HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-07-27 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BIRKENHEAD GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:13): My question is to the Minister for Environment and Conservation. Minister, with regard to the matter at Birkenhead with the contaminated groundwater that you know little about, why did you sign off on 20 December—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! Point of order.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is not open to them to ask questions in that way. He couldn't ask orderly questions yesterday; I would ask him to ask questions that are in order today.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for MacKillop has been here long enough to know the conventions in this place. Could you please try not to be controversial in asking your question, and ask your question?

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, why did you sign off on 20 December last—

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. He has to ask the question through you; he can't ask it directly to the minister.

The SPEAKER: Thank you, Minister for Transport.

Mr WILLIAMS: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister and it is: why did the minister sign off on 20 December—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! I can't hear the question.

Mr WILLIAMS: —on a minute from the EPA, that he agreed, 'It is not planned to provide a release to the media; however a statement will be ready to issue in the event that media interest arises.' Madam Speaker, the minister's signature is attached to the document.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: He needs to seek leave to explain it. He is not at large; he needs to follow the standing orders.

The SPEAKER: That is absolutely right. You have asked your question; I think you should sit down now.

An honourable member interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Are you going to seek leave to ask one?

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Minister.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water) (14:15): Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker, of course, I will always wait for your call. That is why I was sitting down before, because I am not rude like the opposition. I want to just put a couple of things into context, if I can. It should come as no surprise to anyone, given the statements that I have made previously, that throughout metropolitan Adelaide and the historical way by which Adelaide was developed and the industries that were located within metropolitan Adelaide, whether they be foundries or tanneries, or whether they be people's backyards where they had pits and poured all the stuff in the world down there—I even think the member for Schubert would remember when we all had incinerators and how we disposed of that.

As a consequence of that and as a consequence of the way in which we lived in the past, that has had an impact on groundwater, and that material has leached through to the groundwater. By default, we need to assume that near anyone's house, and for anyone that is using groundwater, there is the potential that that groundwater may be contaminated. Hence, the appropriate advice of the health department is don't drink groundwater; don't use it. If you are going to use it, get it tested. Get it tested every two years thereafter to make sure that its use is fit for the purpose for which you intend to use it.

We have to accept that, given the way in which we have lived, the custom and practice, as I said yesterday—and custom and practice, of course, has changed. Those practices that abounded in those days, that were undertaken by everyone, are no longer acceptable, but it has had consequences on our environment. We need to get the message out there; instead of the Liberal opposition being irresponsible and reckless, they should join with the government to make sure that people—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Unley!

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Transport and the member for Unley, order!

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, I don't think you are the right person to tell people about reading stuff and then handing it out before you have properly done an analysis.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am behaving myself, Madam Speaker.

The SPEAKER: Order! You are behaving yourself, but members on my left are not.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Clearly they are not; no. That's right. The other point that I would like to make is that it was only through this government in 2009, when legislation was changed, that makes this information far more available to the EPA as—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think I have spoken to the house about this in the past. We can—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: So it was this government that changed legislation in such a way that there was mandatory notification, when knowledge and information was available or known, that then could be addressed by the EPA with respect to contamination. It wasn't this mob over the other side. In fact, I can recount the story, and I have done it in the house before, about them not even telling their cabinet colleagues or members of parliament—the former member for Elder not even understanding what was going on there because they would not release that information that they already knew about. So, it is a bit rich for them to suggest anything other than to admit that they are being—

Mrs Redmond: It's a cover-up.

The Hon. P. CAICA: —reckless and irresponsible. It's not a cover-up. As I said yesterday, why would you have sat on an FOI application for 13 days if you believed that there was clear and present danger to residents in South Australia? You were doing it for no other reason than—and if you really believed that there was clear and present danger, again, you are being irresponsible in sitting on that information, for the member for MacKillop sitting on his ample bottom holding that information for an extended period of time.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: On the matter of Birkenhead, I will also say that, as a result of the legislation that was changed by this government—and it was this government that changed it—there were a significant number of notifications that have come into the EPA.

Mr Marshall: Yesterday you said there was no contamination.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I never said—

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Norwood!

The Hon. P. CAICA: The member for Norwood should be using the computer in front of him, if he has got one, to find a soul mate, Madam Speaker.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: On the matter of Birkenhead, let's put it this way, there are over 80 sites that have come in as a result of section 83 that the EPA are doing a proper analysis of. With respect to what level of response, they will prioritise that response depending on the circumstances of existing investigations that are made and tailor their communications strategy and their response. Accordingly on the matter of Birkenhead and cyanide in the Birkenhead area, I refer back to my earlier statement about the consequences on the environment that we have lived in and the historical environment that we have got, but groundwater contamination has been identified at the former SA Gas public site at Mead Street, Birkenhead. I will say this too: I won't bring in every file that I have got on contamination.

Mr Marshall interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, you ought to have listened to what I said yesterday because you are wrong.

Mr Marshall: We did, all of it.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker, I apologise for being unruly and responding to interjecting. Yesterday we were talking about Klemzig; we weren't talking about Birkenhead and the question has been asked about Birkenhead. The contamination identified at Mead Street, Birkenhead was of concern because it contained cyanide and arsenic. Housing SA owns the site at that location. Previously Housing SA tenants were required to vacate the site because of potential risks to human health caused by residual chemicals in the soil and groundwater. Housing SA then demolished the units on the site and is in the process of remediating the soil contamination.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: That is exactly what you should do. I am told that a site contamination auditor has been appointed by Housing SA to provide independent and high level sign-off that the remediated site is suitable for residential use. Groundwater sampling has identified, as we expect in some locations around the state given past custom and practice, a cyanide concentration exceeding the potable use, that is, the drinking criteria in a residential off-site groundwater well. That was at 88 Mead Street, Birkenhead.

The EPA then, as a result of that, doorknocked 63 houses on 12 January 2011 in the Birkenhead area to determine registered and unregistered users of groundwater. They escalate their response depending on what they find, and it is a bit different in the Klemzig situation. Quite simply, it was determined by the EPA to doorknock those 63 houses on 12 January to determine registered and unregistered users of groundwater and to inform those people, of course, of the potential groundwater issues within their particular area.

The EPA then sampled groundwater bores and wells at seven residential properties where permission was, of course, provided to collect and submit samples for analysis, and this work was undertaken, at no cost to the residents, as you would expect. Analytical results have been received by the EPA with just one sample, and that was at 84 Mead Street, reporting a total cyanide groundwater concentration exceeding the drinking water guidelines of 0.08 milligrams per litre.

The EPA has informed the affected household and property owner of these groundwater analytical results, and the resident advised the EPA, I am told, that the water was previously used to water the garden, lawns, shrubs and so on, and was not being ingested. As I understand it, the EPA provided additional correspondence to property owners—again, escalating, if you like, their communication depending on the situation that has been found, to property owners along Mead Street and Emily Street—that very, very fine part of Adelaide. Analytical results have been—

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: Where I grew up.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Where you grew up, Patrick.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: It wasn't me who put the stuff there.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, as you said, it has been there a long time. I am told that the analytical results have been received reporting cyanide groundwater concentration exceeding the drinking water level guideline of 0.08 milligrams per litre. The EPA via a phone conversation, and a letter, has informed the affected property owner of these results. So, just to recap, and Madam Speaker I apologise for taking up so much time of question time, but it is very important to get the full story out there.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Why would you sit on something for 13 days if it was so important to get information out there?

Mr Pederick: Why would you?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Exactly, why would you? I appreciate that interjection from one of their backbenchers. All I can say is that I will stack this government's record about transparency and information against theirs any day.

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