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

I take this opportunity to rise to speak about a proposal to develop a concrete recycling plant in my electorate. Madam Deputy Speaker, you cannot think of a more inappropriate location than what has been proposed. The proposed location is actually between a beautiful new housing estate on the Georges River called Georges Fair, where many young families have moved in, and an area proposed as a marina—a $200 million development that will open up the Georges River in south-west Sydney. In between, there is a proposal to dump a concrete recycling plant.

I have spoken many times in this parliament about particulate matter, and that is one specific issue I would like to raise in relation to this development. Particulate matter is a combination of extremely small solid particles and liquid droplets that are found in the air—things like dust and smoke. Concrete recycling plants are one of the largest emitters of particulate matter in our society.

Why should we be concerned about particulate matter? It has already been known for many years that air pollution and particulate matter increase the risk of diseases, especially respiratory and heart diseases, but in 2013 the International Agency for Research on Cancer actually classified particulate matter as a cancer-causing agent. Their evaluation showed that an increasing risk of lung cancer with increasing levels of exposure to outdoor air pollution and particulate matter was absolutely established. In 2005 the World Health Organization issued a global update on particular matter. They noted:

… 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.

After undertaking a review of all the accumulated scientific evidence, they published guidelines on thresholds for particulate matter measurements in our cities. For what is called particulate matter 10, which is the largest size of the dust, they said that annual average exposure should not be any more than 20 microns per cubic metre. For the smallest size of particulate matter, 2.5, which is considered a greater risk to health because it is smaller and easily absorbed into your lungs and respiratory system, they set a standard of 10 microns per cubic metre. But they noted that, even though they set these thresholds, there is no level below which adverse effects do not occur. They stressed that even those guideline values could not fully protect human health.

Now we come to this development proposal. Using the developer's own numbers, what the developer proposes will substantially increase the particulate-matter exposure to local residents. Using their own numbers for PM10, they will push particulate-matter exposure above those World Health Organization guidelines.

For PM2.5, even though there is very little discussion in the developer's proposal, we can assume they will also push particulate-matter exposure above World Health Organization standards. It is completely and utterly unacceptable that residents anywhere should have to put up with a development—in their backyards—that exposes them to an increase in particulate matter that is above the thresholds established by the World Health Organization.

How has this proposal got so far? Firstly, the New South Wales Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water has a complete fixation with climate change. They have taken their eye off the ball on particulate matter. This guideline they set for particulate matter is not 20 microns per cubic metre, as an annual average, it is 30. There are simply no assessment standards, whatsoever, to assess PM2.5. Not one. The assessment standards in New South Wales are completely unsatisfactory and completely out of touch. They go back to 1997. They do not take recent scientific discoveries into consideration. We could also ask how this development has got so far.

We went through some of the political donations. We found that the proponent of this concrete-recycling plant was, during the time the rezoning occurred, a major donator of the Labor Party. We went through the Australian Electoral Commission. We have cash donations from the developer—of $8,800, $22,000, $15,000 and $8,000—to the New South Wales Labor Party. And we wonder why this is being recycled. We call on the Planning Assessment Commission to reject this development completely.

See this speech in context