Motion moved by Hon Barry House MLC:
That the council consider, as a matter of urgency the Government’s failure to respond adequately to the community’s distress over the recent deaths of six Swan River dolphins, its failure to provide adequate reassurance about the presence of dieldrin and other heavy metal toxins in the bodies of the Swan River dolphins and its failure to put in place any credible plan to protect both the dolphins and the Swan River.

HON GIZ WATSON (North Metropolitan) [4.14 pm]: I wanted to make some comments in this debate because it is an important issue. I concede to the minister that it is very difficult to determine cause of death in these cases. I appreciate that it is not easy, even for the experts, to determine that. That is what I have discovered recently by reading up on this. It is very clear that the death of that number of dolphins in a small population that, basically, resides at least half of the year in the Swan River is most likely indicative of cumulative impacts of toxins. The tissue samples seem to be indicating that, and it has already been stated by everybody involved in this that that has probably contributed to, if not caused, their death. The problem is that we are dealing with toxins that have been present in the soil for a while, most likely, and are cumulative. Therefore, we are dealing with something that is already in the system.

What I wanted to talk about today, and where the Greens (WA) would like action to be taken, is redoubling our efforts to ensure that no further toxins are introduced into the system. Quite frankly, if they are in the water column and in sediments in the Swan River, there is no viable method of getting rid of them. I understand from the Swan River Trust and other people who have been studying the water quality in the Swan River that there are certain hot spots where contaminants are still going into the river. Members are probably aware that every sports oval that is located beside the river is a former waste dump, so each one of those is a contaminated site. In addition, there are hot spots around Maylands where groundwater plumes are still putting heavy metals and fertiliser pollutants into the river. We need to be sure that monitoring is occurring in those areas so that further contamination is not occurring.

I also wanted to talk this afternoon about the potential of further contaminants from the dredging that is planned as part of the deepening of Fremantle Harbour. That issue has been raised in the context of this debate. I share concerns that have been raised about the potential, at least, to introduce further of these cumulative heavy metals upriver. The Environmental Protection Authority’s report on the proposed dredging, titled “Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening Reclamation at Rous Head and Offshore Placement of Dredged Materials” and dated June 2009, pertains to the dredging that is planned to commence in January. That part of the report that deals with the marine water quality and sediment quality reads —
Surface sediments sampled from the Entrance Channel initially showed TBT —
Which is tributyltin, an antifouling marine paint which is banned now on most vessels, but which is a heavy metal
compound that is very toxic to the environment at very small quantities. It is a great antifouling paint because nothing
grows on it. The report continues —
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) well above National Oceans Disposal guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM) screening levels. Surface sediments sampled from the Inner Harbour showed TBT, Mercury, pesticides, organochlorides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) well above NODGDM.
We are being told that these materials will be dredged and disposed of behind the new seawall at Rous Head.

In addition, these pollutants will remain attached to the sediment and do not release into the water column. The problem with that is that the Fremantle Port Authority acknowledges that the plume from this dredging operation has the potential to go up river as far as the Leeuwin launch ramp. Although it may not introduce elevated levels of heavy metals or other contaminants in the water, the sediment is contaminated. Members who understand how ecosystems work would know that if contaminated sediment is spread up-river, it makes it more bio-available to a broader range of molluscs and fish—hence up the food chain and into the dolphins.

I am not comforted by the fact that the port authority and the Environmental Protection Authority have said that the contamination will not be in the water column. We know, and the minister has just reminded the house, that the recommendation to the public is not to eat any shellfish out of the Swan River, because they are sediment filters.

However, things eat the shellfish, and that is why I would not eat fish out of the Swan River. Even if the actual levels are not sufficient to trigger a warning from the Department of Health, if people wish to reduce their input of toxins, I would suggest that eating fish out of the Swan River is not the right thing to do. We are in the same order as the dolphins in the food chain, although I am sure we are not eating as much fish as they do. Therefore, we have the potential to accumulate those toxins in our body and the very thing that they do is affect one’s immune system. Members might not be aware that the accumulation level is 10 times per level; therefore, for each level, the concentrations are multiplied 10 times. It would not take long for the concentrations to be hundreds or even thousands times above the acceptable level.
 

I point out that it is not only the Greens (WA) who are stating concerns about the potential from this plume. The Swan River Trust has also made comment to the proposed dredging plans and I quote from page 81 of the “Fremantle Port Inner Harbour and Channel Deepening Public Environmental Review Supplement and Response to Submissions” dated 13 May 2009. The Swan River Trust said —
The primary concern of the Trust is the lack of water quality monitoring sites in the Swan Estuary upstream of Fremantle Harbour as part of the Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan …. Despite modelling predictions suggesting little impact of dredging activities in this area, two sampling sites upstream towards the Leeuwin boat ramp is prudent and is in line with the Proponent’s subscription to the Precautionary Principle.

The response from the proponent was that they did not think that these additional sampling sites were needed. The Swan River Trust also said — Given tributyltin …—has biological impacts of concentrations ˜1 ng.Sn/L and Levels of TBT in the water column reached 6 ng.Sn/L during the last harbour deepening, the Trust would like to see the environmental monitoring include biotic indices—
That is, looking at what happens to shellfish. That is the point: instead of looking at the water column, we need to
look at the changes to the bottom feeders in the system to know what is happening in terms of tributyltin, because the
material does not show up there.

The Swan River Trust also stated —  Currently the DSDMP —
That is, the dredging and spoil disposal management plan —
reporting schedule for water quality results is once monthly. Given the sensitivity of the area the Trust suggests immediate reporting of these results on a weekly basis as a project requirement.
Again, the proponent has declined to meet that request. It seems to me that over a 26-week projected dredge time, to simply sample once a month will give one only sample.

Hon Adele Farina: Do they report monthly?

Hon GIZ WATSON: I am not sure about that, but I could check. I assume that if the monitoring is only monthly, the maximum would be once a month.

Hon Sally Talbot: Is this in relation to the deepening of the harbour?

Hon GIZ WATSON: Yes, it is to do with the deepening of the harbour.

Hon Sally Talbot: That dredging has not started yet.

Hon GIZ WATSON: It is starting in January. The Swan River Trust also said —
The Trust is concerned that the zone of potential impact ends abruptly at the end upstream border of the
harbour, with no indication of zones of potential effect of influence.
My request to the minister is that there be a further consideration of the frequency of monitoring and that it needs to
be at least on a weekly basis if not more frequently. If the sediment is moving up-river, there needs to be a clear
mechanism whereby there is the capacity to stop the operations. The monitoring must actually include the molluscs as
well.