Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 2 December 2020.)

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (16:46): On 23 November last year, in a matters of interest speech, I spoke in opposition to the proposed PFAS dump in McLaren Vale. My conclusion then was that, for the sake of public health, for the sake of the environment, for the sake of the economy, the dumping of PFAS contaminated waste at McLaren Vale must not be allowed to proceed. Thankfully, sanity has prevailed, and the EPA rejected the application for that particular dump. The EPA made the right call.

While the urgency of the McLaren Vale PFAS dump proposal might have passed, the Greens will support this private member's bill to bolster the safeguards and make it clear where toxic waste dumps should not be established. This is particularly important for our primary producing regions. As members in the other place noted, there is still so much we do not know about the environmental and health implications of PFAS. One thing we do know is that they exist forever. It is their defining characteristic, so much so that they are often referred to as 'forever chemicals'.

This was a point that was made strongly by the member for Mawson during the second reading in the other place, so we know that these chemicals exist forever, but we do not yet know entirely the extent of their danger. These two factors combined merit the application of the principle 'an abundance of caution'. This is particularly the case given the emerging scientific findings regarding the potential dangers posed when PFAS-contaminated water is used to irrigate vegetables or fruit.

In November last year, I was contacted by a constituent, a retired scientist, who referred me to a report in the online journal Environmental Science & Technology. The report is entitled, 'Assessing Human Health Risks from Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS)-Impacted Vegetable Consumption: A Tiered Modelling Approach'.

The Hon. J.E. Hanson: Catchy.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: As an honourable member interjects, that is a very catchy title. I think it is properly categorised as a page turner. That was published on 17 November last year.

Whilst I do not pretend to fully understand the science, or how to even pronounce properly the names of the chemicals, a number of commentators have picked up on that report to explain it to a lay audience. According to the Denver Gazette, which reported on the findings of this study, the report's key message is that there is a danger in focusing only on the impact of these chemicals on drinking water because 'even if irrigation water meets the contamination standards for drinking water, the vegetables grown in the water may not be fully protected from PFOA exposure'. I know members know this, but for the record PFOA is perfluorooctanoic acid.

Given these findings, the EPA, I think, made the right call to stop the PFAS dump in the middle of our internationally renowned McLaren Vale wine region, a region that has already been hit hard by drought, bushfires and Chinese wine tariffs. The last thing that we want in our great wine regions is a reputation for producing top-shelf PFAS shiraz, a bold and full bodied drop with hints of smoke, black fruit and carcinogens.

Thankfully, the EPA, as I said, made the right call, and that particular project is off the table for now. As I said in my matters of interest speech last year, I acknowledge that PFAS must be stored somewhere. These chemicals exist; we cannot pretend that they do not. They were used over many years, and now we need to clean up this toxic legacy.

This contaminated material will need to be taken and securely stored or disposed of somewhere, but this bill identifies where it must not be disposed of. With a zero value product like toxic waste it is attractive to minimise transport costs by dumping it as close as possible to where it was collected. That might be the objective of those picking up the tab for the clean-up, but the community expects that public health and the protection of the environment will be the main considerations. The bill meets those expectations, and the Greens are happy to support it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:51): I rise briefly to speak in support of the second reading of the Environment Protection (Disposal of PFAS Contaminated Substances) Amendment Bill 2020. I am not even going to attempt to say what the substance is called. Per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, or PFAS as they are commonly known, are found in stain and water repellent and non-stick commercially treated household products like carpet cleaners, Teflon frying pans, paints and polishes. That is a short list of where they can be found.

Historically, they have also been a key ingredient in firefighting foam, as has been pointed to. A legacy of the use of firefighting foam in training exercises can be found in contaminated groundwater, I am told, around airport and military bases. What we did not know in the 1950s, when PFAS first started being used, but certainly do know now, is that exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes. Today, we know that such substances need to be disposed of with great care.

I will preface the rest of my comments by saying that I certainly do not want to live near any PFAS dump site, I do not want my child or any other of my family living near any PFAS dump site and I am sure the people of McLaren Vale do not want to be living near any PFAS site. I do not want to eat food or drink water or wine that has potentially been contaminated by this substance, and I am not sure that any of us in this place or in the community do either.

I therefore am somewhat dumbfounded by the proposal for such a site even being contemplated in an area like McLaren Vale, a region responsible for producing some of our state's best food and wine. Thankfully, the immediate threat appears to have subsided. We know the EPA last week rejected this bid by ResourceCo to receive, treat and dispose of PFAS waste at its facility located some four kilometres west of McLaren Vale. This followed the publication of a risk assessment report by the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training.

Nowhere in that report does it say the potential for a PFAS leak is impossible. I am in no way an expert, clearly, but when I read phrases like 'extremely unlikely' I am not filled with absolute confidence. It does not sound like any sort of guarantee to me. The report states:

If a catastrophic liner breach causes dissolved PFAS to enter the groundwater beneath the SWD site, then the existence of the groundwater mound and steep hydraulic gradients mean that it will be difficult to prevent contaminated groundwater from leaving the site. If it should leave the site, standard treatment methods would be difficult to apply due to the nature of the fractured basement aquifer.

I understand there have also been questions about the viability of the proposed liners, with suggestions some are not fit for purpose. While the application by Southern Waste ResourceCo may have been rejected in the first instance, the door is still open for an appeal or an entirely separate application, or even for another inappropriate site to be selected by this or any other company now or at some time in the future. This issue is still very much a live one.

The bill seeks to restrict authorisation for the disposal of PFAS-contaminated substances at landfill depots located in a high-risk area, specifically the Greater Adelaide area, within 50 kilometres of land used for the purpose of primary production and within a township or five kilometres of the boundary. Closing the door to the possibility of a PFAS dump coming to a suburb or a town near you is a no-brainer for us in SA-Best. I understand the government is insisting on a regulatory framework as adequate in terms of offering the necessary protections that we need.

I think one of the rationales put out by Minister Speirs at the time was, 'If we allowed for the 50-kilometre radius that has been proposed then we couldn't have this anywhere in South Australia.' My response to Minister Speirs is (a) that is a load of garbage, and (b) if that is the case, well, so be it, because I do not think anyone wants it in their town or in their suburb, as I said.

Despite the assurances that we have received to date, this is not a risk that we are willing to take, not with everything we know today about this substance. Again, I acknowledge the comments of the minister in terms of having an intergovernmental agreement in place to complement—as the minister put it—existing guidance and legislation that works to protect human health and the environment from harm caused by chemical contaminants. That is all very well and good, but there is absolutely nothing preventing us from passing this bill even with that intergovernmental agreement in place.

As the member for Mawson has highlighted so articulately in his contributions and in correspondence that he has sent to various bodies, I think it is really important that we remind ourselves that McLaren Vale is one of Australia's premier food and wine regions, and the quality and reputation of the food and wine produced there is highly dependent upon a pristine and healthy natural environment. Tourism, as we also know, is integral to the region's economy. I think last year alone, probably pre-COVID, tourists spent some $476 million in the region. Why we would want to put at risk that sort of clean reputation is absolutely beyond me.

We know that, while the risk may be claimed to be small, it is absolutely far from negligible. Any leakage would be catastrophic and, as we know, once it is done there is absolutely no turning back. For those reasons, it is absolutely SA-Best's position that we wholeheartedly support the bill that is before us today.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:58): I wish to support my fellow colleague's remarks about the bill, and that we fully support its intent. I first became aware of the dangers of PFAS and the effect it has on human health and the environment while working as an investigative reporter with the Seven Network.

We conducted several investigations into PFAS when its swathe of toxic chemicals was still relatively unheard of. Today, there are several class actions underway. Shine Lawyers are pursuing justice for landowners across Australia whose land value has been impacted because of PFAS chemical contamination in their area.

One of them is Edinburgh, where for more than 30 years the Australian Defence Force conducted firefighting drills using a firefighting foam known as aqueous film forming foam, which included the toxic chemicals known as PFAS. The class action alleges that the Department of Defence negligently allowed these toxic chemicals to escape from the RAAF base at Edinburgh and contaminate local environments. These contaminants have negatively impacted properties, land values and the livelihoods of the Edinburgh community.

Following similar discoveries at interstate air bases, the ADF commenced a detailed site investigation at the RAAF base at Edinburgh in November 2016, with the results detecting PFAS in surface water, groundwater and sediment around the base. More alarmingly, the report found widespread PFAS contamination in groundwater both on and off base, exceeding health-based recommendations for drinking water. Edinburgh is smack in the middle of one of our biggest food bowls.

PFAS, which stands for poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, is a class of more than 4,000 different chemicals. Some of the most used PFAS chemicals, like PFOS and PFOA, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid and perfluorooctanoic acid, have long half-lives, which is why they are tagged as 'the forever chemical'.

People may not be familiar with the term PFAS, but they should be because PFAS turns up in virtually everything around us. We come into contact with it every day, from household items like furniture, non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpet and waterproof clothing, through to innocuous items like fast food wrappers and disposable coffee cups.

PFAS is the modern day health threat that DDT and lead were—and still are in industrial towns like Port Pirie. It washes into ecosystems and moves into the food chain, accumulating in animal and human tissue. It is in our blood. I would say if we tested every Australian, every member in this chamber would find it in their body.

Research published last year with the American non-profit Environmental Working Group shows it is prevalent in tap water as well. In 2016, a Harvard research team found that at least six million Americans were drinking PFAS-contaminated drinking water that exceeded health recommendations. Kidney damage, immune system impairment and reproductive issues are just some of the manifestations.

There are also numerous instances of public health crises caused by PFAS contamination. In the US, this dangerous cancer-causing toxic chemical has put policymakers on notice. One of the largest PFAS polluters there, and most certainly here, is DuPont. Policymakers need to address this problem by applying pressure to have the PFAS chemical removed from products.

I am unsure as to whether SA Water, for instance, has undertaken testing of our tap water to see if it is present. If it has not, it should, and I would urge them to do it as a priority. If governments, health and environmental bureaucrats want to tell us that the spread of toxic contaminants can be contained safely and securely, quite frankly I do not believe or trust them.

Allow me to provide an example. Many years ago, while undertaking research for a story into the extent of toxic contamination in our suburbs, workplaces and watertable, fearless asbestos crusaders, the late Jack Watkins and Tony Olivier, presented me with sensitive documents that fell off the back of a truck showing locations in and around Adelaide. These were documented from the late 1970s onwards. Buildings in the CBD, where I, relatives and friends I knew worked, contained dangerous blue asbestos.

Just on the western fringe of the city, the pockets of contamination were in Bowden, Brompton, Thebarton and Hindmarsh, caused by the many factories and the gasworks that were once there. The government had to pay for the remediation of land where new houses had been built in and around Florence Crescent in Brompton. Fast-forward to today, and you can see just how far this contamination of groundwater has spread through the western and north-western suburbs. Residents have been warned to avoid using bore water in their gardens.

I must commend the member for Mawson in the other place for his strong advocacy against a PFAS dump being established in the heart of our southern wine region of McLaren Vale. The pressure exerted by Mr Bignell and his community has forced the EPA to backtrack on allowing it to be stored in questionable liners on the site of an existing dump.

As I have pointed out, PFAS, in the list of class actions underway, is a national health issue and one that needs to be tackled in earnest by the commonwealth as well as the states. If they need a repository for these forever chemicals, then they can put them in remote places under their control, like Woomera, and where there is no threat to the environment ecosystems and artesian water systems. PFAS has no place anywhere near cities, towns and especially primary production land. I commend the bill to the Legislative Council and look forward to it being passed by both houses.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (17:06): I rise to make some remarks in the second reading of this particular piece of legislation that seeks to restrict the granting of an environmental authorisation for the disposal of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) under the Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act). PFAS is a group of synthetic chemicals that have been used extensively in consumer and industrial projects since the 1950s. They were used to manufacture non-stick coatings in products that require resistance to water, heat, fire, stain and weather and in some types of firefighting foam.

There are currently no landfills in South Australia licensed to dispose of PFAS-contaminated waste. In 2020, Southern Waste ResourceCo applied to the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to receive, treat and dispose of solid PFAS-contaminated waste at its existing EPA-licensed landfill site in McLaren Vale. The EPA board considered the application and, on 25 February 2021, determined to not approve the proposal from Southern Waste ResourceCo to receive, treat and dispose of solid PFAS-contaminated waste at its existing EPA-licensed landfill site in McLaren Vale. The board has asked the EPA to progress and plan for broader policy considerations in the operational management of PFAS waste in South Australia.

This amendment bill seeks to restrict the granting of an environmental authorisation for the disposal of PFAS-contaminated substances if a landfill depot is located or proposed to be located in the whole or in part of the Greater Adelaide Planning Region within the meaning of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (PDI Act), or within 50 kilometres of land used for the business of primary production, or within a township or five kilometres from the boundaries of a township.

The government intends to oppose this bill for the following reasons: the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Framework for Responding to PFAS Contamination (IGA) is a national agreement between the commonwealth states and territories that aims to deliver risk-based responses to PFAS contamination that prioritise the wellbeing of affected communities and the protection of the environment. The IGA also complements existing state-based guidance and legislation that works to protect human health and the environment from harm caused by chemical contaminants. This IGA was originally signed by the former premier of South Australia, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, in February 2018.

The IGA includes a number of appendices that address health and environment protection as well as advice on communication with affected communities. The PFAS National Environmental Management Plan (NEMP) is included as one of these appendices to the IGA. The PFAS NEMP was developed by the heads of EPAs in Australia and New Zealand and provides nationally agreed minimum guidance on the management of legacy PFAS contamination in the environment.

The PFAS NEMP has a focus on all parties taking all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimise potential environmental harm from PFAS-related activities and contamination. These actions include ensuring PFAS waste, contaminated materials and products are effectively stored and/or remediated to prevent release, ensuring the proper disposal of PFAS-contaminated waste, for example, by properly characterising waste and sending it to a facility licensed to accept it, and undertaking appropriate monitoring to check the effectiveness of management measures implemented.

The PFAS NEMP also provides the framework for landfill siting and design for offsite disposal to landfill sites and minimum requirements for its management. The South Australian EPA has taken this information and used it to develop the landfill disposal criteria for PFAS-contaminated waste where, in taking a precautionary approach, it will only accept the two most conservative landfill design acceptance criteria that are included within the PFAS NEMP. The PFAS NEMP makes it clear, however, that site-by-site assessment is necessary when determining whether or not a current or new landfill is appropriate for accepting PFAS-contaminated materials and that disposal guidance should be applied in conjunction with existing guidance issued by the jurisdiction.

South Australia's planning and land use framework requirements and existing landfill considerations regarding land use and location risks are another reason that the government opposes this particular legislation. South Australia has a strong planning and regulatory framework that enables considerable assessment to be given to a landfill proposal with respect to its siting, location and design, the waste that it will receive and any necessary controls to protect the health of humans and the environment over the life of the activity.

A landfill proposal firstly requires development approval under the PDI Act and, once that has been obtained, assessment for an environmental authorisation under the EP Act can be finalised for the operational aspects of the landfill activity. The EPA's assessment of landfill development applications includes consideration of the soil and hydrogeology at the proposed site; separation distances to sensitive receivers, in particular from an air and water impact perspective; the nature of the proposed waste types to be disposed of; and design, construction and management details that will affect potential pathways for contamination of surface and groundwater resources.

Since the PDI Act already imposes the framework for assessment of siting location and design risks, with the EPA providing extensive advice and where necessary direction on these matters to the planning authority, the inclusion of such criteria in the EP Act, as proposed by this bill, would be duplicative. The EPA has strict criteria around the disposal of PFAS-contaminated waste and will approve an application only if landfill operators can suitably manage risk in the short and long term, including that they demonstrate appropriate mechanisms and engineering in place for testing, handling and disposal of this waste.

This approach is consistent with the EPA's existing requirements for the disposal of waste contaminated with other chemicals to control and mitigate the mobility of contaminants to the environment. Any blanket ban on the disposal of PFAS-contaminated substances at waste depots within the Greater Adelaide region, within 50 kilometres of land used for primary production or within five kilometres of a township as proposed in this bill is likely to exclude the disposal of such substances at any feasible location in South Australia.

Removing the ability to provide an environmental authorisation under the EP Act to landfill sites in South Australia that have suitable controls to manage the waste and minimise the risk of environmental harm from PFAS-contaminated waste would force any contaminated waste to be contained on site at the source, sent interstate for treatment and disposal or disposed of illegally in an uncontrolled manner. Further, disposal of PFAS-contaminated soils to a lined landfill cell allows the contamination to be monitored in a controlled environment.

In contrast, soils contaminated by PFAS can be found on various commercial and industrial sites around South Australia and are often where unknown quantities of PFAS have been released to the environment, such as in firefighting training areas. On these contaminated sites, PFAS can leach out to the impacted soils and into groundwater or surface water bodies. These situations present an uncontrolled risk to human health, for example through groundwater bores used for drinking water, or to the environment, for example through river ecosystems.

Because the controls and the robust framework already exist, the government does not support this bill. I would also like to indicate for the committee stage that I have a number of questions that I will be directing on this matter.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:14): I would like to thank the Hon. Mr Parnell, the Hon Ms Bonaros, the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Ms Lensink for their contributions on this bill. As has been mentioned, the EPA handed down a decision about the proposed PFAS dump at McLaren Vale on 25 February. It was an important decision and it was a welcomed decision.

I would like to put on the record the reasons the EPA gave for failing to grant approval for this. They are not all of the reasons but they are some particularly pertinent ones. They talked about PFAS being considered a persistent and bioaccumulative chemical of concern that is toxic to some organisms and highly transmittable in water. They talked about the unacceptable level of risk—unacceptable level of risk—while noting that SWR had proposed best practice engineering measures in its application.

They talked about the nature of PFAS, the uncertainties and intergenerational considerations that highlighted the need for a precautionary approach to the assessment of risk in the assessment of this application. They are all very pertinent reasons as to why the dumping of PFAS at this particular location was knocked back and not approved but, as has been mentioned by previous speakers, there is still the option for appeal.

I remind members what the bill actually does. It is not banning an entire industry or any similar kind of initiative. It is preventing the disposal of PFAS in the Greater Adelaide planning area, within 50 kilometres of land used for primary production. As has been mentioned by previous contributors, primary production is a very important industry and in fact the biggest industry in South Australia. It also bans the disposal of PFAS within a township or five kilometres from the boundaries of a township.

These are all very important considerations that the opposition believes are important to protect South Australians from these chemicals and all their dangers, which have been mentioned already both in my second reading explanation and in other contributions here today, and ensure that people are protected from the dumping of these toxic chemicals in places that can affect their waterways, their food, our wine and tourism industries and an individual's health.

I commend the member for Mawson, the Hon. Leon Bignell, in the other place and also the community of McLaren Vale. At the end of last year, 350 people attended a forum on this matter and 3,000 people signed the petition against the proposal. Food and wine producers and local business associations and many others have all been involved in this very important campaign, which is necessary to ensure that their area is protected.

The argument has been implied that the regulatory system means that this bill is not needed. I would argue that the decision shows that we do have a robust system. That is excellent and that is something that South Australia should be proud of. However, what we want is certainty going forward, certainty for people that they will not be living near a dump that has these kinds of chemicals within it and certainty for our food and wine industries in the McLaren Vale area and in other areas where such a dump or disposal at such a dump might be proposed.

We need that certainty going forward, so it is important that this bill does in fact pass to give that certainty to members of the McLaren Vale community and also other communities in the state. I thank the indications of support from the crossbench and I commend the bill to the council.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My first question is whether the Labor opposition can identify what consultation was undertaken in order to develop this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The member for Mawson has consulted extensively with community groups, food and wine producers, local government, business associations and experts outside the EPA. As I mentioned, 350 people attended a forum and 3,000 signed a petition.

The member for Mawson also met with the City of Onkaparinga, the McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association, the McLaren Vale Business and Tourism Association, the Aldinga Bay Residents Association, Tatachilla Lutheran College, the Willunga Environment Centre and Friends of Willunga Basin. Written correspondence was also exchanged between the member and Southern Waste ResourceCo, the Environment Protection Authority and the Minister for Environment and Water.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for her response. She may choose to name the experts that she referred to but if she does not wish to name them as 'Professor John Smith', for instance, is she able to identify the research institutions or universities, or what level of expertise they have?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not have the detailed information that the minister is seeking but I am happy to provide that at a future date.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Is the honourable member able to provide advice about what the nature of the comments by Southern Waste ResourceCo were on this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding is that the Southern Waste ResourceCo referred to the fact that they have submitted what is currently best practice engineering measures in their application and referred to that aspect. I think the relevant point for members to remember is that despite that best practice the EPA still decided that the risks are unacceptable, that this is not something that is safe to proceed with and that a precautionary attitude is very important. So clearly, the certainties that we would be looking for would not be there, and the assurances provided by Southern Waste ResourceCo were not considered to be suitable.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I think the honourable member has acknowledged, as have other members, that the particular areas that are covered by this proposed legislation are much broader than the area in question—the McLaren Vale region—which is what has been used as the impetus for this particular legislation. Can the mover of the bill advise the Legislative Council where the Labor Party considers it would be an appropriate place to dispose of PFAS-contaminated material?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Determining where would be an appropriate place is the role of the EPA and the government. The purpose of this bill is to prevent PFAS being dumped anywhere within 50 kilometres of land used for primary production and five kilometres of a town, or within the Greater Adelaide Planning Region. I think it is important to note that those are areas where there are obviously high levels of population. There is tourism, food and wine production. All those are very important industries, and that is what we are seeking to protect.

In terms of where it should be dumped, as the Hon. Mr Parnell mentioned, this is a serious matter in terms of PFAS that is essentially sitting around. I would urge the government to look at what are appropriate mechanisms to ensure that there is an appropriate place to dispose of it and that that appropriate place is not where it can leach into groundwater, where it can affect human health, where it can affect tourism and where it can affect wine and food production.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for that response. Is she able to elaborate on the selection of the particular quite specific exclusionary distances which have been included in this draft bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. The distances that have been put forward in this bill are out of an abundance of caution. I refer again to the decisions and the reasons for decisions that the EPA itself made—the unacceptable level of risk and the uncertainties around the nature of PFAS and the intergenerational considerations.

Studies on PFAS suggest that they are highly mobile but the extent of that mobility is as yet unknown and more extensive research is absolutely necessary. The first exhaustive audit of peer-reviewed research on the behaviour of PFAS in soils has highlighted the urgent need for more focused investigation to decode how the long-chain and short-chain PFAS that is created to replace them moves through soils and leaches into the environment. So given those risks, the distances proposed in the bill are out of that precautionary attitude.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: If I could start with a comment, the advice that I have received is that those particular distances mean that the disposal of PFAS and any similar substances makes it nearly impossible to find any feasible location in South Australia. Can I ask whether the honourable member has considered whether those were appropriate, given that I think it has been acknowledged there is PFAS contamination in South Australia and, effectively, this bill may mean that it is unable to be disposed of in a safe and controlled manner in South Australia?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I particularly note the minister's words of 'feasible location' and I guess the question arises: is 'feasible' in regard to cost and transport costs? I come back again to the fact that we need to have a safe disposal of PFAS—safe in terms of people's health, safe in terms of primary production, safe in terms of people's livelihoods. So it is important to find one that meets all of those requirements. Something that is less than 50 kilometres from primary production and less than five kilometres from townships and the Greater Adelaide area, in terms of the community expectations, is not an appropriate solution.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Some of the advice I have received is that, effectively, there are only a couple of places somewhere near the Western Australian border, which under this particular proposal may be the only feasible places—that is what my reference was—to locate a potential site. So can I ask the member: what consultation has occurred with the communities in those potential areas, particularly potential native title holders? If this bill were to pass and the only potential locations for such a disposal site were those particular sites near the Western Australian border, has the Labor Party actually consulted with any potential native title holders who would be affected?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Neither the opposition nor this bill proposes a particular alternative site, therefore it would not be appropriate to be going out to consultation with anyone when there is not an alternative site that has been proposed through this.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: By way of comment then, I indicate that if the Labor Party was to do some geographical mapping they might realise they have excluded large chunks of South Australia, but be that as it may. My next question is whether there has been any assessment by the Labor Party of the potential cost implications associated with the disposing of PFAS waste as proposed by this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The minister seems to have slightly misinterpreted. This does not propose where PFAS should be dumped. It states where it cannot be dumped and, therefore, the question does not have a basis.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Perhaps I could reframe it: if the Labor Party is proposing to exclude large parts of the state, it does limit where the disposal may take place and therefore there will be cost implications associated with this legislation. I guess I re-ask the question as to whether, perhaps via industry or any other consultation process, the Labor Party has done its homework on costs.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the costs that the community expects us to focus on first and foremost are the costs to individuals' health. We have heard about the very detrimental impacts of PFAS on people's health, and the cost to their livelihood if the reputational risk to our wine industry and the reputational risk to our food industry are all destroyed. They are the costs that are most important, I would say, to South Australians.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I note that the mover of this bill noted that we have a robust planning system in place, and that effectively has ruled out this particular site. What does this bill do to add to the existing framework we have in place? What additional benefit does the Labor Party see it providing?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This bill provides for additional certainty for members of the public. It provides additional certainty for people in McLaren Vale who might otherwise be looking at an appeal process from the proposer of the current site. It provides certainty to our very important and very valuable food and wine producers, and all the associated industries that come with that and all of the jobs that are involved in those industries, which potentially could be put at risk if the bill was not to proceed and instead dumping of PFAS was to occur in the sorts of areas to which we have alluded.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: On a similar line of questioning, does the honourable member believe that there is certainty for those existing sites where PFAS contamination exists—whether people either work there through being involved in firefighting or there has been contamination for other reasons—and does this bill provide certainty that South Australia is effectively able to manage that waste removal?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think what we need to remember is that it is essentially up to the commonwealth government to come up with a site that is appropriate for disposal of PFAS. It is the commonwealth that has the biggest problem with PFAS-contaminated soils. The thought that it would be brought potentially from around Australia and dumped into our primary production areas, our towns and our cities, is entirely inappropriate. This bill will ensure that that cannot occur and does not occur. That is in the interests of South Australia, it is in the interests of South Australians. I would hope that the government would be standing up for South Australia and putting South Australians first.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: This is partly a comment and perhaps partly a question in that the argument has now shifted to the commonwealth. I think it is important to reiterate that, on the advice I have received, this bill would effectively exclude most of South Australia from being able to be used as a dump site. Whether or not the Labor Party wants to start pointing the finger at the commonwealth, they may effectively have excluded most of South Australia from being within scope. Is the Labor Party able to identify areas, based on this bill, which potentially could be used as a site?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure whether perhaps the minister misunderstood my reference to the commonwealth. It was that much of the contaminated soils and so on are within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth because of where that has come from. I reiterate again that it is the government's responsibility to find an appropriate site. If this parliament considers that an appropriate site is not within five kilometres of a township, it is not within five kilometres of the Greater Adelaide planning area, and it is not within 50 kilometres of primary production, then it is incumbent on the government to find a suitable site and provide the resources for the PFAS to be disposed of in a safe way that is also acceptable to the community.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: First a comment, and then I will get to another line of questioning. I think the Labor Party wants to have its cake and eat it too on this one. Basically, they want to effectively ban a site from existing throughout most of South Australia and then say that the government needs to work out where that can be. I have advised several times now, I think, that that is not viable. But we will just leave that where it is.

My next question is to reflect on my comments on dealing with the NEMP that I referred to that was signed by the former government in February 2018, which was a nationally agreed framework for dealing with PFAS waste. I will start with a comment: there is nothing in this particular bill which reflects the content of that nationally agreed framework. So can I ask: since Jay Weatherill, former premier, signed that in February 2018, what has changed in order to prompt the Labor Party to introduce this bill?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Perhaps before answering that question I will respond to the minister's comment. She is talking about the supposition that this bill limits so very much the areas where a dump could be located, but I would suggest that if the government was wanting to be constructive they could have proposed an amendment with a different distance, but that has not been the case. I just put that onto the record.

In terms of the minister's question, what we have seen, obviously, is a proposal for a dump that is in the McLaren Vale area, or the disposing of PFAS within an existing dump that is in the McLaren Vale area. That is what has changed. There was a specific and definite proposal that has brought to mind the many dangers and risks associated with disposal of PFAS, and that is why it is important to ensure that people can have the certainty and the comfort of knowing that future applications for the dumping of PFAS close to residential areas and primary production areas could not proceed.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have no more questions, but I make the comment that I think it is quite transparent that the Labor Party thought that the framework they signed up to in February 2018 was robust. The mover of this bill has also acknowledged that the framework is robust, yet they have brought a bill in here which effectively bans sites through most of South Australia, which is probably a reflection of not having thoroughly considered things by examining the distances that were placed in this piece of legislation.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 5) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:39): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.