Adjournment Debate

WATER TRANSFERS

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (16:57): Might I say, sir, how impressed we are with you in the chair. You bring a certain aura to the position, and I hope that I am in this place when you are able to accede to that position because you certainly have the training. Today I raise an issue about which I have spoken previously in this house; that is, water transfers and the length of time it is taking for them to be assessed and processed. I first spoke about water transfers in this house on 14 November last year and was told that the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (DWLBC) is simply under resourced and cannot keep up with the demand, hence why irrigators and farmers were experiencing long delays.

That answer just does not cut with me. We are talking about farmers and irrigators who have to sit and watch their livelihood shrivel up and die as they cannot get water, and when they have a chance to purchase a little extra or transfer their licences between one of their orchards or vineyards to another, which might enable their crops, trees or vines to live a little longer, there are untold delays with getting transfers processed. It is just another one of this government's bureaucratic messes.

Unfortunately, the speech I gave last year has achieved nothing. Constituents in my electorate have contacted me since and informed me that they have and are experiencing lengthy delays with the processing of their water transfers. One particular case which has been brought to my attention is that of a company which has had several water transfers lodged with the department and which has experienced ridiculous delays and stress, one transfer taking over 10 months to be processed and approved—and it was. Surely, a reasonable minimum time frame is set for water transfers to be processed. I think that four to six weeks should be sufficient time for the department to process water transfers, especially as we are experiencing a drought and farmers and irrigators are reliant upon whatever water they can get.

One constituent explained to me that they had been in regular contact with DWLBC regarding the length of time taken to process transfer applications and was told that water transfers take 40 business days and required a hydrogeological assessment. What a lot of rubbish! There must be some urgency about water transfers. People need water more than ever at times such as this if their crops, vines and orchards are to have any chance at all of surviving, let alone produce a crop. I am aware of an application that was submitted to the department for water to be transferred between two companies owned by the same person. After waiting over 12 months and making repeated inquiries with the department, the party concerned simply cancelled the application out of pure frustration and submitted a different one. I do not understand how something that seems so straightforward and simple could become so difficult. This person was merely shifting water from one of their company's properties to another of their company's properties on the same watertable.

These cases are not isolated. I have heard from many constituents within my electorate who have experienced similar difficulties in their dealings with the department with respect to water transfers. One constituent told me that he had simply been trying to get a water transfer between two of his properties. One vineyard was already stressed and would not produce a good crop. However, another of his vineyards was doing better but needed more water, and that was the reason for applying for the transfer. It is better to get some crop than none at all.

On the surface, this transfer appeared as though it would be fairly easy to process. However, it took the department nine weeks to complete. Something needs to be done to speed up this process as we continue this very dry spell. We are moving into a desperate situation right across this state. Vintage is taking place at the present time, and some growers need the water now. There is no sense in talking four to six weeks' time, because it will be too late. The grapes would have withered and died or been picked without being in premium condition.

As I said, this state and this country are experiencing the worst drought on record. We simply must move the water out as quickly as possible. Farmers and irrigators who are in dire straits are at the mercy of the government, the department and the burgeoning bureaucracy. They should at least grant interim rights. Why do we muck around with this bureaucracy? Can they not say to the growers, 'We will give you the right to pump some water while we assess this and we will get back to you. If there is a problem, we will let you know,' and in the meantime let them water their vines or trees?

I also want to raise another matter involving the safety of children that has been brought to my attention over the past few years by a number of my constituents. It is my duty, as a representative of the people, to raise concerns on their behalf. The problem is with the roads in the Tanunda Primary School precinct, particularly Murray Street in Tanunda, which is not very far from my office. In the area are two schools—the Tanunda Primary School and the Faith Lutheran Secondary School, which I mentioned in the house this morning—a local childcare centre and the Tanunda YMCA recreation fitness centre, and they are all in close proximity to each other.

The route is heavily utilised by trucks and local through traffic, along with the traffic that frequents the schools, the childcare centre and the YMCA fitness centre. The large volumes of traffic in the area pose a great risk to pedestrians and cyclists who attempt to cross Murray Street, which is the main arterial road in the area. I cross that same street in front of my office, and it is pretty horrific to think that children cross there: it really worries me. Some have witnessed what could have been a serious accident; others claim that the area is just an accident waiting to happen.

I have raised this matter before and had articles in the local media imploring the council to act, and I received a fair bit of criticism for that. Murray Street is the responsibility of Transport SA, and an assessment undertaken last year by the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure shows that the number of pedestrians crossing in the area is well below the minimum number required to justify the installation of a pedestrian crossing. However, given the large volume of traffic in the area, particularly in the mornings and afternoons when students are going to and from school, the local community and I find it difficult to understand how the department's assessment could draw this conclusion. Anyway, who would cross there when it is so dangerous? Those who do certainly run a risk: it is Russian roulette.

The justification for a pedestrian crossing is defined in the Code of Technical Requirements for the Legal Use of Traffic Control Devices. The code states that, in two separate periods of a typical weekday, there are no fewer than 60 pedestrians crossing the roadway within close proximity of the site and at least 600 vehicles passing the site. The warrant is also subject to the product of the number of pedestrians per hour and the vehicles in the same hour exceeding 90,000. The Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure said that, in the case of the Murray Street precinct, its assessment showed that the maximum hourly pedestrian movement is about 20 and the number of vehicles passing the site is 900, making the product of the pedestrian and traffic volume about 18,000.

To anyone familiar with the area, the figures regarding the number of pedestrians crossing this road seem largely inaccurate. One has to ask at what times of the day the department undertook its assessments, because during the peak school times there is far more foot traffic in the area than a mere 20 adults and children. At least the assessment reflected my concerns and those of the community with respect to the volume of traffic in the area, which far exceeds the minimum number per hour, as outlined in the warrant relating to pedestrian crossings.

Better road infrastructure and safety measures would likely increase the number of children who ride or walk to school. In an era where there is a strong push towards physical activity in children to overcome the current obesity epidemic, the school community is largely prohibited from walking to school because of the dreadfully unsafe approaches. The safety of children is paramount. For parents to allow their children to walk or ride to school, even under parental supervision, they have to be assured of their safety, and currently they are not.

I want to put these matters on the record because I have done my bit and nothing seems to have been done. I do not want to come back later and say: 'I told you so.' The local community does not want to be confronted with a situation where there is a potential for tragedy, or at least a bad accident.

Last year, I contacted the Minister for Road Safety, who informed me that the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure recommended that the installation of a pedestrian refuge would be the most appropriate treatment. The Tanunda Community Road Safety Committee was also given this response. However, after joint consultations between the Barossa Council and the local school community, the decision was made to turn down the offer of a pedestrian refuge. The thought behind it was that, if the offer of a pedestrian refuge was accepted, the state government would consider the matter closed and no further action would take place, and many consider a pedestrian refuge inadequate for the situation.

Finally, I want to put on the record my hope that there will be some action. This area is very busy, and it is getting busier by the minute, because more and more activity is taking place there—and I have been tipped off that a new primary school could be built there in the next couple of years. It is a terrible situation. Every time I look out my office window, I see the traffic going past. It is horrific when one considers that children are crossing a few hundred yards further down. It is wrong. I urge the government to please hear the call and get together with the Barossa Council and fix this problem and make it safe for our kids.

Motion carried.

At 17:06 the house adjourned until Wednesday 5 March 2008 at 11:00.