HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: DESALINATION PLANTS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the interim report of the committee, on desalination plants, be noted.

(Continued from 4 March 2009. Page 1509.)

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:49): I rise very briefly to support the noting of this interim report from the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. I want to specifically refer to three of the 13 recommendations, which I proposed to the committee, and I was very pleased that they were accepted. The first recommendation highlights the fact that desalination plants are clearly not regulated enough under our pollution laws. It would surprise many members to know that the list of licensable activities in schedule 1 of the Environment Protection Act does not include desalination plants. The only way that the EPA can licence such a plant is if it is triggered through some other mechanism. So, I think that is a very sensible recommendation.

With the popularity of desalination plants, both large and small, growing in South Australia it is high time that we had a specific head of power in the Environment Protection Act that required these plants to have an EPA licence. Of course, in relation to the Port Stanvac plant, which is the subject of our interim report, it would not necessarily have made that much difference given that it was a major project. Whilst the EPA would have been consulted, it would not have had the effective right of veto that I think it deserves for these types of projects—that is not to say that it would have chosen to exercise that right, but I think we need to put its role front and centre through a schedule 1 listing of desalination plants.

The final recommendations, Nos 12 and 13, I think, are most important. Recommendation No. 12 is that the government prepare a comprehensive water security strategy for Adelaide, incorporating all water supply and demand options. That recommendation was supported by the committee, because I believe the committee accepted that the desalination plant was not part of an holistic plan for water security for Adelaide, even though the government described it as one part of four measures. The existing Water Proofing Adelaide strategy is clearly out of date and does not provide the level of guidance that is needed.

I understand, from discussions we have had with the Commissioner for Water Security, that we will have another version of a water security plan probably in about June, and I will be very keen to see where desalination is positioned in the overall strategy. I remind members (as I think I mentioned during question time yesterday) that Maude Barlow, the water adviser to the President of the United Nations General Assembly, has said that the three Ds—desalination, dams and diversions—are not the way to provide water security in Adelaide, Africa or, in fact, anywhere else.

The government often talks about the proportion of water that is recycled in Adelaide and triumphantly announces what a high percentage it is and that, in fact, it is the highest in the country. However, it is convenient that it always combines reuse of wastewater from sewerage works with recycled stormwater. When we look at the stormwater component, we find that in fact we are doing very poorly: only some 2 per cent of our stormwater is recycled. If we improved that rate considerably, as we must, projects the size of the Port Stanvac desalination plant are seen to be uneconomic white elephants when faced with the more economic and sustainable alternatives.

The final recommendation, No. 13, basically deals with the problem that the Western Australian government had in relation to its desalination plant, which was to spruik its carbon neutral credentials only to be caught out by its Auditor-General for making incorrect carbon claims. The reason why I think it was important for the ERD Committee to put it in its report is that the Premier is on the record many times as saying, 'We are going to power our desalination plant at Port Stanvac the same way the Western Australians do.' Yet the Western Australians were caught out for dodgy carbon accounting.

This recommendation invites the government to work within the energy guidelines of the South Australian Strategic Plan to make sure that all the energy for this energy-hungry desalination plant comes from renewable energy sources. I think they need to be new renewable energy sources, and we need to acquire the renewable energy certificates, because we do not want to find ourselves in the position in which the Western Australian government found itself in terms of dodgy carbon accounting, where in fact others had claimed the credit for the green energy and not the government. With those brief words, I recommend this report to members. It is an interim report. We will have another look perhaps at Port Stanvac, but we will certainly look in some detail at the Upper Spencer Gulf proposal, the desalination plant proposed for amongst the giant cuttlefish, and we will have a second report hopefully in the not too distant future.

Motion carried.

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