Department for Environment and Water, $141,869,000

Administered Items for the Department for Environment and Water, $28,727,000

Membership:

Dr Close substituted for Hon. Z.L. Bettison.

Mr Brown substituted for Mr Hughes

Minister:

Hon. D.J. Speirs, Minister for Environment and Water.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr J. Schutz, Chief Executive, Department for Environment and Water.

Mr S. O'Brien, Chief Financial Officer; Department for Environment and Water.

Mr B. Bruce, Executive Director, Water and River Murray, Department for Environment and Water.

Ms S. Carruthers, Executive Director, Strategy, Science and Corporate Services, Department for Environment and Water.

Mr M. Williams, Executive Director, National Parks and Wildlife Service, Department for Environment and Water.

Ms M. Healy, Acting Director, Office of the Chief Executive, Department for Environment and Water.

Mr A. Geytenbeek, Senior Management Accountant, Department for Environment and Water.

Ms M. Heinson, Principal Biosecurity Officer, Biosecurity SA, Primary Industries and Regions South Australia.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. I understand the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition have agreed to an approximate time for the consideration of proposed payments, which will facilitate a change of departmental advisers. Can the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition confirm that the timetable for today's proceedings previously distributed is accurate.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the Chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the Clerk Assistant via the answers to questions mailbox no later than Friday 5 September 2019.

I propose to allow the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition to make opening statements of about 10 minutes each, should they wish. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call to ask questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule.

A member not on the committee may ask a question at the discretion of the Chair. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, documents can be supplied to the Chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house, that is, that it is purely statistical and limited to one page in length.

All questions are to be directed to the minister and not the minister's advisers. The minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. The committee's examination will be broadcast in the same manner as the sittings of the house are broadcast, that is, through the IPTV system within Parliament House via the webstream link to the internet and the Parliament of South Australia video-on-demand broadcast system.

I will now proceed to open the following lines of examination: the portfolio of Department for Environment and Water. The minister appearing is the Minister for Environment and Water. I advise that the members for Ramsay and Giles have been discharged and we have been joined by the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Playford.

I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to the Agency Statements, Volume 2. Minister, if you could please introduce your advisers and make an opening statement if you wish.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will take the opportunity to make an opening statement this afternoon. I think it is useful to give some context to the portfolio and some of the achievements that have occurred.

I would like to introduce the departmental officers assisting me today. They are, to my left, Mr John Schutz, the Chief Executive of the Department for Environment and Water; and Mr Shaun O'Brien, the Chief Financial Officer of the department; to my right is Mr Ben Bruce, Executive Director, Water and River Murray; and behind me, in no particular order, are Ms Sandy Carruthers, Executive Director, Strategy, Science and Corporate Services; Ms Mary-Anne Healy, Acting Director, Office of the Chief Executive; Mr Andrew Geytenbeek, Senior Management Accountant; Mr Mike Williams, Executive Director, National Parks and Wildlife Service; and Michaela Heinson, who is from Biosecurity SA, representing Mr John Virtue, who is unable to be here today.

I would like to thank the team here with me as well as the staff from the Department for Environment and Water, who have contributed significant time and effort to prepare the budget as well as the briefings used for the estimates sessions today. This is no small task and I commend the agency for their hard work and dedication.

The Department for Environment and Water has a critical role to play in conserving and protecting our natural environment and helping to underpin the success of our state on behalf of those who call South Australia home. The 2019-20 state budget will really deliver for South Australia's natural environment. It will continue and extend the government's strong focus on national parks and coasts, as well as the health of the River Murray. Importantly, we see nearly $86 million in new spending over the forward estimates, which is a substantial increase on where the budget was when I inherited it.

South Australia is one of the most liveable states in the world, and this has a lot to do with our easy access to nature. Parks are central to the lives of South Australians and the experience of our visitors. They provide significant social, economic and health benefits to our communities, and improved landscape resilience in the face of a changing climate. I note that some 21 per cent of our state, an area just around the same size as the United Kingdom, forms part of our reserve system, and government having control of such a significant part of our jurisdiction gives us the ability to shape it and to create that resilience that we really do need in the face of changing climate.

Our government is committed to investing in our national and conservation parks and other reserve areas to protect the best of our natural heritage and unique flora and fauna, as well as creating world-class experiences for visitors to our state. As part of the 2019-20 budget, we announced $6 million over four years from 2019-20 to 2022-23 to create the Great Southern Ocean Walk. This initiative will connect the parks that run along the southern coastline of the Fleurieu Peninsula.

Work will include upgrading the Heysen Trail from Cape Jervis to Deep Creek, improving visitor facilities in the Deep Creek Conservation Park, and the construction of a universally accessible walking trail in this park, giving people of all physical capacities the ability to experience and enjoy our natural environment. This will be a beacon for locals and tourists alike, driving sustainable economic growth in the region and enhancing the visitor economy experience that is available on the Fleurieu Peninsula.

Much of our existing park infrastructure was established in the 1970s and 1980s, if not before, and is now nearing the end of its useful life, and significant maintenance repairs and replacements are required. We have allocated $3.3 million over four years and $2 million per annum beyond 2022-23 to renew and replace ageing park visitor infrastructure across the state. A program of works will be developed in close engagement with friends of parks, park users and other community groups across the state. The focus of this program will be on increasing the accessibility of parks for all.

The budget invests a further $2.5 million in the creation of Glenthorne National Park in our southern suburbs, adding to the previously committed $10 million investment over four years. As the committee may be aware, following the election of the federal Coalition government, this investment has attracted a further $1.75 million of commonwealth government funding for restoration works and a portion of the $2 million from City Deals to support the development of that national park.

I believe it is testament to the excitement and enthusiasm that the community has in the creation of Glenthorne National Park that it has been able to continually attract investment from external sources. We have established the Glenthorne Partnership, a community advisory group that will ensure the development of a new park which is consistent with community desires and expectations. In April 2019, we also held three public open days when more than 3,500 people had the chance to experience the opportunity that this national park represents and to provide feedback on what it may look like in the future.

The government continues to have a strong commitment to reducing emissions and building a more resilient landscape and community. The Premier's Climate Change Council, now headed by Mr Martin Haese, and my department are coordinating the development of an across-agency climate change strategy to support a coordinated and structured approach to tackling climate change.

The investment in our coast represents the largest investment in our coastline in decades, reflecting the importance of our coastline as the first line in the defence against increasing storm events and a changing climate. This funding will support large-scale beach sand replenishment and a sand recycling pipeline that will ensure sand stays on our metropolitan beaches. It also includes funding to restore vegetation on our dune systems. This initiative provides $48.4 million for metropolitan replenishment works, including $5 million over 2019-20 and 2020-21 for immediate sand carting to halt the ongoing loss of sand until external sand and a sand recycling pipeline are delivered.

Funding of $15 million is allocated for a large external sand delivery program, and $28.4 million for a sand recycling pipeline to commence construction in 2021-22. This initiative also includes sand dune restoration and revegetation works to be conducted with local councils and coastal community groups.

We are also providing an additional $4 million to assist local councils with regional coastal works. Local regional councils play a critical role in protecting public and private assets from coastal hazards and in maintaining coastal areas for all South Australians and tourists alike. Grants will support high-priority projects that invest in hard infrastructure such as seawalls and levies, and also soft coast protection such as dune reconstruction and stabilisation.

In 2019-20, $9.4 million will contribute to the ongoing operations and maintenance of assets that were constructed under the SA Riverland Floodplain Integrated Infrastructure Program. This is broken down into $1.2 million in 2019-20, $2.4 million in 2020-21, and $2.9 million per annum from 2021-22. The ongoing operation and maintenance of these assets is required for the state to meet its basin plan obligations and to deliver improved environmental and community outcomes.

These new initiatives are on top of ongoing vital work of the department and a range of initiatives that are underway. This includes our substantial increase in ranger numbers, opening reservoirs for recreation, leading nature-based and heritage tourism opportunities that bring people to South Australia and the ongoing vital work of the department in conserving and enhancing our natural environment.

To deliver these exciting initiatives and support the government's significant environmental agenda, the Department for Environment and Water has gone through a process of realignment under our new chief executive, John Schutz. The reform process has resulted in a reduction in executive roles, in addition to a reduction in the number of divisions or groups across the department, from six to four.

The department's new Environment, Heritage and Sustainability Division will have a focus on partnering with our boards and councils to build capacity and deliver improved outcomes for the environment and our community. The Strategy, Science and Corporate Services Division will ensure that major strategy and policy development is coordinated and supported. They will act as a skills and knowledge base.

Corporate services will be delivered centrally and seek to be efficient and more streamlined. They will undertake ongoing reform to reduce red tape and administrative processes both internally and for customers across the agency. The Water and River Murray Division will focus on the use, management and conservation of our state's water resources, which include the responsibility for driving the delivery of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

Finally, the new National Parks and Wildlife Division, which the Premier and I had the pleasure of launching on the weekend, will have a renewed and increased focus and effort in the management of our national parks, wildlife and public lands, including supporting the community to connect with our parks, deliver best practice park management and see more rangers on the ground.

In line with these changes, the department has continued to work hard to find efficiencies and use taxpayer money as carefully as possible. Practically, this has led to a spend of $161,541 on media advertising campaigns, instead of $471,303 in the 2017-18 financial year. This is approximately 30 per cent of the spend from the previous year, and we will continue a focus on reducing our spend on media advertising.

We have also been able to save $3,600 on pot plant costs compared with $10,800 in the 2017-18 financial year. We have not reduced the number of pot plants within the department but simply have renegotiated the contract. While that is a small matter, it is that sort of financial discipline, compared with the previous regime, that I am pleased to be part of.

That is a short synopsis of a strong and practical budget from the Department for Environment and Water. I would once again express my appreciation to all the staff who have worked on preparing information for the estimates process over the past few weeks.

Dr CLOSE: My opening statement is limited to thanking the staff who have attended today for the work that they have done to prepare to answer all our questions. I will go to my first question: in the Budget Measures Statement, Budget Paper 5, on page 39, at the bottom of the table we have a reference to Crown land sales. Will any of the sales be heritage-listed places?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As many on the committee would know, the Department for Environment and Water contributes to the state's economic growth agenda by proactively working with other government agencies, local government and the private sector to identify surplus Crown land for sale. Between 1 July 2018 and 30 June 2019, the gross proceeds realised from Crown land disposed of by the department, pursuant to the Crown Land Management Act 2009, was $12.09 million. This was actually above the budgeted revenue target of $10 million.

For the forward schedule for the current financial year, the Crown land disposal revenue target for 2019-20 is $4.53 million. In that financial year, the budget for direct disposal costs is $648,000, and for indirect disposal costs it is $531,000. At this stage, I am unable to confirm what properties or packages of land are scheduled for sale. These tend to appear in both a planned and an opportunistic fashion, depending on whether the department is approached by people who would like to buy adjacent land and the like, as per Department of the Premier and Cabinet Circular PC 114, so I am unable to answer if there are any heritage properties that are likely to be sold. I would suggest that that is very unlikely.

Dr CLOSE: In the $12.09 million from 2018-19, were any of those sales of heritage-listed properties? If so, what yield did they reap for the department or the government?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: There are many Crown land sales that are fairly insignificant tracts of land and parcels of land adjacent to agricultural land and the like that are disposed of for a relatively small amount of consideration. However, I have been provided with a list of the more significant pieces of Crown land that were sold during that year. From this list I am unable to ascertain if any were heritage properties.

A quick look suggests not, but I would not like to be quoted on that specifically, because I do not really know the situation with regard to these properties that are before me. One of them is Lot 7601, Lancaster Drive, North Haven—Port Adelaide. The deputy leader might be more aware of that property than I. The others do not appear to be heritage. I can look into that and find out if any of them are heritage properties.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you, I appreciate that. Page 40 of the same budget paper refers to the operating efficiencies, the departmental efficiency measures at the top. What is the accumulated savings task now with this money coming in for, first of all 2019-20 and then 2020-21? I appreciate the only new money that needs to be found is for 2020-21 of those two years, but what is the accumulated savings task?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The accumulated savings task for the 2019-20 financial year is $12.6 million.

Dr CLOSE: And how is that anticipated to be achieved?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: This will be primarily achieved through savings from voluntary separation packages taken in the 2018-19 financial year which is where those savings obviously substantially flowed through to the forthcoming financial year, as well as general efficiencies and vacancy management strategies that the department will be undertaking.

Dr CLOSE: How many TVSPs were offered in that last financial year, and accepted?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Offered or accepted?

Dr CLOSE: And accepted.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: On 6 September 2018 and 31 January 2019, the Department for Environment and Water invited salaried employees covered by the South Australian Modern Public Sector Enterprise Agreement Salaried 2017 to express interest in receiving a targeted voluntary separation package. On 7 May 2019, the department invited weekly paid employees covered by the South Australian Public Sector Wages Parity Agreement Weekly Paid 2017, to express interest in receiving a voluntary separation package.

Following consideration of expressions of interest from 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019, the department offered 137 employees either a targeted voluntary separation package or a voluntary separation package. As at 30 June 2019, a total of 119 employees have accepted either the TVSP or the VSP offers. As at 30 June 2019, of the 119 who accepted, 84 employees have separated from the Department for Environment and Water, and 35 have future designated separation dates scheduled.

Dr CLOSE: Do you anticipate any further TVSPs in the 2019-20 financial year?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It is likely that another round of TVSPs and VSPs will be offered to staff within the Department for Environment and Water during the 2019-20 financial year, but this has not been confirmed or scheduled at present.

Dr CLOSE: Is there a target for how many would be acceptable to the department?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No; there is not a target.

Dr CLOSE: Turning to page 41, and securing the future of our metropolitan coastline, yesterday I attended a forum about the sand-carting and pipeline for Semaphore. I was lucky that I happened to live in the area that was letterboxed, otherwise I would not have known about it, despite having written to the minister on 30 May asking for someone from the Coast Protection Board to present to a forum I would like to hold for my community. I have not had a reply yet, so I had many of my questions answered—

The CHAIR: Member for Port Adelaide, we are looking at budget estimates here and a line item in the budget, not about a forum you seek to host. The member for Kavel has the call.

Mr CREGAN: Minister, I take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 134. Can you outline to the committee the role that rangers will play in the Department for Environment and Water in conservation, education and towards improving the visitor experience in our national parks?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the member for Kavel for his question. He and I regularly talk about the value of our parks and reserves system, particularly those in the Adelaide Hills, obviously, because while he is interested in parks across the whole state I have no doubt he has a particular affection for those within the Mount Lofty Ranges, given his role in representing those areas of our state's great geography.

Members of the estimates committee would be aware that the government went to the 2018 election making a commitment that we would increase the number of park rangers operating within the Department for Environment and Water to send a strong message to communities and those who are interested in our environment that we believe the care, stewardship and nurturing of our park system is at the very heart of the role of the environment department. I think it is fair to say that when I became Minister for Environment and Water in March 2018 the prominence of our National Parks and Wildlife Service—if we even had one—was not where it should be.

I have often said that if I asked someone in my electorate—and I am sure the member for Kavel would have the same experience—what they thought the role of the environment department was, they would put the care and stewardship of our national parks right near the top of that agenda. Of course, while it was part of the work of the department it just did not have the prominence. When you look at 21 per cent of the state forming part of our protected reserve system, a vast area covering our diverse natural landscape within this state from Kangaroo Island to the Nullarbor, to the wilderness areas in the Far North and north-west of our state through to the South-East, there is such a huge area to care for.

It was the view of this government, both when we were in opposition and since forming government, that we could do better there. On the weekend I was thrilled to attend, with the Premier and the member for Waite, the launch of the National Parks and Wildlife Service at Belair National Park which is, of course, the oldest national park in South Australia and the second oldest national park in the whole of Australia—sadly, it is not in the member for Kavel's district, but it is not that far away, just down the hill.

At the launch I was really excited to see the enthusiasm and energy being shown by the workforce who are going to form the new National Parks and Wildlife Service into a really focused national parks and wildlife service, not blurred between natural resources management and the administrative part of the department but a body that actually has its own brand, its own focus on the care and stewardship of our parks. It was very exciting to see that renewed enthusiasm and an acknowledgement of the value the government is putting on our parks as well as in the role of rangers.

Members would be aware that under the previous government rangers almost became a threatened species themselves with numbers reducing dramatically over a period of around five years, maybe a bit more, leading into 2018. As at 30 June 2019, there were 103 park ranger positions in the Department for Environment and Water compared with 93 in March 2018. I am advised that our government's commitment to employ 20 new rangers will be completed before the end of the 2019 calendar year, which is significantly in advance of where we hoped it would be.

Five new ranger positions have been created and these positions are on Kangaroo Island and the parks in the Adelaide Hills, with coastal rangers focusing on the South-East and Eyre Peninsula building up a specific knowledge of the unique protected coastal environments that this state is lucky to have and being able to understand the particular challenges our coastline endures but also the opportunities we have for the rehabilitation and recovery of our coastal environments. We made it very clear that we wanted some of these rangers to have a real focus on the coastal environments, given we have 5,067 kilometres of coastline along this state and a considerable amount of that falls within the reserve system.

Staff who recently completed the Department for Environment and Water's graduate rangers program were also appointed to these new positions. Historically, there have not necessarily been spots for our graduate rangers once they have completed their graduate program but, because of the expansion of the number of positions for park rangers, we have been able to accommodate graduate rangers in a way that was not always the case in the past.

In June 2019, a separate recruitment process for additional ranger positions was undertaken, and 11 rangers have been employed as a result of that process. Six of these new rangers are new to the National Parks and Wildlife Service while five have been employed previously within the service on a non-ongoing contract basis.

In what is really exceptionally good news, on 1 July, eight construction and maintenance workers were converted to ranger positions. This is in addition to the extra rangers who have been employed in new roles. We have also been able to create an enhanced career pathway for people who were working as construction and maintenance workers within the department and indicated to management that they desired the opportunity to transition through to becoming rangers, with the appropriate training and support to ensure that they have the skills necessary.

Of course, many of them already had the skills because they were working in those practical roles across the department and had that experience of our national parks on the ground. I know that the conversion of construction and maintenance workers to rangers was something that was undertaken from time to time under the previous government, but we have been able to really do it in a very intentional way this time around. If you add all those new positions together, there are actually 18 new rangers and a net gain of 10 with an additional 10 planned for before the end of 2019, which is just fantastic news for the growth of this workforce.

Further, the member for Kavel and other members may be interested to know that we have announced a new volunteer park ranger program that aims to have 100 volunteer rangers in the field within the next four years by 2022. We foresee this being able to capture the enthusiasm, skills and interest in our natural environment that many South Australians have.

Some younger South Australians who are hoping to build work experience and enter the ranger workforce or other conservation roles in the future may be interested in becoming volunteer rangers while, equally, some older members of our community who have skills, knowledge and understanding of our natural environment may also be keen to become volunteer rangers. We are still shaping exactly what that program will look like, but there really is a great opportunity to engage more people in a fairly formal way, working alongside friends groups and full-time rangers to care for the environment.

The pilot program for the volunteer rangers will be trialled in Morialta Conservation Park in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges and Innes National Park on the Yorke Peninsula. There will be approximately 15 rangers involved in that pilot program, commencing during the October 2019 school holidays. The volunteer ranger program is intended to provide support to our network of employed rangers during peak visitation periods, such as school holidays, and to provide a meaningful career change to people in our community who feel they can continue to serve within the community, such as retirees or people who are struggling to get work.

A career pathway for Aboriginal rangers within the National Parks and Wildlife Service will also be finalised by 2021, which recognises the unique relationship that Aboriginal Australians have with the land and sea and gives them the opportunity to deploy traditional skills, traditional knowledge and understanding, and share those with the rest of the workforce but also people who are visiting our parks. The very significant and quite iconic roles that rangers play in providing stories, experiences and support to the many thousands of people who visit our national parks across the state on an annual basis should not be underestimated.

Dr CLOSE: I refer to Budget Paper 5, page 41, securing the future of our metropolitan coastline. What is the modelled loss to the Semaphore dunes with the sand carting and sand pipeline?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As some members would be aware, the Adelaide coastline presents many challenges for effective sand management given our natural littoral drift of sand from the southern beaches to the northern beaches and continual accumulation of sand in the northern beaches, really anywhere north of Grange through to Semaphore and the Largs area in the northern-most part of our beaches before Outer Harbor.

Because of this natural process, but because of man-made or human-made interference, we have challenges keeping our sand on our southern beaches. That is why the government has initiated a very substantial sand replenishment and recycling program, which sees $48.383 million invested over four years. That will be particularly focused on creating resilience around West Beach and Henley Beach South. In an interconnected system the creation of resilience at one point of the coast's vulnerability will ensure that the resilience of the coast more broadly throughout metropolitan Adelaide will be significantly enhanced.

The deputy leader is correct to identify that we will be sand harvesting from the northern beaches, around Semaphore in particular. This has been an ongoing process, and it was a pleasure to meet with dune-care groups and friends groups a couple of weeks ago when I visited Port Adelaide to have afternoon tea with them at the Port Adelaide natural resources centre. I was able to talk through, in broad terms, the plans for the sand replenishment project, including the removal of sand from the Semaphore area.

I was also able to reassure that there was not expected to be any overall loss of sand from the Semaphore beach due to that continual natural replenishment of sand through the littoral drifting process from the south to the north, meaning that any sand removed from Semaphore Beach, including the dune system, would be very quickly renewed by the natural processes.

Dr CLOSE: How quickly? How long will the Semaphore dune system be damaged before it is recovered?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not believe the dune system will be damaged in any way. The speed of replenishment on the northern beaches, while natural and ongoing, is obviously interrupted or enhanced depending on the weather conditions of storm events and things like that, with more sand being taken to the northern beaches in some seasons compared with other seasons. As I explained to the friends groups when I met with them, there is real opportunity for them to work alongside the government to actually see the overall enhancement of the dune system through revegetation projects and the like, which will also be funded through the new funding that is provided under this budget.

Dr CLOSE: Moving to securing the future of our regional coastline, the budget papers indicate that there will be $4 million spent in operating expenditure as grants to support projects. How much sea defence work can you get for $4 million? How many metres of seawalls or levies do you get for $4 million?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: When I became the state's Minister for Environment and Water with responsibility for caring for our coastline, the Coast Protection Board's budget for grants was just over $300,000 per annum. The increase of this fund—bearing in mind this is an additional $1 million per annum for four years, taking our grants to around $1.3 million a year—represents an almost fourfold increase in the funding that was available under the previous government. We have 5,067 kilometres of coastline in South Australia. Some of that coastline is very vulnerable, other areas are far more resilient.

We will await submissions through our grants process through the Coast Protection Board to see what sort of projects are put forward by regional councils. We would certainly expect regional councils to be able to make a contribution, perhaps matching, if not more, to these projects. Every little bit helps when it comes to the defence of our coasts and councils in regional South Australia have shown particular enthusiasm for the availability of this new funding.

What will be put forward and what can be covered by this funding will be assessed when the government receives the applications and the proposed projects by regional councils, but it is fair to say there has been quite significant interest to date, particularly from the Copper Coast Council, the Yorke Peninsula Council, the Wattle Range Council and the Kingston District Council in the South-East that have shown interest in accessing this new fund.

Dr CLOSE: What is the total budget for coast protection, regional and metropolitan, for this financial year?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Deputy leader, can I clarify: is that the operating budget for the coast protection branch within the department or just the grants?

Dr CLOSE: For everything that is spent on coast protection by your department.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: So the Adelaide Living Coast Strategy, etc.?

Dr CLOSE: That is right.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Mr Chair, through you, in the current financial year, that is the 2018-19 financial year, the Department for Environment and Water is forecasting expenditure of $7.602 million on beach management.

Dr CLOSE: That is the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Starting in the 2019-20 year, the government will invest an additional $48.83 million over four years as part of—and on metropolitan Adelaide beaches, and also that $4 million in regional funding, $1 million of additional funding every year. That is hard to break down, given it is such a large number, exactly how that will flow over the next four years as the project is still being scoped, but it will be somewhere around—well, there is $48 million plus $4 million which takes us to about $52 million and then there is ongoing coastal management branch funding of around $7 million a year.

So you would have to divide that figure by four and extrapolate it over the next four years but, as I say, the project is a large project and is still being scoped. It has its overall budget but we will have to refine exactly how that looks as it is rolled out in the coming years.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. If we can turn to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 131, which includes the workforce summary. I am interested to know, assuming that the Landscape SA Bill gets through and becomes an act, what impact that is likely to have on corporate services in the Department for Environment and Water, and corporate services in the landscape regions and the boards that they support. Will there be a disentanglement of corporate staff and, therefore, a potentially greater burden on each to do similar work, or will there be a centralisation within the department still?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader. It has always been my intention that while we see a decentralisation model and a stronger individual character for each of these boards, where sensible to do so, there would still be a shared use of services, and we are working through a working group at the moment, what that will look like and which services could and should be shared, and which services should be under the control and direction of the new decentralised landscape boards. Given this fairly operational matter, I will ask the chief executive, Mr Schutz, to provide a bit more detail.

Mr SCHUTZ: Thank you, minister. Through the Chair, if I understand your question, it is with regard to the impact of landscapes on future corporate services for the landscape boards. As I am sure the member understands, under the current model, the department provides those corporate services under a letter of direction from the minister to both the presiding members of the boards, the NRM boards, and to the chief executive of the department, so they are provided on a cost-recovery basis.

Under the new model of reform for landscapes, under the government's election commitment the boards will become independent and will have their own workforce established under them. The minister has asked the department to provide further advice to him about what is the best model to provide ongoing corporate services to the board. He has made it very clear he wants to be efficient, he wants to be consistent, and he wants to be compliant, but he wants to be enabling first and foremost for the boards to be able to get on and deliver their services under the new legislation.

We have not yet provided the minister with all of that advice. We are currently working through that. As you would expect, there are a lot of elements to that. Some will make more sense I think ultimately, pending the minister's decision, to have more of a centralised point of service provision for which the boards would have to cover that cost, whereas others, it would make more sense to have the boards allowed to do that themselves so they can actually get on and make their decisions and deliver their outcomes more directly with their workforce and their community.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. I look forward to seeing how that evolves. If we turn to page 134, and I appreciate the minister has already given a reasonably lengthy answer about the ranger recruitment process, and I was seeking to listen carefully. I do not know if he raised it so I will ask now. Several of the staff were already working within the department either as graduate rangers or on contract. Have those positions been filled, or are they now empty, so a graduate ranger has been replaced by graduate ranger, or is that position now gone?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, deputy leader. I will get the chief executive to answer this one as well, just because of the operational nature of it.

Mr SCHUTZ: Thank you, minister. The department has run a graduate ranger program since about 2007. That program is a two-year program where we take graduates into it who do four placements of six months each—one centrally and three regionally. In most recent years, at the conclusion of that two-year program the graduates took their chances if there were positions available. Many of them took short-term placements, but at the same time there was no guarantee of ongoing employment, and many moved on.

As the minister has already explained, under the reform process and the changes, particularly our delivery of national parks and wildlife service and re-establishing those rangers as front-line positions, graduates were offered ongoing positions in the department. That has been a really good opportunity. We would seek to place our graduates in those roles before we would seek to go external to the agency, where we have people who have (1) satisfactorily completed the graduate program and (2) are prepared to take the placements that are available. Given we run a statewide service, it is not always convenient for somebody to be placed in Ceduna or to work in Innamincka or somewhere like that. That is our intent.

As we go forward, we are reviewing the graduate program alongside of looking to implement potentially our trainee rangers program as well, in line with the government's commitment to traineeships. We are possibly looking at streaming both into our workforce into the future, so providing great access points to people to become rangers.

Dr CLOSE: Has there been a reduction between 2018-19 and 2019-20 in the number of graduate ranger positions?

The CHAIR: Order! Member for Port Adelaide, questions are to be through the minister. If the minister chooses to allow one of his advisers to answer, so be it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will take that question on notice.

Dr CLOSE: Thank you. Are all of the rangers—I understand the number of rangers is now 103—in the department in permanent positions?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The number of rangers in ongoing positions as of 30 June 2019 was 103, up from 93 when we took office in March 2018. While there has been some flux in the workforce and some people have left us, the overall net gain is 10, which is great for our natural environment.

Dr CLOSE: Are all of the 103 in permanent positions?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

Dr CLOSE: At what band have the 18 who have come in and been made permanent rangers been appointed in?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: As in payment band?

Dr CLOSE: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will have do defer that question to the chief executive for further advice.

Mr SCHUTZ: Thank you, minister. Under the restructured national parks and wildlife service workforce band, it is from OPS-2. Given these are people coming into the workforce, it is probably up to about OPS-5. Obviously, we have more senior positions which we also have within the workforce, but invariably when we bring people into the service they come in at those low levels.

Dr CLOSE: Will any rangers be offered TVSPs in the 2019-20 year?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We cannot predict who will put their hand up for targeted voluntary separation package. It is my view that, given the substantial restructure of the department and the fact that there were a number of rangers in more obsolete roles who left the department, it would be unlikely that we would see any more rangers leave as part of targeted voluntary separation packages, but that will be a decision for the chief executive. I will ask him if he wants to provide any further clarification.

Mr SCHUTZ: As the minister has already alluded to, the restructure of the workforce is really what gave rise to a number of previous positions being offered TVSPs (targeted voluntary separation packages). Given that we have moved through that process over the last 12 months since the new government took office and on 1 July we announced a new structure for the National Parks and Wildlife Service, it is not my intention to offer any further TVSPs to rangers as we have now reset the workforce. However, as the minister has said, it is difficult to guarantee that that will be the case right across the board. We have no intention of targeting or offering those on a decision basis.

The CHAIR: The member for Hammond is seeking the call, patiently.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 137. Can the minister outline for the committee South Australia's progress and achievements under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I thank the member for Hammond for his question, knowing his firsthand knowledge and interest in the River Murray. He is the representative of a portion of that river within our state and particularly of the town of Murray Bridge, which of course has the River Murray as its defining feature. During the previous year, the state has continued to show leadership and progress in the implementation of the basin plan, which is a significant national reform in water management.

Since we formed government approximately 16 months ago, I have worked hard to repair relationships with my interstate colleagues and to break the deadlock that existed under the previous government. We have moved away from a situation where we had South Australia screaming from the sidelines (and from ice-cream shops) and achieving no additional water coming across the border from interstate to a situation where we have maturely and sensibly engaged in dialogue and cooperative discussions with our federal and interstate colleagues.

Those conversations can be challenging and will no doubt continue to be a challenge, given the multijurisdictional nature of this river. However, we are gaining momentum, There is more activity around the delivery of additional water to the river system than in many previous years. I am really pleased to see that moving forward slowly but surely. At the ministerial council meeting on 14 December 2018, it was excellent to secure in the order of $70 million of commonwealth funds for measures to improve and support the long-term health of the iconic and internationally important Coorong and its surrounding water bodies, including Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina.

Measures to protect environmental water in the southern basin have been assessed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority as being in effect. These measures maximise the outcomes of water recovered for the environment without impacting on other water users. Without these measures in place, more environmental water would need to be acquired to achieve the same outcomes.

The basin plan is delivering more environmental water to South Australia: 756 gigalitres of additional environmental water was delivered to South Australia in 2018-19, in spite of extremely dry conditions upstream. It demonstrated that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is working because without the plan in place we would not have that 756 gigalitres of additional environmental water making its way down the river system, across the border and into South Australia.

Of course, by coming into South Australia as environmental water, much of that water ends up passing along the river and into the Lower Lakes, the Coorong and the Murray Mouth at Hindmarsh Island. That water is life-sustaining water, not just for industry and the communities along the river but, critically, for our native fish, our native bird life and our amphibians, which call the Murray-Darling system, and particularly the Coorong and the Lower Lakes, their home.

Environmental water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, one of the great reforms achieved under the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, has achieved important ecological outcomes, including supporting the movement of native fish, maintaining continuous flow to the Coorong and Murray Mouth, providing water bird habitat around the Lower Lakes and water in wetlands and low-lying flood plain habitat along the River Murray corridor.

It was great to get up to look at the Pike River anabranch system a few weeks ago with the member for Chaffey and the Minister for Regional Development and look at how the pieces of infrastructure are being put in place under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan to manufacture environmental outcomes.

When I first became the minister the manufacturing of environmental outcomes was something that took a little time to accept, but once you do accept that the river is a highly manufactured environment and that you then need to subsequently manufacture the environmental outcomes, you can then begin to see the real benefit of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in providing the funding but also the motivation and the requirement for states to get on and undertake these environmental projects.

Without water for the environment, the iconic and internationally significant Coorong would have been disconnected from the River Murray for over two years, barring one short period in 2017. I was able to adopt the River Murray Water Allocation Plan in February 2019, which amongst other things balances the sharing of water between Adelaide water users and River Murray irrigators in dry times through increased reliance on the Adelaide Desalination Plant.

We are in a dry period at the moment, Mr Chair, and you, the members for Hammond, Finniss and Kavel, as well as other members here, would be more than aware that we are in a dry period at the moment, but we are maintaining that resilience in the river system, more so than we would ever have been able to do without the plan.

I have introduced enhanced measures to assist in ensuring water is available for all water users, both irrigators and the environment, which was required to ensure compliance with the new sustainable diversion limits that came into effect from 1 July 2019. All metered water users will now need to reconcile their water accounts on a quarterly basis to ensure they have not used more water than their annual allocation permits.

The Marshall government is committed to the implementation of the basin plan, and its implementation is on track in South Australia. South Australia's three water resource plans have been submitted to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority within the required time period. They are currently undergoing assessment by the authority. South Australia's water recovery target has been accounted for through commonwealth water buybacks, irrigation efficiency projects and our share of offsets: sustainable diversion limit supply measures.

South Australia's sustainable diversion limit projects are well advanced and on track to be completed by the basin plan deadline of June 2024. Phase 1 funding of $2.5 million has been secured to address constraints to the delivery of high flows in the River Murray in South Australia, and that funding would not have been possible without the agreement that was obtained at the ministerial council on 14 December 2018. Over the next two years, we will focus on working with our communities and other basin jurisdictions to plan how flood plain and wetland benefits can be achieved.

Both the Premier and I will continue to work collaboratively at the upcoming Council of Australian Governments and ministerial council meetings. The ministerial council will be held next Sunday and the Council of Australian Governments side meeting will be held on 9 August. This will ensure that the plan delivers for South Australians and the basin as a whole.

Dr CLOSE: Turning to page 134, there is a reference to Glenthorne National Park. What are the criteria for a piece of land to be declared a national park, and who advises the minister on whether the land in question meets the criteria?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am certainly always delighted to receive a question on Glenthorne and the visionary opportunity that this government of South Australia has to create Glenthorne National Park, a national park which is, of course, going to be woven into the southern suburbs, connecting land around Happy Valley Reservoir, essentially land which lies into the foothills, through Glenthorne Farm itself—208 hectares of open space—and on through O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park, an area of elevated land which overlooks both the sea and the City of Adelaide.

It then loops around into Marino Conservation Park, a unique piece of remnant coastal heath which is so important for both bird and insect life on the hill at Marino. It then heads south again through to Hallett Cove Conservation Park through to the Field River mouth, which is in itself a biodiversity hotspot where the river meets the sea at Hallett Cove beach. It then links through into the privately owned area, and there is a long-term aim to see that come into public ownership or at least to be managed privately under the same philosophy as a national park could be.

The opportunity to link all of those areas, approximately 1,500 hectares of open space, and see it woven into the southern suburbs really creates an immense opportunity to, firstly, restore and build on the existing protected spaces at O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park and Hallett Cove and Marino conservation parks, but also to connect that altogether by securing that area, which is really only open paddocks at the moment, but secure and restore that as an urban forest which is carefully connected with the community.

The real opportunity is connecting the community to that open space, getting them involved in the creation of Glenthorne National Park and getting them to help shape the master plan. That, in itself, the ability for so many people in a metropolitan context to be able to access open space, creates a criteria for national park listing. National park status requires land to be identified as having national significance, and there is nothing more significant than having a national park which is literally in the southern suburbs, accessible by hundreds of thousands of people in under half an hour's drive. That, for me, is criteria of great significance.

There are also many native species of plant which my department has identified as being in the Glenthorne precinct which are worthy of conserving, from native orchids through to species of trees. There is also the potential to reinstate the nationally listed Grey Box Woodland, which we know is such an important ecosystem but is under very significant threat.

From a birdlife point of view, I was recently told by the Friends of Glenthorne that there are at least 60 species of birds being seen in and around the Glenthorne Farm site to date, and that is before large-scale revegetation has occurred. Those species include raptors, not only the Nankeen kestrel but also the rare peregrine falcon which makes its home in the cliffs which extend to the south of Glenthorne Farm itself, into the Field River valley, but make their way up to hunt on the Glenthorne site.

From to time, wedge-tailed eagles can be seen on this property as well. Again, that is something which I think is quite marvellous, having a raptor of the size and magnificence of a wedge-tailed eagle having enough open space to hunt and potentially make its home within an area which is within the bounds of metropolitan Adelaide. That is something, again, of national significance and positions Glenthorne National Park as being more than worthy of listing as a national park.

If you then connect that broader space through to the Happy Valley Reservoir, which may or may not be subsumed into national park boundaries in the future, and also look at those other areas of protected open space—O'Halloran Hill Recreation Park and the Marino and Hallett Cove conservation parks—you have an area that creates a substantial open space corridor, particularly useful for birdlife and insect life, extending across that landscape from the hills behind Happy Valley to the beach at Hallett Cove and Marino.

I have absolutely no doubt that the national significance of this urban landscape and its ability to connect so many people with our natural environment in a very immediate way elevates this site to national prominence. I think that has been demonstrated by the federal Coalition government, during the election campaign, offering about $1.7 million towards the rehabilitation of Glenthorne through its ecosystem restoration fund. We have also seen additional funding come through the City Deal project to undertake restoration works at Glenthorne.

The opportunities here are immense, and it is great to have the community engaged in that. We have established the Glenthorne Partnership so that this is not a concept that is necessarily handed down by the state government or by a particular minister. The Glenthorne Partnership is a group of highly engaged local people managing this alongside the department, providing advice to me and engaging with the community through the master planning process, which was kicked off during the open days when we had some 3,500 people visit in early April this year.

The Glenthorne Partnership provides an innovative governance model for the management of national parks more broadly. This is where we have a group of local people involved in the environmental sector, involved in local government, involved in the Kaurna community, involved in nature education, involved in local schools come together to provide advice, insight and direction for the creation of this national park.

It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. I think it will be viewed for generations to come as a great step forward in the liveability and climate resilience of our city, given the significant cooling effect it will have in the southern suburbs—another connection to why this is a nationally significant project that warrants national park status. It has certainly been the advice I have received from my department that this place warrants that level of protection, and I look forward to being able to move towards that status once tenure of that land is finalised in the coming months.

Dr CLOSE: Does the government, in fact, own Glenthorne Farm yet? If not, by what legal instrument is the government spending money on Glenthorne Farm?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The deputy leader's negative tone around Glenthorne does not surprise me. The Labor government does not like this idea, and they have not supported it for their 16 years in government; in fact, they let Glenthorne languish in the southern suburbs and are now doing all they can to pick holes in what is an environmentally transformational project in Adelaide's south. The Labor opposition's ongoing negativity towards this project is extremely disappointing and, I think, will go down in history.

Glenthorne Farm itself is 200 hectares of open space, and it is a complex piece of land with a complex history. It includes heritage buildings and it includes sites where scientific experimentation occurred when the property was held by the CSIRO, so a range of due diligence exercises had to be undertaken to ensure that the land can and will be transferred in a satisfactory way.

That work is ongoing. As the University of Adelaide were recently quoted as saying, for all intents and purposes this land is under the care and control of the Department for Environment and Water. A memorandum of understanding was established between the government and the University of Adelaide—between myself and the vice-chancellor, Professor Peter Rathjen—to give ongoing access and ease of access for the government to undertake works on the site, a lot of which have been investigative works around the heritage status of buildings and ensuring building quality and that any contamination has been identified and dealt with so that there is no significant contamination on the site.

All that had to be worked through, and the department had to get significant access to the site to enable that and of course to get the community on there for the open days—not only the three open days in early April when we had those 3,500 people visit and take part in the master planning but also the ongoing access for the Friends of Glenthorne, a great group who have really continued to fly the flag through the dark days of the Labor government ignoring the site, and more recently in a very positive way as they have helped master plan through the Glenthorne partnership. They used to only be able to access the site for a couple of hours monthly but, through the memorandum of understanding providing broader access to the site through the Department for Environment and Water, that friends group are now able to do significantly more work.

It has also been good to see the demolition of some unsafe buildings on Majors Road at O'Halloran Hill and their replacement with a ranger station, which will become the southern hub for rangers looking after southern parks but also the rangers who will work on shaping Glenthorne. All this work has been facilitated through the memorandum of understanding, which was established in 2018, providing access.

There is work continuing on the conveyancing of that land to the state government, and I expect that to be completed in the coming months. The complexity of conveyancing this piece of land to the state government from what is essentially a private sector organisation but a private sector organisation that has been closely in step with the government's vision for this site should not be underestimated.

The university have continually said that their vision for the site and their hope that it can become an open space precinct has been something they have held for a period of time since realising that there was no prospect of seeing that land subdivided and developed, as was always the risk under the previous government. It has been great to work alongside the university as we slowly and methodically move towards the transfer of those 208 hectares of open space into our reserve system. I look forward to that being declared a national park, which I think will be an historic occasion, later this year.

Dr CLOSE: Is there a grant agreement in place to facilitate the funding of the on-ground works?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No, the memorandum of understanding will suffice for access. There has not been a huge amount of money spent on the site in terms of works. Most of the work undertaken has been investigative in nature: surveying the site, looking at the hydrology of the site, looking at the way the natural creek line extends between dams, looking at where CSIRO activity was undertaken over many years and ensuring that there is not contamination on that site. It is good that those results have come back showing that there is not. There have been assessments done of the heritage buildings. There is a considerable number of heritage buildings on the site that were established during the time of Thomas O'Halloran, the significant figure within South Australia's history who established Glenthorne in the late 1830s.

It is prudent for any entity—be it a government entity, a not-for-profit entity, a private entity or even an individual—taking on a site, to undertake appropriate inspections. When we purchase a home, most of us would undertake a building inspection; and that is exactly what this thorough approach has been taken by the government over the last year or so. Working through, the EPA and the heritage branch have been involved. Even the Botanic Garden have looked at some of the plant species on there to make sure that what we are inheriting, when that comes into the reserve system, is sensible for government to take on and can be managed appropriately.

It is worth saying that there have been no surprises with that. In fact, there have been no real concerns at all. The vast majority of funds spent on the site have really just been for securing the site, undertaking those investigations and putting on that temporary ranger facility at Majors Road at O'Halloran Hill. If for some reason—and I do not foresee this at all, in fact, as minister I will not allow it to happen—that land did not come into the reserve system, the temporary ranger site could be removed from O'Halloran Hill, quite easily loaded up onto the back of the truck and taken away. It is a transportable site, so there are no permanent facilities on there yet; but there have been a range of investigations to make sure government is doing its due diligence before inheriting the site.

Dr CLOSE: Continuing on page 134, the dot point that refers to the reservoirs being opened for new recreation facilities, will the minister publicly release all the task force reports that he has received relating to opening reservoirs?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am able to make a range of documents available. I made a document, which went through the health modelling, available to the ABC who had asked for it. I am happy to make that document available. That is the document that was commissioned by SA Health in relation to the opening of the reservoirs.

I think this project is a really exciting project for South Australians. It was great to see the write-up in The Advertiser this morning, which outlined the next big tranche of works occurring for reservoirs across the state. We have seen incredible success at Myponga Reservoir with the reinvigoration of that town, just a short drive south of Adelaide, as a consequence of the opening up of the reservoir—and it is merely the opening up of the reservoir land at Myponga for walking and cycling trails. The visitation to that town sits in the hundreds every week. Of course, those people do not just visit the reservoir for a walk around. They have a pie or a pasty in the bakery, they stop at the brewery just to the north of the reservoir, and they are taking part in an economic stimulus activity in that little regional town.

I know the member for Finniss has visited a couple of times with me and has probably enjoyed a pie or a pasty himself at the Myponga bakery. I always do because I am intentional about stimulating that town's economy. This is the opportunity from this project: getting more South Australians out and about into the great outdoors, enjoying nature, getting out with their family and their friends and also visiting regional locations because most of the reservoirs that we have slated for opening are within the regional context. We have made an announcement that there will be expanded activities at Warren and Bundaleer, and we are opening up South Para Reservoir, just out of Kersbrook in the Adelaide Hills, and, of course, Myponga.

These reservoirs tend to have a destination town fairly close to them and those towns will see a significant economic uplift as this opportunity is unfolded in a methodical, careful way, as outlined in the SA Health report, which is not without due haste, but socialises the community bit by bit with these reservoir environments and carefully brings people into these precincts and educates them about what is appropriate and what is not in a reservoir context, having the appropriate reservoir rangers in force, having CCTV and gates, where appropriate, and continuing to rely on advice from SA Health. Dr David Cunliffe, in particular, a foremost expert in water quality not only in this state but in this nation—if not internationally—is providing that direct advice to the task force.

That is something that I am at significant arm's length from to ensure that the decisions are not made as to what can and will occur in a reservoir precinct before the advice of SA Health is provided alongside the advice of SA Water, in a practical operational sense, and this will then be worked through by the task force before the particular activities are allowed. I am more than happy to make public those reports, if they are not already.

Dr CLOSE: What advice did the task force give the minster on what could occur, what risks could be run, at Myponga if people went into the water as opposed to staying out of it?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The task force's advice, which is the advice of SA Health, demonstrates that, like with anything in life, if you do something different, there will be risks associated with it, but you have to mitigate those risks accordingly. I have a letter from Dr David Cunliffe, which I am happy to provide to the deputy leader, which shows that it is the expert view of SA Health that any activity undertaken and permissible to date in the reservoir environment at Myponga is within easily controllable risk management. Everything you do in life has risks associated with it, but it is about mitigating those risks. If I cross North Terrace, there is a risk, but I mitigate the risk by looking both ways and not snapchatting while crossing the road.

Mr CREGAN: That is very sensible.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Very sensible. There are lots and lots of things that have risks, and opening reservoirs does have a small level of risk associated with it; however, you mitigate those risks and you do that by following SA Health's modelling and having internationally renowned water quality experts provide you with that advice. We have Dr David Cunliffe and his team in South Australia. We are very fortunate to have him present within our state.

We follow SA Health's advice and insight very closely. They are continually reviewing their advice and they have said that we will be able to have shore-based fishing at Myponga from late 2019. What a great opportunity, heading into summer: more people visiting Myponga. It is a particularly safe place to fish, safer than doing it at the beach. We will have more kids, grandkids, parents taking kids down there, drawing—I do not know if you draw; I know nothing about fishing, to be honest—throwing a rod in the water, or whatever you do.

Dr CLOSE: With fishing, it is a line.

Mr PEDERICK: You throw the rod when you are frustrated!

The CHAIR: Cast a rod, minister.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Well, The Advertiser's headline said something about reservoir rods. I have never fished in my life, but I am sure it is good if you like it. We will have people being about to catch fish or throw them back in or whatever you do. The opportunity here to expand these recreational precincts is really good. We are excited about seeing that not only at Myponga but also at Warren, Bundaleer and South Para. We stocked South Para with 180,000 fingerlings a few months ago and I think that will become a destination fishing precinct in the coming months as well.

Dr CLOSE: The task force, presumably, gave advice on what not to do as well as what was, in their view, acceptable to do. What was the advice that related to going into the water at Myponga?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We are not—

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate that.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We do not encourage swimming.

Dr CLOSE: But if someone were to swim, what would be the possible consequences?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The risk of someone swimming and consequences from that are also extremely low. In fact, all the advice that we have relied on has been very conservative. SA Health has taken a conservative approach to this. Of course, there is a fairly established view that having people in and around the reservoir precinct actually reduces risk overall because of passive surveillance.

I have come across an unquantifiable number of people who have said to me that they are disappointed that Myponga is open because now they cannot go and secretly swim and fish as they did before. It is well known that people would be used to accessing our reservoirs in a way that perhaps they should not have done, particularly on hot summer evenings down at Myponga.

That is now much more difficult because there are many more sets of eyes in and around the reservoir than there was before. I cannot recall the specifics of what the advice said not to do, and I do not think we necessarily got a list of activities that are not allowed. What we do have is a list of what can be done and what the risk management framework should be in order to minimise the risk to water quality.

Of course, as the deputy leader knows, the best way to really minimise all risk at Myponga Reservoir is the installation of a UV treatment plant, something that was scheduled and workshopped long before the opening of reservoirs was canvassed. The reason for that was that the Myponga Reservoir is what is known as a compromised catchment. It is largely compromised by the presence of a substantial amount of dairy farming in the region, and it is likely that all cases of water quality concern in Myponga Reservoir in recent times have been as a consequence of dairy activity within that catchment.

That has all been manageable to date, but in 2019 heading into 2020, what we want is to have the best possible treatment facilities at all our reservoirs, and we know that UV treatment is something that will provide that top level of protection. When UV treatment is introduced at Myponga Reservoir, likely to be sometime in the next year to two years, that will enable a whole range of further activities to be done on that reservoir.

I do not think you would ever be encouraging people to swim in a reservoir context because it is just not a pleasant experience, but what people will be able to do on Myponga once that UV treatment plant is in place is kayaking, paddleboarding and more extensive fishing activities. I saw one thing canvassed that you could even have abseiling down the dam wall. I am not sure if that was canvassed by a member of the public or someone within the department or SA Water, but that was something that was put out there that could even be a possibility once this new water treatment plant is put in place in the next couple of years.

At the moment, we are socialising people to the environment, we are giving them the opportunity to walk around the reservoir, and also the shore-based fishing from later this year, all backed up by SA Health saying that these are appropriate, sensible projects, initiatives and activities that are available to the public with the right risk management framework in place, a framework that SA Health says is very clearly in place and can be managed into the future.

Dr CLOSE: In one to two years there will be a UV plant at Myponga which will then allow the government to choose to allow more on water activity, so presumably the UV plant is necessary to make that acceptable. Until then, the people who are at the reservoir are simply relied upon not to go into the water at all because there is no UV plant.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: We rely on people to do the right thing a lot in life. We rely on people on catastrophic bushfire days not to light fires in our national parks. If they do, there could be very bad consequences both for them and the wider community. Life—well, the life that I inhabit—requires people to do the right thing and to make judgements in line with social norms and what is legal and appropriate in South Australia in 2019.

In the next couple of years, when there is a UV plant in place as part of a prescheduled upgrade at Myponga because of the compromised catchment with the dairy farming, when that happens the government will be very keen to encourage and facilitate—and potentially private business will facilitate—access to our reservoirs. It will continue to stimulate economic activity in those regions. I think Myponga in the future is going to be an absolutely thriving town because of this policy. I think the community fear the election of a Labor government, which will close this reservoir down. I think that is incredibly disappointing.

We know that people will do the right thing. We have the appropriate risk mitigation strategy in place. It is a conservative risk mitigation strategy. It would take a large number of things to be breached at the same time for water quality to be compromised. It is my view and it is the view of SA Health that this is extremely unlikely. The risk is appropriately managed, and the opening of our reservoirs in a methodical, cautious way is something that can be done and is being undertaken.

Dr CLOSE: Further down the page on page 134, there is a reference to 'develop a program of works, in consultation with Friends of Parks'. How is the strike going with the Friends of Parks?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: How is the strike going?

Dr CLOSE: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: You might have to ask them that, deputy leader.

Dr CLOSE: Are you not aware of the absence of Friends of Parks working on the ground in national parks, particularly in Flinders Chase?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I understand that some Friends of Parks—and I believe they are largely, if not completely, isolated to Kangaroo Island—chose to down tools, so to speak, as a consequence of the previous government's project to put high-end accommodation into the Flinders Chase National Park. The deputy leader would be aware that, under the previous minister, minister Hunter, and the member for Mawson, minister Bignell, at the time, a tender was put out seeking private organisations who wanted to create accommodation opportunities within the Flinders Chase National Park, essentially leveraging off the previous government's investment—a worthy investment, I might add—in the creation of the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail.

I think it is fair to say that the way the previous government handled that process in terms of not engaging the friends groups up-front and involving them in the shaping of what that accommodation offering might look like certainly got those friends groups considerably offside. That is a great pity because my department could not function without friends groups. They do so much to enhance the natural environment. They extend the capacity of rangers. Remembering that the previous government gutted the rangers workforce, we need friends groups more than ever. We are rebuilding that workforce, but they cannot do it all themselves.

The presence of friends groups in our parks and reserves really does extend the environmental restoration capacity. Dealing with weeds and the planting and revegetation is all core business of these friends groups. Of course, they also contribute to the wellbeing of people living in the community because they are connecting people, building a sense of community and, as a consequence, wellbeing, so I am very keen to continue to support friends groups wherever possible.

One of the reasons I am the environment minister today is because I founded a friends group in Hallett Cove with some neighbours in 2006. That sort of let me into community service and, subsequently, standing for election. Friends groups mean a huge amount to me as the minister. We are going to continue to support them and build up their prominence in our reserve system, giving them support.

I fully expect some of our volunteer rangers to be members of friends groups. They are invaluable, but they must be engaged with and their views must be sought. That is what the previous government did not do with regard to Flinders Chase National Park. It got those groups offside, and it is fair to say that they are still offside—and I can see why.

We have worked hard to reduce the size and the scope of that project, as initiated under the previous government. We have achieved a reduction in the scope and a reduction in the environmental impact, but some of the friends groups and some individuals within the friends groups still feel aggrieved. I think it is a great shame, given that, in a couple of months' time, it will be the hundredth anniversary of Flinders Chase National Park. It really is an iconic national park, not only in the context of Kangaroo Island but also in the broader context of South Australia and Australia's reserve system.

I hope that the friends groups will be able to catch up with me in due course. I have met representatives of the friends groups several times to talk about this project and how we can satisfy them that the right thing is being done. I hate passing the buck and saying, 'I inherited this shambles from the previous government,' but, quite simply, I did.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate that this question may need to be taken on notice, but can the minister provide, for each of the last five years, the number of people who are in Friends of Parks?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will have to take that question on notice. I am not sure it is data that the department can provide in a formal sense. A lot of the work of Friends of Parks occurs on quite an informal basis. I know that, of the friends groups that I have associations with through personal interest or through electorate activities, some of them have formal memberships while others have members who come and go on an as-needs and social basis. I can certainly look into that and try to get a number. Mr Schutz, do you have any further advice on that and whether we collect that data?

Mr SCHUTZ: I would agree with the minister's comments. Depending on how you determine the scope of friends groups, they can be different things. We can certainly provide the data that we have, but I suspect that that might not be completely representative of all the friends groups and members across the state.

Dr CLOSE: I understand; do whatever you can do. To return to the rangers, the minister said earlier that there are some rangers who had previously been construction and maintenance workers. I think eight of those have now taken up the role of ranger. What has happened to the positions and work that those people were previously doing? Have they been replaced with additional construction and maintenance workers?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will ask the chief executive to answer this question.

Mr SCHUTZ: In some cases yes, and in other cases no. There is quite an overlap between what we call base-grade rangers and construction and maintenance workers, particularly in some of our regional locations where they do exactly the same work. It is more about conditions of employment, flexibility of work arrangements and career paths, so in some cases they would continue to do some of those duties while they are being provided with new opportunities. In other situations, we may well have found alternative means to deliver those services that they might have been doing at a very basic level.

I can say that, in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region, we have had a very active program, using Correctional Services individuals in some of our parks to help maintain some of our visitor facilities, such as toilets, barbecues and picnic areas. That has proven very beneficial. It allows some of our paid staff to then engage in higher value work in regard to the parks themselves, such as conservation work and working with community and volunteer groups. So it just depends where, and there is not a single answer to that.

Dr CLOSE: I understand. Perhaps the minister could take on notice, for each of those eight people who changed titles, what has happened behind the position that they were in.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am happy to take that on notice.

Dr CLOSE: I appreciate it. On page 135, there is a reference to a once-off payment for voluntary separation packages for 2018-19. Were all the TVSPs and VSPs the minister referred to earlier in this session paid for by the department or were some paid for by Treasury; in which case, why?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: They were all paid by Treasury. That would be the case for the vast majority of targeted voluntary separation packages across government since the 2018-19 budget was handed down in September last year. The Treasurer announced a central fund to support line agencies with the transition of their workforces, so all the departments' separation packages were paid for centrally.

Dr CLOSE: In that case, perhaps the minister could explain the reference to the once-off payment of voluntary separation packages in 2018-19 as being an explanation of significant movement?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Where is that, deputy leader?

Dr CLOSE: In the middle of page 135, between the two tables.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I will ask Mr O'Brien to answer that.

Mr O'BRIEN: Through the Chair, the payment has come into the department during the year, which has inflated our budget figures, and that in itself has then created a variance to the following year.

Dr CLOSE: Easy. Thank you.

Mr CREGAN: Minister, can I take you to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, Agency Statements, page 141, program 3. Can you outline for the committee how the biodiversity credit exchange will operate and its impact on landowners?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I certainly can, member for Kavel. I think you will be very interested by the biodiversity credit exchange scheme, which has been established by the Native Vegetation Council and I think has been a particularly innovative use of the native Vegetation Council's insight and support that it gives the government. I think native vegetation is something that is so important for the resilience of our landscape. Not only is it critical habitat; it is also an important carbon sink in a time in our humanity's history when carbon sinks are needed more than ever.

The preservation and stewardship of native vegetation in South Australia's landscape is a critical part of effective and responsible environmental management. I have been delighted to work alongside the Native Vegetation Council—the chairman is Emily Jenke—and other members of that council since I became the minister last year and to talk to them. I do talk to them regularly about the practical projects that they are undertaking to support landholders and those who have native vegetation and those who have a need to clear native vegetation for usually an economic project.

The Native Vegetation Council is looking to support those groups and provide them with the tools with which they can manage native vegetation and contribute to our native vegetation stocks in this state in a really positive, proactive and innovative way.

The development and establishment of the biodiversity credit offsets scheme under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 is a unique way regional landholders can access funding associated with developments in their region. When developers require to clear native vegetation, there is usually a need to offset this loss. Industry has expressed a preference in purchasing credits that have a tangible benefit to local landholders so that they can demonstrate in a very immediate and distinct way how their particular clearance is offset and can at least balance if not enhance the local environment.

Enhancing would certainly be in the longer term, but in a society and an age where corporate responsibility is increasingly desired by members of the community, by stakeholders and by shareholders, the ability to point in a very tangible way to the offsets being obtained and developed as a result of a clearance somewhere nearby is very important and means a lot to the brand and sustainability of many of these organisations.

Mr CREGAN: Thank you.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I have not finished.

Mr CREGAN: Excellent.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I was just taking a drink of water. I am not even halfway through my notes yet.

Mr CREGAN: Brilliant. That is the kind of detail I was looking for.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I know you are thrilled about this, member for Kavel. You might be able to share this with some of your constituents because I find that a lot of people do not yet know about this project, and it is certainly important for us to communicate it as local members of parliament. My regional colleagues often come to me with native vegetation challenges.

To accelerate the establishment of a market in South Australia, the Native Vegetation Council through the Department for Environment and Water has begun this program, which we have called the Biodiversity Credit Exchange, which provides incentives to landholders to establish credit sites on their land. The Native Vegetation Council has endorsed the use of the Native Vegetation Fund to pay landholders up-front for on-ground works to achieve a biodiversity credit. This credit will then be sold at cost to clearance proponents, and the Native Vegetation Fund reimbursed through the sale, creating a revolving fund for further works.

My department is working closely with landholders in target areas, initially the South Australian Arid Lands and the Northern and Yorke regions, to assess their sites and determine the credit that their land may generate for clearance proponents such as solar farm developers and the petroleum and mining industries. We are seeing more and more the quite challenging situation emerge where a solar project, which is so important for clean, green climate industries, because of the nature of the solar farms, needs to undertake quite large clearances. There is almost a perversity in that. The proponents of solar projects are very keen to get these offset projects in an immediate region so that they can point in a very tangible way to what they are doing to offset the native vegetation losses which are a result of their activities.

Landholders will undertake on-ground action such as pest, plant and animal control, stock exclusion activities such as fencing and, in some cases, revegetation works. This work will improve the condition of properties and inject new investment for restoring our landscapes. Landholders will enter into an agreement that will require them to manage the land over time to generate biodiversity credits. The outcome will be a pool of credit available to all developers. This central pool streamlines approvals for developers and industry and allows them to efficiently satisfy their obligations while benefiting the local landholder.

Above and beyond the provision of a market for South Australia, the Biodiversity Credit Exchange will contribute to our back-to-basics approach through tackling pest animals, weeds and soil erosion while building stronger connections between regional development and regional communities. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Native Vegetation Council for their pioneering of this innovative solution.

Mr CREGAN: Thank you for your very fulsome answer.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: No problem.

Dr CLOSE: At page 137, the River Murray, when will there be a response to the royal commission, minister?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Since receiving the royal commission at the end of January 2019, the government has been working through a response and has been considering both the findings of South Australia's royal commission and the Productivity Commission report that was required under legislation to investigate and report on progress and, I guess, the overall quality of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the work of the authority.

Members would be aware that following the release of the report the Premier wrote to the Prime Minister seeking a meeting of basin first ministers to look into the comments, recommendations and findings of the royal commission. Because of caretaker periods and New South Wales rolling into the federal election, it was hard to get that meeting of first ministers.

We deemed this necessary because, unlike other independent reports to government, very few of the recommendations contained in the royal commission or the Productivity Commission's report are in South Australia's remit to implement alone, and cross jurisdiction buy-in is required. This is something that the Premier and I identified.

The Council of Australian Governments is scheduled to meet on 9 August 2019—so towards the end of next week—and the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report is listed for discussion amongst basin first ministers. Once that meeting has been held and the findings analysed by first ministers, the South Australian state government will be in a better position to release our response to the South Australian royal commission.

Dr CLOSE: Minister, is it acceptable to ask about the report that South Australia is undertaking on the use of the desalination plant here, or would you prefer that in the SA Water section?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I think here, yes.

Dr CLOSE: In that case, what is the progress of that investigation?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: That investigation is being finalised at the moment. It is very close to completion. For context, I think it is important to say that, as much an act of goodwill as anything else, South Australia agreed (and it was funded by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority) to take a good look at whether it would be worthwhile operating the desalination plant as a potential offset to the River Murray water take; for example, returning water to the river.

The desal plant study was undertaken by an independent organisation—Aurecon, I think they are called—with support from both SA Water, the owners and operators of the desalination plant, as well as the Department for Environment and Water. We have always been very clear that South Australia had little interest in operating the desalination plant as a River Murray offset if it did not make sense financially to do so, and we know that it would not make sense financially to do so by our state alone. It might stack up—and that is 'might' underlined and in bold—if supported federally, but the findings of the project will be released in the coming weeks.

Dr CLOSE: Regarding the $70 million referred to under the second dot point for measures to support the long-term health of the Coorong and Lower Lakes, in the communiqué of the ministerial council that was described as remaining unspent South Australian state priority project funds of around $70 million that would be quarantined for measures to support the long-term health of the Coorong. What alternative projects were being considered prior to the decision that it would be the Coorong that would receive South Australia's existing $70 million?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not think any projects were being considered. That was one of the surprises when I became the minister, that no projects had actually been pitched by the previous minister or the previous government to take up this money, or none had been pitched to the federal government. I am unaware if, under the previous government, other projects were being worked up, but there did not appear to be anything.

That is why I certainly deemed this money to be money that we would otherwise not have got. In fact, there was commentary at the time by other administrations interstate and federally that that money might not even be secure because South Australia had not put its hand up historically to take that money. It might have just been ring-fenced for evermore.

When I became the minister, I identified that the Coorong was a particular site of state significance under particular stress because of dry conditions, and that there was a real opportunity here to secure $70 million of funding to undertake conservation and scientific works in particular and investigative works to secure and sustain the health and resilience of the Coorong. We know that is such a significant Ramsar-listed wetland. It is internationally significant.

It is an international destination for birdlife and one that is also important for ecotourism and the resilience and health of communities around the Lower Lakes and towns like Meningie through to Goolwa. I know this project will take several years, if not longer, to roll out in full, but it really has the capacity to create a high level of resilience and strength in that unique natural environment.

Dr CLOSE: But the money had sat in the South Australian state priority project allocation from the federal government prior to the decision to allocate it to the Coorong.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes, it had.

Dr CLOSE: When the COAG discussion occurs at the end of next week, how long will the session be in which the Murray-Darling Basin will be discussed?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am unaware of how long that will be. That question would have to be put to the Premier.

Dr CLOSE: There will presumably be the same answer to this question. Does this minister have access to the agenda or is it simply that the royal commission will be discussed?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I do not yet have access to the agenda.

Dr CLOSE: With the existence of additional socio-economic criteria that were not in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, when did the department change its position on the wisdom of having additional criteria that projects would need to meet as part of the 450 gigalitres?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: It was not a case of additional criteria. There were no criteria at all under the plan.

Dr CLOSE: And there are now, so that would suggest—

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Well, it was not possible to advance the plan without some sort of test and criteria being put in place. It was just an impossibility, and I think it was always foreseen that criteria of some sort would have to be established. As a consequence of the meeting on 14 December 2018, the criteria were established. Much of that criteria was very dull and low-hanging fruit. I have been through it many times with a fine-tooth comb canvassing issues such as community engagement and taking into consideration environmental, social and economic impacts.

The criteria has historically been quite easy to fulfil in South Australia's Riverland, and there is absolutely no reason why that criteria cannot be fulfilled in the context of other jurisdictions as well. We are seeing progress towards that. We are seeing projects out to tender in Victoria, something that before the ministerial council would have been seen as pie in the sky. The state of Victoria is now working through these projects, saying to their communities, 'Do you have potential projects to put forward as efficiency projects that can then access money?'

I am continually saying to my colleagues interstate, 'Come to South Australia. Come and look and see what we have done in the Riverland.' Not only have we returned water to the environment but we have also in some cases, if not maintained a neutral economic position, actually expanded productivity using far less water. South Australia's Riverland provides the case study as to how these projects can be done and done well, and can be done using the economic and social criteria test that has been put into the plan.

At the ministerial council, I had a choice to negotiate and work through those items and create a test with the other states because in my view a test was foreseen under the plan, or we could have seen New South Wales and Victoria walk away from the plan.

Mr BASHAM: I refer the committee to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 133. Will the minister outline for the committee the Department for Environment and Water's commitment to expand visitor experiences in the state, in particular, the redevelopment of the Deep Creek Conservation Park and the Heysen Trail as part of the Great Southern Ocean Walk initiative?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: The development of nature-based tourism activities and attractions within our national parks is something that was initiated by the previous government and is being driven forward by the current administration. We think that our national parks—as I said earlier in this session, some 21 per cent of our state—give us an incredible opportunity to draw people to South Australia, to enjoy those parks, to experience them and to share the natural wonders that they have to offer.

We will continue to sensitively look for projects that will, in my view, often have a conservation dividend attached to them. If a private sector organisation is working to create an experience within the context of a national park, it is important that those projects are seen by their communities to deliver a conservation dividend of some sort of uplift in terms of the vegetation, pest control and natural experience within those parks.

These projects sometimes can occur fairly organically with existing buildings and things like that. On other occasions, they will require enabling infrastructure to be provided by the government. We saw that, and I do applaud the previous government for undertaking the planning and implementation work around the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail. We have seen that project flourish.

I understand that for every visitor who completes the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail, which is a multiday walk, they spend an extra two nights, on average, doing other things on the island not associated with the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail. That means an extra two nights in other accommodation and an extra two days' worth of meals, buying gifts and souvenirs, travelling around the island and employing guides. That is the sort of work that we want to encourage and the sort of economic input that we want to see occur across South Australia. Notwithstanding the challenges the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail project has had in recent times, I am very hopeful we can learn from that and leverage other experiences.

One of those experiences that was included in the 2019-20 state budget was the development of a multiday walk to activate and bring to life the Heysen Trail between Cape Jervis and Victor Harbor and create an experience which we want to be called the Great Southern Ocean Walk, keeping the character, branding and the significance of the Heysen Trail in place but essentially retrofitting a multiday walk for that first section of the trail. This is a project that has bubbled out of the community. It has not been a project that has necessarily been handed down by government.

It is a project that was initiated by the community, largely a community group under the auspices of the District Council of Yankalilla and the leadership there of Mayor Glen Rowlands, but also local business people, accommodation providers, guided walk providers and the like who have come on board and said let's actually drive forward the activation of this section of the Heysen Trail. The landscape is incredible. It moves through a couple of conservation parks, being Deep Creek Conservation Park and Newland Head Conservation Park, both with active friends groups who will be engaging continually throughout this process, again, to ensure that we do not end up with a similar situation that has unfolded on Kangaroo Island.

The opportunity to bring this trail to life is really substantial. It will involve a $6 million upgrade of the trail, better signage, branding, better toilet facilities, campgrounds, really looking at what we did on the Kangaroo Island Wilderness Trail, which is a fairly high-end experience in terms of the quality of the campsites and toilets and doing something very similar over on the mainland, which is obviously more accessible in a broader sense than the Kangaroo Island trail.

Regarding accessibility, it is also worth mentioning that this trail is also going to have a destination within it that has a high level of accessibility for people who are using wheelchairs and need assistance with walking. That is something quite unique. This is going to be a wilderness experience but one that people can gain access to. That is something that I am really proud to develop alongside the community and work with my department to see unfold. I think that in itself can become a tourism destination but, more than that, we can really be very proud as a state that we have accessibility built into one of our premier walking trails.

It will take two or three years to develop this project. Work will begin fairly soon, but over the coming weeks and months we will be engaging very heavily with that group out of the District Council of Yankalilla as to what this will look like and how the council can be involved. The council is a great and willing partner and the City of Victor Harbor, likewise, is also likely to be involved in some way along the way. It is a good project. I know that the member Finniss has a particular interest in it, and it will be great to continue to update members as that unfolds in the coming months and years.

Dr CLOSE: I refer you to page 138, the management of groundwater. What is the status of the review of the science behind the South-East groundwater allocation?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Members would be aware that there has been considerable debate, concern and conjecture amongst landowners in the South-East of our state in relation to the Lower Limestone Coast Water Allocation Plan. When we were in opposition, we said that we would put on hold further reductions to allocations under the water allocation plan while an independent review of the science underpinning the reductions was conducted.

In early March 2019, I received the findings of the science review, led by an independent panel of scientists from the Goyder Institute for Water Research from the South-East natural resources management board, and I approved its release to the stakeholder advisory group on 12 March 2019. I understand the natural resources management board has now completed a risk assessment with stakeholders and experts, which is now in the very start final stages of peer review. Once this work is finalised, the findings from the science review, the risk assessment and feedback from the stakeholder advisory group and the board will inform my decision as to whether further reductions to allocations are required.

The Goyder panel's report states that a substantial body of scientific work has been conducted on the groundwater resources of the Lower Limestone Coast Prescribed Wells Area and that underpins the water allocation planning. The panel described that while water tables were declining in the Lower Limestone Coast at the time the water allocation was completed, there has been recovery in a number of management areas since then, really underlining the importance of this science being continually reviewed and done so in order to insert confidence into the process from landowners and stakeholders because, of course, it is their livelihoods that are at stake if decisions are made based on the wrong scientific information.

The panel concluded that this recovery is variable across the Lower Limestone Coast and that in some management areas where reductions were placed on hold, declining water tables could still pose a risk to irrigators, stock and domestic water users and high-value environmental wetlands.

The CHAIR: Minister, unfortunately time has expired.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am devastated.

The CHAIR: No doubt you are. There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payment for the portfolio Department for Environment and Water completed.

Sitting suspended from 15:15 to 15:30.