Debate resumed from 11th March.

Mr O'DOHERTY (Ku-ring-gai) [10.0]: I urge honourable members not to vote with the Opposition on the bill introduced by the honourable member for Londonderry. I acknowledge that he, as the local member, has taken a strong interest in this matter, and I am sure that for a long time he has done what he believes to be the right thing for his constituents. As a journalist I interviewed the honourable member on many occasions about his concerns relating to the operation of the Castlereagh liquid waste disposal depot.

Mr Gibson: And you agreed with me.

Mr O'DOHERTY: The honourable member interjects that I agreed with him. Well, that is not the case. As I recall, without checking the records, I did not always agree with the honourable member, because as a journalist trying to seek the truth - as we all do - I had great concerns at times about the allegations being made by the honourable member. Indeed, the history of the Castlereagh liquid waste
Page 1128
disposal depot is one that could be classified as a sorry saga that goes back for a number of years, in fact for decades under a number of administrations. During the years of the Labor Government and when the present Leader of the Opposition was Minister for the Environment a range of things happened, which no doubt are the basis of the concerns today of the honourable member for Londonderry. Among them is the proposal for the expansion of the Castlereagh liquid waste disposal depot.

It is interesting to note that during the years of the Labor Government there was enormous expansion of the facility, but that there was very little by way of controls to stop the sorts of actions that the honourable member has suddenly, since 1988, become concerned about and started raising allegations about. Let us go back to 1981 and talk about SEPP 3 for the Castlereagh liquid waste disposal depot, setting out the parameters for the expansion of the depot. At that time 50 hectares was added to the site under SEPP 3. The saga continued for more than a decade with further expansion, and all the while Sydney was discussing its waste disposal needs, particularly for liquid waste. In 1982 there was an environmental impact statement and a development application for a liquid waste plant in the industrial zone at Wetherill Park. However, the application was opposed by Fairfield City Council and local residents and eventually it was withdrawn.

I think it is fair to say that no one would want the development of a new facility of this type in their neighbourhood. As legislators we must recognise that. I know that honourable members on both sides of the House share the concern about these issues. We have become a society that is much more aware of its waste disposal problems, especially during the past decade and more especially during the past six years, than it ever was. It is probably fair to say that a facility such as the Castlereagh liquid waste disposal depot, which first began under a previous administration some time during the 1970s, probably would not be built or developed in the same way today. I am reminded that it was built in 1978.

That is the essence of my opposition to the bill. Today we have a new regime of waste disposal, not just for liquid waste but also for solid waste. We have new facilities for treating and dealing with liquid waste. We are not dumping the same types of liquid waste in the same volumes that we used to do. We now deal with greater concentrations and we are far more aware of its impact on the environment than we ever were. To that end the Minister for the Environment has instituted an extensive round of community consultations and Government action to consider the claims raised since 1988 by the honourable member for Londonderry. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in 1988 when the honourable member first started raising these concerns his party had just lost office in New South Wales. Under that administration and under the then Minister, Mr Carr, there had been expansion of the facility. Where were the complaints and concerns then?

Much of the toxic material that the honourable member for Londonderry was talking about in 1988 would have been put there during the time of the former Minister for the Environment, Bob Carr. Where was the honourable member for Londonderry then? Where was his concern in the public forum? In November 1988 the honourable member made his claims of improper management of toxic waste, after an incident involving contaminated soil from the AGL site at Wollstonecraft. I probably interviewed the honourable member about those claims at about that time. I believe I interviewed the Hon. Tim Moore, who was then Minister for the Environment. I recall Tim Moore saying that when he asked authorities to investigate the claims made by the honourable member, and asked the State Pollution Control Commission, as it was then known, to consider what he was saying, he found that the gardens allegedly affected by toxic waste supposed to have come through the ground water, were in fact five kilometres upstream.

Mr Gibson: Toxic waste travels upstream.

Mr O'DOHERTY: The honourable member for Londonderry says that toxic waste travels upstream. Well, it would be interesting to see that happen.

Mr Gibson: It gets into the water-tables.

Mr O'DOHERTY: Even water-tables obey the laws of gravity; that is fundamental physics. That has been the problem at the basis of these claims made by the honourable member for Londonderry since 1988. They do not stand up to scrutiny. I do not deny the honourable member's genuine concerns for the area and for his constituents, as I said at the start of my contribution to this debate. Do we want to get to the bottom of the problem? Do we want to deal with the concerns of the residents, or do we want to keep raising these claims without substance, creating fear among the people and trying to embarrass the Government? The honourable member for Londonderry seems to want to do the latter.

I implore the honourable member to join the Government in a spirit of co-operation, to acknowledge the work being done by the present Minister for the Environment, and the work done by his predecessor, in trying to get to the bottom of the concerns, to work out a proper solution as to the future of this site, including the question of overtopping. As I understand it, overtopping, which is the primary concern of the honourable member, was first mooted by the Labor Government during its term of office. It is not an invention of the present administration.

There may be concern about what overtopping will do to the site. Before we ascertain whether those concerns have any basis, we need to ascertain the exact basis of the problems raised by the honourable member for Londonderry over many years. In April 1992 the present Minister engaged AGC Woodward-Clyde to complete a proper environmental audit of the site. Perhaps for the first time in the modern era a complete and trustworthy assessment will be available
Page 1129
of exactly what is happening on this site - not merely anecdotal evidence and the genuine concerns of the honourable member for Londonderry, not merely water flowing upstream, but a real assessment of what is happening on the site. In August 1992 the stage one audit recommendations were released publicly.

Mr Gibson: Does the honourable member intend to speak about the bill?

Mr O'DOHERTY: I am speaking about the bill. What I am saying is germane to the bill. The stage one recommendations included the following: implementation of more formal reporting; review and control systems; documentation of existing procedures, including monitoring; discussion and monitoring of acceptable and unacceptable wastes; formalisation of the environmental responsibility of personnel; tracking of the waste deposited at Castlereagh, which will discover whether water can travel upstream, as the honourable member seems to think it can; and the establishment of a regular environmental audit program. The stage two audit is being undertaken at the moment. That will involve additional sampling, testing and monitoring.

The honourable member for Londonderry is well aware that in the stage one audit, the auditors made absolutely no finding on the available evidence that ground water or surface water in the area had been polluted in the way he has suggested. They identified a number of issues to be addressed in the stage two audit, and that will be done. Allegations were made of a cover-up; they were investigated. It was found that those allegations had no basis. The stage two audit, which began in March 1993, will include a comprehensive analysis of the existing monitoring program and the data for validating the information already collected. It will also involve additional sampling, monitoring and testing, and modelling of the site to facilitate a long-term monitoring process. There will be contingency plans for future uses. A conclusive risk assessment will be provided. All these matters go to the heart of the concerns of the honourable member for Londonderry.

That process should be commended by honourable members on both sides of the House. The present Minister has consulted widely with the community. He has spoken not only to the honourable member for Londonderry but to other members whose electorates are affected. He has spoken to the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services and to Mr Speaker. The honourable member for Penrith has been involved in the community consultation, as well as a wide range of community groups. The membership of the community monitoring committee includes people from Penrith council, Hawkesbury council, the Department of Health, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Conservation and Land Management, the waste service, the Environmental Protection Authority, and the groups RAGE, CHANGE, MOSES - who presumably believe that the waters can be parted - and the Bligh Park Enhancement Group.

In the past four or five years the honourable member for Londonderry has largely politicised the issue. If the issue can be depoliticised, I am sure he will realise that the Government has addressed the guts of his concerns. In fact the Government has done a great deal more than his bill envisages. The bill will simply halt the proposals to do anything more than dispose of some liquid wastes at Castlereagh. It will completely stop overtopping and any other type of work associated with the normal operations of a waste depot. It will close the place down except for the disposal of certain liquid wastes. That may not be in the best interests of the honourable member's constituents or the site itself. It is in the best interests of the honourable member's constituents and the site for the honourable member to accept that the process that has been engaged in by the present Minister is the sort of process that the honourable member could only have dreamed of during the time of the administration of the former Labor Government.

The present process will get to the bottom of the issue. That process will continue if this bill is tossed out and the much more comprehensive strategy proposed by the Minister for the Environment is adopted. In the six or seven months that the Minister for the Environment has held the portfolio, he has shown a sincere and genuine concern for the constituents of the honourable member for Londonderry and for people of New South Wales generally. The Minister has shown that his heart is with community consultation. His administration is not merely about politicising events; it is about finding solutions which are appropriate and acceptable to the community at large. He addresses the concerns of the community at large in a way which does not cause alarm but gets to the bottom of the problem. He has conducted the tests that needed to be undertaken and has collected the hard evidence that the honourable member for Londonderry has never been able to present to support his claims.

A great deal of anecdotal evidence is available, and I heard it on my radio program for a number of years. However, hard evidence has not been forthcoming. The process undertaken by the present Minister, which I hope the honourable member for Londonderry supports, involves collecting hard data. If any evidence is available to support the claims made by the honourable member, that process will uncover it. The bill should not be supported because circumstances have changed to a degree not envisaged by the bill. I urge all honourable members to vote against the bill. By doing so, they will acknowledge the enormous amount of work being done by the present Minister to try to finally get to the bottom of the problems of the Castlereagh liquid waste disposal depot and to provide some certainty of safety for the people of the area surrounding that facility.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [10.15], in reply: I thank honourable members who have participated in the debate. Before I deal with the bill, I should say to the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai that the Opposition is used to western Sydney copping a bucketing from the silvertails from the North Shore.
Page 1130
I doubt whether the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai has ever been to Londonderry. He can talk until the cows come home about there being no hard evidence. He should go and tell that to the families who live a street away from the Castlereagh dump, families who have each had a child born with a cleft palate during the past five years. He should go and tell those families that there is no hard evidence. He should go and tell the 20 market-gardeners whose crops were wiped out for no reason that there is no hard evidence. He should not come into this House and talk rubbish about there being no hard evidence. The people of Londonderry would string him up if he went out there.

I introduced this bill on 24th September, 1992, because of the grave concerns held by the people of Londonderry and by me as their member. I congratulate the Minister for the Environment, as most speakers have done, on the way he has attacked the problem at Londonderry. He has done that in a most professional and accommodating way. I and the people of Londonderry thank him for that. It is a different story when one talks about the previous Minister. He set up a commission of inquiry to make it look like he was doing something about the problem. That commission of inquiry was set up without secretarial provisions and without funding. It was a complete and utter joke. As I have said, much to the glee of the people of western Sydney the present Minister has addressed the problem.

This bill is not only about Castlereagh waste depot; it is about the protection of people, standards of living and a quality of life to which all members of this House should subscribe. It is about fair play; it is about the future of waste in New South Wales. Australia is a nation which was founded on the adage of fair play. Where is the fair play in the people of that part of western Sydney, who are housing a million tonnes of toxic waste in their backyard, being told they will cop a megatip on top of that? The bill is whether western Sydney will be buried in garbage, whether the easy option of landfill is taken or whether a futuristic approach is taken to waste management. If that approach is not taken, future generations will suffer greatly because of decisions that honourable members did not, could not or were not game enough to make in this Parliament at this time.

Many speakers from the Government have spoken, but not about the bill. They have spoken about the Joint Select Committee on Waste Management, and I am very proud to be a member of that committee. The Government has issued a green paper and it has told us how much effort it is putting into stages one and two of the audit. The Government has spent, or it will spend, $640,000 on stages one and two of the audit, and the health program will probably add another half a million dollars; so the Government will spend more than $1 million. On the one hand it is trying to establish whether there is any foundation for the residents' concerns, but on the other hand it is talking about landfilling the top of this dump, which is absolutely ludicrous. Landfilling is a backward step, particularly on top of a liquid waste depot. There is no precedent anywhere in the world where a liquid waste dump housing one million tonne of toxic waste has been overtopped with a megatip.

Lucas Heights was overtopped for the same purpose that is being proposed at Londonderry, for drainage; at least that is the reason given. Lucas Heights is a total failure and the same thing will happen at Londonderry. If landfill has to be the answer - and I am not convinced that it is - let us landfill where it should most appropriately go, not in areas close to some of this country's most beautiful rivers, such as the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. That system is dying at the moment, and this depot is only a stone's throw from the Hawkesbury-Nepean rivers. Landfill depots should not be sited in densely residential areas - and that is exactly where this landfill will be: in the centre of an area that will be subject to a population explosion in the very near future. We should not destroy some of Australia's most beautiful country and turn it into a site for garbage collection, because that is what landfills will contain for the next 100 years. We take the easy option all the time.

I would hope that the waste committee comes up with a solution or a possible strategy to cater for the waste problem as we head towards the year 2000 and beyond. Areas in which landfill sites could be established should be investigated. It is not a NIMBY situation. I am not saying, "Do not put it in my backyard", but we have to be realistic about it. If we decide that landfill sites are the way to go, let us look at quarry sites around New South Wales and particularly in western Sydney. There are quarry sites everywhere in western Sydney. We have heard a lot about the Government throwing buckets on the Leader of the Opposition, Bob Carr, but what the Government does not realise is that this liquid waste dump in Castlereagh was established by the Askin Government in the early 1970s.

The Askin Government told Penrith City Council that it had a problem with toxic waste created on a daily basis by industry and needed somewhere to house it. Penrith council, being a fairly obliging council said, "Fine. For how long do you want to use it?" and the answer was, "12 or 15 months", but it has been there for 23 or 24 years. All this talk about "Bob Carr this" and "Bob Carr that" and "Bob Carr being responsible for the Castlereagh liquid waste dump" is incorrect; it was foisted on the people of that area by the Askin government, and the coalition Government has never done anything to address the problem or compensate the people in that area for having such a dastardly facility within their midst.

My bill simply provides that a garbage dump cannot be built on top of the liquid waste dump at Castlereagh. As I have said, it would be the first time in history if that were to happen. By spending $640,000 on stage two of the audit, the Government has shown that it has a concern about Castlereagh. If the Government is so concerned that it is spending in excess of $1 million, why increase the concern by
Page 1131
even contemplating a rubbish dump? Government speakers can hide all day behind the facade of saying, "We are spending all this money on stages one and two of the audit", but the decision to build a megatip or a tip on top of Castlereagh was made before the stage two audit decision was even discussed. The Government had no thought about stage one or stage two of the audit when it was announced that the tip would be built on top of the Castlereagh liquid waste dump. The tip came first; stage two of the audit and the remaining process came after.

The Government made its decision knowing that there was concern at Castlereagh that the tip could trigger the worst environmental disaster in Australian history. Yet the Government went ahead and made the decision to locate that facility at Castlereagh. It stands to reason, as anybody with any common sense would know, that if five million tonnes of putrescible waste is put on top of clay cells standing side by side - the clay cells are not supported in any way, they are only cells torn into the clay - the more weight that is applied to the clay cells, the greater is the chance that something will happen. Even if the stage two audit proves, after all this money has been spent, that there are no great concerns, why take the future risk of putting all this waste on top of the liquid waste dump at Castlereagh and creating, perhaps, another man-made catastrophe at Castlereagh?

As I have said, it is not the NIMBY syndrome. In 1987 the Labor Government investigated where it would build a new megatip, if one was needed, and it went through the proper channels. It did not do what this Government has done with the Londonderry tip and say, all of a sudden, "Right. We need a megatip in Sydney. We will rule out 32 other sites but we will put it in the backyard of a Labor-held seat because we do not care too much for Labor and the people in that part of western Sydney". The Waste Management Authority was slapped over the knuckles because it was beaten in the courts and everywhere else, and the Government was beaten in this House; and after a 2½-year struggle we were told that the Londonderry tip would not be sited at Londonderry. However, the Government did not accept the umpire's decision, there is now a de facto relationship, and the tip will be established at Castlereagh.

In 1987 the Labor Party went through the proper channels and carried out environmental impact statements and all the rest of it. It was decided that if there had to be a landfill, the best place in western Sydney was the quarry sites at Erskine Park. Nobody can accuse the Labor Government of making a political decision. because in 1987 Erskine Park was in a Labor seat. It was not a political decision; it was a decision made with the co-operation of the Waste Management Authority and everybody else that in the best interests of everyone, Erskine Park would be the best place for a landfill.

I am not saying that I support a megatip at Erskine Park but if there has to be a landfill, why not look at the lined quarries at Erskine Park? If one compared the Erskine Park quarry sites or any other possible site with the Castlereagh site, I am sure that Castlereagh would run a poor second at every turn. Nothing has been heard about Erskine Park, and the reason is that following the redistribution it is in a government seat. It is in the electorate of the Chief Secretary and Minister for Administrative Services. That is why it is not proposed as a possible site.

It is strange that in 1987 when the Labor Party conducted an investigation in western Sydney to determine the best place to site a landfill depot, Erskine Park - then a Labor seat - won hands down; but that with the same investigation after a change of government, Erskine Park does not even rate in the first 32 places that were suggested for a possible tip. As I say, compare any of those areas with Castlereagh and Castlereagh would run a poor second.

I thank the Government members who have participated in this debate, even though they spoke about everything except the measures in the bill. My bill does not oppose the liquid waste depot at Castlereagh. Government speakers are using scare tactics to confuse some people - remembering that there may be a vote on this matter later - and convince them that my bill will oppose a liquid waste dump at Castlereagh. That is absolute nonsense.

It is a spoiling tactic. I am pleased that those people who will vote in favour of this bill appreciate that. As I have said, nothing in this bill suggests that. I am not silly enough to say that we should close the Castlereagh facility today, because that would leave us with nowhere to store toxic waste until we find a better way to dispose of it. Government members are using scare tactics. This will be reflected when people vote on the bill. If the Government wants to contour and landscape the megatip at Castlereagh it should do that with clean fill or topsoil - anything other than putrescible waste or garbage from the Sydney area.

It has been said that this overtopping will help the drainage problems that exist at Castlereagh. I have said a few times already that although the Castlereagh depot has been there since the early 1970s the only time we heard about drainage problems at Castlereagh was when the Government wanted to build a tip in western Sydney. The building of this tip was proposed because of the drainage problems at Castlereagh that have been spoken about, yet not one Government member has mentioned those drainage problems. Most Government speakers referred to the AGC Woodward-Clyde report and the first and second stages of the audit, but did not say much about the bill. In my electorate there are a few active action groups, one of which is called CHANGE. When Dr David Hughes heard about the possibility of a dump being built at Castlereagh depot he said:

The Waste Management Authority has approval and plans to overtop the site with 5 million tonnes of putrescible waste, which we believe will only compress more of the liquid toxic waste through the base of the clay at the depot. The Waste Management Authority aims to then overtop the five million tonnes with clay, we believe, to keep even more rain water out of what we believe to be its leaking waste cells. The liquid and

Page 1132
solid toxic materials are of the same as those that broke through the impenetrable clay linings at Love Canal in the United States. The AGC Woodward-Clyde report is a revelation that the community's concerns have not been unjustified.

The AGC Woodward-Clyde report is an indictment of that. I will refer to a few of the things in that report - things that the Government knew when it initially decided to go ahead with this proposal. Recommendation 6.9 of the report states, "It was revealed that the Waste Management Authority has no knowledge of what has been dumped on the site, particularly in the early days". I have referred to that section of the report because a few weeks ago in this Chamber the Minister, in a speech on this very subject, said that I had taken things out of context. Anyone who looks up that section of the report will see that I have not taken it out of context. At recommendations 6.18 and 6.19 we find the following statement, "The accuracy of the inventory cannot be totally established as there is currently no form of mechanism to confirm the type or content of waste being deposited at Castlereagh".

We do not know what has been buried at the Castlereagh depot. We do not know what went into the cells in the first 10 years. There is no record of it. Yet this Government has made a decision to build a megatip at the Castlereagh depot without any knowledge of what has been buried underground. It has always been my theory - this was confirmed by the honourable member for Ku-ring-gai - that toxins travel upstream. Members of the Government do not realise that the water-table follows the contour of the land. A person living at the top of a hill has as much chance of his water being contaminated as a person living in the valley. The underground water at the top of the hill is at the same depth as the underground water in the valley. The Government went ahead and made this decision without giving any thought to that matter.

The report refers also to the fact that if waste is refused on the grounds that it is too liquid or too toxic it is unacceptable. The Waste Management Authority will not accept it. It is possible that thousands of truckloads of waste have been deposited at Castlereagh depot. No one knows where that toxic waste ended up. It is fair to assume that it ended up in the dams and creeks in western Sydney. Another indictment is that no emergency procedures or plans are available at that site in the event of a major spill or a fire - a factor referred to in paragraph 5 of recommendation 6.16 of the report. The report also refers in recommendation 6.19 to the fact that neither head office nor the site had copies of relevant legislation or regulations pertaining to that site. No one knew what the Parliament wanted to do with that site. This ad hoc situation pertained for years because initially everyone thought the Castlereagh depot was temporary. That temporary depot has turned out to be a nightmare.

It is an indictment of the people who live in that part of western Sydney for the Government to propose building a rubbish tip at Castlereagh depot without a knowledge of the concerns of those people. The Government took that decision before it decided to spend $640,000, or $1 million, to determine whether conditions in that area are safe. I wish to refer to some other recommendations in the report which I mentioned earlier. The water in boreholes rises and falls without apparent rhyme or reason. Government members have referred to this factor during the course of debate. Steven Smith, an independent environmentalist, has put forward a very good reason for this. He believes that a likely explanation is that contaminated ground water - seepage from heavy rain and toxic cocktails eating their way out of the site - is entering these supposedly secure cells and the water-table.

The report, at recommendation 6.15, also indicates that monthly ground water monitoring has been grossly irregular. Two or three months might go by without testing being carried out. There could be a leaking cell or 100 leaking cells. If these boreholes are not tested for two months at a time it could mean that anything could have got into the water-table. Recommendation 8.13 of the report states that there has been no planning, either in the location or in the installation of the boreholes. The whole program of borehole monitoring needs to be reassessed from first principles if any meaningful data regarding ground water qualifiers and level variation is to be obtained. The more I read this report the more outraged I am that the Government has proposed building a rubbish tip at the Castlereagh depot.

The Waste Management Authority does not know the exact composition of waste in each cell. That is a tremendous worry. How can the Government talk about accommodating millions of tonnes of putrescible waste in an area when it does not even know what is buried underground? I have asked the Government on many occasions to determine what was buried in those cells in the early days. People have not been game enough to open any of those cells. I do not blame them. Dames and Moore collected leachate migrating from a cell and found that phenol and zinc levels were particularly high - hundreds of times higher than the allowable or permissible level.

The clay at the Castlereagh depot is called kaolinite. Even weak acids and alkaline are capable of dissolving clays, therefore allowing waste to escape from clay landfills. Large volumes of acids and alkalines are dumped at Castlereagh depot. When we talk about things being buried in clay cells people form the idea that these clay cells have plastic linings. A clay cell is a hole in the ground. People use front end loaders and dig a hole in the ground which becomes a cell. As I have said, there is no leachate system at Castlereagh depot, so the Government would not know what toxic waste was escaping. The problem concerning whether chemical wastes are increasing the permeability of Londonderry clay remains unresolved.

In theory, much of the waste dumped at Castlereagh can greatly increase the clay's permeability. That the dump has leaked in the past is well recorded. No definite conclusions have been reached on how far that leak actually spread. Waste
Page 1133
Management Authority records show that contamination of monitoring holes outside the dump site was detected in early 1977 at the northeast corner of stage three of the dump. In response to this leakage off site, the authority commissioned the geotechnical consultants Golder Associates to investigate the cause. Golder Associates concluded that this leakage was within a perched water-table and was confined to a relatively small area within a large area of permeable clay. However, it appears that the true extent of the seepage could not be determined conclusively.

In November 1977 the Golder report stated that the perched water-table was escaping to the lower lying areas to the northeast. The Golder report detected contamination of the soil in 1977. The consultants knew the soil was contaminated because, as the report said, it was detected by smell. It is a terrible indictment that contamination of soil outside the dump area was detected by smell. Why not chemically analyse the soil to see what the problem really was? The dump was opened by government administrations many years ago; the people of western Sydney will pay the price, possibly for ever and a day. It will cost millions of dollars when eventually government realises that to rectify the problems the site will have to be dug up, in the same way as many sites in America are being rehabilitated today.

No Government member addressed the bill and no member criticised the bill. They spoke about everything except the bill. The honourable member for Ermington spoke about his holiday in Jamaica, which had absolutely nothing to do with the bill. The honourable member for Davidson gave us a geographical study of his electorate, which had nothing to do with the bill. Some amendments will be moved at a later stage. Those amendments will enhance the quality of the bill, so I look forward to accepting them. The honourable member for Penrith referred to a concern of the Penrith City Council. If the bill is passed, an amendment will possibly be moved by the Labor Party in the upper House.

No one spoke about the overtopping, which the bill is supposedly all about. No one from the Government side spoke about the drainage, which was the main reason for putting millions of tonnes of garbage on the site. The previous Minister, Mr Tim Moore, told me it was put there for landscaping. The people of western Sydney will be pleased to know that the Government thinks that turning their suburb, on the banks of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system, into a garbage dump is the Government's idea of landscaping. No wonder the coalition took a belting in the last Federal election; the people of Australia woke up to what it is really about. Nobody from the Government side spoke about the essence of the bill. The suggestion that my bill would close the liquid waste dump at Castlereagh is absolute rubbish. The Government should be supporting the bill, and I urge the House to support it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Clause 3

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.44]: I move:

Page 2, clause 3. After line 10, insert:

"overtopping" means the recontouring of the surface of land after the discontinuance of its use for the disposal of liquid waste, where the recontouring is carried out, by means of normal solid waste landfill techniques, for the purpose of facilitating stormwater run-off, improving the finished contours of the land or ensuring the future stability of the land;

The importance of this definition is that overtopping will appear as a requirement for a part 5 environmental impact statement under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. One of my further amendments prescribes for that in clause 5. This will strengthen the position of the mover of the bill and will strengthen the object and intent of the bill. It is clear from my discussions with the honourable member for Londonderry, and also with the Minister, that the object of the bill is to capture any overtopping such that it would then have to be subject to the EIS. The word "overtopping" is not mentioned in the bill and this may not be necessary because the definition of waste disposal has been included. I believe we need to be more prescriptive, that overtopping needs to be clearly defined because that is the whole tenet of the bill.

The definition "overtopping" is appropriate because it allows for some continuing waste disposal, provided stage two of the audit has been satisfactory and provided the EIS has been satisfactorily assessed; that is, for the purpose of facilitating stormwater run-off and improving finished contours of the land. I am concerned about the long-term intent of overtopping, as to whether it will fall within that purpose - run-off and contouring. Concerns have been raised by the honourable member for Penrith about eight metres of overtopping. I would like to know what the Minister thinks overtopping means and if this definition will prevent that sort of abuse. If overtopping ever occurs it should be subject to an EIS. I seek support for this amendment.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [10.48]: I have no worries with that amendment. It would be ludicrous for me or anyone else to suggest that the dump should be closed immediately and that there would be nowhere to bury the toxic waste which is created on a daily basis. The Minister has given a public assurance that if at stage two of the audit there are major concerns at Castlereagh, the Castlereagh liquid waste dump will be closed immediately. I welcome the amendment.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [10.49]: I agree to the amendment as moved by the honourable member for Manly. The amendment is part of a series of amendments to ensure that the bill is clear in that it would provide, once the amendments have all been moved and passed, that the overtopping would not take place unless an EIS is carried out and is found to be
Page 1134
satisfactory. It is necessary, of course, for us all to have an understanding of what overtopping is. Overtopping does not necessarily mean another rubbish dump. The definition says what it means: the recontouring of the land for the purpose of facilitating stormwater run-off, improving the finished contours of the land or ensuring the future stability of the land.

When we finish using Castlereagh we have to decide what is going to be done with it. To leave it as it is clearly would not be useful for the community. It is a thousand acres of very flat land; rainwater could not run off and would accumulate. The run-off needs to be properly channelled and properly controlled and planned for the future, and that is the wish of the honourable member for Londonderry. He would obviously wish that nothing further take place; but accepting that further activities will be taking place, we must ensure future stability of the area is properly addressed. Overtopping is designed to achieve that. The overtopping would only go ahead if the EIS is satisfactory.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.50]: I welcome the remarks of the Minister and I take this opportunity to seek an undertaking from him to record in Hansard that it is the Government's intention that overtopping should fall within the definition. It is important at this moment, when there appears to be agreement among all members of Parliament as to the way this bill should proceed, that it should be clarified that there is no hidden agenda. The contours should be seen as rolling contours rather than something that might be described as alpine. Indeed, some people are concerned that Castlereagh will ultimately be opened up - albeit with a satisfactory EIS - to massive abuse as an additional landfill site, without the long-term intent of rehabilitation. Its useful permitted purpose would be satisfied in the minds of all members of the House if an undertaking was received from the Minister.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [10.52]: In light of the interest of the honourable member for Manly in the Minister recording an undertaking in Hansard, in anticipation I ask the Minister to expand his views about the words in the definition to the effect that recontouring is carried out by means of normal solid waste landfill techniques. I ask that he have recorded in Hansard his perception of the definition of normal solid waste landfill techniques.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [10.52]: I welcome the contributions of the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for Moorebank. I do not claim to be a landfill expert or a landfill engineer. The intention of the Waste Recycling and Processing Service, which is the intention I have endorsed as Minister, is that the thousand-acre site at Castlereagh will eventually be redeveloped for the benefit of the local community once its existing use has run its life. The mechanism to achieve that is overtopping, because this thousand acres of land is very flat, and there would be no effective way of rehabilitating the land or ensuring its future stability without an overtopping system being put in place.

That is my advice, and that is the advice I give the House. A further definition of what normal solid waste landfill techniques means would be quite superfluous, because the definition is the normal solid waste landfilling system that is applicable in the Sydney metropolitan area as we understand it at this time - nothing more, nothing less. The honourable member for Manly seeks an assurance that the Government has no hidden agenda to somehow to use this definition and this proposal to suddenly find, "We have got Castlereagh, let us go ahead". I advise him that is not my understanding of the position and it is not my intention to see that Castlereagh becomes something other than what is clearly stated in this definition.

Amendment agreed to.

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [10.55]: I move:

Page 2, clause 3, lines 13-15. Omit all words on those lines.

This amendment seeks to delete clause 3(2) which reads:

(2) Development for the purpose of the landscaping or for some other purpose is also development for the purpose of waste disposal if it involves, or is carried out for the purpose of, the disposal of waste.

These are the words used by the mover of this bill. Indeed, that particular clause gives rise to the allegations raised, particularly by members of the Government and now acknowledged by all members, that the bill could result in the closure of Castlereagh even to liquid waste disposal as currently handled. This is not the intention of the honourable member for Londonderry. Indeed, this could occur because any waste disposal or any disposal of waste would be captured in the definition of development and, therefore, would have to be subject to the EIS. That is not the intention. Currently solid waste going to Castlereagh is used for co-mingling, for co-disposal. That is necessary and in fact enhances the disposal process.

When liquid waste is disposed of it should be co-mingled, and currently is co-mingled, with domestic waste and also hospital waste. I stand corrected if I am wrong. This definition could be eliminated because we have already replaced it in the line before with a clear definition of what overtopping is. It has been clearly stated by the honourable member for Londonderry that it is not his intention to discontinue the activities that are currently occurring. Castlereagh is used as an end point for liquid waste. Lidcombe is currently used for hospital waste disposal, though I understand that will become less when Silverwater comes on line. In a sense this is a consequential amendment in view of the fact we now have an overtopping definition and it is clearly an improvement to satisfy the Minister that the current liquid waste can continue along the lines of co-mingling and co-disposal.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [10.58]: I do not have any problems with this amendment. One point of clarification relates to the hospital waste that has
Page 1135
been mentioned by the honourable member for Manly. Cytotoxic waste and medical waste had been landfilled in New South Wales for quite some time, until quite recently. Most other countries in the world stopped landfilling cytotoxic waste and medical waste almost 10 years ago. We are a little bit slow; we stopped it only two or three years ago. The only contaminated hospital waste that goes to Castlereagh, from my understanding at the moment, is that resulting from an emergency.

A problem exists with hospital waste such as scrubbers, which are normally disposed of in an incinerator but cannot be disposed of in that way because many incinerators have been closed down. In those circumstances there is a need to landfill the waste. In those circumstances I accept that it is not a prerequisite that medical waste or contaminated hospital waste has to be part of the liquid waste procedure, because the household garbage is put into the cell with the liquid waste used as a soaking agent so that there is not so much liquid in each cell. I accept the amendment.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.0]: Once again I thank the honourable member for Manly for his amendment. Even though this is the bill of the honourable member for Londonderry, I thank him also for his support of the amendment. It is vital that this amendment be carried by the Committee, otherwise the effect on the operation of the Castlereagh Liquid Waste Disposal Depot would be to prevent the continuing use of the waste disposal depot. Certainly liquid waste would stop going there. Liquid waste can only be safely and effectively disposed of if co-mingled to have an absorption factor. The residue from the aqueous water facility at Lidcombe would stop going there and Castlereagh could not be used for the emergency secure disposal of medical or contaminated waste. It is hoped that medical and contaminated waste can be disposed of through the Silverwater complex. At present that complex is not operating because of air quality problems and, as the honourable member for Londonderry said, the need to install scrubbers to rectify air quality problems.

Mr Gibson: It came on line yesterday.

Mr HARTCHER: It was supposed to come on line yesterday. I have not yet received a report on whether it did come on line. I shall not accept the recommendation of the honourable member for Moorebank in that respect. If the facility is not operating at Silverwater and effective means of disposing of contaminated waste - operations are necessary and the waste must go somewhere - are not available and there is no effective means of storing it safely, such as refrigeration, it must go to Castlereagh. It is important that this emergency facility be available. For all those reasons the Government welcomes the amendment of the honourable member for Manly and supports it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 5

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.2]: I move:

Page 2, clause 5, line 26. Omit "waste disposal (other than liquid waste disposal) on", insert instead "overtopping".

I should like to comment on the way this bill is proceeding. For the benefit of young people in the gallery, it is worth noting that this House is now dealing with private members' bills and members are debating a bill introduced by the honourable member for Londonderry. This procedure is now able to take place as a result of negotiations between the Government, the Opposition and the Independents. This is a movement forward in a consensus manner and allows for amendments to be moved to private members' bills that are acceptable to the Government. It is also worth noting that this is recent innovation. Parliament is operating in a consensus manner in an effort to get the best out of all political views and to obtain the best result in the public interest.

This amendment applies to clause 5, which specifies the sorts of developments to which part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will apply. The intent of the bill moved by the honourable member for Londonderry is that overtopping of a toxic rubbish dump should be subject to strict assessment before it is permitted. The major thrust of the bill is whether it is appropriate, correct or safe to put more rubbish on top of a tip which is full of toxic waste. To paraphrase the clause, the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act will apply to the overtopping of this land. That is a synopsis of the intent of the bill. It is a bit more prescriptive; it allows for absolute clarity as to the intention of the honourable member for Londonderry. I seek support for the amendment.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [11.5]: The Australian Labor Party supports the amendment at this stage but notifies the Committee that it will be checking the detail of this particular amendment in terms of just how prescriptive it is. The way I now read the proposed amendment to clause 5(1) is that part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act shall apply to development relating to overtopping on the land to which the Act applies. That is extremely prescriptive and narrows the applicability of the entire bill to overtopping and the definition contained in the bill, moved by the honourable member for Manly in a previous amendment, to a precise definition of overtopping.

It could be said that another way to proceed in terms of the application of part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act would be to simply have clause 5(1) read, "The provisions of part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act apply to the carrying out of development on the land to which this Act applies". Therefore, that brings into its scope all applications for development where there is a significant effect on the environment, bearing in mind that part 5 of the Act triggers the significant effect test. One thing that could have been applied to this bill - and I think the Labor Party would
Page 1136
like to consider this in another place - is the general applicability of the significant effect test under part 5 and its applicability to all or any applications for development on the land. With that caveat the Opposition supports the amendment at this stage.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.6]: The Government supports the amendment moved by the honourable member for Manly. I note the comments of the honourable member for Moorebank. In the Parliament, where we are seeking to resolve these matters, and resolve them fairly quickly, obviously some fairly ad hoc decisions are made. The Government can merely do its best, with the best of intentions. It is the Government's understanding that the purpose of the bill is to ensure there is an environmental impact statement before there is overtopping. Obviously that is what the amendments will clearly specify and, one would hope, clearly achieve. It is in that spirit that I support the amendment.

I wish to comment on the remarks made by the honourable member for Manly as to the operation of the Parliament. At this stage I acknowledge the assistance of the honourable member for Manly and the honourable member for South Coast in seeking to achieve a reasonable and feasible solution to this problem. The Castlereagh Liquid Waste Disposal Depot is a major concern. The bill is important to the honourable member for Londonderry and he has fought for this legislation for a long time. Since I have been appointed Minister the Government has been determined to ensure that everything could be done to address issues regarding the Castlereagh Liquid Waste Disposal Depot. That is why stage one and stage two have been ordered and the Government is happy to agree to the environmental impact statement. I place on record my appreciation to the honourable member for Manly for being an honest broker and I appreciate the assistance given by the honourable member for South Coast.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [11.8]: I also accept the amendment. I wish to thank the shadow minister, the honourable member for Blacktown, for her role in this legislation. I intended to thank her earlier and I apologise for not doing so.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [11.10]: I formally move the amendment circulated in my name:

Page 2, lines 32-35. Omit all words on those lines, insert instead:

(b) the Minister for Planning shall be the consent authority for any development proposed under this section.

The bipartisan discussions in this debate led me to believe that the Government supported the inclusion of a provision in part 5 that such a proposal may apply to overtopping on the Castlereagh site. However, I understand that the Government has now baulked at the proposal that the Minister be the consent authority and prefers to appoint the Director of the Department of Planning to fulfil that role. I do not accept the Minister's request to amend my amendment, to change the word "Minister" to "Director", for the simple reason that part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which we all agree should apply to this legislation, nominates the Minister as the determining authority.

According to the definitions in part 5 of the Act the determining authority means a Minister or public authority; not the director but a Minister. A nominated determining authority in relation to an activity means the determining authority nominated by the Minister. Nowhere in the three or four pages that comprise part 5 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is the director recognised in any form. That was done for good reason. The Minister is the Crown appointee to determine applications under the Act. To use the vernacular, that is where the buck stops. If the Minister for Planning is comfortable enough to drive around in white limousines and take all the ministerial perks and additional support services that are available to him, it is appropriate that he should shoulder the responsibility required of him under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

Though the Minister for Planning has had a tough time of late, with a whole series of embarrassments relating to the administration of the Water Board, and more recently in regard to the housing portfolio, he should acknowledge that this issue will not cause him any severe embarrassment, so long as he does his job properly. He should take the responsibility which is clear - it is not even implied, for it is included in the definitions in part 5 - and accept his role as the determining authority. Having said that, I should note the importance of this agreement by the Government to members on this side of the House. This is the second time the Government has decided to agree to the separation of the consent authority from the proponent of an activity. The first was the Forestry Commission and related to the provisions of the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Bill. That legislation contained a schedule of environmental impact studies to be conducted by the Forestry Commission or its nominee. They were to be determined by a third party - in that case, as it was the Government's choice for it had the numbers, the director of the Department of Planning.

This is an important and fundamental principle of government. Much has been heard from members on both sides of the House today and in previous debates about the need to recognise current community standards and to identify how those standards have changed to require greater public scrutiny and greater separation of consent from proponents. That policy is endorsed by the Labor Party and is something Labor Party members have fought vigorously to have confirmed in the timber legislation. We seek to have it confirmed also in this bill by forcing the Waste Management Authority to forgo its consent role and act as the proponent of the activity and hand over the consent role to someone else.

Page 1137

The debate should not be about whether that should happen but rather who should be the third party. As elected representatives of Parliament do we want to abrogate our responsibility to a bureaucrat, competent as the present incumbent is? Do we want to hand over those powers to a determining authority, a paid bureaucrat, or do we want to support the concept of ministerial responsibility and require the Minister to take responsibility for any actions of his department and any environmental impact assessments, as provided for in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act? Members need not believe me; they can look at the legislation under which we all must operate. In no part of it will members find reference to the Director of the Department of Planning as a nominee for any determining actions. In the definitions section and throughout the text of part 5 the constant and consistent reference is to the Minister for Planning. That is as it should be. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.14]: I move:

That the amendment be amended by omitting the word "Minister" and inserting in lieu thereof the word "Director".

The crucial reason for amending the amendment is that the honourable member for Londonderry has tried to set up a clear, publicly accountable mechanism whereby the community will be able to see what is happening with the Castlereagh site and that things are done fairly and openly. He would establish a procedure whereby a stage two audit would be carried out and an environmental impact study completed. The assessment of the environmental impact statement must also be seen to be public, fair and not confused with the operation of government or its activities. That is what the honourable member for Londonderry has tried to achieve.

The honourable member for Moorebank is trying to achieve something else. He wants at the end of the day to introduce a political and government role. The thrust of the green paper that I circulated last September, and which was assessed by a committee that included the honourable member for Londonderry, the honourable member for Blacktown and the honourable member for Manly, was to ensure that decisions are made with community involvement, made openly and seen to be made fairly. It is not sufficient that the decisions are made; it is important that they be understood by everyone to have been made properly and appropriately. At the end of the day the honourable member for Moorebank knows that if the environmental impact study takes place and is favourable, he wants to be able to blame the Government.

The Labor Party is looking cleverly for a final escape hatch. If the stage two audit goes bad and finds that the Castlereagh facility should not go ahead, it will not go ahead. If the environmental impact statement finds that the proposal should not go ahead, it will not go ahead. However, if stage two is satisfactory and the environmental impact statement is satisfactory, the Labor Party wants to be able to blame someone for it. They do not want to have to say that there was a fair and publicly accountable mechanism. The Labor Party wants to be able to say this is the wicked government, the wicked Minister for Planning -

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I call the honourable member for Penrith to order.

Mr HARTCHER: The Labor Party will say that the wicked Minister for Planning has forced the decision upon the citizens of Castlereagh and Londonderry. Credit must always be given to the Labor Party. It is very clever. Labor Party members are always ready to look for a political escape hatch for themselves, to ensure that they can play politics with any decision. If Labor Party members are happy with the proposal that has been put forward, why will they not agree to the director making the assessment? That would be fair, public and accountable; there could be no allegation of political interference. What do they have to lose if the director makes the determination? They have already agreed to that procedure being followed in the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Bill. In debate on that legislation the Labor Party agreed that the director should make those decisions.

Recently the director assessed Forestry Commission environmental impact statements, for instance the one in regard to Mount Royal, and was damning in his criticism. The director was fair and impartial. The honourable member for Moorebank knows about the director's assessment of the Forestry Commission in regard to Mount Royal. He rejected it and got stuck into the commission. What do Labor Party members think they will lose if the director is given that responsibility? The only thing they have to lose is that they will not be able to play politics with the final decision. They will not be able to say that it was all fairly done; instead they will say that the wicked Government or the wicked Minister has made the assessment and that the Minister has introduced the overtopping. That is what the Australian Labor Party wants. The processes will be the same. What counts is whose signature is on the document. That is what the Labor Party wants. Labor Party members should be given full credit. I take off my hat to right-wing members of the Australian Labor Party.

[Interruption]

We know you are in the left-wing, Pam. The right-wing is brilliant at playing politics. I will always acknowledge that, but I will never let it go unremarked upon or unchecked. I support everything that the honourable member for Londonderry wants. But this is the real test for the honourable member: is he looking after the best interests of his constituents
Page 1138
or is he looking for an end result, a political advantage no matter what? He wants to win both ways. He wants a win if the facility does not go ahead and he wants a win if the facility goes ahead. So far as he would contend, it would still be the case that the Minister was imposing the facility on the people of western Sydney.

The honourable member for Londonderry and the honourable member for Moorebank are giving themselves the cleverest little escape hatch in the true traditions of the Labor Party. Either they are genuine and want a fair and publicly accountable mechanism, or they are not genuine. They have to answer that question. They are getting everything they want, with the director replacing the Minister. They agreed to that; this is not a new idea of mine. They agreed to that situation with the Timber Industry (Interim Protection) Bill, and that has worked well. Hiding behind the Act will get them nowhere. The honourable member for Moorebank gave himself away when he asked why the Minister should not make a determination and referred to the Minister driving round in his white car. We are not concerned about Ministers; we are concerned about a fair process for the people of Castlereagh. The honourable member for Londonderry must be prepared -

[Interruption]

The honourable member has acknowledged what I have done in the past nine months. The honourable member for Londonderry must be clear: is he playing politics or is he acting in the best interests of the people of Castlereagh?

Mr KNOWLES (Moorebank) [11.21]: It is extraordinary that the Government has nothing to say but believes that the best thing to do is to say it long and loud. However, I concede that the best person to deal with in regard to this debate from the Minister's side would be the Director of Planning. At least she makes a lot of sense when we discuss these things with her. I have never heard such palpable nonsense as that put forward by the Government. Probably at least 150 to 250 part 5 environmental impact statements are determined by the Minister for Planning every year, and have been since 1978 when the Act was introduced. But on one particular application, relating to the Castlereagh Liquid Waste Disposal Depot, the Government wants to remove the Minister from the process. If the Government is to be consistent, why does it not amend the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act to replace the definition of the Minister being the determining authority and appoint the director?

The Government talks of a fair, open and honest process. That is correct; the EIS process is a fair, honest and open process. In the second reading debate a week or two ago the Government did not want to have a bar of that process. In two weeks the goal posts have shifted. Two weeks ago the Government wanted to maintain SEPP 3. It did not want to support the honourable member's bill or to apply part 5 of the Act. As a consequence of that the Government is basically saying that now - dragged kicking and screaming to accept part 5, because the Independents are voting with the Opposition - it still wants to put some sort of caveat, some sort of brake there, to remove the Minister from the process. I am pleased that so many National Party members are in the Chamber. I wonder what Government members feel about the Minister for Planning, one of their colleagues, actually skewering the Mount Royal EIS? Are they happy about that? I could read to them from Hansard National Party views about the EIS process on the timber bill; I would have thought that Mr Webster may have been drummed out of the National Party.

Quite simply, this process, as set up in the tip bill and the 14 environmental impact statements under it, contains the signature of the Minister for Planning on the documentation. Similarly, the reporting mechanisms under the tip bill contain the signature of the Minister for Conservation and Land Management. Under the endangered fauna legislation the quarterly reporting mechanisms contain the signature of the Minister for the Environment, along with that of Bill Gillooly. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that for one piece of legislation, for one EIS process out of probably something of the order of 250 a year, he wants to take the process away from ministerial responsibility and say that we will give it to Ms Kibble, the Director of the Department of Planning? That is obvious nonsense because it is reinforced by the legislation that we have all operated under since 1978.

No Government members have made any attempt to change that legislation since the Government has been in office, for the good reason that it makes sense. But, are members opposite seriously suggesting, say, to the people in the gallery that Ministers should not be accountable and responsible for making laws and overseeing the bureaucracy? If they are saying that when the going gets tough they do not want Ministers making decisions but want someone else to do the hard yakka, I think they are living in pixieland. Government members should have regard to the fact that they have conceded ground. Two weeks ago they did not want a bar of the honourable member's bill. This week they accept part 5 but do not want to have anything to do with the determining role. I believe the Government will lose the vote because I understand, and I hope, that the Independents will be consistent and apply the same rationale that they applied in debate on the timber legislation; that is, that the same provision for ministerial responsibility should be applied.

Page 1139

Question - That the amendment of the amendment be agreed to - put.

The Committee divided.

Mr Armstrong
Mr Baird
Mr Blackmore
Mr Causley
Mr Chappell
Mrs Chikarovski
Mr Cochran
Mrs Cohen
Mr Collins
Mr Cruickshank
Mr Fraser
Mr Glachan
Mr Griffiths
Mr Hartcher
Mr Hazzard
Mr Humpherson

Mr Jeffery
Dr Kernohan
Mr Kerr
Mr Kinross
Mr Longley
Mr Merton
Mr Morris
Mr W. T. J. Murray
Mr O'Doherty
Mr Packard
Mr D. L. Page
Mr Peacocke
Mr Petch
Mr Phillips
Mr Photios
Mr Rixon

Mr Rozzoli
Mr Schipp
Mr Schultz
Mr Smiles
Mr Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Tink
Mr Turner
Mr West
Mr Windsor
Mr Yabsley
Mr Zammit

Tellers,
Mr Beck
Mr Downy

Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Mr Anderson
Mr A. S. Aquilina
Mr J. J. Aquilina
Mr Bowman
Mr Clough
Mr Crittenden
Mr Doyle
Mr Gaudry
Mr Gibson
Mrs Grusovin
Mr Harrison
Mr Hatton
Mr Hunter
Mr Iemma
Mr Irwin

Mr Knight
Mr Knowles
Mr Langton
Mrs Lo Po'
Mr McBride
Dr Macdonald
Mr McManus
Mr Markham
Mr Martin
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Moss
Mr J. H. Murray
Mr Nagle
Mr Neilly
Mr Newman
Ms Nori

Mr E. T. Page
Mr Price
Dr Refshauge
Mr Rogan
Mr Rumble
Mr Scully
Mr Shedden
Mr Sullivan
Mr Thompson
Mr Whelan
Mr Yeadon
Mr Ziolkowski


Tellers,
Mr Beckroge
Mr Davoren

Mr Fahey
Mr Small

Mr Carr
Mr Face

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment of amendment negatived.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Clause 6

Dr MACDONALD (Manly) [11.32]: I move:

Page 3, clause 6, lines 14-16. Omit "the use of the land to which this Act applies for the purpose of waste disposal (other than liquid waste disposal) in the event that such a use", insert "development for the purpose of overtopping the land to which this Act applies in the event of overtopping".

This amendment applies to part 4 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, relating to designated developments. It clarifies and specifies that overtopping will require an environmental impact statement. Overtopping is not to be included in the designated developments in part 4. This amendment follows on from a number of other amendments which clearly highlight that overtopping - and specifically overtopping - should be the subject of an EIS. I seek the support of the Committee for this amendment.

Mr HARTCHER (Gosford - Minister for the Environment) [11.34]: I support the amendment moved by the honourable member for Manly. It is the final and logical amendment to ensure that the proper framework is put in place to limit this bill to
Page 1140
what it is designed to achieve - that an EIS be prepared before any overtopping takes place. The Government acts on these matters through the Environment Protection Authority, which is the regulatory body. The EPA has always made it clear, or has made it clear for as long as I have been aware of this particular dispute, that it would never agree to overtopping at this facility without an EIS.

As the honourable member for Manly knows, having spoken recently with the Director-General of the Environment Planning Authority, the provision for an EIS prior to any overtopping is on the certificate of registration under which this particular waste depot facility operates. It has never been in dispute and I wish to place it on the record, because the Labor Party seems to be arguing that the Government somehow opposes it. The Government's concern has always been for the continued operation of the facility to ensure that medical waste, liquid waste and residue from the aqueous plant at Lidcombe could be disposed of somewhere.

That is why when the bill was introduced by the honourable member for Londonderry, it was opposed by the Government and it was argued that the bill was unnecessary because it was always intended that an EIS be a requirement on the certificate of registration. Accordingly, the honourable member for Londonderry sought to introduce the bill, which is his prerogative as a member of this House. Whether it is unnecessary is something upon which this House and the Legislative Council will have to make a decision. The Legislative Council may regard it as unnecessary, it may wish to debate it or it may wish to reject it, but that is a decision appropriate for the Legislative Council.

I am placing on record what the Government's position has always been. Once again, I thank the honourable member for South Coast and the honourable member for Manly for their good offices in trying to resolve what is an enormously difficult problem. It is important that this facility continue for the 4 million people in the city of Sydney. Liquid wastes and hospital emergency contaminated wastes have to go somewhere. To have passed legislation which would have had the effect of virtually closing down the liquid waste facility could well have been disastrous. Though I am not actually addressing the amendment, I am placing those points on record.

Mr GIBSON (Londonderry) [11.37]: It has not always been the practice of the EPA to conduct an EIS. My bill would ensure that a proper procedure is in place before anything happens. The EPA, or Waste Management Authority as it was known formerly, made many decisions in that part of western Sydney in which an EIS was needed. In the last Londonderry tip court case, when we tried to get this termed a designated development, Justice Stein said that a project as large as the Government was proposing should never go ahead with an EIS. But the facts are that an EIS was not needed and the facts are that in this instance an EIS is not really needed. It is all very well to say that the Waste Management Authority intended to have an EIS, but my bill will ensure that that will happen.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended agreed to.

Bill reported from Committee with amendments, and report adopted.