economic output, including an average annual contribution to exports of around $755 million. Nyrstar Port Pirie also contributes just over $100 million in taxes.

I will quote from the House of Assembly's Select Committee on Port Pirie Smelting Facility (Lead-in-Air Concentrations) Bill report. It states that this bill does two key things. Firstly:

Section 4 provides that, for a period of 10 years following the date on which the EPA sets the maximum lead-in-air condition in the operating EPA licence for the completed project, the EPA may not vary that condition except in circumstances where the variation has been either approved by the Manufacturing Minister or where the company has consented to the variation. This section relates only to any conditions of the EPA licence that set the maximum permissible concentrations of lead-in-air in Port Pirie.

Secondly:

Section 5, modifies the law of the State to the extent that any requirement that would have the effect of reducing the maximum permissible concentrations of lead-in-air at licensed locations in Port Pirie does not apply, unless a determination is made by the Manufacturing Minister that a particular law or authorisation does apply. The Manufacturing Minister may only make such a determination in one of two defined circumstances;

1. either the company has consented to the making of the determination, or

2. the Manufacturing Minister has undertaken consultation with both the company and, where the requirement arises under an Act, with the Minister to whom the administration of the Act is committed.

Section 5 operates from the commencement of the act for a period of up to 4 years, and then, if the defined project completion date is achieved during that initial period, for a further 10 year period.

I reiterate that this bill has been constructed to provide an appropriate level of certainty to ensure that Nyrstar and its investors can commit to the massive investment of $350 million to achieve the transformation, whilst taking into account the interests of the South Australian community and, in particular, the Port Pirie community.

Again, I quote from the House of Assembly Select Committee on the Port Pirie Smelting Facility (Lead-in-Air Concentrations) Bill report in relation to the health improvements expected to result from the Nyrstar Port Pirie smelter transformation:

The key health benefit of a successful transformation is that emissions of lead will be significantly reduced, along with reductions in emissions of other pollutants like sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide.

The expected impact of this is an increase in the number of children with blood lead levels below the National Health and Medical Research Council's guidelines from the current level of 77.8 per cent of Port Pirie children tested in 2012 to at least 90 per cent.

With ongoing emissions reducing, the work of cleaning up the contamination that has built up over 120 years is likely to have a greater impact.

Most importantly, continued commercial operations of Nyrstar Port Pirie will ensure ongoing funding for the targeted lead abatement program that is being developed by the state and Nyrstar and is intended to address health risks in children with elevated blood lead levels. This program will drive additional reductions in blood lead levels and is expected to further increase the number of children meeting the guidelines from 90 per cent to 95 per cent.

In conclusion, the jobs of thousands of people depend on Nyrstar's Port Pirie facilities continuing to operate. Direct wages and salaries paid to these individuals total about $270 million each year. Much of this goes straight into the local economy; the rest ripples out into the wider economies of the region and this state.

The transformation of the Nyrstar Port Pirie smelter to a state-of-the-art, enclosed bath smelting facility, operating at world's best practice, will not only bring significant health and environmental improvements but will also ensure the ongoing wellbeing of Port Pirie and the surrounding region. I commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (11:23): I will be brief—

The PRESIDENT: Not too brief.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: —but not too brief. The leader, the Hon. David Ridgway, put a number of comments on the record in relation to the bill, and I support his remarks. This is a very important bill for Port Pirie and for South Australia. I see it, in some ways, as being quite similar to the BHP indenture and the issues relating to that, because the inherent need for it is to mitigate risk to enable that operation to undergo the transformation.

I do not see how anyone could find any negatives in this in terms of what it will mean for the future of Port Pirie. It will result in much cleaner emissions, and that is obviously a very good thing. I am very conscious of the fact that Port Pirie gets quite tired of being picked on in the media and having a reputation because of the lead smelting that takes place and the pollution that has arisen from that.

I was talking to Kendall Jackson (the candidate for Frome) about this issue. She says that the city has missed out because it has had this thing held over its head for such a long time. She says that this needs to happen as soon as possible and she is looking forward to a positive future for Port Pirie with this transformation.

Some $350 million worth of funding is going to back the transformation: $150 million from the commonwealth through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation—and I understand that this is the first such transaction that has ever been undertaken by that organisation—$100 million supported by the state government and $100 million from Nyrstar. This will enable the upgrade of the operations there. It is one of the last lead smelters in the world. I think it might actually be the oldest lead smelter in the world, so clearly a lot of investment is required to bring that up to modern standards.

If Nyrstar were to exit Port Pirie then this state would obviously be left with a significant liability, so that is something to be borne in mind. I think this is a good, cooperative solution to enable this company and the people of Port Pirie to be able to continue those operations and, at the same time, reduce the significant amount of emissions that previous speakers have talked about.

We have had the Ten by 10 program for some years, which has been aimed at reducing the blood lead levels in children. I think it may well have plateaued in terms of the reductions, and this upgrade is certainly going to have a big impact on reducing lead levels for the local residents for some time.

I understand that the EPA will retain its licensing role, set the initial standard, but the manufacturing minister has the ability to approve any changes to that within the first 10 years. Also, this must come back to parliament if those initial levels are to be changed by the EPA. Any changes to those standards will require consultation with all relevant parties, and obviously that will be instructed by continuing understanding through research in that area.

I did say that I was not going to speak for very long, and I think that probably covers the matters I want to mention. From an environmental position and for the people of Port Pirie, I think this is a positive outcome and I look forward to the investment upgrade of that plant and the continuing operations for the benefit of South Australia.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (11:28): The parents of children in Port Pirie should not have to choose between having healthy kids and having a job, and I do not think anyone would disagree with that. We want them to have both: we want the pollution of the children that has taken place for over 100 years to end and we want to see a vibrant economy, including an industrial economy in Port Pirie. As has been said, the smelter is an integral part of the local economy. It provides considerable employment, and the Greens, along with everyone else, wish it to succeed and prosper, but we want it to do so in a way that does not damage the health of the local community.

This bill, in fact, does not represent a guarantee of healthy children—it does no such thing. What this bill is is a complete vote of no confidence in the ability of the Environment Protection Authority to carry out its statutory function appropriately. It is a vote of no confidence. This bill says that the parliament, the government and the opposition do not trust that the EPA will apply its mandate to protect the environment, to protect public health properly, they cannot be trusted to do their job, therefore the parliament needs to step in and legislate away their powers. Make no mistake about it: the reason this legislation is needed by the government is because it directly infringes the Environment Protection Act.

Under the Environment Protection Act there are two important matters in which the independent EPA is at arm's length from the state government. Those two things are licensing and enforcement. The reason that in those two areas the EPA is at arm's lengths from government is pretty clear—you do not have to think about it that hard. They need to be independent in relation to licensing, otherwise you would have a corrupt situation where a minister would say to the EPA, 'You make sure you give my mate a licence.' People would not stand for that; they would say, 'That's outrageous.' A licence should depend on a scientific assessment and a health assessment by the EPA and not on ministerial whim.

Similarly, enforcement of pollution laws is an area where the EPA is at arm's length from government, because you cannot have a minister of the Crown saying to the EPA, 'Don't you dare prosecute my mate, you leave my mate alone.' That is what would happen if the EPA was not at arm's length. Those two areas are the only two areas under the legislation where the EPA is at arm's length. This bill attacks the first of those areas. It is saying that the EPA is no longer at arm's length from government, the EPA is bound by decisions made by people other than its own board. Those decisions are in relation to changes to lead pollution levels.

This bill is a slap in the face to the EPA, and I know that the minister's advisers will be listening to these contributions and a question I pose now in my second reading contribution is: what was the response of the EPA to this bill? Was it consulted, did its board consider it, were submissions made and, if so, what were those submissions? Was it happy to simply put up with legislation that took away its independence or did it have something to say about it?

Another aspect of this bill that I think is frightening is that it compounds what has been known for some time in corporate circles, namely, that the government is a pushover, that all you need to do to get your way with this government is to threaten to close, threaten to move interstate or threaten to move to China and, having frightened the government that that might happen, you then put out your hand for money and you also put out your hand for special legal protection from the laws with which every other company in this state has to comply. That is now the new model. I say 'new' because it actually has been around for a little while.

Members would remember the Whyalla Steelworks legislation in 2005: fairly similar, in that the EPA was requiring OneSteel to do more to reduce its pollution. The company then went screaming to the government and said, 'You need to protect us from the EPA', and the government said, in the fashion of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, 'Don't you worry about that,' and it introduced special legislation into parliament effectively to nobble the EPA. We saw it in 2005.

It has been seen again in relation to the BHP indenture, where the most common answer to questions asked in this place about why concessions were made to the world's richest resource company was almost invariably, 'Because they asked for it,' or 'Because they insisted on it.' As a result they got special treatment. It still was not enough to get their project over the line, which actually raises the question about whether so-called regulatory certainty is the deal-breaker that companies make it to be.

Members can cast their mind back to the Penola pulp mill. The only way that project was going to get up was special legislation in parliament, a special deal, and no environmental impact statement. The parliament bent over backwards for those proponents and there was still no pulp mill; it did not happen. What is disappointing about this debate is that we have known what a lousy negotiator the state Labor government has been, but by the contributions of the Liberal opposition they intend to follow in exactly the same footsteps.

If Holden was in breach of pollution standards or struggling with meeting standards, then I reckon we would see legislation as well as public money going in that direction as well. The question then arises: why is it that the government and the opposition have no faith in the ability of the EPA to do its job properly? Let's have a look at the track record. Again, I will ask the minister (I know her advisers are listening): can you outline the number of cases in South Australia since the Environment Protection Act came into operation in 1994 where the EPA has effectively shut down a polluting industry by changing the pollution standards? I bet you they will not find a case.

There are certainly cases where industry has closed down, but you will find they have closed down for economic reasons or because they lost a client, or for other reasons. I am not aware of any case where the EPA has, using public health science best available information, modified a pollution licence and where that was the deal clincher that forced companies to close. It does not happen. It has not happened and it is not going to happen in this case. Yet the government has been, I think, blackmailed and hoodwinked by Nyrstar into thinking that the only future for smelting in Port Pirie is if special legislation is passed.

When you go to the minister's second reading speech, the minister refers to the Port Pirie transformation task force. It refers to the deal that was struck between the government and the company and then goes on to say:

The State providing regulatory certainty is a cornerstone of this agreement. Without that certainty, the investment in the Transformation would not happen, and the benefits would not be realised.

Put simply, this Bill provides that regulatory certainty.

What that says is that the government has effectively caved in and said, 'We are prepared to legislate to nobble the EPA as one of the conditions of the smelter going ahead.' Of course, we will not know for some time whether the smelter will go ahead, but I bet you in the boardroom it is not regulatory uncertainty that is really at the heart of the decision-making process, just as that was never the issue with BHP Billiton. It was all about the cost of production. It was all about the projected price of copper in China in 30 years' time, and it was nothing to do with regulatory certainty. Yet here we have this bill.

The issue at stake, as I have said, is jobs and the health of the Port Pirie community. As other members have said, the smelter has been in Port Pirie for a very long time—over 100 years—and the people of Port Pirie have been poisoned by lead pollution for pretty much the whole of that time. One of the best recent descriptions of the extent of that pollution and the extent of the problem is a short article that was published last year by Professor Mark Taylor, a professor in environmental science at Macquarie University, who, as members would know, has been engaged by the EPA to do work for it on the Port Pirie smelter and pollution levels. What he says in this article, which was published in the online journal The Conversation, is:

It is shocking to discover that more than 3000 children have been lead poisoned in the South Australian town of Port Pirie during the last decade.

Whilst Australia continues to be a world leader in lead mining, smelting, and processing, the adverse impacts associated with production have been consistently downplayed by industry, governments, councils, health officials, and regulators. Even some academics argue the effects of low lead exposures are not of significant concern. Due to ignorance, misinformation, and deliberate obfuscation of evidence, generations of families living next to lead-mining, smelting, and refining centres such as those at Broken Hill, Port Pirie and Mount Isa, have been and continue to be exposed to environmental lead, a known neuro-toxic contaminant.

He goes on:

Childhood exposure to lead has been linked to lower IQ and academic achievement and to a range of socio-behavioural problems such as attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), learning difficulties, oppositional and conduct disorders, and delinquency. The disabling mental health issues from lead exposure often persist into adolescence and adulthood.

I note that just in the last days—yesterday, in fact—listeners to ABC 891 and also 639, the ABC regional station broadcasting out of Port Pirie, would have heard about new research conducted at the University of Adelaide which found a link between lead exposure in children and psychological illness and substance abuse later in life as adults. A study by the Centre for Traumatic Stress tested Port Pirie residents for more than 30 years, following infants born from 1979. It found that women were three times as likely to have alcohol-related problems if they had blood lead levels above the recommended guidelines as children.

That is a University of Adelaide study. Ignorant people might pooh-pooh that and say, 'How stupid is that? Just because you live in a polluted industrial town and have higher levels of lead in your blood, does that make you an alcoholic in later life?' Well, no, it is not a direct causal link but, honestly, the evidence is pretty clear—it is three times more likely.

I think that research like this is at the heart of this legislation. What the company knows, what the government knows and I think what the opposition knows is that, when it comes to the setting of pollution standards, as medical science advances and as our technical and scientific knowledge advance, it is very rare for a jurisdiction to say, 'We were overly cautious. We used to think this was dangerous and now we think actually it is not so bad for you.' That is rarely the case. The direction is nearly always in the opposite direction, and that is that the more we know about pollution and the more we understand its harmful effects, the lower the standards are set.

This is an economic bill and an attempt to pre-empt what might happen in the future and to pre-empt medical knowledge and understanding. The Hon. David Ridgway referred to changes that have occurred in the United States. He said they were actually a bit of a furphy because the lowering of the blood lead level in children was not so much a regulatory matter as a trigger for concern. Well, isn't that what we are talking about? At what level should we be concerned about the health of children? If that American number was used in Port Pirie, we would find that over half the children are at risk.

That then brings us to the smelter upgrade. As I have said, the Greens, along with everyone else, want the smelter transformation to succeed in reducing the ongoing pollution load in the air and, ultimately, in the environment of Port Pirie. The company has been granted major project status for the smelter upgrade and they have produced a public environmental report. The Hon. David Ridgway said there had not been any submissions as yet. I am not sure if that is right but I think they will be published on the website once that is concluded. I certainly am working on my submission, as I know are other groups such as Doctors for the Environment.

When you look at the public environmental report, what you find is that the company's commitment is to reduce ongoing pollution by 50 per cent—by half. The question for the government and the question for the people of Port Pirie is whether that is enough. As we know, the lead exposure problem in Port Pirie is a combination of the daily new emissions coming from the smelter and also the historic legacy pollution that exists all through the Port Pirie environment.

We know from studies that have been conducted in the last couple of months that one of the public parks and playgrounds in Port Pirie had 12 times the safe lead pollution level. That means that the Port Pirie council has its work cut out for it. It needs to make sure that bare earth is not exposed. They need to mulch. They need to make sure that there is a grass cover over all public spaces, because kids playing in dirt in Port Pirie equals exposure to lead and results in the sort of problems that members are very aware of.

People in this place might think that we can trust the government on this—the Greens do not. As I was putting together some notes for today, I discovered that in Mount Isa the state government there has cut the funding to its environment agency, as the state government here has done. The lead monitoring station at Mount Isa has been offline for nine months, so they are not even adequately measuring the level of lead in the local environment. With the cuts that have been made to the environment agencies here in South Australia, it would not surprise me to see a similar outcome.

This bill is flawed on so many levels. It does represent a capitulation on the part of the government to exhortations by the company that if they were not to be protected from the EPA then somehow transforming the smelter would be unviable. There can be no logical explanation for that unless they anticipate that the EPA is about to change standards or that medical science is about to expose that lead is far more dangerous than we ever thought.

The Greens have tabled a number of amendments to this bill, and we will get to those on another day, as I understand it. I appreciate the minister is keen to get this bill into committee today but I think members are probably looking for a greater opportunity to look at the Greens' amendments. As other members have alluded to, the only way that the EPA is allowed to change the lead-in-air licence pollution standards is if either the company or the manufacturing minister agrees.

The question that arises is: why on earth the manufacturing minister? What great expertise does the manufacturing minister have in matters of public health? So, my amendments include a set that replaces references to the manufacturing minister with the environment minister. I am still not entirely happy with that because I think the whole concept of the bill is flawed, but let's at least make sure that if there is going to be ministerial interference in the independence of the EPA that it be the environment minister and not the manufacturing minister.

In terms of consultation, we need to make sure that the health minister is included in the consultation regime. We also need to make sure that the ministers, in making their decision to veto effective changes that the EPA wishes to make, must be fully accountable for their decisions. They must report on their reasons for their decision and must provide the public with analysis of why they believe the EPA is wrong in its assessment of what is required to protect public health.

One other amendment is that, not satisfied with undermining state law, this bill also seeks to undermine federal law by saying that even if South Australia signs up to a new national pollution standard that does not apply to Nyrstar at Port Pirie. This is an attempt to legislate away national standards and not just local standards, so that needs to be fixed as well.

I think that this bill does represent somewhat of a wake-up call to this parliament. As I have said, we have now seen a number of occasions when the government has sought through legislation to undermine the independence of the EPA. I know that from my private conversations with EPA officers morale is at rock bottom. They know the government does not trust them to do their job properly, they now know the opposition does not trust them to do their job properly, and they know they are probably in line for more budget cuts as they have been for the last several budgets.

I think it is a very sad time for our hardworking public officials who are doing their utmost to protect public health, to protect the environment and to balance that with the legitimate needs of industry and the legitimate expectations of the community for employment and economic activity. You can have your cake and eat it too. You can have jobs and a healthy environment, but you do not achieve it by undermining the independence of our chief pollution watchdog.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (11:49): I speak today briefly in support of the second reading of this bill on behalf of Dignity for Disability; however, I do have some questions about some of the health and disability related issues this raises and would like to put them on the record here with the hope of some answers further down the track—and, hopefully, not too far.

Firstly, I would like to thank minister Kenyon's adviser, Corey Harriss, for arranging a comprehensive briefing for my office from the three different departments—from the EPA's Rob Thomas; the acting Solicitor-General, Gaby Jaksa; and Peter Bagshaw and his colleague of the Olympic Dam Taskforce. We appreciate that briefing. I will not rehash some of the issues already raised by colleagues in this place but, as I say, I do have some very serious concerns relating to health and disability issues for the children, given their heightened vulnerability.

As I am sure every member in this place knows, this is no easy issue. The town of Port Pirie is very much reliant on the Nyrstar facility for jobs and its economic viability. I understand that this industry provides some 850 direct jobs and 2,500 indirect jobs. It is good to hear that this project, through implementation of world best technology, will improve the air quality for the community, particularly as it pertains to lead and sulfur dioxide that are known to have a serious effect on health, particularly in children.

I would like to ask some questions of the government's health and disability departments about the rate of health conditions and disabilities in Port Pirie, especially in children, and the comparison rate to the rest of the South Australian community, including the following:

1. What is the diagnosed rate of children on the autism spectrum or with intellectual or other developmental disabilities in Port Pirie?

2. What is the rate of asthma in the child and adult population in Port Pirie?

3. What is the hospitalisation rate of children and adults in Port Pirie with respiratory distress caused by asthma and other respiratory conditions?

4. What is the anticipated reduction in these health conditions and disabilities as the enclosure of the Nyrstar facility occurs?

5. How many social workers and other allied health workers are employed in the government's environmental health office in Port Pirie?

I would also like to know, given the news article by Sarah Martin that appeared in The Weekend Australian, what liability the government might feel it could be subject to if a class action were launched by families in Port Pirie in relation to lead in the blood levels of their children. I would also like to put on the record at this stage that I am very interested in the amendments the Hon. Mr Parnell has already tabled in relation to this bill.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (11:53): Family First rises to welcome this bill—a bill that we know has been in the making for some time—and to advise the house that, due to the importance of the economic operations for Port Pirie and the State of South Australia, we will be supporting this bill.

I am familiar with Nyrstar, as I toured the facility sometime last year. I have been there a couple of times actually, but last year I went there with the local member, Geoff Brock, and also that day met with both mayor Brenton Vanstone and CEO, Andrew Johnson, and had a very good briefing from the senior manager of Nyrstar in Port Pirie.

We can all dispute the merits with hindsight of having a smelter so close to housing and the situation there. Whilst historically it has been close to the town, the company, particularly in more recent years, has done whatever they can to eliminate the risks associated with its location close to the town. In part, by its participation, I believe the government accepts some moral liability here. I am not going to talk about legal liabilities, but moral liabilities to try to improve the situation through any contribution the government may be able to make to ensure health safety for the residents of Port Pirie.

This bill presents as a very difficult balancing act between environmental and public health standards (and also, obviously and importantly, we are talking about child health here in particular); government risk-taking by underwriting via guarantees to secure the $350 million expansion necessary to abate the lead emissions; and the corporate certainty for Nyrstar going forward so it can be assured of income necessary to finance redevelopment of the plant to world best standard.

I understand the comments made by the Hon. Mark Parnell who has a genuine and longstanding commitment to environment protection. I have listened closely to what he has had to say with respect to his concerns about the bill and the amendments that he has put forward which, whilst looking complicated, are fairly straightforward because it really focuses, as I understand, on who is going to be the minister responsible for the ongoing carriage of the follow-through if this bill is passed in both houses, and the associated legal requirements with respect to Nyrstar and the new development.

On the guarantee of underwriting by the government of $350 million, from memory it is not the first time governments have done this. However, I think it is something that governments need to be very careful about. Whilst I would trust, after talking to Nyrstar, that the contracts they have into the future are sound and solid contracts and that they have indeed done a lot of due diligence themselves—because I think they are putting in up to $150 million of their own shareholders' money—I urge governments to be cautious on the number of times they commit to underwriting via guarantees significant amounts of money.

In this case we are talking about a $350 million expansion for efficiency and abatement of lead emissions. At the end of the day, things can go wrong. Even the brightest and the best and most people did not see the GFC looming—there were some who claimed they did but by and large world leaders and experts around the world did not see it looming. We know what is happening now and we also know how difficult the economy is still. Even as recently as yesterday, listening to Gail Kelly, the CEO of Westpac Group talking at a function, we are in for a pretty hard road for at least the next 10 years and maybe longer. Any signs of recovery internationally are slow and spasmodic.

I urge governments to be very careful with underwriting because if we start underwriting too many projects and something goes wrong—taking into account the heavy debt load that the state has now, without a AAA credit rating and with record debt—it is going to be a huge challenge as it is to reduce and get a manageable-sized core debt; notwithstanding all the other debt that we ultimately are responsible for one way or another. We just need to be careful in case something goes wrong and makes the future for our children and grandchildren very difficult in this state.

The corporate certainty for Nyrstar going forward so they can be assured of the income necessary to finance the redevelopment of the plant to world best standard, is very important. We could go out of balance. We could say the lead levels need to be much lower—that is ramp up the public health standards to let us call it a platinum standard. Something is not really within reach unless you want to stop the activity altogether, from what I am advised.

However, in my opinion, that is not economically or socially responsible. We are told there are 850 direct jobs and 2,500 indirect jobs at risk. I argue that if this smelter was not to proceed with its expansion and upgrade we would basically see the demise of Port Pirie as we have known it, albeit that historically, from a processing and manufacturing point of view with silver, lead and zinc, Port Pirie has been fundamental in underpinning a lot of the economy of this state for most of its history—certainly in my living memory anyway. What I am saying is that standards need to be high, but they also need to be achievable. If they are best practice, then I am not sure we can do much more than that.

From a moral point of view, what will happen if we have a platinum standard environmental health policy here? Nyrstar is foreign owned, and the bulk of smelting occurs in China, so they say 'Fine, China has a copper standard,' and they shut down the plant, run a smelter somewhere in China instead, and our kids' future will be at risk. You can say that they always threaten this—and we have GMH threatening it at the moment, as well—and I understand what the Hon. Mark Parnell is saying there, but, having eyeballed the senior executive for South Australia on this, I feel that there is a real risk they could leave. We are a very remote area of operations for Nyrstar, when you think that its board and its central focus is in Europe.

Let's take a step back and consider the usual global consciousness politics of some who might want a platinum standard here. If we are globally aware we have to realise that the best thing for global public health is to run these enterprises here—not in polluting countries—and/or in countries with very public environmental standards. Whilst more can be done, at times, to improve our environmental standards, I think it is fair to say that when you look at international standards South Australia, from an environmental point of view, has some of the highest. I think we can easily argue that our benchmarks are up there with the best, and the mere fact that the government wants an economic minister driving this project does not mean that environmental factors will not be very important.

The government has said that it is looking to assist other industries in similar ways—and this is coming back to these guarantees; we have been advised in a briefing that the government is looking at assisting other industries in similar ways—and again I caution that the more guarantees that are given in this way the more they add to a different kind of unfunded liability. It adds to the government's risk profile and, as I said, given our record debt levels under Labor, we need to be very careful. I have reinforced that twice in my few minutes on this debate because I want to be on the public record as expressing some concern and as putting pressure on the government to ensure that this project—which I believe, from the briefing I have had and from my adviser, will be alright—does not become a habit.

Finally, looking at the balance sought in this bill and bearing all that in mind, in this instance a vital industry in Port Pirie—and not only for Port Pirie but also for South Australia–we support the bill. However, we urge the government to be very transparent and to report regularly to the parliament on progress towards meeting the relevant targets under this bill. We look forward to the debate in the committee stage.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:03): I understand there are no further second reading contributions, so I rise to thank all members for their second reading contribution and their interest in this very important piece of legislation.

Fundamentally, this bill aims to provide regulatory certainty to enable the investment necessary to ensure the continued operation of the Nyrstar Port Pirie smelter. It seeks to do that by doing a number of things but, in particular, by making special provision in relation to Nyrstar's environmental licence.

I do not need to remind honourable members—most have made reference to this at one point or other—that the Port Pirie smelter is the world's largest lead smelter. It also produces significant quantities of zinc and silver and it is a major employer, I am told, of around 850 people, which represents about 18 per cent of the town's total workforce. So, it is a very significant industry and a very important employer in that area, and all of the social consequences associated with that.

A number of questions have been posed, and I am happy to address those through the committee stage. I again thank members for their contribution, particularly those who have indicated support for this bill, and I look forward to dealing with it expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: A number of questions were asked throughout the second reading stage and, with your leave, Chair, I will provide answers to some of those questions at this point in time.

The CHAIR: Yes, minister.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I was asked about the lead poisoning level. I have been advised that the term 'lead poisoning' is, in fact, inappropriate when there is no evidence of any form of clinical syndrome or illness. It is our objective to protect all children; however, at the same time, it is important not to generate unnecessary anxiety in the community. The use of the term 'poisoning at low levels', certainly below 30 micrograms per decilitre, is inappropriate. It is important to separate exposure and effect.

Exposure to lead does not always result in an effect on an individual as there are substantial differences between individuals and how they respond to elevated blood lead levels. However, blood lead levels above 30 micrograms per decilitre are regarded as unacceptably high and can result in physiological effects such as anaemia, which can be clinically diagnosed for an individual. An effect such as anaemia could also be described as poisoning.

Below 30 micrograms per decilitre, it is unlikely that any effects on an individual can be determined through clinical diagnosis. Effects at these levels have been determined through epidemiological studies, which are population based. The effects are largely IQ shifts of one to three points and, in a different socioeconomic environment, these shifts are essentially masked by other factors, such as the level of parental reading and suchlike.

This in itself does not make a low level of blood lead acceptable, but at the same time it points to the use of the term 'poisoning' at these levels as being inappropriate. For all levels of blood lead, it is better to refer to exposure and then determine the risk associated with that exposure. For high levels, this can be determined through clinical diagnosis, while for low levels a precautionary approach should be adopted, aiming to keep all children as low as possible below 10 micrograms per decilitre.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The government has made very clear that this protection was a precondition for Nyrstar to progress with the transformation. My question of the minister is: what evidence did the company provide to the government that this legislation was necessary? In other words, did they say, 'We don't want to end up in a position like company X or company Y'? Did they provide a practical example of why they felt that they were at risk without this legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: As I have indicated, the reason for this legislation is to provide regulatory certainty, and that was a very significant element in the agreement negotiated between the government and Nyrstar. This element is to enable Nyrstar to be able to secure and obtain long-term funding commitments from third-party investors, supported by a period of operating certainty. Without this level of operational certainty, we were advised that investment in new technology would not happen.

Basically, the company indicated that, looking at the current plant situation, it would not be able to meet the new proposed EPA standards under the current plant configuration. It indicated that it had two choices: one was a major investment involving outside third-party investors, and therefore the need for regulatory certainty; the second option was to shut down.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. It goes part of the way to answering my question, which really is: what were they worried about? The minister said that they were worried they might not get funding, and they were worried they might not meet EPA standards. I will rephrase the question: whether it was the funders or whether it was Nyrstar, was any example provided to the government that added flesh to the bones of this fear that the EPA has some sort of form in denying licences or closing down industry on the basis of licence conditions?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This goes to the last question, but it certainly answers a previous question, namely, how many companies has the EPA shut down? I have been advised that companies have shut down under EPA enforcement action, for example, Castalloy, but these are obviously very difficult to determine because usually a wide range of different factors are operating at a particular time—industry factors, the dollar inflation, economic climate. The advice is that there is evidence that they have shut down. Certainly, the advice I have received is that companies have been stopped from operating for periods because of enforcement action. I am still working on those others.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. I am glad she mentioned Castalloy. I was the lawyer for the south-west residents' association, and I can tell you there were factors far beyond the EPA intervention. I will move on to a slightly different line of questioning and ask: what consultation did the government undertake with the board of the EPA before drafting and introducing this legislation?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that in fact ongoing communications between CE and CE had been undertaken for at least a period of a year. I have been advised that there was also at least one presentation to the board about this proposal.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: The minister has explained that the EPA was told what was to happen. Was the EPA consulted? Were they asked their views, and were those views expressed in writing or otherwise?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised by the chief executive that, in fact, there were two presentations to the board, not one, and the views of the EPA were sought and considered right throughout those discussions that I indicated had occurred between CE and CE and also during those presentations with the board.

The views that the EPA board expressed were that they objected to the licensing arrangements. However, they indicated that they realised and appreciated how important this project was and how important it was that the smelter continued, and they worked very closely with the team to make sure that the legislation before us was workable and practical and able to preserve as many protections as possible while still allowing the regulatory certainty that was needed by Nyrstar.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer and, of course, those considerations she has attributed to the EPA are exactly the considerations they are legally obliged to take into account, anyway. I refer members to the general environmental duty under the Environment Protection Act: it is an obligation on all South Australians to comply with this duty. But, in determining what measures a company or a person needs to take, regard has to be had to the financial implications of various measures and how expensive they are going to be. So, the economic criteria are always in there.

What I am interested to know as well about these discussions with the EPA is: was consideration given to the use of existing exemption powers to enable Nyrstar to continue to operate? What I mean by that is this. We know there are some companies that are so dirty but so important that they are never going to be shut down. Playford B Power Station is a classic example. They cannot legally operate because of how polluting they are but, in the interests of not turning out the lights of South Australia, they have been granted an exemption. That is an example of the EPA, in its balancing act, taking into account economic and environmental considerations.

You could say the same thing about the Adelaide Brighton cement works at Port Adelaide. At certain times during their production cycle they cannot meet pollution standards so they are given an exemption. My question to the minister is: was consideration given to keeping the EPA as the regulator and using the exemption power to see them through any particularly difficult periods in the transformation process?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The short answer to the question is: yes, alternatives were considered, including the existing exemption powers. I am advised, however, that the advice was that those powers were not able to be applied, and therefore were not going to be helpful in this particular situation; therefore, other options were then explored.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for her answer. I am not sure about that but, in any event, I guess it is internally inconsistent because the company will have to comply with the first lot of licence conditions that are established so, presumably, there is no need for exemptions. Anyway, the minister has answered that question.

This project has been declared a major project under the Development Act. The decision-maker as to whether or not the transformation will go ahead is the Governor—effectively, the government. Under section 48 of the Development Act, the Governor is obliged to take a range of considerations into account, including the Environment Protection Act objects and the general environmental duty. So, my question is: given that the EPA does not have an effective right of veto over major projects—they are effectively obliged to license major projects—why was that not enough?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that they have to give them a licence but they still have responsibility for setting this licence limit. Just going back to the former question, I have received further advice to say that the reason that it was not considered appropriate to apply the existing exemption powers to this operation was that the exemption is still at the discretion of the EPA and this was not going to provide the level of economic certainty that was required.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It is not my intention to rile the minister—far be it from me to do that—but I do need to ask this question. It is very clear that the company has no confidence in the EPA; does the government have no confidence in the EPA as well, and does this bill reflect a lack of confidence by the government in the EPA's ability to do its job?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The answer to the first question is, yes, we do have confidence; and the answer to the second question is no.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Parnell–1]—

Page 2, lines 10 and 11 [clause 3(1), definition of Manufacturing Minister]—Delete the definition of Manufacturing Minister and substitute:

Environment Minister means the Minister to whom the administration of the Environment Protection Act 1993 is committed;

This is a test amendment for a number of others. It seeks to replace the role of the manufacturing minister in the bill with the environment minister. Having moved the amendment, I ask the minister: given that the role of the manufacturing minister in this situation is to determine whether or not a change to licence conditions is required, what expertise does the manufacturing minister's department have in dealing with issues of public health and pollution? We know that the environment minister has a large agency full of people with such expertise. My question is: what expertise does the manufacturing minister have in public health and pollution?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that the Minister for Manufacturing has responsibilities under this bill to balance economic and environmental issues; that is their primary responsibility and that is the main area of the focus of attention. If they require any other policy expertise from any other area, the minister will obviously seek that, as do other ministers performing roles that from time to time might require additional expertise.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I indicate the opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment for basically very similar reasons. I asked the same questions when I was briefed by the department over the last few days as to why it had to be the manufacturing minister and not the environment minister. They cited the example that in Whyalla it was the primary industries minister who was the minister responsible.

The Hon. M. Parnell: And that was wrong as well.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The Hon. Mark Parnell says it was wrong. I think from the evidence I have seen from visiting Whyalla and the community response, they have been very happy with the outcome and so given the pleasure with which the Whyalla community has greeted the arrangements—and I hope the Port Pirie community was equally as happy—I indicate we will not be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. This bill is essentially about economic development. It is to provide Nyrstar with a level of regulatory certainty that the company and its third party investors require to invest in a facility with the best available technology. The manufacturing minister should administer the legislation as he or she is best placed to take account of the range of competing factors related to any proposed changes to lead-in-air limits. The bill requires the manufacturing minister to take into account the following matters that are relevant to changes proposed to the maximum lead-in-air condition prior to making a decision.

Firstly, that the environment minister must be consulted in relation to variations proposed by the EPA and, if required in relation to variations put forward by other regulatory requirements, consult with that relevant minister. These ministers are given the opportunity to make written submissions that the manufacturing minister must consider.

Secondly, health and environmental matters related to lead emissions, such as international standards, medical and scientific advances.

Thirdly, the impact any variation should have from a social and commercial perspective, that is to the community of Port Pirie and the company of operations.

These are the requirements that the manufacturing minister must consider prior to making any decision. Through this provision, the manufacturing minister is required to take a holistic view of proposed changes. It is the manufacturing minister rather than the health minister, for instance, or environment minister, that is best placed to weigh up these health, environmental, social and economic factors.

Under the Environment Protection Act, the EPA is independent of the environment minister in the exercise of its powers in relation to environmental authorisations. It would therefore be logical to have an exception in this particular instance. To vest this responsibility with the environment minister would place the minister in an unnecessary position of conflict with his agency and with the EPA.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I have two further amendments to clause 3 which are consequential, so can I deal with those first. Having tested the first amendment, I will not be moving those further amendments to clause 3.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I can do clause 4 now, if you want?

The CHAIR: No, I am in the Chair so take the advice from me, not the Hon. Mr Ridgway.

Clause passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: At clause 4, amendments numbered 4, 5, 6 and 7 are consequential on the amendment that has just been defeated so I will not be pursuing them. However, I will move:

Amendment No 8 [Parnell–1]—

Page 3, lines 31 and 32 [clause 4(4)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'Environment Protection Act 1993' and substitute 'Health Care Act 2008'

This seeks to replace the phrase 'Environment Protection Act 1993' with the phrase 'Health Care Act 2008.' It goes to the question of who must be consulted by the manufacturing minister before determining whether or not to allow a change to the licence conditions. It fills what I think is a fairly glaring omission, and that is that the health minister has no part in this discussion.

People might think that what I am seeking to do is to remove the environment minster, and I have just been trying to put the environment minister in all these other clauses. However, I know where the numbers lie on this but I just wanted to put on the record that the Greens believe that the health minister is an integral part of the decision-making process and should be consulted.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment as well. I think I have covered the reasons pretty much in my response to the first amendment where I outlined in some detail the very thorough considerations that are required to be taken by the manufacturing minister prior to making any decisions. It is quite a thorough and comprehensive process, ensuring that all relevant matters or concerns have an opportunity to be raised prior to any decision being made.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: There is a further amendment to clause 4. I move:

Amendment No 9 [Parnell–1]—

Page 3, after line 32 [clause 4(4)]—After paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) by public advertisement (in the Gazette, in a newspaper circulating throughout the State and on a website determined by the Environment Minister) invite any interested person to make written submissions to the Environment Minister within a reasonable period specified in the advertisement (which must be a period ending not less than 2 weeks after the date of the advertisement); and

Another omission to the list of people who I believe need to be consulted in relation to this is the general public. I will say that I did not ask this question when I had my briefing, for which I should thank officers—I have not done that yet on the record. I thank the officers for their briefing. I did not ask this question because it had not occurred to me at the time. Under the Environment Protection Act there is an obligation on the EPA to go out to public consultation if it is proposing to water down licence conditions, in other words, make the licence conditions less onerous.

My question in relation to this bill—and it fits in at this clause—is: how does that obligation of the EPA fit in with this bill which provides for no public notification of intention to change a licence condition? Is it simply a matter that this is a newer bill and therefore it trumps the Environment Protection Act, or should the Environment Protection Act prevail if, in fact, the proposed change to lead-in-air levels is a weakening of the standard?

As I understand it, this bill is value neutral: it refers to changes in the lead-in-air levels, not necessarily strengthening or weakening—it could apply to both. How does this bill sit with the existing obligation to consult the public under the Environment Protection Act?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that if the standards have been tightened, then the EPA does not consult with the public, and this is common practice.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: That was not my question. My question was: what if the standards were relaxed?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that we are not contemplating standards being relaxed, so it is not an option.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: It is an option because it is not the minister's contemplation but the Environment Protection Authority's contemplation. If it is proposing to relax a licence condition, then I reckon the people of Port Pirie would have something to say about it. Under the current law, under the Environment Protection Act, they get to have their say on the relaxation of a licence condition.

The minister might be able to say that I am wrong in terms of the effect of this bill, but it seems to me that the effect of the bill is about changes in the lead-in-air standard, not necessarily increases or decreases. It is a change, and if a change is a relaxation in the pollution level then surely members of the public should be consulted. So, my question is about the statutory interpretation, the conflict of those two laws.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am advised that this bill has no impact on the EPA's powers and authority around its ability to put conditions on licences. For instance, if the EPA, as you are suggesting, chose to relax a licence condition for Nyrstar, I am advised that this bill will have no impact on the powers, authorities and obligations of the EPA and the processes that it may be required to put in place in relation to that. This bill has no impact on that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I can see the officers squirreling away there because I know I am right. The minister is right to the extent of if it is a condition of a licence that is anything other than the maximum lead-in-air condition; however, if we look at clause 4, it provides:

The Environment Protection Authority may not, during the period commencing on the project completion date and ending on the commencement day, vary a maximum lead-in-air condition—

I am answering my own question here—

in a way that would have the effect of reducing the maximum specified in the condition...

There you go; you should have answered that for me, but I have answered it myself.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: We assumed you had read that.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Well, I had read it, but I reread it. That was a bit of a dead end, I am afraid, but I still maintain that I think the public is a key stakeholder in this, so the amendment I have moved requires the government to advertise to the public that a proposed licence variation is on the cards.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Again, I think I have already addressed the issues underpinning this in my previous responses. The government opposes this amendment. We think it is unnecessary because of the rigorous process the minister is already required to go through.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Amendment No. 10 is consequential so I will not move it. I move:

Amendment No 11 [Parnell–1]—

Page 3, after line 34 [clause 4(4)(b)]—After subparagraph (i) insert:

(ia) any reasons given by the Environment Protection Authority for the proposed variation;

Amendment No. 11 is a new issue. It is, I think, an omission. The omission is that before the manufacturing minister grants approval to a licence condition the minister has to consult with the company and with the environment minister and they have to take into account any written submissions received by the company or the environment minister. There is a range of other things they have to take into account. The one thing they do not have to take into account is the EPA's views.

My amendment seeks to include in the list of things to be taken into account reasons given by the Environment Protection Authority for the proposed variation. People might think it is stating the bleeding obvious, but it is not in here and it is important to list it. If you are going to list some things in legislation, you should list them all. So, the EPA's reasons for wanting to change the licence should be a relevant consideration for the minister to take into account in making her or his decision.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The government rises to oppose this amendment. The rigorous set of conditions imposed on the manufacturing minister that requires him to consider a range of things prior to making a decision includes health and environmental matters related to lead emissions, such as international standards, medical and scientific advances, etc, including variations proposed by the EPA. The minister for environment must be consulted in relation to variations by the EPA, etc. So already the EPA is involved in consultations and the manufacturing minister is required to be advised of all environmental matters.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: The opposition will not be supporting the Hon. Mark Parnell's amendment. I perhaps might quickly add that the opposition participated in the House of Assembly select committee. We are very happy with the bill in its current form and do not seek to make any further amendments. So, rather than jumping up and down every time the Hon. Mark Parnell moves an amendment, I indicate that we will not be supporting any of his amendments.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Amendment No. 12 is consequential so I will not be moving it. Amendment No. 13, also to clause 4, is a new issue but I will not proceed with it because I have already replaced the manufacturing minister with the environment minister. The manufacturing minister is now back in the bill so this section has no work to do. Basically it is about the minister publishing reasons for the determination. I can see that technically there is no point proceeding with that now.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. G.A. Kandelaars): You are withdrawing?

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, I will withdraw the amendment but I want to put on the record that I think the minister should provide reasons for her or his decision.

Clause passed.

Clause 5.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I move:

Amendment No 14 [Parnell–1]—

Page 4, lines 31 to 34 [clause 5(3)]—Delete subclause (3) and substitute:

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply—

(a) in relation to a requirement applying under a national environment protection measure (within the meaning of the Environment Protection Act 1993); or

(b) to the extent that the Environment Minister determines, by notice in writing to the Company, that a particular law or authorisation specified in the notice should not be so modified, or should only be modified as specified in the notice.

As I alluded to in my second reading contribution, this bill not only seeks to potentially avoid the law of South Australia but it also seeks to avoid national standards that might be incorporated into the law of South Australia. As members would know, the mechanisms for that are things called national environment protection measures, or NEPMs for short. We have NEPMs in relation to air quality, contaminated land and a range of other issues. It seems to me that, whilst we are not happy with undermining the law of the state, it is even more serious to be undermining the law of the commonwealth. This amendment seeks to make clear that, if national standards change, they will apply to the Port Pirie smelter.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I have been advised that, if a national standard does change, whether it is through a NEPM or other means, this bill has no impact on the ability for a national standard to be enforced. So, this bill has no impact on that. It will continue to be applied via whatever the usual mechanisms are. When I was environment minister I used to know this extremely well, but the details allude me now. I have been advised that it has no impact on the ability for these standards to be applied to this particular business.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I will take the minister's answer, although I am not convinced. I can understand that, if we were to take, for example, the current suite of national environment protection measures, that would be right, because it relates to ambient air quality rather than point source pollution. I will accept the minister's answer for now and time will tell if the circumstances arise that this clause is tested.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: My remaining amendments, Nos 15, 16 and 17, have been dealt with and are consequential. Amendment No. 18, which relates to public notification, I have discussed already and I will regard that as consequential at this stage. I think amendments Nos 19 and 20 are also consequential. Amendment No. 21 was about giving reasons for a determination. It is the same principle as applied earlier, and I will regard that as consequential, as I do amendment No. 22. When we get to clause 6, amendments Nos 23 and 24 are consequential also.

Clause passed.

Remaining clause (6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (12:55): I move:

That the bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.