HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1)
2025-04-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Xml

South Coast Algal Bloom

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Climate, Environment and Water. Will the government continue to use the testing services of the University of Technology Sydney? With your leave, sir, and that of the house, I will explain.

Leave granted.

Mr BASHAM: On 24 March, a story from The Conversation was published in the National Tribune and on various social media channels, authored by staff from University of Technology Sydney. This was a day before a media statement from the minister was released on March 25. The article by the University of Technology staff said, and I quote:

Today we can reveal the culprit was a tiny—but harmful—type of planktonic algae called Karenia mikimotoi.

The SA government sent us water samples from Waitpinga Beach, Petrel Cove Beach, Encounter Bay Boat Ramp and Parsons Headland on Tuesday. We studied the water under the microscope and extracted DNA for genetic analysis.

Our results revealed high numbers of the tiny harmful algal species—each just 20 microns in diameter.

The Hon. S.E. CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Premier, Minister for Climate, Environment and Water, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Minister for Workforce and Population Strategy) (14:51): I am happy to answer this question in some detail. I would point out that the tests were sent off by PIRSA to a number of laboratories, including that one, so it is not part of my portfolio responsibilities, but I am happy to answer on behalf of the government.

For those who might be struggling to follow, this is referring to the algal bloom that has been spotted off the south coast, which has seen the death of numerous marine animals and has been a source of pretty serious concern across even possibly to Kangaroo Island. There are currently investigations occurring about the extent to which that may or may not have affected other species. We saw that there were a couple of dead seals, for example, spoken of in the last 24 hours. We don't know if they are related, but this is being taken seriously and investigated.

The question that is being asked is that the day before a press release was put out by the government, by myself, to indicate what the species was that had been determined through the research undertaken via PIRSA, one of the laboratories that had received the samples chose to publish what they had found. Then the question of course is whether we would continue to use them. Having not used them myself, having it been PIRSA, I couldn't say on what basis they choose the different laboratories, and they are welcome to do that on a scientific basis only, of course.

The suspicion that is raised, though—the spectre that is raised, shall we say—is whether we were holding onto information in order for me to put a news release out in the morning, when really we should have been able to do it the day before because this one laboratory did. That is what is trying to be implied by the tone of the question.

The truth is that, as I understand it from the expert in the EPA—and I don't in any way pretend to be an expert on this, but he was asked this in the media—because PIRSA had sent out for this information to a number of different places and it had come back through, they wanted to know not only what the species was but what the concentration was, because these species are reasonably common, but getting the big bloom is the question, and is that what that bloom all was?

While they were interested in what that university found, they wanted to be able to collate all of them. It was sometime in the early evening when they were able to finally get all of that data together, and then they were prepared to go out in public and state what it was.

None of that suggests that we shouldn't continue to use that laboratory, should the experts determine that that is the right place to do it, and nor does it imply that anything amiss was occurring in terms of hiding information. We have attempted to be up-front at all times, of course, needing a degree of scientific certainty to understand what occurred and what has been occurring. It is a concerning event that has happened. It is likely to have happened through a combination of relatively still weather, which means that the ocean is not breaking up what is accumulating, and a localised heatwave.

I try not to pass up the opportunity to inform the house and elsewhere about the very real challenges we are facing with climate change. I would note that NASA Science has stated that of all of the global warming that has occurred over recent times, 90 per cent has been absorbed by the ocean. So while we feel it on land and we are not seeing it in the ocean, it is making a very big difference to the capacity of the ocean to remain healthy and productive. Of course, we are all utterly dependent on fish life, in particular, and the ecosystems working as a collective in order to continue to be able to harvest food for people.

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