Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Tonight, I rise to talk about a most appalling and unforgiveable decision by the New South Wales Planning Assessment Commission—to approve what is known as the Moorebank concrete recycling facility. They simply failed to take into account that neither the assessment nor the modelling of fine particulate matter referred to as PM2.5 had been undertaken by the proponent, despite the fact that this failure was specifically pointed out to them during the public meeting. They ignored what happened at the public meeting and approved this even though there was no assessment and no modelling of fine particulate matter PM2.5.

Why is this so wrong? Firstly, in New South Wales there is a statutory requirement to model and assess all sources of air pollution, and that is exactly what clause 3.1 of Approved Methods for the modelling and assessment of air pollutants in New South Walesstates. It is simple. If you are having a development and you have a known source of air pollution emissions, you must assess it and you must model it. Yet, for unknown reasons, neither was done for this.

When we talk about fine particulate matter, this is referring to the microscopic solid or liquid matter suspended in the Earth's atmosphere. It is important to note that particulate matter is not one particular chemical substance; its sources are extremely varied. It is classified by its particulate size rather than what it is made of. The way we measure it is by PM2.5, PM10 and PM0.1, known as ultrafine particles. Particulate matter is a known emission from a concrete recycling plant. When you smash concrete up into small pieces to recycle it, you release dust and particulate matter in the atmosphere. There are numerous scientific studies that make this very clear. So, from the outset, there is simply no excuse for not modelling the fine particulate matter.

Why should this be of specific concern to us? Why should we care about particulate matter as air pollution in our atmosphere? We hear all the time about carbon pollution. Of course, when people talk about carbon pollution, it is actually carbon dioxide, CO2, that clear odourless gas. Particulate matter is the actual grit and the dirt in the atmosphere, as I said before. It is our deadliest form of air pollution because it has the ability to penetrate unfiltered deep into the lungs and bloodstream, causing permanent DNA mutations, heart attacks and premature deaths.

Recent studies have found evidence that exposure to particulate pollution causes lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and stroke. In fact, on 17 October 2003, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced it had classified particulate matter as a carcinogen to human beings, based on sufficient exposure to the causes of lung cancer. In 2005, the World Health Organization stated:

Several key findings that have emerged in recent years merit special mention. Firstly, the evidence for … particulate matter (PM) indicates that there are risks to health at concentrations currently found in many cities in developed countries. Moreover, as research has not identified thresholds below which adverse effects do not occur, it must be stressed that the guideline values provided here cannot fully protect human health.

Secondly, an increasing range of adverse health effects has been linked to air pollution, and at ever-lower concentrations. This is especially true of airborne particulate matter.

We have a cancer-causing agent. We have a requirement that it must be modelled and assessed under the guidelines. The failure to do was highlighted to the Planning Assessment Commission, and they just completely ignored it. This is absolutely outrageous.

I now turn to particulate matter in general and why fine particulate matter is even more deadly. The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority, the EPA, in a document entitled Managing particles andimproving air quality in NSWstate:

The particles of most concern are fine particles less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Unlike larger particles, these smaller particles invisible to the naked eye can be breathed deep into the lungs and even pass into the bloodstream.

The New South Wales department of environment state that the smaller PM2.5 particulates are considered more dangerous to human health as they are more easily drawn deeply into the lungs and that they are closely linked with serious health impacts, particularly heart and lung disease. Again, it is the most dangerous form of particulate pollution; it was not modelled and not assessed, and the Planning Assessment Commission closed their eyes and their ears to this. The folly of this is simply unbelievable, especially when it was drawn to their attention. You could understand the Planning Assessment Commission being ignorant of the facts and not having any understanding of this matter, but for them to ignore the matter when it was drawn to their attention is unforgivable.

Not only was there a failure to consider this matter, but let us have a look at what the specific standards on the ground are—so should we be concerned? We know we have standards which are being considered at the moment under the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure, known as the NEPM. At the moment we have an advisory standard of an annual average of eight microns per cubic metre. That is what the World Health Organization says and that is what our environment protection agencies say we should set as the maximum threshold—eight microns per cubic metre. In fact, the New South Wales EPA says that its view is that the 2.5 threshold, which is the NEPM reporting standard, should be adopted as the compliance standard. We hope that by 31 December this year we will have a standard of eight microns per cubic metre, with the plan over time to reduce it to seven microns if we think eight microns is too high. That is where we need to be.

Where are we in Liverpool, where this development is going ahead? Have a look at the Liverpool air quality monitoring site data. Over the past calendar year, the average has been 8.6. The particulate matter exposure in Liverpool is already above what our authorities, including health authorities, recommend it should be. We are already substantially above, and yet here we have a development that is going to add to that and make the situation worse. This is known by the Planning Assessment Commission, and they have just closed their eyes and closed their ears and allowed this development to go ahead. This is an appalling situation. Thankfully the Liverpool council, I understand, is appealing this decision. We cannot have the Planning Assessment Commission failing to look at the evidence, failing to consider the relevant data, especially when it involves carcinogenic substances and especially when the level of the substances in the atmosphere in the local area is already above what it is recommended it should be. And they want to take it higher! This is simply outrageous.

I would like to make a few recommendations for the Planning Assessment Commission, because they have failed in their duty. They have failed to give this project due consideration. It goes to the competency of our planning authorities if they are this appalling and make such flawed decisions. The decision, firstly, must be overturned and the approval for this facility must be withdrawn. The proponent should be required to undertake a detailed assessment and modelling of fine particulate matter from the proposed facility and the effect on the local environment. That is what they should have done months or years ago, as the guidelines state. Secondly, the detailed assessment of the effects on the local community should not be undertaken just by theoretical modelling alone. We already have concrete recycling plants in many places around this country. We have the technology now to set up monitoring stations near those plants that enable us to record exactly what fine particulate matter is being emitted. Let us look at the situation on the ground at existing concrete recycling plants rather than go through some theoretical modelling to come up with something. That is what the public deserve.

Nevertheless, irrespective of that, we know PM2.5 in the area is already above the level it should be. If there is one iota of a chance that the local community will be affected by a carcinogenic substance, the Planning and Assessment Commission should knock this proposal on the head. If we want to have concrete recycling plants, by all means let us have them but let us not have them next to residential suburbs where the air pollution has the potential to adversely affect people's health.

See this speech in context