STATUTES AMENDMENT (WATER CONSERVATION TARGET AND SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 February 2008. Page 2081.)

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (10:47): I rise today to make some comment on this bill, which was introduced by the member for Mitchell, and note that an almost identical bill was introduced in the other place last year by the Hon. Mark Parnell. I also note that that bill has been pulled in the upper house because the opposition called for a select committee (which has been formed) to look into these matters. Be that as it may, I want to refer to some of the clauses in this bill. I think that the following provision in clause 4 is very apt, especially in relation to people living in the Lower Murray and lakes area:

a requirement for the corporation to perform its commercial and non-commercial operations in a manner that ensures proper consideration is given to—

(a) the need to conserve, and reduce adverse effects on, water resources; and

(b) the need to ensure that development is ecologically sustainable;

Further, clause 5(1) proposes to insert:

(ab) to carry out and facilitate research about conserving or reducing adverse effects on water resources

I believe this is a very timely bill in that respect: having witnessed at first-hand the devastation occurring below Lock 1, I am well aware that the Murray-Darling Basin has been in drought for up to seven years in places. It is having a long and sustained effect on the whole basin, but I am also alarmed that we still have not resolved the matter of over-allocations so that we make sure that everyone is treated equitably in their ability to access fresh water. We have an alarming situation where ferries for transport are dropping out of service, because water has not been managed properly, and people just do not have good water to service their homes. On the Narrung Peninsula they are flushing their toilets with a black ooze; it is water that you can barely shower in.

People are going up to three kilometres out into Lake Albert to access water just to keep their houses going. They have long shut down industries because they realise that that is what they need to do to survive. They are being very resourceful, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, but they are also running into problems because the supply is just not there. Even people who have invested upwards of $200,000 in desalination are finding out that access to that very saline water is getting difficult at this stage. I know that the Raukkan community has had to extend its pipe several hundred metres out into the lake to access water for the Aboriginal community of up to 200 people.

It is a dire situation and, in the State Strategic Plan, the government has a target of reducing Adelaide's water use by 22 per cent, but get this: by 2025. Many people in this place will not even be here then, so it will become some other politicians' issues. This issue certainly needs to be addressed. I have spoken in this place before about fast-tracking water supplies to the communities of Langhorne Creek, Narrung and those around the Meningie region because they are really suffering.

I want to talk about a letter in today's Stock Journal written by Terry Sim, who is very knowledgeable about Lake Alexandrina and its situation, because I believe it is important that everyone gets the right idea about where the Lower Lakes fit in with the whole river supply as far as our fresh water supply—and its conservation—is concerned, not only for Adelaide users but also country users. The letter dated 6 March 2008 entitled 'Fresh v salt: get it right' states:

Sir, the comment by Ken Jury (Stock Journal, February 21) regarding the building of a weir near Wellington and allowing seawater into Lakes Alexandrina and Albert 'to gradually return the region to its original estuarine feature' is ill-informed and wrong. The lakes were originally freshwater lakes. The amount of water flowing down the river and discharging to the sea through the River Murray mouth stopped seawater from entering those lakes. For thousands of years, this was the case.

It was not until Europeans started extracting water from the river and altering the amount of water entering the lakes that seawater began invading. This occurred from the late 1800s. Until then, the lakes were a freshwater paradise fringed with reeds and other vegetation and abounding wildlife. In December, 1837, the party of Cock, Finlayson, Wyatt and Barton walked down the Bremer to Lake Alexandrina and found that 'the lake appears to be of vast extent, the waters being quite fresh and sweet'.

Sturt, in an 1838 report after a visit to the lakes, said: 'During my late visit I never observed the sea running in, but a strong current always setting out of the channel. From what I observed, I am led to think, that the level of the lake is above high water mark.' The Strathalbyn Southern Argus, in the editorial of August 1875, comments that 'Lake Alexandrina is 12 miles from our town, and is a noble lake of freshwater.' It is time that the management of the River Murray should be from the mouth upstream and a sufficient allocation of water should be given to the environment. This would return it to a healthy working river—the whole river including Lakes Alexandrina, Albert and the Coorong.

I believe that to be a very accurate description of how the lakes were before extraction began. It was only with extraction that we had saline slugs of water pushing into the Murray, and I will acknowledge that they did push up as far as Mannum, but they were saline slugs that pushed up once we started mining that resource.

With this bill, we have to make sure that we start getting things right, instead of using SA Water as a cash cow, which it has been for the last six years, contributing $1.6 billion to Treasury coffers. Treasury might have to tighten its belt somewhere else, or else be more prudent in its spending: perhaps we could cut some of the 10,000 unallocated public servants—10,000 people who were not budgeted for. That would be a good start to get us back on track.

In closing, I think it does deserve very careful management, because we stand to lose our two iconic lakes (Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina) and the Coorong, and they all make up what I believe is a vital part of the water supply for the whole state, not just this city. We also need to see what a thorough investigation that the select committee into the operations of SA Water and its charter comes up with so that we get a full assessment of what is going on.

The SPEAKER: The member for Giles.

Ms BREUER: I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Mr Speaker, I now want to speak.

The SPEAKER: Well, it has been moved. The member for Giles can withdraw the motion. Does the member for Giles still want to proceed with the motion to adjourn?

Ms BREUER: I will allow the member to speak, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Fisher.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:57): Thank you, sir, and I thank the member for Giles for her courtesy. I just want to make a brief contribution. I believe this bill has merit, and I remind members of what it seeks to do. In essence (and I am paraphrasing), the bill wants SA Water not only to be commercially competent but also to pay due heed to the need to conserve and reduce adverse effects on water resources, and, secondly, to ensure that developments in which SA Water is involved and supports and sustains are ecologically sustainable. I do not know how anyone could object to those requirements.

One issue that has concerned me for some time in relation to SA Water is that I believe it is in breach of competition policy in that it owns the water (the bulk water), it sets the rules about the use of bulk water and it sets the price, and then it enforces the pricing and other regimes associated with using water. If that is not in breach of what competition policy is about, I do not know what is.

I believe the Rudd government will soon move to revitalise competition policy and apply it throughout the country to corporations which are owned by government and which do not abide by competition rules. But, in terms of conserving water, there is a conflict because, as the member for Hammond pointed out, SA Water has been used as a milch cow not just under this government but also under previous governments. It is just an easy way of extracting money from the community. But therein lies a conflict because, in a way, SA Water needs to sell as much water as possible to make as much money as possible but, at the same time, we have this current and ongoing need to conserve water.

So, there is an immediate and potential conflict arising from the operations of SA Water, and I will give a couple of examples. At the moment (and these statistics come from Waterproofing Adelaide), when our reservoirs (that is, our Hills reservoirs) are at 60 per cent capacity, which they are close to at the moment, we lose somewhere of the order of 14,000 megalitres per annum of water in evaporation. So, on a day like today, there is a lot of water going up into the sky—and throughout the whole year—at that level. Obviously, the holding in the reservoir changes but, at 6  per cent capacity, 14,000 megalitres is evaporated.

SA Water has done costings on covering the reservoirs in the Adelaide Hills, amounting to about $300 million, with very minimal annual maintenance costs. The pipes do not need to be changed and no other significant infrastructure is involved. An el-cheapo version would cost about $2 million or $3 million but, if it is to be done properly, it will cost a lot more. That is one strategy that could well be pursued.

The other strategy is significant. Annually, in Adelaide in particular (although it would not be just Adelaide), according to Waterproofing Adelaide, SA Water loses 12,000 megalitres from leaks, burst water mains, and so on. That is a lot of water per annum to be lost to the system. Traditionally, SA Water has regarded that as an administrative cost and has not been too upset about it, but I think it is more sensitive now that the public gets agitated when they see water gushing out of water mains.

I think that the provisions inserted in this bill by the member for Mitchell requiring SA Water to be focused on conserving water and ensuring that developments are ecologically sustainable are absolutely fundamental and sensible. I know that members in another place have also pushed for similar requirements in relation to SA Water.

I trust that the government will take on board the particular views expressed and also look at the issue of SA Water being part of a more competitive economic environment, as well as an environmentally sustainable one, rather than just lumbering on, as it tends to do—that is no reflection on the people involved—and being used simply as a cash register.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:02): As the member for Hammond pointed out earlier, this matter is to be reviewed by a select committee in the upper house, and I am pleased about that. I would like to use this opportunity to speak about a particular instance that came to light in the public hearing of the Public Works Committee yesterday. My colleague the member for Finniss is actually on the radio as we speak clarifying the situation.

We were told yesterday that the pilot desal plant being proposed by the government will be producing about 125 gigalitres, which is about 12 tanker-loads of water a day, and that that water would go straight into the ocean. There is no plan whatsoever to use that water. It was not offered to the local councils of Marion and Onkaparinga. It has been confirmed that the mayors had a briefing from the Minister for Water Security and the Minister for the Southern Suburbs about the pilot desal plant and they were told that the water was going straight into the ocean. There is some perception out there that the government had this idea that the water would be used, but that idea came from the member for Finniss during yesterday's committee meeting.

I commend the committee process, because we have heard the laterally thinking member for Finniss ably expressing his view at a committee meeting about what should be done with our water, rather than it being wasted and sent out to sea; and the water body (SA Water) has now agreed to consult with the councils about how they might be able to use that water.

I point out that, in the original submission, there was no intention whatsoever to use that water, so that during the pilot program 12 tanker-loads of water would be going back into the gulf every day. We must ask ourselves why that should be allowed to occur, when we see our parks and gardens throughout the city and suburbs, including the suburbs around the pilot plant, suffering so much through lack of water, with 30, 40, 50, up to 60 years' tree growth being damaged permanently.

A number of elm trees in the city of Adelaide are dying because they have not had water. We do not have water in the Rymill Park pond. We do not have fountains operating at the end of Glen Osmond Road and Cross Road—the gateway and welcoming point to Adelaide. Yet SA Water, in the full knowledge of the water minister and the Minister for the Southern Suburbs, was going to pump 12 tanker loads of desalinated water into the gulf.

I think the debate on this bill has helped to raise the fact that we need to be lateral thinkers and put the conservation of water high on the agenda. I feel for constituents in country seats who are really struggling. They have years of growth vines and trees, and they are at severe risk of losing them.

In my electorate of Unley, we have many established gardens. They are referred to as the leafy eastern suburbs, and Unley comes within that demographic. They are leafy because we have some very old and established trees but, again, they are at risk in the current environment. However, there is no lateral thinking whatsoever from the government or the minister, and we have seen 12 tanker loads of desalinated water pumped into the gulf.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:06): I think members should think for a while about the circumstances in which we find ourselves from a climatic point of view. One school of thought holds the view that we are going through a period of some years of drought, after which we will return to a more familiar pattern of climate. That school of thought points to a period during the Second World War, for example, when we went through many years of very dry weather. I do not have any recollection of that period, but I understand from the figures that that is the case. I believe that around 1900 there was a similar period, when for many years the people on the land experienced very dry conditions, and great difficulties and shortages were caused by that period of dry weather.

Of course, the population of South Australia was not what it is now, and the intensity of agricultural activity was not what it is now; therefore, perhaps the absolute impact of those drier periods at that stage was not as serious as it has been and will continue to be for this period. However, the fact is that the infrastructure that we have developed in this state for the conservation and distribution of water was developed against a backdrop of regarding the period during the Second World War and the earlier period at the beginning of the last century as anomalies.

The infrastructure was not designed to deal with a perpetual anomaly: it was designed to deal with a proper anomaly; that is, a period of perhaps 10 years when the situation was drier than it is now. Given that we are at best experiencing a period of anomaly—and we are well into that period—and at worst we are experiencing what is the beginning of an actual shift in the climate that will not result in a return to the previous patterns of wetter years interspersed with these anomalies every four or five decades, it is not surprising that the infrastructure and the charging regimes for water are not geared to the present circumstances.

I think the problem we have as a parliament, as legislators and as the executive arm of government is to make the fairly difficult call as to whether we are dealing with an anomaly or a change in the climate in an absolute sense. If we are dealing with an anomaly, then it may be that we will scrape through this one with a bit of tinkering here and there, and that when the climate returns to its more familiar pattern things will go on as they were. If we are not dealing with an anomaly, then it is obvious to me that all of our infrastructure has to be reviewed from the point of view of whether that infrastructure is sufficient or, indeed, properly placed and properly calibrated.

Also, the regime we have for charging for water and the institutions and facilities we have in place for the trading and selling of water need to be seriously reviewed. I heard a radio report (I cannot remember whether it was this morning or yesterday) referring to some remarks made by Ken Henry, who is the Secretary of the Treasury, apparently in a speech he made, stating that he believed that we needed to look at water trading and a contestable market for water similar to the one that exists for electricity.

What he was basically saying—and this was backed up by Peter Cullen, who was also interviewed—was that maybe the way to solve the question of the water shortage is to apply the same market forces to the provision of water as apply to the provision of other goods and services. In effect—and I think Professor Cullen said this—maybe we should not be having water restrictions at all; maybe we should be letting people who want to water their roses all summer water them all summer but pay through the nose for the privilege.

Of course, as our present charging regime is constructed, that is not possible. Underlying all these water issues is the fundamental question: are we experiencing an anomaly, a climate cycle from which we will eventually emerge and return to a more familiar pattern, or are we experiencing something else? If we do not know, are we prepared to punt on the fact that it is just one of those dry periods like we had during the 1940s or early 1900s and we should do nothing much about it and just sit back and say, 'Well, things will improve,' and if they do, good luck to us; and if they do not, we will be in a hell of a mess?

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr RAU: The honourable member mentions population growth—absolutely. Population growth and the growth of agriculture are placing increasing demands on our supplies. The population growth point in its direct implication is not that great. Members need to bear in mind that the demand that the City of Adelaide places on the River Murray is absolutely insignificant compared to the demand that irrigators and users of the river upstream from South Australia place on the system. It is insignificant by comparison; I am not saying it is not significant in the overall scheme of things.

I think it is very useful that we are having a debate about water, conservation of water and sustainable water usage. However, I do think that, if we are going to have this debate in a proper way, it has to be across the board and we need to consider not just infrastructure, not just policy, but also things like the charging regimes for water, the market for water, the contestability of access to water and the pricing mechanisms for water, all of which are very complex issues.

I am afraid that for those issues to be properly addressed—and I am the last one who happily says this—we need to look at a national arrangement at least inasmuch as we are talking about shared water between the states. I think it is very useful and very helpful that the honourable member has placed this matter before the parliament. I think it raises a number of complex issues, and it is one of those things to which I suspect we will need to give a great deal of thought.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:14): I think this is a most appropriate time, even to the day, for us to be discussing this matter. Without being too dramatic, I believe that it is potentially the worst disaster the state has seen in our lifetime if it does not rain for another six to eight weeks.

I want to commend the member for Mitchell for bringing this motion into the house. Certainly, it crosses all political boundaries. I do not think anybody is going to play politics with this one, because it is an horrific situation we are facing—very much so. As a person from the land and representing country people, you have only got to think of some scenarios and it really does worry you.

I congratulate the other speakers who have spoken on this motion this morning, particularly the member for Hammond. He gave a very good insight, and I think the letter that he wrote was a very salient notice to us all, as we have heard so much said about the Lakes and their history. I certainly appreciated that and I will be using it and quoting it myself. I want to congratulate the member for Hammond as a new member for coming in here and giving such strong advocacy to his people, because he is affected probably more than anybody else in their seat, even myself and the member for Chaffey as well as, of course, the member for Finniss.

I want to comment briefly on the member for Enfield's speech and commend him for it. I was listening quite carefully to what he was saying about global warming—almost a sceptic's point of view, somebody said. Certainly, it is a very interesting subject. Only time will prove who is right and who is wrong. I certainly appreciate the open mind of the member, but it was an unusual point of view.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I do not have a waterside property in the Barossa Valley. I wish I did.

The Hon. J.W. Weatherill: You soon will.

Mr VENNING: I soon will, that is right. I do not think I will be about when it happens, minister, but I certainly wish I did have a waterside property in the Barossa; it would be lovely. I believe there is enough water in the system; it has just been over-allocated. It is what we do with that water. We have over-allocated it. The member for Hammond was talking about the evaporation that we have—we must try to address that if we can, whether it is by covering the Lakes and reservoirs or whether it is by putting a film over them, but we have to address that, because in our climate we do lose so much. The figure of 14,000 megalitres was mentioned; I think it was the member for Fisher who raised that matter—well done. Roofing the reservoirs of Adelaide has certainly been discussed. At first glance you think it is not feasible and it is not sensible, but in the end we might not have a choice in the matter.

We need to have rain within four to six weeks of now. It is very appropriate that we are discussing this today, because this is the last sitting day for three weeks. If we come back here and there has been no appreciable rain in the state we are in crisis mode because, without upsetting or worrying people, I understand that Adelaide is now on its reservoirs. The pumping from the River Murray is no longer viable long-term. The water levels below Lock 1 are to the point now—the salt levels and the dreaded amoeba—where we can no longer take water from the Murray, as we have been doing.

So, we are on our reservoirs, and we know how long that is going to keep us and how long these reservoirs are able to sustain us. I would say at this time that I am a little bit annoyed that over the years we have not renovated our reservoirs. I cannot understand why, when they get low, they are not emptied out one at a time and then cleaned, because they have got hundreds of years of silt in them. Without taking any more land we could create a lot more space by taking the silt out of our reservoirs, and that could be done when they are empty. So, hopefully the planning ahead for the next six months, as we empty them out one at a time, is that they will be cleaned out and renovated, without a huge cost. I do not think they have ever been cleaned out, and I wonder why that has been the case.

We have got to conserve water, and that is what this bill is all about, and I commend the member for Mitchell. We have not done enough. Here we are, four years into a drought situation, and what have we really done? Nothing, apart from talk about it. We have got all these projects we are going to do but, really, what have we done? Nothing. We are the government. We are the people who make the laws in this place.

I went to Israel nearly 10 years ago and studied just that—water. When you observe what the Israeli nation does, it does not waste a drop. What do we need to shock ourselves into action—not just the government but all of us? We have an absolute tragedy on our hands. Good people's livelihoods and families are at stake and still we have done nothing but talk about this.

When we were in government six years ago, I believe that we did the right thing as a government. We saw a lot of water being wasted, particularly the open irrigation channels we had in the Riverland. We did the right thing back then and implemented a very efficient system by getting rid of all the open drains. Open drain irrigation no longer exists in South Australia. That was a jolly good first step, but it should have been continued. We should have gone on with that—we didn't. We talked about waterproofing Adelaide. We did papers. The then minister, Mr Brindal, did a paper, 'Waterproofing Adelaide'. We were going to address the waste of stormwater to the ocean. What was done about it? Nothing! The government changed, the book went on the shelf and is gathering dust. 'Waterproofing Adelaide' is a term we use, but what has been done about it? Nothing!

I urge any member of parliament who has not planned their so-call vacation, work study, or whatever, to go to Israel (if it is safe) to look at how a country saves every drop of water it has. We have to do the same. We have to get into that mood as quickly as possible. We must use this difficult time to move us all toward a change of ethos of zero water waste. As I say, I am very concerned about what is happening with the reservoirs at the moment and I am just hoping that they will sustain us. I know the government has kept them topped up and, to its credit, they are at a reasonable level. We are not panicking just yet, but you certainly would not want to have two or three months of dry weather, because we could be in big trouble.

The member for Hammond and I attended a public meeting last Thursday night in Mannum. It was well attended—90 people came along. It was hurriedly convened. Some very interesting things came forward from that meeting. We need to know who has the water allocations. Who is using all the water? Who has it? For some reason, we are not told. Should it be secret?

The Hon. R.B. Such: No.

Mr VENNING: No, it should not be. Why aren't we told? Why do we not know who has these water allocations, why they have them and what they are using them for? Why is it secret? No-one can seem to tell me. Everything else seems to be public knowledge: why is it not open to the public? It should be.

The Hon. R.B. Such: Because they don't want the public to know.

Mr VENNING: I'm sorry, I can't agree to that. In these sorts of situations we have a right to know who is sitting on the water allocations. The member for Hammond and I have both heard this from the people, 'Who's got the water and what are they using it for? What are you hiding?' Sorry, we could not answer the question at the public meeting and I do not think anyone in this house can tell me why it should be kept secret. It is a very serious matter.

We have a pretty fair idea who is holding many of these allocations of water. It will be some of these taxation diversion schemes, I bet you. That is where it is going and it should not be. I believe, if nothing else, this information should be made public and let us see who is holding water. Because the water is there. There is enough water in the river to solve many of our problems. The question is: who has it and who is holding it back?

Ms Fox: Did you say, 'There is enough'?

Mr VENNING: There is enough. There is enough water in the river to solve our problems.

Ms Fox interjecting:

Mr VENNING: In the whole river, yes, there is, but it is being held back. It is held back. Yes, there is water there: it is just who has the allocation—and it is these jolly state boundaries that are in the way. And where is your free trade of water? These questions need to be asked. Many people on the river have no water at all, they are carting water. Surely these people have no choice—

An honourable member: They are paying $1,000 a week.

Mr VENNING: They are paying $1,000 a week to cart water for their cows and they are probably receiving about half of that back. We have to start considering subsidising the cartage of water because these people have no choice. All I can say to the people of South Australia is: hang in there, I think we have a will in this place to do something about it. This is not the time for politics. We have to turn around and think of these people. Whatever we can do for them, we should do. I support the motion.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:24): Members in this place have made some very interesting contributions this morning, and I would like to say a few words about the motion put forward by the member for Fisher. It seems to me that a few people in this country need to wake up to the fact that we have had shortages of water before. We live in a country that experiences drought reasonably regularly, and we are in a pretty severe drought at the moment, particularly in our part of the country, in south-eastern Australia. However, these things happen, and it will happen again. The world will not stop. It will rain again and, ultimately, we will have good flows down through the Murray-Darling Basin and into the River Murray and, more particularly, down into that area of my electorate surrounding the Lower Lakes, which is in such a parlous position at the moment.

There are some simple things which Australians used to do, and which a lot of people who do not live in the metropolitan area (where there is a water supply and you just turn on a tap) have been doing ad infinitum. Indeed, they have been doing it since the time of white settlement. They install big tanks. They catch the water that falls out of the sky and collect and use that water. They are careful with that water. It is a lateral way of thinking through how you collect the water and ultimately use it. You do not have to be able to turn on the tap and do this, that and everything else with it.

If people are very careful with their water supply, they can get by with the amount of rainwater they catch if they have a reasonable sized roof. For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are not required to have a decent sized tank—and I do not mean one of those piddly little 50 gallon tanks on the side of a home unit, or whatever. If someone has a 5,000 or a 10,000 gallon tank (or 50,000 litres; I am afraid I am still stuck on gallons), they can catch a considerable amount of water and, if they are careful with it, that water can go a long way.

There are an enormous number of roofs in the Adelaide metropolitan area, and most of this water is going to waste. It is going off the roofs into the streets and down the gutters, and it disappears into the Gulf St Vincent. We can see what has happened to the seagrass meadows off Adelaide: thousands of hectares have disappeared. A lot of that is probably due to what is contained in the stormwater run-off. That once again raises the fact that, here we are establishing marine parks (which I am all in favour of), but we are not establishing one off the metropolitan area. Quite frankly, it is a joke. Water is just so critical, and people can be sensible about the catchment of water and how they use it. This issue will not go away.

There will be a return to the wet seasons: it will rain again. I have said in this place before that I would like to walk around in water for the three months of winter for the next 10 years: it would be fantastic. As I said, the world will not end tomorrow. So, let's get sensible and do something about it. We have had six years of this government doing sweet Fanny Adams about providing additional water, and we are still sucking it out of the River Murray. The poor old Murray is at the end of its tether over that lot.

Yesterday in the Public Works Committee meeting we were talking about a pilot plant for the desal plant. We are still years off having a desal plant in place to supplement Adelaide's water supply. I ask members opposite: if south-eastern Australia experiences another dry year this year, what on earth will we do for water for the metropolitan area next year? There is no water available in the Murray. As the member for Schubert said, we are now pumping out of the reservoirs; we are not pumping out of the Murray any more, because that has stopped. The aquifer is dry.

This government is beholden to get busy and do something, instead of the Minister for Water Security standing there rattling on day after day with errant nonsense and not doing anything about it. We need some answers. I say to members opposite (and I am the last person who wants to see another drought this year in south-eastern Australia): by God, it will be on their heads next year if it does not rain this winter. They are going to be—

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Of course you can make it rain. We now have sandhills developing in the Lower Lakes. I can recall 12 months ago asking: where are we going to be during this year if it does not rain during the winter of 2007? Well, we are there, because it did not rain. I say to members opposite: where are we going to be in 2009? It is an absolutely horrendous situation. I conclude my remarks.

Debate adjourned.