HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-07-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

GIANT CUTTLEFISH

The Hon. M. PARNELL (14:51): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Mineral Resources Development a question about development on the Point Lowly peninsula.

Leave granted.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: On 5 May the Premier called for expressions of interest in developing land near Point Lowly as an industrial precinct. These plans included a deep sea port and processing facility for the bulk export of minerals, including the export of copper concentrate, a new desalination plant to service BHP Billiton's mining expansion and at least one and possibly two refineries. It is fair to say that many in the Whyalla community are extremely concerned about the government's plans. Not only is the Point Lowly peninsula an important recreational resource for the Whyalla community; it is also the home to the rare and magnificent giant cuttlefish. The importance of the aggregation of this extraordinary creature is increasingly recognised as film crews, scientists and divers come from all over the world to see the phenomenon.

The idea of copper concentrate being loaded into container ships on a new jetty at Point Lowly is especially concerning, as cuttlefish are at particular risk from elevated copper levels, not to mention other heavy metals. As Adelaide University Associate Professor Bronwyn Gillanders said on ABC Radio in May:

There's the possibility that it could work out okay for the cuttlefish but you can't afford to make one mistake with this population. I mean, it's so unique in Australia and the world that essentially you're...wiping out a unique species if you're not careful, at least from that local area.

Responding to this concern and the lack of consultation with local people, Deputy Mayor of Whyalla Council, Eddie Hughes, on 7 July proposed an alternative. He said:

Industrial proposals currently on the table will fundamentally alter the nature of the Point Lowly Peninsula and seriously degrade its environmental and recreational assets. I fully support industrial development in our backyard but it should occur in that part of the yard that is already industrialised. There is an abundance of underused land on OneSteel's indenture land and the state's largest industrial estate across the road from OneSteel. All of the land potentially available is in close proximity to OneSteel's port, a port that could be expanded at the expense of a third party to accommodate a range of users. Everybody would be a winner.

My office has been contacted by a number of people in Whyalla who all say the same thing; that is, the OneSteel harbour could be expanded to accommodate other users. As Mr Hughes says, 'We need to work together as a community to protect the Point Lowly peninsula and get the players in the corporate sector and the state government to cooperate and expand the OneSteel harbour.' My questions are:

1. Has the government spoken to OneSteel about allowing access to its harbour and adjacent land for other users?

2. Why is this seemingly quicker and cheaper option being ignored at the expense of converting non-industrial land right next door to such a precious and iconic marine population?

3. Why did the Premier state in his press release announcing the industrial precinct on 5 May that 'the existing port facilities in the Upper Spencer Gulf are committed to capacity' when the Deputy Mayor of Whyalla and others say that room is clearly available at the OneSteel harbour site?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:54): I wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of OneSteel late last year, I think, about using any spare capacity that OneSteel may have had in its barging and deep sea loading facilities in relation to steel. However, OneSteel has indicated (and it is now public knowledge; it was in The Advertiser just a week or so ago) that it is looking at ramping up its exports to use all the additional capacity that would be available in relation to its barges and the bulk loader that is anchored out in the middle of Spencer Gulf.

The reason why OneSteel barges iron ore out to the gulf rather than bring ships in is that most ores now are carried in large bulk carriers that need at least 20 metres or so. The cape size vessels need 20 metres, or thereabouts, minimum draft. Of course, the harbour in Whyalla, on my understanding, is about half that. So, there would have to be extensive dredging before one could use the port of Whyalla, and I imagine that that would have a far greater effect on any cuttlefish than would building a port at Point Lowly. The current Santos wharf, as I understand it, goes out into 20 metres of water to take large vessels. So, obviously, the depth of the water is one important issue.

It is also an important issue in relation to any desalination plant because, obviously, if you are to get the adequate dilution of waste water from a desalination plant you need the deepest possible water and the greatest flow to ensure that the brine that is expelled adequately mixes. Of course, that is subject to an environmental impact statement and, obviously, any future development that were to take place at Point Lowly would be subject to similar environmental impact studies and, of course, this government is well aware of the importance of the cuttlefish within that region. However, I think it is rather trite to suggest that, somehow or other, the much shallower port at Whyalla represents a realistic option to a deep water port that might be established at Point Lowly.

A number of activities will need to be studied. The government has sought expressions of interest. Until that process is completed, we cannot move to the next stage of looking into those options in more detail. Certainly, the government is well aware of the issues in this area. I know that the honourable member from the Greens no doubt strongly opposes any expansion of uranium mining, and he would strongly oppose the expansion of Olympic Dam. Therefore, I suppose he would support anything that could prevent that from happening, and I guess that is the context in which his question has been asked.

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