HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (15:18): The government has chosen to build a hospital on a contaminated rail yards site in City West and has now encountered significant environmental issues with that proposition. I just want to recap some of the main points and lay out some very serious issues of concern.

On 22 December, The Advertiser revealed very serious concerns about groundwater and a risk to the health of workers at the site and the finished hospital due to extensive contamination beneath the site. It was even suggested that it might be necessary to build a membrane and vents to allow such fumes to escape. Later, on 2 February, further concerns were raised when it was found that soil thought to be clean soil was being taken away from the site and subsequently found to have been contaminated. Then, just last week, it was revealed that the amount of contaminated soil at the site had suddenly risen from 11,000 to around 31,000 tonnes. Somehow or other the government had overlooked the quantum of contaminated soil, and that was certainly raised on 23 February.

Now, today, we have new information that quite the reverse has occurred. Highly contaminated toxic soil appears to have been taken off the site and, as if with the wave of a magic wand, has been transformed back at the depot of the contractor into non-contaminated, safe, clean fill. Well, the minister seems to believe it, but I just say to the minister: if it is too good to be true, maybe it is not true. There are some very serious questions that arise from these developments.

The opposition believes it is a forward process, and that there needs to be an independent inquiry into all that has occurred with contaminated soil at the site. Let there be no mistake. The lead and metal toxins in this soil cannot be eradicated; they are long-lasting. This site was examined extensively when the contaminated soil was in situ. It was irrefutable that it was highly contaminated soil. Magically, once it moved to the contractor's depot site, it is suddenly all clear.

The assertion that has been put by industry stakeholders and others is very clear, and that is that there has been mixing of soil, clean fill and contaminated fill in a way as to dilute the contaminated soil. The assertion is that the contractor has then had their own auditor come in, examine the pile of soil, and he has magically decided that suddenly it is all clear. Suddenly this soil is fit to be delivered to fill sites around the city. Gilman has been suggested as one destination, so that homes and constructions of a business nature can be built on top of it.

I understand that the EPA has been involved in all of these processes, but I am alarmed to read this morning in The Advertiser that the EPA receives levies of $35 a tonne for material put to landfill, and stands to benefit to the tune of $750,000 from this entire process. What we need is a clear statement from ResourceCo that testifies to the authenticity and genuineness of this second evaluation that they have conducted at the depot, and I think the EPA needs to come clean with its technical analysis of its supervision of this reassessment of the soil, because it sounds suspect.

Only ResourceCo and the EPA can clear the air. Then there is the financial issue of any benefit to the contractor by this magical reassessment of this fill as clean waste. We need an explanation of how the money is moved here. We need an explanation as to how this contaminated soil has suddenly become decontaminated and we need a government that stops hiding behind public-private partnerships as a way to escape scrutiny.

I note that ResourceCo has been the recipient of grants from the government in the past: in September 2005, $3 million as part of a $10.8 million expansion for a waste processing company. And other grants going back to previous occasions: $42,000 for two projects for waste recycling; $100,000 for bituminous pavement product; and $250,000 for projects at Wingfield.

All of this needs to be gotten out into the open. We need transparency. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. The air needs to be cleared. We are looking for whistleblowers from within the EPA or the company, or else others need to come forward or address these issues that have been raised so that we can get to the truth.

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