Motions

West Beach Marine Life Deaths

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. N.J. Centofanti:

That this council—

1. Notes the multiple and significant deaths of larvae and oyster spat at South Australia Research and Development Institute (West Beach) facility in October and November 2024;

2. Recognises also the significant deaths of both barramundi fingerlings and broodstock from an adjacent private business during the same period;

3. Notes that the operational phase of the Labor government’s Adelaide Beach Management Review Implementation Project began on 3 October and ended on 30 November;

4. Acknowledges that internal pathology testing revealed no pathological explanation for the deaths; and

5. Calls on the Minister for Primary Industries to appoint an independent investigator to thoroughly examine all aspects of the fish deaths, including the private business and SARDI facility inlet pipe location, and any possible seawater quality impacts.

(Continued from 5 February 2025.)

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:27): I rise very briefly to indicate that we will be supporting this motion. The Greens certainly endorse the need for transparency and independence when it comes to ensuring that science, rather than sectional interests, guides our decision-making. It has certainly been something that we have raised questions about as well and we would like to see some answers for. This is a reasonably commonsense, straightforward motion that calls for that independent inquiry, and to take the politics out of the debate we think would be quite useful. With that, I commend the motion.

It has just come to my attention that there is a government amendment to this motion, so I would like to continue my comments given that I have not been replaced by another speaker. I note that the government, which gave us a lecture on Monday afternoon about circulating amendments well before we get to debate them, has circulated an amendment.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Alright.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that the Greens will not be supporting that particular amendment and note the lack of due process, that all members other than the government benches were given by the Government Whip on Monday afternoon.

I reiterate: contrary to the government's claims, there has been no evidence of a thorough investigation into fish mortalities. We have not been given any confirmation, and it certainly has not been an independent investigation. I think it is not only outrageous that the government has procedurally thrown in an amendment at the last minute but that the amendment in itself stands as unworthy of any support.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:29): I am not down to speak on this motion, but I will to indicate my support for the motion—and my opposition to the amendments—and everything that the Hon. Tammy Franks said.

The PRESIDENT: So really it was, 'What she said.'

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:29): I rise in support of the Hon. Nicola Centofanti's motion for the Minister for Primary Industries to appoint an independent investigator to examine the significant marine life deaths during October and November at the South Australian Research and Development Institute facility at West Beach and adjacent private businesses. I wholeheartedly agree with the honourable member that this is a matter of significant public interest, given the impact on marine ecosystems as well as the economic loss to private businesses and industry.

With no clear reason provided regarding the specific cause of these deaths, it is essential that an independent investigation be established to determine the possible causes and to hold parties accountable for any actions taken that directly contributed to this incident. The fact that these deaths remain unexplained should concern all South Australians. With laboratory reports obtained under FOI indicating the absence of any obvious pathogen, combined with suggestions that some type of 'unknown toxic insult' has occurred, the community and associated industry deserve a thorough investigation.

In the absence of any inquiry, the ongoing implication that the government's dredging trial at West Beach had a role in these deaths will continue. Consequently, it is a matter of urgency that these legitimate questions and concerns be appropriately resolved to satisfy all South Australians that the government has done all it can to discover the cause or causes behind this incident, even if this process of discovery implicates their own actions in this unprecedented death of marine life. With that, I support the honourable member's motion and commitment to the ongoing health of our marine ecosystems and the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (16:31): I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out paragraph 5 and insert new paragraphs as follows:

5. Acknowledges the thorough investigation into the fish mortalities by SARDI has shown no direct evidence of being linked to dredging activity; and

6. Acknowledges the world class science and research conducted by SARDI and its aquatic sciences team who led the review into this event.

I want to start by acknowledging the credibility and professionalism of the science and research capability of SARDI. In fact, I am aware that many SARDI studies are published in scientific journals and undergo independent reviews to ensure their validity and accuracy. I have been informed that SARDI has a very good operational relationship with the private business that is co-located at their facility. In addition to this, I have also been informed that there have been no complaints about the work that SARDI has undertaken in relation to the fish mortality event or their investigation into it.

The state government further acknowledges that both internal and external pathology testing has shown no pathological explanation for the deaths. I am also told that SARDI's review of the incident has found no direct evidence between dredging and the fish mortalities that have occurred at the South Australian Aquatic Sciences Centre.

SARDI had every reason to ensure a proper investigation was carried out, as they were impacted by the fish mortalities through their snapper restocking program, a program in which they take great pride. The state government continues to work across agencies to understand the causes and to minimise the risk of any recurrence and has worked closely with the private business that has been impacted with the aim of ensuring that they can resume operations within their sites.

Finally, the calls from the mover of this motion for an independent review are unnecessary at this point. By amending this motion the state government is declaring its strong support for the world-class science and research capabilities at SARDI, and I hope honourable members support the amendment.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:35): Can I first thank the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Connie Bonaros and the Hon. Sarah Game for speaking in favour of this motion. I also want to acknowledge the Hon. Tung Ngo's contribution and sympathise that he drew the short straw.

The deaths of the fish and oyster stock at this facility have been extremely costly and will have a lasting impact. In monetary terms the cost alone is estimated in the tens of millions of dollars, and in terms of time the loss of POMS-resistant oyster spat is a massive setback after five years of research. Of course, the loss of juvenile snapper is also a major setback for the restocking program.

The private company located in this facility has also been affected, but can I say, too, so have the skilled and hardworking SARDI researchers. I absolutely appreciate and acknowledge the world-class science and research conducted at SARDI, but the member's amendment completely changes the intent of this motion, which is to ensure an inquiry is independent of government. SARDI is the state government's principal research institute, and whilst it has some highly skilled and experienced researchers the reality is that it is part of the Department of Primary Industries and Regions and therefore is not truly independent in the sense of the word.

So it will not come as any surprise that the opposition will not be supporting the amendment, and I am extremely encouraged that parliamentary colleagues feel the same way. It is absolutely critical that the government perform an independent investigation into these significant fish deaths. Government departments should not investigate themselves, nor should they investigate each other. In the interests of transparency and to prevent a recurrence of this loss it is imperative that it is investigated fully and that the investigation is carried out by an independent entity. With that, I commend the motion to the chamber.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.