HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-11-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Question Time

DESALINATION PLANT

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (14:23) I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Urban Development and Planning a question about the major project which is the Port Stanvac desalination plant.

Leave granted.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Adelaide's desalination plant, which was declared a major project, is just three kilometres from the Christies Beach sewage outfall. Sydney's desalination plant has an inlet pipe 2.5 kilometres from a sewage outfall, and today we learned that the ocean current off Sydney's plant has sewage flowing directly past—and presumably into—its intake about one-third of the time. The study used to justify Sydney's plant assumed that, because the prevailing current ran south, there would be little danger of E.coli from sewage being sucked into its inflow to the north; however, CSIRO scientists who monitor the current say that it sweeps to the north about one-third of the time. Some days the E.coli in the intake water is more than double the guidelines even for safe swimming.

We now learn that the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia's water quality watchdog, has ditched its zero tolerance plan to prevent faecal contamination of the nation's drinking supplies. This comes after strong lobbying from industry. My questions are:

1. As the minister responsible for major projects, has the minister seen or requested any data relating to possible contamination of E.coli at Port Stanvac?

2. Did the state government or its agencies, the Minister for Urban Development and Planning or the desalination consortium make any representations to Water Quality Research Australia, or in any way lobby the National Health and Medical Research Council, to water down its plan for zero tolerance of faecal contamination?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (14:25): I think it is a bit fanciful to suggest that the government might be advocating for people to water down standards. In relation to what was considered, I will have to go back and have a look. It is some years now since that decision was made. Obviously, as the planning authority, the government is reliant upon its experts in the various departments—the EPA, the Department of Health and SA Water—to provide advice. It is interesting that, at the last state election, the opposition supported a plan to drink recycled stormwater—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —exactly—which contains faecal matter, and so on, which I would suggest is much more likely to have contamination in it. I think it is rather interesting that, apparently, for members opposite it is not dangerous if we drink stormwater that contains dog faeces and other petrochemical components—

The Hon. G.E. Gago: Heavy metals.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: —and heavy metals that are washed off, but it is dangerous if is out in the sea—the dispersal of seawater is much more likely to mitigate that risk. My colleague the Minister for Water announced recently that we are looking at ways in which we can use stormwater. The government has always said that technology will improve.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, you were the people who were saying that it was fine. Now they are raising the issue where there is a far lower risk level in relation to this matter. As I indicated yesterday, the answer to the question is that, if any new information comes to light, this government will always look at it. So, in a sense, my answer stands as it did yesterday, and that is that the Minister for Water, as the responsible minister for the operation of the plant, will consider any information. I do not know whether it is the case that there is anything that has not been considered, but I will refer that question to him and make sure that, if there is any new information, it will be considered. However, I do find it a bit extraordinary that the opposition appears to have done this great backflip about the benefits of using water that has been through a treatment facility.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Bressington has a supplementary question, deriving from the answer, of course.

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