DR G.G. JACOBS (Roe) [10.43 am]: It has been an interesting journey. It started at the end of 2006, when constituents in the Esperance community reported to me that birds were dying on Wireless Hill, which is to the back of the port. Finally, in March 2007, a toxicology report was made available that showed extremely high levels of lead in the dead birds. livers. As a result of community concern over this issue, I chaired a public forum which more than 500 people attended and at which concern was expressed that a clear, objective and transparent process was needed for Esperance. At that time, the Esperance Port Authority was already talking through its lawyers. There was particular concern for our children, and that caused me to suggest a parliamentary inquiry, which commenced on 4 April. I commend the members of the Education and Health Standing Committee for their excellent work. I had the privilege of being appointed to that committee, and I experienced the hard work and cooperation of the committee. Politics and hats were left outside the door of the committee room to make this inquiry work for the community of Esperance. I also thank Jeannine Purdy, Nici Burgess and Jo Molin for their enormous amount of work in compiling this 520-page report.
How was the community let down? I believe it was let down by the supposed environmental watchdog, which not only took its eye off the ball; its eye was not even anywhere near the ball. Our committee found that the Department of Environment and Conservation.s regulation of this industry was grossly inadequate. Finding 138 of the committee is that DEC's responsibilities were not adequately carried out. The recommendation of this committee, essentially, is that DEC, the environmental watchdog, needs to be more robust in its regulation. This must be addressed as a critical priority. In other words, DEC needs a shake-up and it seriously needs to lift its game.
The community of Esperance was let down by the port. Finding 13 is that the management arrangements for the Esperance Port Authority were inadequate to cope with the economic values and complexity of the port's operations. The committee recommends that DEC investigate a potential breach concerning benthic levels in the port and harbour of Esperance. In fact, recommendation 33 encourages DEC to investigate whether the Esperance Port Authority breached its obligations under the Environmental Protection Act. Recommendation 38 is that the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection investigate whether the Esperance Port Authority breached workplace and storage practices for lead carbonate in the port of Esperance. This report says that we were also let down by Magellan Metals Pty Ltd. Findings 171 and 172 are that Magellan failed to appropriately test its products and to understand the danger of its products.
Recommendation 39 encourages DOCEP to investigate whether Magellan breached its obligations in its storage and related practices.
How did the port get lead that was in powdered lead carbonate form rather than in all the other forms that we heard about during the inquiry? We grappled with the terms 'pelletised', 'agglomerates' and 'granulation', but in the end the port did not get pellets; it was never intended that the port get pellets. Pellets were mentioned in the preamble of the amended environmental licence and nowhere else. Then there was agglomeration, which is simply balls that are created by adding moisture, but even that was abandoned by Magellan. What did the port receive? It received a product that had an element of moisture; however, there was a tendency to run the product dry for fear of the product exceeding the transport moisture limits as it was put on the ships. Recommendation 19 asks DEC to review its procedures for thoroughly and unambiguously processing environmental licence applications. The committee also recommends that there be a commitment to inspect all facets of the licence and to ensure that the licence requirements are adhered and committed to.
As a member, I hear strongly that there was a lack of consultation with the community. This report finds that there was a lack of consultation, particularly when the product moved from a pelletised form, supposedly to agglomerate. The process of agglomeration was then abandoned. No public consultation occurred on the changing conditions. Recommendation 6 is that there should be a legislative requirement for a transparent advisory committee, and that the situation and the results of the consultation process should be published on port websites. This was deficient. The subject of nickel was not included in the terms of reference of this inquiry, but the inquiry did touch on the issue. There was evidence that Esperance was polluted with nickel. More rainwater tanks had nickel in them than contained lead. The loading system for lead was exactly the same as that used for nickel. Recommendation 41 mentions a health study, and the requirement to assess the transport and handling processes for nickel. It is a debate that other ports and the whole of Western Australia need to have about the mining and transport of heavy metals. The days of in-loading and out-loading open bulk heavy metals are numbered in the state of Western Australia as a result of this inquiry. Recommendation 10 calls for a health impact assessment as part of the environmental assessment process. We were gobsmacked that that was a deficiency in this system.
What can the government do? The Department of Environment and Conservation needs to perform.
Recommendation 5 calls for amendments to the Port Authorities Act 1999 to ensure that it incorporates conditions requiring that public health not be adversely affected. Recommendation 4 calls for the development and implementation of a management structure within the port to provide adequate equipment and expertise, for not only Esperance but all ports throughout Western Australia, to manage the complexities of the export of bulk products. Finally, the government needs to help Esperance to recover. The houses must be cleaned, especially those in which children have recorded lead levels greater than five micrograms per decilitre. There are more than 80 of those. We need professional assistance to clean the houses, not just to be told about a special vacuum cleaner and given instructions how to use it. There needs to be more than that. Recommendations 42 and 44 discuss remediation very strongly.
This experience for Esperance has produced some pain, as other members have said, but it could have been worse. In order for that pain not to have been felt in vain, we need to carry out the recommendations of the inquiry. The government and the opposition both need to work to make sure that the recommendations are implemented, and not only for Esperance. This case has taught us lessons, but let us move on from here so that Esperance can recover. We must take on the lessons that we have learnt and apply them to other sites, so that this never happens again.