Legislative Council
16 February 1999  

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I seek leave to make an explanation before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning a question about the Government's waste management strategy.

Leave granted.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: In January the Government announced the waste management strategies that it has developed, including the go-ahead for three near metropolitan or country dumps to replace Wingfield.    I recently met with members of the Dump Coalition, which represents residents affected by all three proposals, and they believe that there are a number of flaws in that strategy. The assessment report for the Inkerman dump states that no barley is grown in the area. The Barley Growers Association will not accept barley that has any hint of contamination, and that is understandable, given the use of barley in the production of beer. Local residents opposing the dump have informed me that barley has indeed been grown there, and they invoke the possibility of South Australians drinking toxic beer as a consequence of a dump being located so close to a barley growing site. In relation to the Medlow Road dump, there are a number of—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: In relation to the Medlow Road dump, a number of homes are inside the buffer zone and, given the conditions that will be placed on development should that dump actually go ahead, those residents are concerned that they will not be allowed to make any improvements to their homes. The proponents of the Dublin dump were supposed to have a 500 metre buffer zone within the boundary of their land, but it appears that there is now to be a 500 metre buffer zone outside the boundaries.

A new plan amendment report issued for the area on 4 December last year states that intensive agriculture and coastal zones must not be in the zone surrounding a dump, while the reality is that farms and a coastal zone are in very close proximity to that proposed dump site. My questions are:

1. If ministerial approval has been given to an assessment report, and that report is subsequently found to contain inaccuracies, is the approval revoked?

2. Will residents who have had the misfortune to find their homes in the buffer zone surrounding a nominated dump site be allowed to make improvements to their homes or continue to grow crops?

3. Is the Minister aware that the Wakefield Plains council has offered a site at Everard which has an existing landfill and which is much further from the coast and therefore less likely to create a problem with leachate? If so, what is her response to the offer?

4. Has the Minister had any discussion with the Federal Transport Minister with regard to the capacity of National Highway 1 to handle the increased traffic, both in terms of the congestion on and damage to the road?

5. What will be the extra greenhouse gas contribution to the atmosphere as a consequence of the transport of waste to country regions?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I have already replied to constituents who have raised this barley growing issue with me. Certainly the matter of the barley variety was not raised during the call for public submissions, so it was not addressed in that form in the assessment report. I can easily provide the honourable member with the answer to the constituents who have written to me on that issue.

In regard to the buffer zone, the honourable member would know and I think would be prepared to acknowledge that the PAR does provide this 500 metre buffer zone. With respect to Medlow Road, one of the agreements reached with the proponents was that they would offer to any property owner with a house inside that buffer zone the purchase of the house at 20 per cent above the Valuer-General's price.

The honourable member did not refer to, and perhaps was not aware of, the fact that each house owner within the buffer zone has purchased their property since 1992 when Labor gave the first approval for Medlow Road to be a landfill site. I do not wish to reflect on the landowners there but just relate the fact that in 1992 under the Labor Administration the planning assessment process gave approval for a landfill and the people within that 500 metre buffer zone today have all purchased their property since that approval. The proponents will nevertheless offer to purchase those properties at 20 per cent above the Valuer-General's price. If people do not wish to take up that offer, it is entirely up to them. If they wish to improve their properties that, too, is entirely up to them—they own the properties—but they would do so at their own risk.

As for the capacity of the dual carriageway, I can readily assure the honourable member that there is plenty of capacity on that road. I do not envisage that it will be filled by trucks taking baled material to the landfills to the north of the State because, with the resource recovery requirements forming part of the approvals for landfill, you will find that an enormous amount of material that is currently dumped at Wingfield will be recycled in future. I do not think there is any need to scare people north about road safety or people living near the sites at Dublin or Inkerman that they will be overwhelmed by rubbish in the future. I will get more information in relation to any proposal about Everard, but I understand that it is not deemed to be a commercial proposition because of the distance from Adelaide.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The Government does not own the Wingfield Dump, so it is not our intention to mine the site once it is closed—or even before it is closed, and legislation to that effect will be introduced in this place this week. Certainly, the mining of Wingfield landfill has been suggested to me. It would have to be part of a decision made between the owner, Adelaide City Council, and the EPA. I believe that there have been some successful operations of that nature in the United States in the past and that it may well be applied here when Adelaide City Council develops a resource recovery and rubbish removal policy—and we all look forward to such a policy.

Read the Government's Reply:  25 May 1999

[Home]    [SA Head Office]    [SA Branches]    [What's Hot in SA]    [Mike Elliott]    [Sandra Kanck]    [Ian Gilfillan] 
  [SA Senators]   [SA Parliament]    [Contact Us]    [News Releases]    [National Site]    [Election] 
   [Support Us]    [S.A. Links]     [Newsletter]     [Browse by Subject]