HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [ 4.05 pm]: Obviously my colleague Hon Paul Llewellyn is leading this debate, but it is important to understand the history of this particular company and its proposal to mine and export lead products. My understanding is that the original environmental approval was sought to export lead ingots. That seems to be obviously the much preferred option because it is a stable product. No-one is suggesting that a company not be given approval to export lead in a reasonably stable form. That would be a good outcome for everyone. However, somewhere along the line in this process the company has said that exporting lead in ingot form was too hard and that it wanted to modify its proposal to export pelletised lead carbonate. Somewhere further down the track, it was suggested that the pelletising process was also too difficult. As a result, the company moved to wanting to transport the carbonate in powder form. There has therefore been quite a significant shift from the original proposal to what was ultimately agreed to. In addition, the original proposal was to ship the material out of Geraldton, not out of Esperance. Now there is a proposal to ship this material through Fremantle. I can completely understand why the community of Western Australia, particularly the community of Fremantle, has no confidence that the Department of Environment and Conservation has the resources to monitor and ensure the health and safety of all those who will be working with the material either directly or en route. There have been many examples of spills and accidents involving shipments of materials from Western Australia. I remind members of what happens with a product such as lead carbonate, which is highly toxic, particularly to young children, the elderly and infirm. We can imagine if this state contemplated—we hope it never will—mining uranium, given the record on health and safety and environmental requirements in this state. I have been in this place for a long time and have asked many questions about the environmental records of many companies. As Hon Wendy Duncan pointed out, there is a pitiful number of Department of Environment and Conservation employees around the state. Last time I looked into this, I think the Pilbara-Kimberley region was sharing one or two inspectors. I do not think anyone is employed in Esperance permanently. When the parliamentary secretary tries to reassure us that an independent inspector will be contracted to inspect the packaging of the material, I must ask: what is the role of an independent inspector who is paid for by the company? If we want to restore any public confidence in the quality of monitoring and compliance, we must vastly improve the department’s capacity. The department is the public’s watchdog, not some private subcontractor. I do not think that model is one that we can support. The public expects a publicly accountable body such as the Department of Environment and Conservation to be the body that ensures that the public and the environment are kept safe and the required conditions met. This is but one example.
Hon Sally Talbot: The inspector must be approved by the minister.
Hon GIZ WATSON: It should be an employee of the Department of Environment and Conservation because a different model will be used if those roles are subcontracted. The Greens (WA) do not support this model, and it is about time that the state government funded the department adequately to do a very difficult job over a very large area during the current mining boom conditions. The current level of staffing makes it impossible to provide any assurances on a whole range of projects, but this one in particular has enormous public health implications. I suggest that the government should stick with the company’s original proposal to consider exporting lead ingots. That proposal would be —
Hon Sally Talbot: The original proposal actually wasn’t for ingots. The company only ever made reference to possibly moving to ingots in the future. The original approval at Geraldton was not for ingots.
Hon GIZ WATSON: I am sorry; the parliamentary secretary is right to correct me on that. However, it was the carrot that was held out by the company. That incentive gave some sort of an indication to the public that that would be a way of transporting the lead, and there is nothing technically impossible about processing the lead to a solid form in Western Australia. It would be good for the state as well, by generating more Western Australian jobs. It is about time downstream processing was considered, rather than rushing to dig everything up and ship it out as quickly as possible with the least return for WA—and in this case with the maximum risk.