Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you, that's really positive. I really welcome that, especially the opportunity possibly to hopefully go and have a look at the site itself and understand how they're caring for the land right next to it.
I have another question now on behalf of some constituents in Geeveston around the Shipwrights Point outflow. I know it's a conversation that TasWater has been having with that community. Members of the Geeveston Progress Association would like to have an update. They had meetings with TasWater about a month ago or earlier this month, but they felt as though it's spinning the wheels and they haven't had any news. There are five options that are being assessed, can you please let us know if there's going to be also a cost benefit analysis of looking at replacing the wastewater treatment plant in Geeveston, which is the source of the problem.
Mr THEO - First, I'll ask Tony to speak to the specifics. We're looking for a step change in environmental outcomes. We could take our best performing brand-new sewage treatment plant and if we lifted Blackman's Bay and plonked it on that site, we would not achieve the environmental outcomes we're after. We physically have to move the outlet in order to achieve a stepped environmental change. I want to make that point.
Then the question is where do you move it to? We thought we had the right location. The community has said, 'Hey, what about this other location?'. That also comes with other complexities. We've spent the best part of the last 12 months, not quite nine months maybe, assessing all those options, because we actually do want to deliver the best environmental outcome and for the local community. The team met early this month to provide an update, could you take us from there?
Mr WILLMOTT - That latest update was just provided in November to the Progress Society. We have been actively looking at the Shipwright's Point, but also at that other location out of Whale Point. We do need to be mindful there are other activities that happen in Whale Point that we need to take into account with the mixing zone.
At the moment, it is unacceptable where the outfall is into the Kermandie River. It is barely a few hundred millimetres deep through there and, as George said, if we were to put our best brand-new Blackman's Bay treatment plant down there, we'd still need an outfall into the deep water.
Dr WOODRUFF - Thank you. I suppose the problem is everyone understands that situation, no one disagrees with it. The issue is the community don't understand by doing a risk assessment, a cost benefit analysis of putting a new treatment plant there isn't part of what TasWater's doing, accepting the outflow would need to go somewhere better at the moment. The outflow that TasWater is proposing is to take what is this essentially highly contaminated water and put it into the Huon River, which also has its own extreme pressures at the moment and into the future.
Will you first have a conversation with the community about this cost benefit analysis? There are pretty strong views they haven't been listened to on this and I think they need to have the conversation about why you consider that is not one of the options you're assessing. Second, will you release the risk assessment information to the community so they can have a look and feel confident TasWater has really considered all the concerns?
Mr WILLMOTT - We are actively engaged with that community, particularly the progress society there. When we did the initial consultation with the community, the progress society were actually in remission, they didn't exist at the time and they did come together quite late in the project when we're about to start construction.
We've committed to stop the construction, which we have. We've already completed two other outfalls in the Huon region without any concerns. The one in relation to Geeveston is on the usability of Shipwright's Point. We've taken that seriously but we also need to make sure that we get the best environmental outcome in that area. We'd love to be able to move it off Whale Point if we can. As you said, there are five options at the moment. We're seriously considering that option and if that's the best option, we will. We've also worked with the EPA to understand that as well, because we already had previous approval for that outfall into that position in the river, so we're working very closely with them on coming up with the best outcome.
With the treatment plant, we still need an outfall and we still need to know how the outfall interacts with the environment. There will be subsequent upgrades to the treatment plant as our program continues but it just won't be now. We need to understand the impact of the outfall on the environment in that area, in the Huon River, right in the location, to make sure that we match our treatment with the position. I reiterate that the Kermandie River is not the place for this outfall. We want to do the best thing for the environment there.
Dr WOODRUFF - It sounds like a slight stalemate there. I totally hear what you're saying and everyone agrees with you, but it's just a concern that there's not actually the conversation that needs to be had. I'm not hearing that from you, with respect. I'm feeling that you're sort of going through TasWater's process, but it is the community and they're very reasonable people that I've spoken to. They really are just wanting to have a genuine conversation and they know that Whale Point is a possibility. The aquaculture company that has land there apparently agrees that that is a possibility, so they don't quite understand why some things are being investigated and others aren't.
Mr THEO - We engage with all our customers who are impacted by capital works projects across the state. I commit to making sure that in this particular example - the Geeveston project - if the local community's not getting the level of engagement that they would like, we can make sure that that occurs. The other thing is we're quite happy to share the information that we are undertaking because the decision to put an outfall here, there or there has to be based on science and environmental outcomes.
Dr WOODRUFF - And social licence.
Mr THEO - Yes, but if people turn around say, 'We're quite happy for you to discharge here at the expense of the environment', let's make that clear that that's going to be the outcome. If it's going to go over there because the environment's going to get a better outcome and it's not the decision we like, then I think we need to also understand that we're going to make a decision that's in the best interest of the environment, supported by the regulators et cetera. We've got to navigate those two bookends.
Dr WOODRUFF - We're the Greens and we support you, we really do. We're all on the same side here; I just want to reiterate that. It's about people understanding the decisions that have been taken and the arguments behind them -
Mr THEO - Yes.
Dr WOODRUFF - so they would probably appreciate to have a sort of deeper look.
Mr THEO - Yes, and we've got an obligation to make sure people understand the reasons behind our decisions. They may or may not like them but we're not in the business of upsetting people. We want to make sure we get an outcome that we can all be really pleased with.
Dr WOODRUFF - Yes.
Mr BALFE - We have certainly expanded our community consultation significantly in the last 12 months on this issue. I would say that due to staff changeovers and a long period of time between the initial planning and our re-engagement with the community, we probably in retrospect look at how we did engage and the community have changed over that time. We've learned from that and the engagement we've been doing has resulted in the reassessment of these sites and what the community have asked of us has been input into that research and recommendation.
