This document summarizes a meeting of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee regarding the Mount Lofty Watershed Protection Area. Representatives from the Adelaide Hills Wine Region Inc. spoke in favor of amending language in the PAR document to allow any applicant to apply for winery expansion or establishment, rather than limiting it to those on a specified list. The speakers argued that with proper planning and technology, wineries can be established with minimal risk to water quality. They provided examples of effective wastewater treatment options and emphasized that winery waste is non-toxic. The group asked for a level playing field and for all applications to be considered on their merits rather than an inequitable limiting list.

1. ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MOUNT LOFTY WATERSHED PAR
The Old Chamber, Old Parliament House, Adelaide
Wednesday 1 August 2001 at 11.40 a.m.
(OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT)
PARLIAMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

2. MEMBERS:
Mr I.H. Venning MP (Presiding Member)
Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins MLC
Hon. M.J. Elliott MLC
Hon. T.G. Roberts MLC
Ms S.W. Key MP
Mrs K.A. Maywald MP
WITNESSES:
CAJ AMADIO, Chairman, Subcommittee, EVAN HISCOCK, President, and MAAREA
KARETAI, Member, Adelaide Hills Wine Region Inc., PO Box 372, Stirling 5152; MARK
LOBBAN, Technical Development Director, Resource Recovery (Australia) Pty Ltd.,
42A Nelson Street Stepney 5069; and PAUL MANNING, Principal, Eco Management
Services, PO Box 379, Blackwood 5051, called and examined:
1 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: As you were present for the other matter, I will
not repeat my usual opening remarks. However, I stress that, if you wish to go off the record,
please say so and, if we agree, we can do that. I ask you not to refer to the previous witnesses.
You can refer to the substance but you are not allowed to refer to what they have said today.
Mr Amadio please proceed as you wish.
MR AMADIO: First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to further
present our case in person. I am the person heading the subcommittee of the Adelaide Hills
wine region. We are charged with the task of bringing about a minor but significant change in
the document we are discussing that deals with the Mount Lofty Ranges watershed and
the PAR. The words to effect the change are `any applicant may apply to establish or expand'
in place of the words that are existing at present, namely, `a wine operation listed in the table
below would be able to expand' and it then goes on. This clause is under paragraph 1.4, under
the heading of `The wine industry' and the subheading `Demand for grape crushing facilities'.
We have another two speakers, and it all revolves around the submission
of the Adelaide Hills, of which I am sure committee members would have a copy. I will
introduce each speaker with just a few words on what they will speak, and they will answer
any questions committee members have. The first speaker will be Mr Evan Hiscock,
President, Adelaide Hills Wine Region Inc. He will briefly touch on the lead up process to the
PAR document and how it seems to ignore the wine industry's sentiments. He will touch on
pertinent points about the uniqueness of the Adelaide Hills and the detrimental effect the PAR
would have. He will reflect the strong voice of the Hills region in its complete rejection of `the
list'.
The second speaker is Paul Manning who is the author of the attachment
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 1

3. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
under the heading `Eco Management Services'. Paul was chosen by the DAC to provide an
unbiased report on wineries in the Hills. Paul will explain to the committee, amongst a few
other important points, how from a vacant piece of land—flat or otherwise—you can build a
new winery that virtually has no ill effect on water quality in the area whatsoever, and that
winery waste is non-toxic. It is important to recognise that it is easier to start from scratch and
design the winery accordingly. It is really that simple.
At this point I refer to the words Stephen Henschke—one of our famous
wine makers (who I am sure most of the committee are familiar with)—stated when inspecting
the Shaw and Smith winery at Balhannah. An inspection was to have occurred last week, but
unfortunately the committee was not able to make it. I trust it is still on the agenda because it
is really worth seeing. Stephen said to me, `Caj, it is amazing what you can do when you start
from scratch!' This is the point we are making: if you start from scratch and the pollution
factor is brought in as an integral part of the winery, it does not present a problem. Of course,
Stephen was referring to the new technology that he was marvelling at, compared to the
evolutionary and difficulties of his older establishment. The PAR in its present form, with its
`list' of some built wineries, some half-built wineries and some wineries that may never be
built, has not understood the submissions put.
Paul will also gladly answer questions on Roger Stokes' attachment. Roger
could not attend today due to unavoidable circumstances cropping up this morning. His
document clearly shows, graphically, the minimal risk a winery poses to the Adelaide Hills
watershed. He has worked with the government on environmentally sensitive issues and
considers wineries a vast improvement on dairies or animal grazing, and that wineries that are
properly set and designed are not a threat to the water quality. The next speaker is Mark
Lobban from the resource recovery group. Mark explains this new technology that has been
developed for winery waste by a flocculation/coagulation process. This new technology is
now a cost effective option that turns winery waste virtually into drinking water. I repeat: it is
a very cost effective process.
Finally, we have Maarea Karetai, one of our younger members who, with
her partner, would like the opportunity to realise her vision of a small winery in the Hills, to
build a future with lifestyle for herself and her family. The inequitable list in the PAR has
shattered their vision. They ask for a non-discriminatory level playing field and to be given an
opportunity to perform at whatever levels the bar is set by the relevant authorities.
MR HISCOCK: The Adelaide Hills wine region is a gazetted region which
extends from the South Para Reservoir in the north to Mount Compass in the south and from
the Hills face zone in the west to Mount Pleasant in the east, so it includes the Mount Barker
and Adelaide Hills council areas. It is a region with outstanding potential from the point of
view of wine grape growing and wine tourism. The wine industry in the Adelaide Hills
provides a bright light in the local economy and has the potential to do more. In many cases, it
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 2

4. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
is a viable replacement for an existing usage. It is, of course, part of a well-organised and
growing export industry. The region's undulating topography provides a range of
mesoclimates, most of which are within the sought after, cool-climate parameters. The coolest
areas lie within the catchment zone. Our comments this morning relate to this catchment zone.
The Adelaide Hills wine producers need their own wineries for several
reasons. Firstly, having your own facility gives maximum control over the production process,
from reducing travel time from the vineyard (for convenience and to reduce possible spoilage)
to scheduling operations when they suit you rather than a contractor. This matter of control
over your own fruit is important because it degrades very quickly. Secondly, the winery gives
focus and identity to the label. Thirdly, and ideally combined with a cellar door and/or dining
area, a winery adds to the wine tourism experience.
On a regional scale, there is a need for the industry to reach critical mass
so it becomes better known nationally and internationally as a distinct, premium wine
producing region and so builds markets for the product. The recent wine national marketing
conference began the shift from marketing overseas brand Australia (that is, saying it is
Australian wine) to marketing Australian regions. In short, we need more producing wineries
in the area.
Suggestions that a cooperative crushing facility could be built in an
industrial park to service the area totally misunderstand the nature of the ultra-premium and
boutique end of the market, the vertical integration of the wine industry (with grape growing,
wine making and marketing all carried out by the same people) and the importance of
ambience and style, rural character even, to the customers. No-one is suggesting that Barossa
style development is appropriate for the Hills.
We fully accept the need to protect the catchment area specifically and the
environment generally and we also accept the need for monitoring of winery performance and
encourage this to extend, for wineries in the catchment, below the current 500 tonne cut-off.
The visual and aural impacts are relatively easily addressed by careful planning and planting.
The new generation of wineries can be visual amenities in their own right.
The issue of liquid waste is seen as the greatest risk posed by wine
production. You will hear a detailed consideration of the inherent risks later, but I emphasise
that winery waste contains no heavy metal or pathogens. We contend that it is possible to treat
winery waste to conserve the catchment by any of several methods. Full removal to a waste
water treatment plant, mostly by tanker (one option being taken up is to go through the sewer),
has been practised for 20 years by one company and others have used this option since.
Secondly, irrigation to a purpose planted woodlot has also been used successfully in the
catchment on appropriate sites. Thirdly, and recently, new technologies are emerging as
further alternatives. These technologies allow on-site treatment and some reuse options as
well. We are pleased to present details of one such technology shortly.
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 3

5. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
The Adelaide Hills region is a relatively young addition to the Australian
wine industry, with newer technologies and a younger culture. I was going to say that there
have been no environmental incidents involving wineries in the region, but I mention the
possibility that there has been one, and I would like to know the details of that. We are not
polluters.
Attempts to establish further wineries in the zone have been going on for
20 years. While some were successful, many were stalled or turned down without explanation
or negotiation. Frustrated with the stalemate, several of the applicants began approaching the
government directly, and this lead to the Adelaide Hills Wineries Inc. becoming involved. We
became minor stakeholders in an interdepartmental investigation regarding waste water
treatment in the high risk area and later joined a round table meeting with other government
agencies to try to force a way forward. Our stance was always environmental responsibility
first and assessment of all applications on merit.
The recent PAR can be seen as the EPA-Planning SA response to our
request over the last three years and more, and what we hoped would free up development of
the region in fact ties it up. Whilst we have concerns with some of the detail of the PAR, such
as limitations on eatery sizes, the major problem is the list of 11 wineries, now 10, which are
to be allowed to apply for development or continue functioning. This list has been most
divisive in the region and there does not seem to have been any consultation with industry in
arriving at it. It includes some functioning wineries, some yet to be developed and some yet to
be developed and for sale. Whilst there are no guarantees for those on the list, they at least
have the chance to present their case. Those not on the list do not even have that opportunity.
The lack of equity in this approach is obvious.
We believe that winery establishment and development applications
within the catchment area should be judged on merit within clear performance and design
criteria and with no limit imposed other than by economic and environmental sustainability
restraints. We need the opportunity for responsible development of a viable and well
organised industry in a premium quality area.
MR MANNING: I will summarise the key points of my submission. I believe
that wineries can be established in the Adelaide Hills with minimal risk to impairing water
quality of watercourses or risk to the reservoirs if the new developments are properly planned.
I am an environmental consultant. I have been involved in the Adelaide Hills for more than
20 years. At one point I was responsible for water quality management in the Adelaide Hills as
a senior chemist in water pollution control with the E&WS Department with respect to
numerous activities of a team of people whose total responsibility was water quality
monitoring and permits for dairies, piggeries, abattoirs, horses—wineries were not there at the
time. We were responsible for managing all activities.
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 4

6. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
Based on that experience and what I know of wineries from the work that
I have done in recent years and from work that I am currently doing for the Torrens and
Patawalonga catchment boards and for the Onkaparinga catchment board (I am assessing all
their water quality data), I am very familiar with the issues in the Hills and the reservoirs.
In terms of wineries, it is an activity that can be well planned, facilities can
be sited and technology put in place so that you can minimise the risk, and locational issues
are so strategic in the planning. Bunding is an obvious one. All waste processing areas are
bunded. With distance from a watercourse, you have a choice. In the past when we had an
activity that was causing a pollution problem, not just had the potential to cause pollution
problems, invariably it was because the activity was badly sited. For example, some dairies
were located right next to a watercourse. They were there originally because of the water
supply but they had great difficulty in managing their waste. It could easily get washed in.
When they are properly sited, it is much less of an issue; indeed, it is not much of an issue at
all.
Apart from location, things can be put in place. We know that riparian
buffers along watercourses are very effective and now boards are actively encouraging that
riparian rehabilitation and big programs are under way. Swales and simple things like putting
in little ponds downstream of storage areas so, if there is a spillage, anything can be caught in
the pond are effective. It provides some way of intercepting flows. These are failsafe, simple
things that you can put in place. In siting these things, there are obvious things like slope and
rainfall, so all of those factors have to be taken into account when you are planning your site. I
am saying that you can plan a development up-front to minimise risk. You can almost take the
risk away if you are careful enough.
The other thing to consider is the actual risk of a spill. With waste storage
areas such as tanks, sometimes underground tanks, the quantities are quite small, particularly
for small wineries. If you are loading onto a tanker to take waste away, you might lose a small
amount. If you are 100 metres or more away from watercourses with ponds, swales, buffers
and areas bunkered, you have minimal risk of anything reaching that watercourse. The only
risk of pollution is more likely to come from a deliberate act of disposal, but that can be
attended to, as well.
There is a concern about the incremental increase in pollution risk if there
are more wineries. It is important to consider what the existing land use is. If we have
horticulture or grazing, we have got issues, so we currently have issues. We are potentially
going from one land use activity that we know is a pollution source to an activity that is
potentially very easily managed. When you drive around the Hills, you think of grazing as a
fairly low-key activity, but it is quite significant. We have got problems with giardia and
cryptosporidium from stock, and keeping stock out of watercourses is extremely difficult.
Apart from the erosion problem we have with the trampling of watercourses, it is a significant
and serious source. If we were to consider the incremental effect of more wineries, we also
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 5

7. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
have to consider the incremental effect of total horticulture or total grazing. We are going from
one activity that is polluting and often hard to manage to an activity where we really have a
high probability of managing it very well.
The third thing that is very important to recognise is the nature of the
waste. It is noxious and it has a very high BOD load, and I assume members are well
acquainted with the significance of that. If that gets into the watercourse it takes out the
oxygen and causes damage. It is not toxic. Pathogens are unlikely to be an issue. I have never
seen any evidence of pathogens in wineries. I am not saying that they will not be there but it is
not associated with winery waste. There are no persistent hazardous chemicals. In the Hills at
the moment there are tankers going all over the place carrying septic effluent, petrol,
hydrocarbons, pesticides—all kinds of things are being transported.
This type of material is less hazardous than those. If you had a tanker spill
with septic outflow, you have a pathogen issue. But if you had a tanker incident, what sort of
volume are you likely to be talking about? Not a big one. It has to reach a water course to do
any harm. That is a value judgment. There has never been a tanker incident in the Hills despite
the volume of traffic that we have. If a tanker did lose some of its load into a creek, what is
likely to happen? It is not an issue as far as the reservoir is concerned, because the mass is too
small. If a vehicle lost its load into a creek, the effect is likely to be localised and transitory. If
you go to a creek and monitor the dissolved oxygen, you will find it in very low levels. If you
had an incident, it is not likely that you would have a continuous discharge. That is compared
to the incident in the Barossa where you had a continuous discharge for over a month, as I
understand it. At one time they used to release winery effluents into the river to get rid of it.
That was years ago. I was involved in monitoring. The chances of an incident are quite small,
but the chances of a rapid recovery are very high and certainly would not have any long-term
effect.
Roger Stokes in his work actually made an estimate, and if I could refer to
page 3 of his document, he said that if 10 per cent of the total waste that he estimated were to
go into a water course, the increase in reservoir load would be less than 1 000 of 1 per cent of
the current organic load that is going in each year, to put it in perspective. In terms of reservoir
loading, it is really a non-event. The type of waste and the risk of incident is very small. The
consequence, because people talk about small tankers going to small wineries, is that it is not a
big item.
My fourth point is that the monitoring of these activities is critical. In my
submission, I make the following comment: Imagine what the speed limits on the road would
be like if there were no radars and no police. Gradually things would decline and get out of
hand. When I was with the EPA, we had inspectors in the field whose total role was to drive
around the Hills and constantly visit all these activities, check what they were doing,
communicate with the owners and encourage them to maintain high standards. I personally
think that is what is needed here. If you put strict conditions in place, over time, without
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 6

8. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
monitoring, there will be some decline in standards. That is just human nature. Monitoring is
important.
MR LOBBAN: Thank you for having me here. I am the Technical Development
Director of a South Australian based company, Resource Recovery. I am appearing before the
standing committee on a voluntary basis, on the basis that winery development is now
possible in the Hills watershed area through the use of twenty first century risk minimisation
technology and good planning. As a brief background, I have worked with peak conservation
organisations. I am no longer protesting, but actively doing something about fixing up the
environment by implementing the kinds of technologies that are necessary to do this. I believe
that it was correct in the 70s, 80s and early 90s to stop these kinds of development. Now in the
twenty first century, I believe that, based on my evidence, the correct thing to do is let them go
ahead.
I tender this document to the committee, and refer to the diagrams or
schematics that are presented and the three different options for the treatment of effluent. The
first is an old style combined system which you would tack onto the end of an existing winery
where all the effluents are combined. The second option is a separated waste stream. This is
critical. If you take storm-water out of the equation, which you can do very easily, you have a
lot less effluent to deal with. The third way of doing it is not only to separate your effluents but
to use the latest and best of all conventional and new technologies, to treat the effluent.
You will notice on the right hand side of pages 2 and 3, there are some
analysis results. We have been actively taking winery waste water from a number of wineries
over the 2001 vintage, and they have been very pleased to part with it. We have treated it at
various stages of vintage. Winery waste water varies considerably. We have taken this into
account in developing the correct process of conventional technologies of treatment merged
with new innovative technologies, some of which have been developed in South Australia.
The results can be seen quite clearly in this sample bottle. You can take off the lid, but you
will smell no odour. We are able to achieve 99 per cent reduction of BOD. The worst we have
got is 94 per cent, and we know what went wrong then. That would render that water able to
be put on your garden. You would agree that you would be quite happy to put that on your
garden, water a vineyard, or rinse down an area.
There are considerable opportunities for South Australia, if we do
embrace going ahead with the development of the treatment technology, to sell it and install it
in other wine regions interstate and overseas. The other key thing is the use of a bioaccelerator
which we have developed. Using bacteria is a very conventional way of breaking down
organic matter. Winery waste water has lots of organic matter and it is very clean. We
introduce specific bacteria into a controlled environment, in which it has been scientifically
established that they will go very well. They eat the organic matter, and we clarify it.
We see no reason for the committee not to make a recommendation to
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 7

9. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
make amendments to the PAR to enable individual applications for winery development in the
Mount Lofty Ranges watershed to be considered on individual merit. We certainly welcome
that consideration on individual merit because we have here something special that we can
take to the rest of the world and help advance the South Australian economy and also be
leaders in the growing market of environmental technology which could outpace IT the way it
is going.
MR AMADIO: This is an opening, but it demonstrates and reflects the pace of
development in not only winery and waste water treatment but all sorts of treatment of waste. I
was going to get Mr Lobban to touch briefly on the development and steps being made in that
direction.
2 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: Referring to the last page of your document,
could you explain that?
MR LOBBAN: On the last page, we have the four options: one is to say no to
everything; the second (going clockwise) is to build a winery and incorporate the best risk
minimisation in the design of the winery strategy; the third (down the bottom) is to build a
winery and truck off the waste—and that minimises risk; and the fourth option for
consideration is to treat the waste on site with the best available technologies and minimise
your water usage.
3 THE HON. T.G. ROBERTS: Have you placed this before Max Harvey from the
EPA at any stage?
MR LOBBAN: The key thing there is that rather than rushing headlong in to see
Max, we have waited until we are confident, and we are confident now.
4 THE HON. M.J. ELLIOTT: Looking at the second flow chart that you have
provided, is the separated waste water treatment system established in such a way that the site
is essentially self-sufficient with water? I notice the bottle wash water is going back to bottle
wash. With storm water being captured as well, does that mean the site is self-sufficient in
water and no water is leaving the site?
MR LOBBAN: Absolutely. That would be my highest recommendation as a
way to do it. If that was considered as an option, I would support that.
5 THE HON. T.G. ROBERTS: What do you use as a flocculant?
MR LOBBAN: We use electrodes of aluminium and iron. Instead of the
chemical treatment of aluminium and iron, which has a salt content, these do not. We apply
very low energy, about 10 amps, and that releases highly charged particles which capture and
flocculate. They make a floc out of the organic matter and other particles that are in there. As
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 8

10. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
part of the process, we are releasing a lot of air bubbles. In a batch reactor, all pollutants are
floated to the top as part of that reaction. Some of the clean water is added to that reactor on a
pulsing basis which allows it to overflow and be captured into a sludge tank. The sludge has
active aluminium in it after time settles, you then have the clean water from the sludge tank
that separates and goes back into treatment.
6 THE HON. T.G. ROBERTS: As a seasonal industry, that would only occur one
or two months each year?
MR LOBBAN: Yes, during vintage. It will only be processed when there is
waste to process. The key thing is we have done a biological treatment before this, so we make
it very easy from the second stage to operate. There is not much left in it to take out, so that
makes it successful.
MS KARETAI: I have been asked to speak to give a different perspective and
maybe my perspective on the issues. I represent the new people who have moved into the
Hills, those people who have chosen the Hills as opposed to other areas in Australia. I have
done so because of the wine industry and for me the Hills offer many advantages: a great
lifestyle, a chance to produce super premium wines from extraordinary fruit, a burgeoning
viticulture and a wine industry which offers the chance to build something new and
innovative. For me and many like me, the PAR in its current form has stopped all of that
opportunity dead in its tracks. Instead we are faced with a list of only 10 wineries that may or
may not be given an opportunity to expand their crushing facilities. This will mean that all the
fantastic fruit we have worked so hard to produce will be produced and wine will be made by
only 10 wine makers. Therefore, the styles of wines that come out of the Hills will be limited
to just 10.
Added to this lack of character is the fact that these few wineries will be
able to dictate prices and hold the growers to ransom. Prices for crushing have already risen
since the PAR was settled. The confidence in the industry will be in tatters. I chose the
Adelaide Hills wine region for one reason: its diversity. It is diverse in its topography and
diverse in its environment and it is precious for those reasons.
It will never be, and nor would we want it to be, with all due respect,
another Barossa Valley or Hunter Valley. It is an emerging community supported by changing
industry. It is moving away from the traditional dairying into viticulture and wine and food
tourism. We should not forget that the environment is benefiting from this change, and hence I
believe we should welcome the changes.
The wine production that we are seeking to advance in the hills works
within this sensitive environment. It is small in volume, boutique wineries where people can
see the vines which produce the wines, taste the wine and talk with the winemaker. These
vineyards are primarily in the catchment area. It is innovative in its application. Our
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 9

11. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
developments are new, giving us the perfect opportunity to adopt new practices. And it is
based on sound technical know-how, some examples of which you have already seen.
As an industry we have been compliant with any conditions which have
been placed upon us. The EPA wanted wood lots and we planted them. It wanted all the waste
to be transported off site. We loaded it up and trucked it away. Now, well now we are not too
sure, but one thing is for sure, we cannot afford to wait for another two to three years for a
review, in fact even nine years possibly.
I see the current position as an opportunity to raise the bar in terms of
waste management practices, to put in place specific boundaries within which we can operate
and then be allowed to get on with our business. I ask that the committee assist us in doing just
that by amending the PAR so that each application for wine production is judged on its own
merit against the strictest of criteria. In summary, we require the opportunity to operate in an
equitable market, one that can sustain our region's economy and one where wine can be
produced in unison with the environment.
7 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: We have one week left. Next week we will be
discussing this PAR and, with the committee's approval, we will do an inspection. We still
have to meet Mr Michael Edgecombe from the Regional Development Board. Which winery
are we to visit?
MR AMADIO: That is the Shaw and Smith Winery at Balhannah. I am sure we
can coordinate to extend this meeting, if you like, in their reception room.
8 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: We are going to reconvene at a winery with
Mr Edgecombe. If you can arrange that, it might save us a lot of time.
MR AMADIO: I am sure we can do that.
9 THE HON. T.G. ROBERTS: Can you supply the committee with the impact of
your amendment on the potential for investment in that region?
10 MRS MAYWALD: And jobs.
MR AMADIO: Yes.
11 THE HON. M.J. ELLIOTT: In relation to this water treatment system, could we
have an indication as to what the composition of those solid wastes are and how they are
disposed of?
MR LOBBAN: I can answer that very quickly. The US EPA is aware of this
technology. Solid wastes have a neutral pH and it passes the highest—I do not remember the
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 10

12. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
exact name for the standard—standard the US EPA has for non-leachable waste. You could
dispose of it on land. However, it would be far more cost-effective to compost it and to dilute
it to a point where you could reapply to the soil. After all, it is organic waste. We also work
very closely with bacteria, so we can speed up that process, too.
12 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: During your presentation you said that the larger
the winery the larger the risk. I noticed a letter from Mr Cruickshank's body saying just that.
He was concerned in relation to that being delivered. Do you see 2 000 tonnes as being too
large? Is there a limit, or do you have an idea about what size we should be talking?
MR MANNING: No, I think it is very unwise to do that. My comment relates to
the fact that there has been a concern about, if you keep increasing the wineries, therefore you
must increase the chance of there being an incident with one of them, which seems a
reasonable position to adopt. I think every activity, every individual winery, has to be judged
on its merit—the particular location, whether it has the ability to accommodate the waste
stream, treat the waste stream, if that is appropriate, or whether they can dispose of the waste
in an appropriate way, or whether they can reuse it or recycle it in an appropriate way. It has to
be case by case. To put an upper limit on an individual winery is probably unwise, and
certainly to dictate an upper limit in the hills, for example, 10 000 tonnes—would it make any
difference if it was 10 wineries or 50 wineries producing that? I would be inclined to judge
every one on its merits.
13 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: I also notice in your submission the electro pure
process. That was not mentioned this morning. Is that an additional way of treating waste, and
is it efficient and cost-effective?
MR MANNING: That is not in my submission.
14 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: That is in Mr Lobban's process.
MR LOBBAN: Yes, that is part of the process.
15 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: Sorry about that confusion. If this PAR was
lifted, how many wineries do you think we would see in place, say, within two or three years?
MR HISCOCK: If it were amended?
16 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: Yes.
MR HISCOCK: You mean remove the list?
17 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: Yes. Are we looking at another 10, 20, or 30?
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 11

13. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
MR HISCOCK: I do not think you will see a great rush; I think it will take a
while to do it all. The point is that, even those 10 wineries have to still go through the merit
process, so anyone else will have to. I cannot see that, in the next three years or so, you would
get more than 10.
18 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: It would be a total probably of 20.
MR HISCOCK: The point is that everyone who wants to have a chance should
be allowed to make their case. There are many limitations on it. In my submission I mentioned
the economic restraints. You have to be able to produce pretty high quality wine in order to
get a good price to be able to afford this expensive type of production, which means you will
not have thousands of people start wineries.
19 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: I will adjourn this hearing until next week. I
apologise for the fact that I will not be present. The Hon. Mr Dawkins will be acting presiding
officer in my absence.
MR HISCOCK: Do I understand that you would like to ask questions of us all at
that time?
20 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: If there are any additional questions. We have
probably exhausted it as we went along. We will adjourn the hearing until next week. You will
be in contact with our Secretary, Mr Knut Cudarans.
MR AMADIO: I will contact Mr Knut Cudarans to organise for next week, or as
soon as you are available, and we will also provide a suitable room at that winery in which to
continue the meeting or ask further questions, if you like.
21 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: Hopefully, Mr Edgecombe will be able to be
there. Should any other witnesses be considered?
MR AMADIO : Not at this stage, but we will advise you.
22 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: Does anyone in the gallery wish to express an
interest?
MR BARRETT: I am Lindsay Barrett. I have put a submission into the
committee, which probably has been circulated. I offered to speak to that submission but
without requesting to do so. However, I would be certainly happy to present to the committee
on that submission next week, if that was possible.
23 THE PRESIDING MEMBER: The committee will consider that request and, if
it agrees, we will do so. I cannot put that before the committee until we are in private. Thank
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 12

14. C. AMADIO E. HISCOCK
M. KARETAI M. LOBBAN
P. MANNING
ENVIRONMENT, RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 13
you very much for coming this morning. The committee will see you again next week.
THE WITNESSES WITHDREW