Legislative Council
The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I move:
That the following be referred to the Standing Committee on Environment, Resources and Development— 1. The economic, social and environmental impacts of the closure, at various heights, of Adelaide City Council's Wingfield Waste Management Centre; 2. The economic, social and environmental impacts of transporting waste to alternative near metropolitan and rural waste depot sites as a consequence of the closure of the Wingfield Waste Management Centre; and 3. Any other related matter. Since the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning and the Minister for Environment and Heritage announced in January their intention that the Adelaide City Council's Wingfield Waste Management Centre be closed at a height of 27 metres, I have attempted to get to the truth of this matter. I have met twice with the Minister and, on the second occasion, that included representatives of the EPA. I have met twice with Adelaide's Lord Mayor, once with the mayor and CEO of the Port Adelaide Enfield Council, and once with Peter Munt of Path Line, which is the proponent of the Inkerman dump; and, because the closure will result in other dumps starting up in near metropolitan and rural areas, I have also met with the Dump Coalition and Dublin residents. There have been numerous phone calls, including talking with the opponents of the Medlow Road and Inkerman proposals, as well as copious amounts of reading. I have been on an escorted tour of the Wingfield Waste Management Centre, and I anticipate taking a boat tour of the Barker Inlet in the not too distant future. The Minister may be upset to hear me state that I am not impressed with the Government's so-called `waste strategy'. When we have a system that is working, why close it down? And why close down one landfill to replace it with another landfill when landfills per se are out-dated technology? Might it be a case of the devil you know in relation to Adelaide City Council's management of waste? I find it disturbing that we will be moving off to the country the rubbish that we in Adelaide are collectively responsible for creating. For the record, when I use the word `rubbish' I use it advisedly because, in the future, I believe that we will consider what is in these dumps to be a resource. While those rural residents who are opposing the new dumps which are adjacent to their properties might be accused of the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) syndrome, it is equally fair to accuse those of us living in the metropolitan area of suffering from the OOSOOM (Out Of Site Out Of Mind) factor. The Minister has argued for certainty. She says that local government needs to plan ahead in respect of its waste disposal needs; and the private developers will not go ahead with developing their proposals until they are certain about when the Wingfield Waste Management Centre is to be closed. What about certainty for the nearby residents of Inkerman, Dublin and Medlow Road? They, too, made plans, purchased land, built houses and set up their businesses based, for almost all of them, on no knowledge of dump proposals. Do they not deserve certainty also? What the Government is doing at the moment is to ensure escalating dumping costs for industry in a shorter period of time than they were previously expecting, and that is a form of certainty that they can probably do without. On the first occasion that I met with the Lord Mayor to discuss the closure of the Wingfield Waste Management Centre, I mentioned to her the difficulty I was having sorting out the conflicting information. She told me that, in talking to the various protagonists, I probably felt that I was talking to people from a different planet. She was not wrong. There are very few parties in this argument that do not have a vested interest. Adelaide City Council, for instance, relies on the Wingfield Waste Management Centre to provide 13 per cent of its revenue. So, clearly, it is in the council's economic interest to keep the waste management centre open as long as it can. I have found that there has been some longstanding enmity between the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and the Adelaide City Council. It has resulted, I guess, in a war of words. It makes me wonder, for instance, whether the Port Adelaide Enfield Council stands to collect more in rates if land close to the Wingfield Waste Management Centre is able to be developed into an industrial park, which is what I have been told the Port Adelaide Enfield Council wants to do. Certainly the information that has come from these protagonists has been quite different. Port Adelaide Enfield Council, in information it faxed to me on Friday, suggested that Adelaide City Council has made no contribution to that area, but when I checked with the Adelaide City Council I was told that it is paying rates of $34 000 per annum to the Port Adelaide Enfield Council. Path Line has an interest in the land because it wants to use the flatter land at the Wingfield Waste Management Centre for a transfer station to be used prior to taking out its rubbish to the Inkerman dump. The opponents of the Medlow Road, Dublin and Inkerman dumps obviously have a vested and probably justified interest in stopping Adelaide's rubbish from being imposed on them. The Conservation Council is probably the one group that does not have any self-interest, but its proposal was to shut the whole thing down now and remove everything that is on the site. I am aware that this just cannot happen. It is a sort of pipe dream; and where would you put all that fill once you removed it? I think that, as nice as the Conservation Council's view might be, it does ignore the greenhouse implications of carting Adelaide's rubbish out to the country. Adelaide City Council has calculated that this carting of rubbish out to the country will result in an extra 11 000 tonnes of CO2 being admitted into the atmosphere each year. So, from a greenhouse point of view, it is not a positive. As I read the various reports and heard the varying opinions, I found out that, to date, Adelaide City Council's position is by far the most thoroughly researched and argued. The technical diagrams that have been prepared by some others for a closure height of 29 metres or less do not give me confidence, and I am fearful of the potential for damage from leachate if the dump is closed at this lower height. Yet, the Port Adelaide Enfield Council has argued to me that the weight of the extra material that the Adelaide City Council wants to put at this location could result in the bottom of the dump being squashed out sideways with slippage occurring. Path Line has said to me that the process of capping at the end of the dump site could result in greater methane concentration in the dump, with no way out except sideways, which would poison the roots of the plants put there as part of Adelaide City Council's revegetation program. Peter Munt from Path Line told me that their experience at Highbury has shown them that the methane, when it is squashed out sideways, carries a condensate which will then go on to contaminate fresh water in the area. The terms of reference I formulated will allow those residents in the near metropolitan and rural areas who are likely to have their livelihood and property value impacted by dump proposals to have a direct say for the first time in the governmental processes surrounding this issue, and I know that they find this to be a very welcome development. Under the third term of reference the Environment, Resources and Development Committee may well decide that it will look thoroughly at the Bill we have before Parliament to close the waste management centre by 2004. Should the committee decide to do that, as the mover of the motion, I indicate I would welcome that. I chose not to refer the Bill directly to the committee as that may have limited the committee in its deliberations, and the Minister would probably have regarded it as a provocative action.515 If the committee is won over by the Minister's sense of urgency, which the Minister says is very much needed, the committee might even decide on a two-stage process so that the Government's Bill might be able to be progressed. While the Minister is insistent that we must pass her Bill quickly because she fears that the Adelaide City Council might take legal action, I should draw members' attention to the fact that the Adelaide City Council's previous application to the Environmental Protection Authority was held up by the EPA for 21 months, and Adelaide City Council did—
The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting: The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Adelaide City Council's previous application to the EPA was held up by the EPA for 21 months. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw interjecting: The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Adelaide City Council, and during that time Adelaide City Council did not take any legal action against the EPA. So, if it did not do it then, why is it likely to do it now after a three month delay? Having already conducted an inquiry on waste management, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee has accumulated knowledge which should allow it to cut through any misinformation and hype surrounding this issue. I will certainly be spending some time in the gallery listening to the evidence if the ERD Committee is able to take on this reference. I urge members to support this motion, as it is probably the best way to sort out the competing interests on this issue—economic, social and environmental.The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I will say a few words before seeking leave to conclude. The honourable member should be aware that the ERD Committee is already taking evidence on this matter. The honourable member referred to the fact that some two years ago the ERD Committee reported on the issue of waste and landfills, and that committee is now using that earlier reference to look at this issue again.
Certainly I have met with the committee informally. I understand that the Adelaide City Council and the Port Adelaide Council have met with the committee and that the committee has also had an inspection of the site. So, I believe that this motion is unnecessary if the ERD Committee wants to take this matter further to the reports, questions, visits and advice that it has already sought and received on this subject.The honourable member has raised a number of matters. I appreciate the time that she has given to me with respect to the Wingfield waste issues. I certainly appreciate the honourable member's concern about the figures that have been put before her and the Parliament. Certainly, in the period of time that I have become associated with this debate, a great deal of common ground has been reached regarding the height. The Port Adelaide Council has come from a position of supporting 15 metres and the Adelaide City Council from 40 metres in height. On consultants' advice Port Adelaide Council is now supporting 27 metres and, on consultants' advice, Adelaide City Council wants 35 metres, settling at 32 metres.
There is essentially little difference between the parties, and I believe that in this Parliament at this time we can look at the matters, set an upper limit and leave it to the EPA, which has the expertise and authority in this area, with reference from the agency, to make the final determination on height as part of the licensing process and land management plan. At this stage I seek leave to conclude my remarks, indicating, however, that the Government would not support this formal reference to the ERD Committee. Leave granted; debate adjourned.The motion was lost: 4 August 1999