STORMWATER INITIATIVES

Mr PICCOLO (Light) (14:29): Will the Minister for Water Security advise the house regarding the CSIRO's research into the suitability of stormwater for drinking purposes?

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security) (14:30): I thank the member for Light for his question and I acknowledge his great interest in this area and the support that he has shown in his former role and as a local member for these kinds of stormwater projects.

Yesterday on FIVEaa the Leader of the Opposition claimed that the opposition has a fully costed plan to harvest 89 gigalitres of stormwater in Adelaide for $400 million. The Leader of the Opposition also suggested that the water could be treated better than the current water that we are drinking and that, therefore, it could be put directly into our drinking water supply—and they could do all this for $400 million.

An honourable member: And a stadium.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: And a stadium. South Australia currently has a submission before the commonwealth government for funding consideration to harvest eight gigalitres of stormwater at a cost of $145 million. That is $18 million per gigalitre. The Leader of the Opposition's claim that they have fully costed their proposal to produce 89 gigalitres for $400 million (or $4.5 million per gigalitre) is laughable. Their stormwater costing assessment has a familiar ring to it. They once claimed that they could build Adelaide a desalination plant at a cost of $400 million, and we know that this was a massive underestimation.

The opposition water spokesman, Mitch Williams, has also not been providing the public with all the information—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The opposition water spokesman, the member for MacKillop, has also not been providing the public with all the information from a CSIRO project trialling the treatment of stormwater to drinking water quality. A quick check of the CSIRO reports on the internet actually shows that the bottle of water that Mitch Williams was drinking, although it had already met drinking water requirements, was then passed through a 0.45 and a 0.2 micron filter and given light exposure to granular activated carbon as additional barriers to pathogens and trace organics. So, it was not water that was lifted straight out of the Salisbury wetlands, as claimed by the member for MacKillop. It is interesting that the member for MacKillop in the statements made by the—

Mr WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, my recollection of the question was that it asked the minister to comment on the CSIRO's research. At this stage, I have not heard the minister mention the CSIRO or its research, which is quite damning of her policies.

The SPEAKER: The question was about the suitability of stormwater for drinking purposes.

Mr WILLIAMS: It was about the CSIRO's research, sir. I think if you consult the Hansard you would realise that.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Water Security.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I have here the transcript of the comments of the member for MacKillop on this radio program. The member for MacKillop said:

…but if you properly treat it, like it's already been demonstrated by the Salisbury Council in their wetlands…that's about a 10 day process, inject it into the aquifer, extract it out of the aquifer and you do that through a different bore…any [unclear] that were in the water when it was injected are automatically killed and the water comes out at drinking quality…I've got a bottle of it sitting in my office here…which was bottled a year or two back by the Salisbury Council…I've got one bottle that's full, I had another bottle which I'd drunk, there is nothing wrong with it.

What he failed to mention was that that bottle had also gone through a number of processes post being drawn from the wetlands.

The other information that is really interesting that he has neglected to include in his public statements on this matter—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The other thing that the member for MacKillop failed to tell the public when he was talking about this matter—

Mr PENGILLY: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, the minister has been speaking for 3½ minutes and has not answered one thing about the CSIRO.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point of order.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: I am actually quoting from the CSIRO's website on this particular project. That indicates what was done to the water before it was bottled.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: On a point of order, I would like to hear the minister because she is telling us things that are interesting. She should not be shouted down constantly by that bully.

The SPEAKER: Members will come to order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The member for MacKillop also failed to mention that the report on the CSIRO website talks about this bottled water. It states, 'This bottle of water shows the potential for treated stormwater to go into mains supplies.' It continues with the bit the member for MacKillop forgot to mention, 'Further research is required to validate and then make these methods available.' The CSIRO project also states:

Recharge signifies the potential value of urban stormwater as a resource. Further research is required to show whether this can be reliably done on an ongoing basis for normal water supplies taking into account of all of the hazards likely to be present in an urban catchment.

This is also on the website. Peter Dillon says:

The bottled water clearly shows the potential for this water to go into mains supplies. Further research is required to validate this and build confidence in this approach.

The Water for Good government—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: —strategy states:

This plan does not support the use of recycled stormwater for drinking purposes at this stage, but it will continue to monitor scientific developments in this area.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Interestingly enough, the member for MacKillop also said in the interview he did with FIVEaa on 8 September, 'We can do that here in Adelaide. The government has chosen not to do it.'

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Let me inform the house who are the partners in this.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Just by coincidence, I have this one, member for MacKillop—snap! It would be really interesting if the member read page 9, Urban Opportunities.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Sir, I know that he is embarrassed to hear it, but I would like to hear it.

The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will come to order!

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for Finniss!

Mr Williams interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order, the member for MacKillop!

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: We know that, from my previous comments in regard to this report, the member for MacKillop is very good at selectively quoting from documents. In actual fact, if you read page 2 of the Executive Summary—

Mr VENNING: On a point of order, she is debating the question.

The SPEAKER: She is not debating it, and there is no point of order.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: The Executive Summary of the report commissioned by the National Water Commission, undertaken by the CSIRO and funded by the Australian government, is called Managed Aquifer Recharge: An Introduction. The authors are Peter Dillon, Paul Pavelic, Declan Page, Helen Beringen and John Ward. It is dated 13 February 2009, so it the latest report from the CSIRO. Page 3 of the Executive Summary states:

Urban stormwater stored in an aquifer for a year has been proven to meet all drinking water quality requirements and has been bottled as drinking water.

This has been selectively quoted by the member for MacKillop in the past. What he does not tell you is that the next sentence says:

Further research is needed to build confidence in the robustness and resilience of preventive measures to ensure that drinking water quality can be met reliably on an ongoing basis.

So, what the member for MacKillop would do is risk our water quality on the basis of incomplete science. The big difference between the opposition and the government is that we will not risk public health on incomplete science and the opposition will.

The SPEAKER: The Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The Minister for Transport and the member for MacKillop will come to order!