Sydney Water Supply Contamination

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD (Leader of the Opposition) [11.10 a.m.]: I move:

That, under Standing Order 18, there be laid upon the table of this House and made public without restricted access no later than 5.00 p.m., Wednesday, 16 September 1998, all documents relating to the ongoing contamination of Sydney’s water

Page 7941
supply system including all relevant letters, contracts, memoranda and files whether recorded in written or in electronic form.

My colleague the Hon. J. F. Ryan will move to amend the tabling date to Tuesday of next week. The motion calls for the tabling of documentation relating to the contamination of Sydney’s water supply. Peter McClellan, QC, is inquiring into a related matter but the Parliament should be fully cognisant of the material available on this most important issue so that members of Parliament can form their own view of the direction that should be taken to deal with the water crisis, which is a matter of State if not national shame.

Australia has held itself out to be a First World country and Australians travelling the world have confidently said that it was safe to drink the water in Sydney, whereas travellers to South-east Asia, parts of Europe, the Middle East and even parts of the United States have had to be careful about drinking the water. Only a few weeks ago I was in Lebanon and Syria, where notices on the tables advised that only the bottled water provided should be drunk. Australia previously had been immune from problems caused by contaminated water supplies.

The Parliament is entitled to know what has gone wrong, and why this has been allowed to occur. Elected representatives should be able to form a view about the action needed for the future. This is not a matter of playing the blame game; it is a question of identifying how the problem occurred and determining future actions. Let me put the matter into perspective. It is not as though it has just come upon us: in 1996 the Government had available reports suggesting that there was a cryptosporidium problem. Yet in the Parliament Craig Knowles said, "Attempts to beat up the likelihood of a cryptosporidium outbreak are little more than scaremongering."

Earlier this year Andrew Refshauge said that routine monitoring for cryptosporidium was not appropriate. We now know that it is. The water board was saying that it was testing the water every fortnight. We now know from information leaked to the media, but not available to members of Parliament, that the tests were not taking place. Not only were they not taking place on a fortnightly basis - they were taking place on a monthly basis - but the relevant canals which could have been the source of the problem were not being tested at all. Correspondence between the Health Department and Sydney Water revealed that the department was aware of the threat two years ago but the water board chose to ignore it.

The Managing Director of Sydney Water, Paul Broad, assured the Carr Government that there was no such threat and that the treatment plants would intercept up to 99.9 per cent of cryptosporidium. That assurance was given against the advice of Sydney Water’s own experts, that acceptable risk levels required treatment plants to remove more than 99.9 per cent of cryptosporidium. Why are these papers being leaked out of the departments to the media? Why should members of Parliament not have access to the papers?

If there was no cryptosporidium problem, why did Australian Water Services, the company that operates the Prospect plant, put a proposal to Sydney Water this year which would have involved the upgrading of the Prospect plant and the installation of additional treatment - the ozonisation program? Why would AWS approach the water board to spend up to, if my memory is correct, $300 million to upgrade the plant if AWS was not aware of a problem? I do not know of any corporate organisation that would propose spending that sort of money without having a concern. Why did the water board not give AWS approval to carry out the works? What papers are held by the Government in relation to this matter? The community is entitled to be informed properly. At present some of the material is being leaked around the countryside. People want to know what is going on.

On Sunday, 6 September, Prime Minister John Howard pledged to help the New South Wales Government with resources, if asked, to upgrade the works. That invitation has not been taken up by the Government. Basically, there are only two ways of providing additional treatment to give a 100 per cent guarantee in relation to the purity of Sydney’s water. One is ozonisation. However, there is speculation that ozonisation increases the risk of cancer. The other is the Memtec proposals. Depending on the approach taken, the cost would be between $500 million and $800 million.

Why has the department not dealt with the problem? It is not a new problem: in 1995 the stakeholders consultation report for the Warragamba special area referred to cryptosporidium, giardia and dangerous faecal bacteria being recorded in stormwater drains in The Oaks township. The report said that the impact on water quality was a cause of concern. A major risk was the contamination of catchment waterways with pathogenic organisms. Why has adequate funding not been made available to sewer The Oaks township? The problem was identified in 1995 but still The Oaks is not sewered. The cryptosporidium level identified in the area was 58,000 oocysts per 100 litres of water.

Page 7942

Another document that has been leaked but is not available to members of Parliament is an internal memorandum dated 1994 addressed to the staff of Sydney Water advising that testing in The Oaks, an unsewered residential area within the Warragamba’s inner catchment, had yielded more than 99,000 oocysts per 100 litres of water. Why did Sydney Water not sewer that area when this information has been available for five years? Why did the Government cut the country water sewerage program by almost one-third? Why has Sydney Water acceded to the extraordinary amount of dividends that have been demanded from it by the Government over the past three years?

Sydney Water had the 1996 and 1997 reports and in 1998 AWS wanted to upgrade the Prospect plant. Why did David Hill and Sydney Water agree to the massive increase in dividend to be extracted by the Government? Why was Sydney Water so compliant? What documents, communication and advice warranted Sydney Water acceding to that level of demand when the money sought by AWS in the early part of this year to upgrade the plant could easily have been allocated from those dividends? The Parliament is entitled to have those documents.

Members of Parliament should not have to read constant leaks of information in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Daily Telegraph. They should have the material available to them to enable them to put the matter into proper perspective and debate appropriate policy directions in the Parliament. We understand from the media that New South Wales Health and Sydney Water signed a memorandum of understanding for Sydney Water to immediately notify the Health Department of any monitoring that indicates the potential existence of a public health hazard. We understand that the memorandum of understanding, which honourable members should have had access to, states that the corporation "must ensure that all drinking water it supplies is safe to drink".

Honourable members question why independent audits required under the memorandum appear not to have been done. Has there been a complete failure not at the political level but at the administrative level within the organisation? The documents have highlighted risk management measures that should have been put in place. In today’s print media the union is critical of the suggestion that the two senior officers who have recently been stood down and taken leave have not in fact done so. The union suggests that these people are being made the scapegoats for others.

The Parliament is entitled to know from documentary material what has gone wrong, why it has occurred and what policy decisions the Parliament should make. No doubt the Government will say that Peter McClellan is undertaking the inquiry and he will tell the Government and the Parliament what to do. The question is whether Parliament should abdicate its responsibility of expressing an interest in and concern about this major public health failing that has damaged significantly the reputation of Sydney in the international arena. One could reflect on the words of David Hill when confronted by a press release. He said, "I hope you blokes know what you’re doing. Do you realise that what you’re doing here will affect this organisation for the next 10 years and probably longer than that?"

That attitude speaks volumes. The bureaucracy is more interested in the reputation of the organisation than in the reputation of this State, this city and the health of its residents. The Parliament has an obligation to ascertain what occurred and to ensure that the Government properly addresses an appropriate outcome. We must be aware of the financial implications of the various alternatives so that there can be proper public debate. The Government will oppose the Parliament having these documents, and will say, "Wait until you get the McClellan report." Elected representatives are entitled to receive the proper documentation so that they can be fully informed participants in the debate on the future directions of public health in this State.

In the past few days there has been speculation that the acceptable public health level of cryptosporidium and giardia should be as high as 100 oocysts per 100 megalitres. That is 10 times higher than the current public health level in the United Kingdom. Should we put the health risk of people in New South Wales at a level that is 10 times that which is acceptable in London? If we want to be part of the debate we need all the available information. The United Kingdom has passed legislation adopting a standard that has operated in New South Wales but is one which we have not been able to deliver on. Should New South Wales adopt the clean water test of the United Kingdom?

Where does New South Wales want to be in the year 2000 when it is welcoming tourists into the country? Over the past few weeks Cable News Network - CNN - broadcast to the entire west coast of the United States of America about the dirty water problem in Sydney. When one speaks to those Americans one is drenched - excuse the pun - with questions about what is going on and how bad the problem is. What reassurance can we give people throughout the world? Our standard is 10 times that of London so perhaps one should travel to London
Page 7943
rather than New South Wales because people are 10 times more likely to become ill here than in London. Australia should be able to say to the world, through the media, that its clean water standards are similar to those standards adopted in the United Kingdom and we should be prepared to provide sufficient funds to put in place the protective mechanisms to guarantee clean water.

That is part of the debate that members of this House must engage in this year. But if the Government prorogues the Parliament, this forum will not be available and we will not have the chance to pursue it. This matter is extremely important to both the health of the people of this State and the reputation of this city. Members of Parliament should have access to the documents so that we can be better informed and therefore in a better position to participate in debate on this critical issue.

The Hon. I. COHEN [11.30 a.m.]: I support the Opposition’s motion for the tabling of documents regarding the contamination of Sydney’s water supply. The Sydney Water inquiry is rather limited in scope and funding and it is important that members of Parliament are able to look at the documents. I understand that there may be commercial in-confidence issues, but if the relevant documents were left with the Clerk, members could at least view them in the House.

It is important that we realise that for many years there has been a culture of deceit with Sydney Water and the former Water Board. The fact that Sydney Water gave away bottled water to the people of Sydney just before this problem arose shows that the corporation is very heavy on propaganda but very light on openness and transparency - as I have encountered in my dealings with sewerage and water issues in Sydney and country areas for many years.

The Hon. M. R. Egan: Sydney Water does not operate in country areas.

The Hon. I. COHEN: Then I will confine my remarks to Sydney. In Sydney there has been a culture of opacity, if you like, and it is reasonable to say that Sydney Water should operate with a far greater degree of transparency, and that the Government should seek to achieve appropriate outcomes on this matter. It is important that we do not get carried away and beat up the problem. Although Sydney’s drinking water is now safe, we are entitled to see the Sydney Water documents so that the process, which has been vexatious for so many years, can now be seen to be transparent.

The Hon. M. R. EGAN (Treasurer, Minister for State Development, and Vice-President of the Executive Council) [11.32 a.m.]: The Leader of the Opposition has called under Standing Order 18 for the tabling of certain documents. I understand that notice of a similar motion has been given in the Legislative Assembly. Whether the Legislative Council has the power to order the production of documents is a matter that will be decided by the High Court in the case of Egan v Willis.

On 26 November 1997 the Court of Appeal held that the Legislative Council has the power to call for documents that are necessary for the performance of its function, and that it may take action, such as suspension, to coerce production of documents, but may not punish for contempt. I sought special leave from the High Court to challenge that judgment. The High Court granted special leave on 6 June 1998, indicating that there was an important issue of law to be decided. The High Court heard the case from 16 June to 18 June this year, and held a further day of hearings on 1 September after additional constitutional issues were raised and the Commonwealth and other States were given a further opportunity to intervene in the proceedings. As members would be aware, the High Court has reserved its judgment.

The primary issue in Egan v Willis is whether the Legislative Council has the power to order the production of documents. The High Court would not have given leave to hear the matter had it accepted that the law was completely settled by the Court of Appeal. This is still an important and open question that needs to be determined. The Legislative Council should not attempt to pre-empt the judgment of the High Court by ordering the production of documents before the court has handed down its judgment. To do so would not only be provocative but may even be seen as an attempt to influence the court or to undermine its role in determining this matter.

The Leader of the Opposition has previously respected the role of the court and refrained from pressing for the production of papers. In the present situation I would suggest that the appropriate course is to leave the motion on the notice paper until the court has handed down its judgment. Honourable members would be aware also that upon the outbreak of the water contamination the Government established an independent inquiry headed by Peter McClellan, QC. Mr McClellan has already submitted two interim reports and is continuing to examine all documents - I emphasise, all documents - relating to the matter. In those circumstances I trust that the House will agree that the most effective and
Page 7944
expeditious way of finding a solution to the contamination problem is to allow Mr McClellan to get on with the job that he has been given.

The Hon. J. H. JOBLING [11.36 a.m.]: I support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition. It is particularly important to the status of this Parliament that these documents be tabled. The motion calls pursuant to Standing Order 18 for there to be laid upon the table of this House all documents relating to the ongoing contamination of Sydney’s water supply system, including all relevant letters, contracts, memoranda and files, whether recorded in written or electronic form.

That the city of Sydney has recently experienced so much damage, disruption and inconvenience is a matter that cannot be put aside lightly or ignored. The impact on the reputation of Sydney as a major city and tourist destination - particularly as the host of the Olympic Games in 18 months - and on the reputation of Australia as a whole is terribly important, and we cannot simply say, "Wait for an inquiry to provide the answer."

For many weeks now the residents of Sydney and many companies and businesses have had to boil their water, instal filtration equipment, and change or even stop their commercial activities. Many business have suffered financial loss. It is not good enough for the Government to simply say the matter is in hand. It is not good enough for it to say, "Let us multiply by 10 the accepted level of contamination, which is far in excess of most places in the world." Contamination by giardia and cryptosporidium is a matter of great concern for the health of our people and our city.

Some questions have to be asked. First: why did it happen? We need to know why it happened, specifically how it was allowed to happen, for how long we will have this problem, and how often in the next two years will we be told, "We are terribly sorry, start boiling your water again." This contamination has caused considerable inconvenience in the education system. Children have not had free access to water; their school bubblers have been capped off and they have been obliged to buy water at school or bring water to school.

It is simply not good enough that the Government cannot find the answers to this problem. What is the Government trying to hide? Why is it saying we cannot have these documents, and that we should not know what is in them? The Parliament is paramount in this State, and it is the right of its members to call for these documents to be produced and to expect that the Government will honour that call by producing the documents - all of them, not just a selected few that suit the Government’s cause. I will support the motion of the Leader of the Opposition, but I move the following amendment:

That the question be amended by omitting the words "Wednesday, 16 September 1998" and inserting instead "Tuesday, 29 September 1998".

I call on the Government to produce the documents and papers so that the House can form an opinion as to why the contamination happened and what should be done to ensure that it does not happen again.

Amendment agreed to.

Question - That the motion as amended be agreed to - put.

The House divided.

Mrs Arena Mr Kersten
Mr Bull Mrs Nile
Dr Chesterfield-Evans Rev. Nile
Mr Cohen Dr Pezzutti
Mr Corbett Mr Ryan
Mrs Forsythe Mr Samios
Mr Gallacher Mrs Sham-Ho
Miss Gardiner Mr Rowland Smith
Mr Gay Tellers,
Mr Hannaford Mr Jobling
Mr Jones Mr Moppett

Dr Burgmann Mr Shaw
Ms Burnswoods Ms Tebbutt
Mr Dyer Mr Tingle
Mr Egan Mr Vaughan
Mr Kaldis
Mr Kelly Tellers,
Mr Macdonald Mrs Isaksen
Ms Saffin Mr Manson

Dr Goldsmith Mr Johnson
Mr Lynn Mr Obeid
Mr Willis Mr Primrose

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Page 7945