HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-11-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: PORT BONYTHON DESALINATION PLANT

Ms BREUER (Giles) (11:46): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker, and what a pleasure it is to see you in that position there—but don't hold your breath, it won't be for long. I move:

That the 64th report of the committee, entitled Final Report Desalination (Port Bonython), be noted.

I have great pleasure in standing here today and reading this because I really thought it was never going to happen. I am afraid that the amount of work that the Public Works Committee does and the number of reports it receives tend to dominate our time. Those committees that perhaps do not produce as many reports, while ours are just as important, often do not get the opportunity to speak on them, so I am very pleased to be here today and I am actually quite surprised.

This report is the second report by this committee on desalination in recent times. An interim report was tabled on 16 December 2008 and that, of course, related to the proposed Adelaide desalination plant at Port Stanvac. I will not repeat the relevant statistics that relate to the two reports. This report was tabled out of session on 5 August 2009 in order to meet the environmental impact statement consultation deadline set for the proposed BHP Billiton plant at Port Bonython.

BHP Billiton reduced its EIS. They wanted a consultation and we felt, as a committee, that it was extremely important that we get that report in and we included our report as a submission to BHP Billiton, of course, as part of the submissions that it was calling for, and then, of course, we also passed it along to the government to consider.

There were 19 recommendations in the report that related to environmental marine impacts and these, of course, reflected the inquiry terms of reference. We received a considerable number of submissions but none of the submissions nor any of the witnesses who appeared were totally opposed to desalination per se. There is generally a consensus that desalination is an important part of our future for water supplies in South Australia, but many were concerned with the issue of adequate dispersal conditions.

This was particularly so in Spencer Gulf, and many certainly suggested alternative sites outside the gulf waters. It was interesting to see the modelling provided by BHP Billiton, and similar saline dispersion modelling from oceanographers at both SARDI and the Flinders University actually challenged the veracity of the BHP modelling. For us, it was a time of soul-searching, looking at this very carefully and considering reports from both sets of experts.

The committee agreed that the key issue for Spencer Gulf focused on the adequacy of brine dispersion and the accuracy of modelling undertaken to certain dispersion profiles particularly during the occurrence of dodge tides. Dodge tides, of course, are a very common occurrence in Upper Spencer Gulf. As a result of that, there were many concerns about the brine dispersion. Because of course I come from the area, this report was particularly important to me, and I do know anecdotally that, at certain times of the year, the water seems much saltier and it is often related to the dodge tides.

The site selected for the desalination plant is in Upper Spencer Gulf. It is near Whyalla and is in a region believed to experience very slow turnover. It is also recognised as the site of the only known mass aggregation of the spawning giant Australian cuttlefish (sepia apama). It is the only place in the world where they aggregate and we were concerned that the eggs could be impacted by the increased salinity.

Just going back to the slow turnover, one of the figures that was quoted to us was that in open ocean areas, the turnover of water is about 10 days but in Upper Spencer Gulf it is actually 400 days, so that was of major concern to us.

The committee believes that further investigations are required into alternative siting of the desalination plant and that this process requires a regional engagement strategy where local experts are involved, with an emphasis on local, regional, company and governmental collaboration.

The release of the environmental impact statement (the EIS) by BHP Billiton addressed a number of design questions that were also raised during the inquiry. The only strategy to prevent entrainment of larvae, eggs and plankton is the use of a low-speed intake. Backwash sludge would be dewatered and disposed of on land, and modelling has been used to design the diffuser system to ensure that dispersion of brine should occur efficiently.

Salinity toxicological studies were undertaken on a number of cuttlefish eggs sourced from the site and on a small number of other local species including western king prawns, a species also known to use this as a breeding ground, and we had submissions from the prawn industry. There were some questions about the toxicological studies that were undertaken on cuttlefish eggs because they were done in a laboratory rather than in the wild. We had some concerns about that.

Our committee believes that desalination can be a beneficial technology if it is established and used in a sustainable and environmentally aware way. Due to the paucity of information, the committee had concerns regarding the dispersive behaviour of the brine stream during the twice monthly event of dodge tides and recommends that stringent monitoring take place during these periods to obtain actual live data to validate the modelling that has been used as the basis for the current plant design. The original proposal discussed the option of storing returned water on land during these periods of low dispersion, but no mention of this actually occurs in the current EIS.

The committee suggests that consideration be given to suspending processing during periods of dodge tides or at other times when water and weather conditions may give rise to an increased risk to the marine environment. The committee is also of the opinion that all monitoring regimes should be designed to include provision for measuring cumulative effects, as Spencer Gulf is already considerably impacted by industrial, stormwater and wastewater discharges, and particularly at the top of the gulf where you have Whyalla, Port Augusta and Port Pirie within a small area all discharging, as I said, industrial, stormwater and wastewater into the gulf.

Given the likely increase in desalination and interest in desalination plants, the committee also believes that reforms are needed to environmental legislation and policies to ensure that proponents have a clear direction as to appropriate locations and the operation of future desalination plants in South Australia, and a framework should be established with explicit site selection criteria that include the assessment of environmental, economic and social factors. I think primarily our concern throughout our report was the issue of the cuttlefish, but, as I mentioned, we had looked at other marine species. Of course, that area is known to be a fishing area. It is well known for its snapper, whiting, etc. Fish farms are also located very close to where the output of the desalination plant would be located. All these issues were of concern to us.

Of course, the cuttlefish are quite unique and provide a significant economic contribution to the Whyalla community, with the number of people who come from all over the world. It is a worldwide phenomenon: people come from America, Europe, England—all over the world. The BBC has been there and filmed; American film companies have been there and filmed; and you will see a program about these cuttlefish regularly on television. They are quite unique in the way in which they breed and the fact that they actually aggregate there. This was our primary concern, but, as I said, we were also concerned about the other fish species in the area, in particular the fish farms.

We were pleased to pass our report on to the government and, since then, I have noted that the government has taken some heed of our report and other reports and has asked BHP Billiton to look at alternative sites. This report was particularly interesting to me as the local member. Of course, the other part of our report included the desalination plant at Port Stanvac. I think it was also a fascinating experience for us all to look at the information that is available throughout the world. Desalination is not new technology; it has been around for many years. We treat it as though it is new technology, but desalination plants have been in use around the world for many years and, indeed, many countries of the world rely almost solely on desalination plants. We wanted to get rid of the some of the hysteria and hype about desalination—and even cuttlefish, etc.—and get to the crux of the matter. I think we did that very well.

Our report is an interesting read and I would recommend it to anyone. I particularly thank our committee executive officer, Phil Frensham, for the amount of work he did and the involvement he had in this report and for steering us in the right direction; and also Dr Sue Murray who helped us prepare the report. She put in a lot of work and we were able to call on her expertise, of course, because she is a marine scientist. It was excellent for us to be able to call on her experience.

As this may be the last report that I am able to present in this term of parliament, I also pay tribute to my parliamentary colleagues who are on the committee with me, particularly Ivan Venning, who should be an honourable considering the amount of time he has spent in this place and the dedication he has given to our committee. It is well known throughout South Australia that he is a member of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. Whenever we go to our conferences interstate, people always look for Ivan Venning and he is known by everyone. Of course, he always does his report on container deposit legislation and tries to encourage other states to use it. This year, unfortunately, he had to leave a little early, so I did it for him and everyone was pleased that I did. Thank you, Ivan, for all your support and work over the years with our committee.

I also thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink who is a member of the Liberal Party in the upper house. I have very much appreciated her input and support during this time. The Hon. Mark Parnell, of course, has been one of the most vocal members of our committee. I have to say that we do not always agree on things and, likewise, I do not always agree with Ivan and Michelle. We do not always agree, but generally we are a fairly happy committee and we do have reasonable consensus.

Mark, of course, with his background in planning and environmental issues, has been quite invaluable on our committee. I also pay tribute to the Hon. Bob Such who sometimes goes off on red herrings and you wonder what he is on about, but he has also provided a significant input to our committee over the last four years and been a valuable member. Bob is a very deep thinker and comes up with aspects that some of us may not have considered before. And last but not least, I do want to mention the Hon. Russell Wortley from my side of the house who has been a strong support for me throughout this time. He is quiet, but when he says something, he means what he says. He has had a major impact on our committee.

We have had a very good committee over the last four years. This was one of our good reports and one which I very much enjoyed doing. I enjoyed working with the committee. We were able to go around and look at various issues over the last four years, and I think we have provided a valuable input to this government and parliament. With that, I commend this report to the house.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:58): I commend the committee for the work it has done and thank the chairman for her words of congratulations and thanks, and I commend her on her leadership. In relation to this issue, it is a pity that we were not doing this two years ago, when it was first intimated by the Liberal Party, and it is also a pity that it is as big as it is. I still believe that it is twice as big as it needs to be, but, nevertheless, I am pleased we are making some progress and I certainly support the report.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT