Legislative Council
24 March 1999
 

Adjourned debate on second reading.

The Hon. T.G. Cameron: Bullygirl, I think.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Bullygirl tactics as well in this case; the honourable member is correct. I am also sure that members would be aware of the sort of precedence this creates and the potential for nastiness. But because the Government—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Let me tell the honourable member that, when I met with the Minister back in January, she told me that we would have a draft Bill to look at within about a month. When the Bill arrived it was tabled in Parliament. There was no draft Bill to look at: it arrived in Parliament and that was it and we were told then that it was to be pushed through.

The Hon. T.G. Cameron: How come the Government was briefing you back in January?

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I guess some people have all the luck.

The Minister told me that metropolitan councils want to know a closure date so that they can budget for the increased costs that will evolve as a consequence of closure. I find that a very peculiar explanation of wanting certainty because, if anything, I would have expected these metropolitan councils to be lobbying the Government to keep Wingfield open longer so as to keep their costs down. Port Adelaide Enfield Council also told me that it wanted certainty, and one of the organisations that will benefit from an early closure, Pathline, told me that it also wants certainty.

Self-interest was put to me as part of the argument. I was told by a number of people who are supporting the closure that Adelaide City Council gets 13 per cent of its revenue from Wingfield. But at all times in the written correspondence I had with the Adelaide City Council employees and officers, and in all conversations that I had with these people, they were up front about that right from my very first meeting with them. I want to put on the record that knowledge of that 13 per cent income stream, however, does not in any way deflect from looking at arguments about the environmental ramifications.

Port Adelaide Enfield Council faxed me a document from someone called Paul Davos, in which the claim was made that Adelaide City Council has `contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever to the development of infrastructure in the Wingfield area'. I must say that I was taken aback when I read that, and I thought that perhaps there might be some arrangement through local government that meant that Adelaide City Council was not paying rates. So, I checked with Adelaide City Council about that and I found that, in fact, Adelaide City Council is paying $34 000 per annum in rates to Port Adelaide Enfield Council. I would not consider that to be nothing.Another interesting factor is that Port Adelaide Enfield Council is part of the Western Region Waste Management Authority, which runs the Garden Island dump, and that organisation—

The Hon. M.J. Elliott: What is its interest?

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: It just happen to be one of the private companies that will benefit by the early closure of Wingfield. The kindest complexion that you can put on this is that BC Tonkin and Associates independently was asked by Pathline and Port Adelaide Enfield Council to prepare a report and, in an act of laziness, BC Tonkin already had these diagrams prepared for Pathline and decided that it would use these, and someone slipped up and did not change `Pathline' to `Port Adelaide Enfield Council'. In fact, I had a fax from Port Adelaide Enfield Council or BC Tonkin and Associates to indicate that that, indeed, was the fact. As I said, that is the kindest complexion that I am willing to put on it. But it certainly leaves me worried, given that BC Tonkin was working for both organisations, and it then does not come as a surprise to find that both Port Adelaide Enfield Council and Pathline have a similar position on something like this.

I have heard competing arguments about the Adelaide City Council and recycling. At my first meeting with the Minister on this matter she claimed that Adelaide City Council does not operate a comprehensive recycling program and that, as long as there were no limits on the height or a closure date in place, there would be no encouragement for it to do this properly. I am not sure what `properly' is. Like many other members, I was offered a tour around the Wingfield site and I saw them recycling green waste, masonry and timber. I know that they are recovering methane from the site, and from that electricity is generated equivalent to that needed for 5 000 homes per day. The Adelaide City Council has a domestic collection for recyclables on a weekly basis, while most metropolitan councils collect on a fortnightly basis. So, I do not understand quite what the Minister was telling me at that point. There have been competing arguments about height, leachate, dust, windblown litter and odour.

Anyone who has been on a tour of Wingfield will have seen that there is a very small tip face. In fact, Wingfield is regarded as one of the best examples in Australia of a best practice dump. The argument has been made that a lot of windblown rubbish comes off that dump. I did not see it on the occasion that I visited the site. One weekend I drove out there and drove around the area, and again I was unable to see any.

The Hon. T.G. Roberts interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: The seagull got that piece of paper. KESAB has given it a clean bill of health, but we saw a protest on the steps of the Town Hall a few weeks by people from Port Adelaide Enfield Council, who dumped rubbish that they claimed had come from the Wingfield dump. As late as last Sunday, I was to have gone with the Mayor of Port Adelaide Enfield Council, Johanna McLuskey, to look at the area at low tide to observe that for myself, but the weather was not particularly favourable so it did not happen.

The EPA has confirmed my analysis that dust, odour and litter are side issues, while height and leachate are the main game. Height is an issue because it determines the degree of slope. The lower the height, the lower the slope, and, if the sides of the dump are angled too low, that could result in ponding on the surface, ultimately leading to production of more leachate. By contrast, if the angles are too high, rapid run-off leads to erosion and the potential for exposure of the decomposing rubbish.

Most members received a letter from the Chief Executive Officer of the Adelaide City Council, Jude Munro, dated 5 March. I will read part of what she said, as follows:

It is the opinion of the Adelaide City Council and its environmental and engineering experts that the 27 metre height proposed in the Bill will lead to severe long-term degradation of the landform and greater potential damage to the Barker Inlet and surrounding wetlands. We are concerned that the final landform proposed in the Kinhill Pty Ltd report prepared for the EPA proposes a 3 per cent slope. This may conform with the lowest band of the EPA guidelines—

I stress that—

but results in the cap having four hectares as a flat top which will allow ponding to occur and increase leachate.

All I can say is how incredibly stupid it is that this Parliament is ignoring information such as that and how incredibly stupid it is that the Labor and Liberal Parties—the Coalition—are using their numbers to push this Bill through at a compromise height.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: That hurts, doesn't it? The Minister has obviously dismissed the scientific information, as has the Opposition, but I want the Minister to consider a possible legal implication of forcing the closure at this height. Given the Adelaide City Council's well documented advice that slopes of less than 4 per cent may be environmentally counterproductive, and given that legal liability will reside with the Adelaide City Council for 25 years after the closure, if problems emerge as a consequence of the dump having been closed at too low a height, problems which could be shown to have been preventable if the dump had been allowed to close at 35 metres, will the Government in turn be able to be sued by Adelaide City Council?

I was told initially that Adelaide City Council denied that there is leachate, and I was therefore ready to attack its representatives at the first meeting that I had with them because I was armed with an aerial photograph of the area taken before the dump was built which revealed that the whole area was previously covered with tidal creeks and mangroves. It is sad that back then mangroves and other swamp areas were regarded as evil places, areas that ought to be reclaimed or filled in. Nevertheless, that judgment was made and Wingfield was one of the results.

I recognise that Adelaide City Council may not have acted responsibly in the past when it was quite clear to the council that its licence permitted it to run the dump only to a height of 15 metres, but there would not have been any local government authority anywhere in Australia doing anything different. There was nothing in the way of environmental consciousness back in 1956 when Adelaide City Council began using the site for waste. If we were to choose a site for waste now, we would say that that site is totally unsuitable; but back then that was the attitude. Issues such as ponding, leachate and correct angles for the slope were not part of the thinking of that time and I suggest that it has only come into the consciousness of local government in the last decade.

I recall in 1975, when I was studying a unit on ecology, going on a field trip to a swamp site in the western suburbs of Sydney, and seeing the owners of that land using it as a rubbish tip. Our lecturer explained to us that, to most people, swamps were unproductive places. We have a different attitude now. We know that our mangrove swamps are extremely productive and, in the case of the Barker Inlet, we are talking about a nursery and a feeding area for fish. Without those mangroves, our recreational and commercial fishing industries would be very restricted.

In 1989 I helped form a group, which we called Resource Regenerators, which pressured the Government of the time to put in place a complete recycling facility for this State. It is now 1999, 10 years later, and we still do not have such a facility because the waste management strategy of this Government is to leave it to the private sector. Indeed, in some ways we have gone backwards since then with inroads into our container deposit legislation. During the early 1990s I was employed by the Conservation Council and I was its representative on the Government's Hazardous Waste Management Consultative Committee. For my sins, I regularly read one of the waste industry's journals, so I have maintained a long interest in this topic. Because of that interest I have been perplexed by the whole handling of this issue and the claims and counterclaims.

Throughout my investigations, Port Adelaide Enfield Council has attacked Adelaide City Council, but I never heard Port Adelaide Enfield Council aim the same arguments at the Cleanaway or Borrelli dumps, which are what most people imagine is Wingfield when they see them because they are so high. For that matter, neither have I heard any strident calls from the Government in the past five years for the closure of the Borrelli and Cleanaway dumps. It is interesting how it appears that what is good for the gander is not good for the goose.

The Government has claimed that it needs to get this Bill passed this week. The reason Government members gave me in a meeting I had with them in February was that, by the time we get back in late May, it will be four months since the Adelaide City Council put in its application for renewal and the council could take legal action. I have a letter from Adelaide City Council, which I will read into the record. It states:

We have been advised by the South Australian Environment Protection Authority (SAEPA) that an interim licence will be issued covering the period of time that the Wingfield Waste Depot Closure Bill 1999 is being considered. Under the Environment Protection Act 1993, SAEPA has the ability to amend and reissue licences whenever necessary and, as such, when the Bill is passed, a new licence will be issued. Accordingly at this time the City of Adelaide has no intention of pursuing legal action against the SAEPA.

I met with the Employers Chamber earlier this week. It would far rather that Wingfield closed at 35 metres height as it knows that the closure will inevitably lead to increased costs for its operators. The Employers Chamber pointed out to me that a proper economic impact statement has never been done on this matter. The latest Business SA, which we all receive in our mail, has an article about the establishment of an interim waste committee, which comprises representatives from the Employers Chamber, the Local Government Association and the EPA. This is what Business SA has to say about that, as follows:

We are concerned the Government has not properly assessed the economic implications of a reduced closure height for the landfill. There is significant concern that new landfills located further from Adelaide will see significant increases in the cost of waste disposal. We support the Government's efforts to improve environmental performance at all landfill operations in South Australia and welcome the approval of two new landfill sites which will ensure enough landfill capacity for metropolitan Adelaide into the future.

530We are however concerned that a premature closure of the Wingfield site will lead to significant cost increases to industry without delivering any significant environmental benefits.

I note that the Government is always ready to accept the backing of the Employers Chamber when it comes to electricity issues but clearly when it comes to a matter like this it simply disregards its opinions.

The Government and the Opposition must also recognise the impact on country and near country residents as new dumps are opened up as a consequence of the early closure of Wingfield. What about certainty for them if we were arguing for certainty. Some of these people have purchased land for primary production in the very recent past with no knowledge that a dump will be located next door. What about certainty for them?

Some of these people have had the accusation made they are suffering from the `nimby' syndrome—the not in my back yard syndrome. Equally, they can point the finger at those in the metropolitan area and accuse us of the `oosoom' factor—the out of sight, out of mind factor. Wingfield is a very potent reminder to us all that we are using our resources in a profligate manner. I see no harm in having that symbol right there in amongst us so that we are faced with it on a regular basis, so that our noses are symbolically rubbed in it and so that we are constantly reminded that we need to look after our resources and not simply throw them away.

The Hon. T.G. Roberts: What about a bang in the head with a burnt stick? That would be better, wouldn't it?

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: For whom? The Government? The ALP has courted the protesting residents where the new dumps are to be located but when it comes to the crunch it is getting right behind the Government to assist it in foisting Adelaide's rubbish on these country regions far sooner than they might otherwise have had to bear it.

I was speculating about the sort of conversations that might have gone on in the Liberal Party and Labor Caucus rooms about this: `Can we sacrifice these people out there? Yeah. They're Liberal voters anyhow and if the Labor and Liberal Parties are coming together on this then they'll really have no choice when it comes to a vote at the next election, so we can take the chance on that.'

I have to keep asking myself as I look at this, `Who benefits from this?' The real beneficiaries of this will be the new private operators, so why is the ALP willing to give them a free kick? I suspect that part of its motivation is parish pump politics. I heard Kevin Foley, the member for Hart, speaking on radio and he simply dismissed any scientific arguments and said that he was going to represent the people in his electorate and this was what he wanted. The approach from both Labor and Liberal on this issue has been cavalier. I believe that political compromise in this situation may well result in an environmental disaster. Parliament tonight is making a big mistake, one that I believe will not only be of great economic but great environmental cost to our State. I indicate that the Democrats oppose the second reading and the Bill.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It was the intention of the Democrats that this issue be referred to the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. As I saw it, councils had conflicting views and the Minister was quite right in seeking to resolve them, but I must say that, on my reading of it, the decision was that the compromise would be somewhere between what the two councils were asking for. The question should have been: what is the best height that it should be for ecological and economic reasons, not what is a number part-way between.

It appears to me that major scientific advice was sought after the height was chosen; consultants were brought in and the consultants said, `Gee, Minister, you chose a fairly good height. That is just what we would have chosen.' There is no doubt that there was conflicting advice out there. Referral of the matter to the ERD Committee ultimately is not a comment on whether or not the Minister has chosen the right height: rather, it was a comment that there was conflicting advice out there.

The committee has shown itself (I think it has an excellent record) to be non-partisan. It has some very healthy discussions but it has proven itself to be non-partisan, and I think that the sorts of recommendations that have come from it have been non-political. I think it would have been sensible to have referred this matter to the ERD Committee. There was no rush. There is no real reason to debate this Bill now. I do not understand why the Government, or the Labor Party, has made a decision which is, essentially, in my view, a plucking of a number out of the air rather than spending a bit more time on making sure that we came to a decision that ultimately was not a compromise for the sake of a compromise but, rather, was based on good, impartial, non-political decision making.

The Council divided on the second reading:

Kanck, S. M. (teller)

Majority of 14 for the Ayes.

Second reading thus carried.

In Committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I want to put on the record at this point, after a comment made by the Minister about me not acknowledging the Conservation Council's position, that, indeed, I do. I did not go through the exhaustive list of whom I have spoken with, but I do place on the record now the fact that I met with the Conservation Council. Its position was to close it down tomorrow if we could; remove every last bit of material that has been dumped on the site; and restore the site to its original creeks and mangrove state. I think it is a nice wish list but I know that, in terms of a position, that would probably be even more unacceptable to all the parties concerned because of the costs involved and, ultimately, you would still have all those huge tonnes of rubbish that would need to be carted somewhere. So, we would simply have to find another site for that material and it would not solve anything; hence, I did not introduce it into my argument at the time. However, I do want it on the record, given what the Minister has suggested, that I did consult with the Conservation Council.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: I move:

Page 1, line 23—Leave out `after subsidence'.

I would like to comment in relation to some of the content of the Hon. Sandra Kanck's contribution and to give some explanation as to what the Opposition's position really is. The Opposition's position, as stated by the Hon. Trevor Crothers, is not the same as the Government's position, but we do have a lot of sympathy for the Government's position in relation to the dispute that was taking place between the Port Adelaide Enfield Council and the Adelaide City Council in relation to a compromise height. A stream of litigation has passed backwards and forwards between the two councils. The State Government could either sit back and watch both councils expending large sums of money on litigation or intervene and put forward a recommendation with respect to closure date, height and a process for the first stage of an integrated waste management settlement program, which includes the northern regions in its proposal.

As we said during the second reading debate, the Opposition's position is not one of total support for the siting of those dumps in the northern part of Adelaide: we are not setting out to bury waste or create waste disposal centres in regions that the EPA would not approve. It is our preferred position that the EPA choose the site rather than the proponents. However, we are not in Government: we are in Opposition. We have some sympathy for the position in which the Government has found itself, being a mediator with respect to the litigation. So, it was not quite as simple as the honourable member's argument suggested.

I suspect that many people are watching where the new dumps will be placed. There is a lot of acrimony, particularly in the Inkerman-Dublin area, and I can understand the Democrats wanting to support a new location for those dumps. But both the local members, Kevin Foley and Pat Conlon, stated a position. Our position is pretty open in relation to how the Labor Party makes its decisions. We take Bills to Caucus and we debate the issues in relation to best evidence that we have in relation to our arguments. Sometimes we agree with the Government's position, sometimes we do not and sometimes we amend. In this case, we are amending one part of the legislation, agreeing with some of it and opposing a part of it.

So, to say that we are in coalition with the Government on this is not strictly correct, but we agree with the process that is involved and, in part, the height that we have settled on does encourage the Adelaide City Council to have a better strategy in relation to dumping. If it wants to maintain the closure date of 2004, there are certain separation proposals that it would have to meet in relation to what it dumps there, as the Minister has implied. Our height is slightly below the height set and agreed to by the Government, but I do not think that there will be too many bad words between the Government and the Opposition in relation to that difference.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I would like to ask the Hon. Terry Roberts, as he is moving an amendment which, in effect, lowers the dump height by 2 metres—

An honourable member: By 2 to 3 metres.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. I will ask the Minister the same question in a moment. Was the decision based on hydrology, psephology or numerology? How did the Opposition choose this height? The Democrats are in a position where two alternative heights are being proposed. In fact, we suggested that it should have been referred to the ERD Committee to take a closer look at it. We had an open mind about this. I would be really pleased to hear the persuasive arguments with respect to why the Opposition has gone 2 to 3 metres lower than the Government and, likewise, how it ever chose the number that it chose. I suspect that it was either numerology or psephology and that hydrology had very little to do with it.

The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: I suppose that the honourable member should be asking the Government this question. The position that the Opposition adopted was that those people who took an interest in it and studied it closely read the reports and could see the arguments. And there were good briefings. In deference to what the Hon. Mr Cameron said in relation to lobbying, the Adelaide City Council lobbied very professionally. It outlined its case very well. We certainly were not impressed by the fact that, in the first instance, it wanted to go to 40 metres and we were not impressed by the Port Adelaide Enfield Council's position in relation to a 15 metre closure.

I suppose that the position we adopted was reasonable and, from reading in the specific reports of the tapering process and the finalisation of the capping of the dump, we considered that there would not have been that much difference in relation to a 25.5 metre capping as long as the capping was of suitable material and that, in the final stages of the dump, the appropriate material was to be placed in the appropriate way and that the contouring was appropriate. That is the way in which we settled on that height. And, as I said, it was a way of encouraging the Adelaide City Council to do more recycling and perhaps separation in relation to a lower height rather than going towards the 32 metres. So, it was for good conservation reasons that we settled on the height that we did.

A very telling factor for me in the advice from the Environment Protection Authority was the assumption by the Adelaide City Council's engineering consultants that the dump should accommodate a growth rate of 8.75 per cent in the amount of waste received to calibrate the model that it presented in its application. That is just unacceptable, and I would have thought that the Hon. Mike Elliott would also have said that a growth rate in metropolitan Adelaide of 8.75 per cent was unacceptable and that collectively Parliament should be working to minimise waste, advance recycling and promote resource recovery initiatives. I am sorry that the Democrats do not support that line. That is what the Bill is designed to achieve. We cannot achieve those noble and necessary objectives without the closure of Wingfield.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: I will oppose the amendment moved by the Hon. Terry Roberts. As a ratepayer of the Adelaide City Council, I am particularly pleased that the lobbying undertaken by the Adelaide City Council was very professional, but it could not have been very convincing because the Labor Party's amendment proposes to remove the words after subsidence. In effect, we could end up with a height considerably less than 27 metres. In the briefing that I received, along with the Hon. Sandra Kanck, with representatives from the EPA, which was held in the Minister's office, I recall being told that the subsidence could be anywhere between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. If that is the case, at 27 metres we could be looking at a height that could be as low as 22.5 metres to 24.5 metres.

The Hon. M.J. Elliott: That is too low. It is risky.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I want to respond to the Minister's comment which implied that the Democrats were not treating the issues of recycling with perhaps sufficient seriousness. At least she does not mislead as much as the Treasurer does. The Minister is quite aware from discussions that I had with her that I made proposals that would put a lot more pressure on recycling. I suggested that, rather than the cost of dumping increasing from $25 a tonne in Adelaide to $45 a tonne out at the new dumps, we should give Wingfield dump as long a life as possible and increase the dumping cost by $10 a tonne, which is halfway between the two. That $10 would have been a driving force to encourage recycling because it would be more expensive to dump. It would also have provided a significant amount of money that could have been used to take those programs further.

If the putrescibles, green waste and a lot of the recyclables were removed, the majority of what went to the dump would have been inert substances that would be safe to go into the dump at any height and would not have created a problem. The Minister knows that I put that proposal to her very early in the piece. To suggest that I would want to do anything which would discourage recycling is simply not a statement of fact. I do not know what height the dump should be, but I certainly argued that, as long as it lasts, we should try to encourage recycling by putting up the dump fees and use that money to generate a source of income to get done the things that need to be done in the recycling area. That increased cost would also be a driving force, while saving $10 a tonne on the dumping charges if we took the waste out of the city. It would have been a win situation all the way around. I am disappointed that there has been no sign, regardless of what height we go to, of that sort of action.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: With regard to the closure date (clause 6(4)(b)), the Minister has been saying that the Adelaide City Council does not effectively recycle so presumably we will see more recycling as a result of this Bill passing which means that the amount of rubbish that goes into the dump will be reduced. If we reach 31 December 2004 and we find that the height of the dump has reached 23 metres and we know that there will be settlement after that, given the EPA's own bans about suitable heights and the potential for that height to have been reached and given that recycling is expected to occur, that could result in a height that is environmentally unsuitable according to the EPA's guidelines. Under those circumstances what will the Government do?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: The closure date is definitely no later than 31 December 2004 in terms of the collection of rotting and industrial waste, not clean waste. If the scenario—and I doubt it—turns out as the honourable member has outlined, that it is 23 metres by the end of the year 2004, the Adelaide City Council could still continue to take clean waste. At the growth rate that is predicted it is hard to envisage that the scenario outlined will arise.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: Whilst it may be hard to visualise, what if we did end up in that situation?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Then it can continue to accept clean waste. I also highlight here that it will be working very closely with the Landfill Environmental Management Plan and it must, in terms of its liabilities and the EPA's responsibilities, make sure that it is enclosed in an environmentally sound fashion. That will be critical. That is why this opportunity for clean waste in terms of adjustments and things will be necessary.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I follow up on this issue of height and date. Which of the two things is the most important to the Government, the height or the date?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: That will be fully outlined in terms of the Landfill Environmental Management Plan. I do not set those. The Parliament will not but the EPA will. We have given the broad parameters and the fullest extent possible, but the management of those issues will have to be an agreement as part of the issuing of the licence.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: Does the height closure include capping or is capping to occur afterwards? What depth of capping is envisaged?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: It includes capping, that is why the words provide that after subsidence it settles at 27 metres. So it would have the cap and after it has settled it cannot be higher than 27 metres.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: How long does the Minister envisage it will take to be able to get the dump into the appropriately contoured shape with capping?

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I am not an expert and I do not have the reports before me that have been prepared by the consultants. If the honourable member would like me to refer officers to her from the EPA I would be happy to do so.

The Hon. Sandra Kanck: You can write to me afterwards.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: Yes, I will do that.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: On the basis that the previous amendment was defeated, I will not proceed with my amendment to this clause.

Clause passed.

Clauses 8 to 14 passed.

Clause 15.

The Hon. T.G. ROBERTS: The Opposition indicates that it will oppose this clause, mainly on the basis of certainty and, once the decision has been made, the Opposition's view is that everyone should be able to plan around the Bill. It should release any acrimony that might arise if there were some reviews or open ended processes whereby appeals could not be heard.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK: I indicate that the Democrats will oppose this clause. In all the consultations in which I have been involved, the only view held in common by both Port Adelaide Enfield Council and Adelaide City Council was in relation to clause 15. Both councils told me that they do not want to have that right of appeal taken away from them. It is something that they prize strongly, and I indicate that I am delighted in this case to find myself supporting both councils.

The Hon. NICK XENOPHON: I am delighted that the Hon. Sandra Kanck is delighted and I, too, oppose clause 15. Removing appeal rights is something that I find repugnant, and for that reason I oppose the clause.

The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I am delighted that there is so much harmony in this Chamber after debate earlier this evening. I highlight that the very reason that both councils agree that the appeal provisions should be out are the very reasons why they are in: because of the history of this matter and the enthusiasm of both councils to resort to the court rather than trying to work these issues through for the individual and common good.

I also highlight that the appeal provisions certainly remove the right of judicial review of a decision by either the Environmental Protection Authority or the Minister under the Act and, therefore, in effect, avoid any possibility of an appeal by either the Adelaide City Council or the Port Adelaide Enfield Council against a decision of the EPA in relation to the guidelines for landfill environmental management plan, and also avoid the possibility of an appeal by either council against the decision of the Minister in relation to a subsequent adoption of the management plan.

Never at any time, however, have we sought to avoid the possibility of appeal against the licence provisions—and I want to stress that. I also highlight that similar provisions do not exist in the Environmental Protection Act, but more onerous provisions in terms of planning law exist in the Major Developments and Projects Division of the Development Act 1993 (section 48E). I will not go into depth in terms of those more onerous appeal provisions in the Major Developments and Projects Division of the Development Act, but I highlight, particularly for the benefit of the Hon. Nick Xenophon who has taken exception to this, that this is not unusual in terms of planning law in this State.

The Hon. T.G. CAMERON: It is my understanding, too, that both councils oppose clause 15. I have no desire to ruin the party. I am delighted to oppose it, too.

Clause negatived.

Clause 16 passed.

Title passed.

Bill read a third time and passed.

The Bill was returned from the Legislative Assembly with amendments:   25 March 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]