- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 5 December 2002
Camden Aluminium Extraction Plant
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 78 of 79
| Next Item »
Page: 7960
Ms LEE RHIANNON [3.05 p.m.]: Camden residents are working hard to safeguard their community and the environment. Capral Aluminium Ltd is attempting to build an aluminium extraction plant in the local area. Once again the planning instrumentalities of this State have failed a local community. If this plant is built it will have an enormous impact, but only a few local residents have been informed. I thank Leone Kelly from Macarthur Green for the information she has provided to the Greens' office about this issue. Community concerns are considerable. Air emissions, noise, dust, traffic and visual amenity will be affected if the project goes ahead. It will also adversely impact on local employment opportunities. We should all thank the Camden community for its work in alerting us to the potential impact of this project on not only the local environment but also the air quality of the entire State.
Capral Aluminium reports that the overall attitude of residents consulted during the environmental impact study [EIS] was positive and that the importance of the facility as a major employer in the region was emphasised by residents, businesses and other key stakeholders. That is arguably the most unwarranted of the claims in the EIS. Only 30 residences and 21 businesses were selected for consultation in a densely populated and rapidly growing area. As such, there is little justification for claiming that public participation has taken place and even less for asserting that the proposal has been embraced by the community.
Public outrage was demonstrated by capacity crowds at the Camden council meeting held on 25 November and at the Curran Hills community meeting on 21 November. Those attendances were testimony of the considerable public disenchantment with Capral's community consultation process, which can best be described as token and, more realistically, as contemptuous. To notify only 30 residences and 21 businesses is extraordinary and it is not the way that an environmental impact statement [EIS] should be conducted. The EIS is replete with poorly substantiated assurances about the lack of adverse impacts of the proposal. The EIS is poorly put together and is made difficult to decipher by its inadequate labelling of the figures and tables.
It is interesting that Capral considered it appropriate to calculate the smog-generating potential of nitrous oxide emissions in kilograms per annum over a 3,600 square kilometre area. If that were the case, why were people in that area not informed about the proposal and invited to attend the information evenings? It is significant to note that Capral's EIS main report devoted only three pages to the documentation of its community consultation. This, it could be argued, accurately reflects the level of importance it places on this component of the environmental impact assessment process. Therefore, it is up to concerned members of the community to dissect the EIS and inform local residents.
The truth is that a significant proportion of the community is anxious about the perceived nature of this project and is working very hard to ensure that there is proper consultation, and that the project does not go ahead. I refer now to employment, which is a very controversial matter. Capral claims that its proposed development will employ a large number of people, yet it has admitted that of the approximately 207 people employed most would be transferred to the facility from existing Capral operations outside Minto. This project is not the employment generator that had been suggested. I congratulate local residents on the work they are doing to expose this project.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:41:17 : Update this page