UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT (POSTPONEMENT OF EXPIRY) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:00): I rise today to make just a brief contribution to this amendment bill indicating, of course, that we as an opposition oppose the intent of the bill. However, I would like to make some comments regarding this and the practicalities around engineering solutions. I am quite familiar with the situation, not so much in the Upper South-East but in my own part of the world on Lower Eyre Peninsula. In fact, there are many similarities in the landscape, and I note that the minister on occasion has visited that part of the world and met with some of our landowners and catchment management groups, and I was able to join him on a couple of those visits.

The drainage scheme itself in the Upper South-East began officially in the mid-1990s after some bits and pieces of drainage work were done much earlier on. Indeed, in the Cummins Wanilla Basin drainage works were done, really, from the 1930s and 1940s on, because the nature of the soils, the rainfall, the topography and the landscape were such that waterlogging was an issue; and waterlogging was an issue that really impacted on production for the farmers in those areas, not just in the Upper South-East but also in Lower Eyre Peninsula.

Interestingly, the two landscapes evolved in parallel through similar decades and ultimately got to a point in the mid-1990s where dryland salinity was such an issue that remedial works had to be undertaken. These works involved not only change in farming system but also it was proposed at that time that there should be some engineering works involved in that. I understand that there was much discussion about what the effectiveness might be of the increased drainage works, the depth of drains, the course that was taken and the impact that it might have on the surrounding landowners and landscape itself.

I remember following that discussion in the rural press at the time because we were confronted with very similar issues. Ultimately, the scheme went ahead. It extended well beyond the proposed time frame. There was the initial time frame, and I understand now that the expiry date was extended first from 2006 out to 2009 and finally was completed about 12 months ago. At the same time, as I said, on Lower Eyre Peninsula I was involved with one of the very early Landcare groups, and we were assessing the issues that waterlogging brought to our landscape and the impacts that it had on our production.

We formed the Edillilie Landcare group. I was one of the founding members of that, and one of the first things we did at that time was to undertake property management planning, and I am sure that the landowners in the Upper South-East undertook similar programs. It was a very worthwhile program to be involved with, because it gave producers and landowners, probably for the first time, the opportunity to take it out of their own mind. They always understood their own properties well and knew the limitations of it but, for the first time, they were able to look at aerial photos and put it down on paper and put in place a strategy, I guess, as to how they might manage and maintain that property, not just in the foreseeable future but well beyond that so that production could be maintained in the long term.

Our particular Landcare group grew and became part of a catchment management group. Once again, there are parallels and affinities with the Upper South-East. Both the Cummins-Wanilla Basin and the Tod Basin—and I have talked about the Tod catchment and the Tod reservoir in here before—were catchment management groups who very early on, 20 years ago now, began to undertake remedial works.

Other efforts on Eyre Peninsula involved the Dutton River catchment on eastern Eyre Peninsula and the Heggarton-Mangalo group in the hills north of Cleve also did a lot of work. In fact, there was very extensive drainage work, an engineering feat that was undertaken in the Heggarton Hills, which ultimately took the excess water all the way to the sea in the Spencer Gulf. That has really remediated a lot of the salinity and waterlogging issues in those hills.

Salinity itself is not a problem in all parts of the world, in all soil types or in all landscapes, but the crux of the matter is that, when the native vegetation was cleared to make way for pastures and annual crops, there was increased leakage past the root zones and increased recharge. What we saw was the watertables rising. Once those watertables rise to a point where they are within a couple of metres of the sown annual crops and pastures then it brings the salt with them. The salt is a part of the soil profile anyway and is built up over millions of years, given our coastal environment. As the watertable rises it brings the salt with it and impacts on the root zones and, ultimately, the growth of the crops.

The management of that is very difficult and engineering solutions can often prove very effective. Deep drains can often help lower that watertable and really take the watertable back down below where it becomes a problem. It is an effective tool and a successful scheme, as I understand it, certainly in the Upper South-East and in our part of the world as well. It is all about managing the landscape and maintaining a productive landscape. I have spoken before, both in here and in public, about the importance of maintaining a productive landscape. It is imperative that we do.

Agriculture and primary production remains a critical part of this state's economy and there is a broader global responsibility to maintain, retain, manage and even enhance that productive landscape. Ultimately, I believe that the people best placed to undertake that management are the landowners themselves. With that contribution and your indulgence, I conclude my remarks and note that we oppose the bill.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:08): I thank honourable members opposite for their contributions. I thank the member for MacKillop for providing us with a brief history of the South-East region during his second reading contribution. I also thank the member for Mount Gambier for his wise contributions and I understand he will have some amendments for us to discuss at the committee stage.

The member for MacKillop has made it clear that he will not be supporting the bill to postpone the expiry of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act for a further four years. However, I note that he supports the principle of moving water from the South-East towards the Coorong. There are a number of points that the member for MacKillop raised that I would like to respond to. First, I point out that the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act has been instrumental in allowing for the initiation and implementation of project works undertaken during 2003 through to 2011 as part of phase 3 of the Upper South-East program. It is highly unlikely that phase 3 of the Upper South-East program would have been able to proceed without this enabling legislation.

Phase 2 of the program was delivered between 1995 and 2003 and involved the construction of 255 kilometres of a drainage system, predominantly using existing powers under the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act, and included the construction of the Fairview drain, which the member for MacKillop referred to.

However, by the end of phase 2, the Upper South-East program had reached an impasse on several of the proposed drain alignments. Under phase 2, a single dissenting downstream owner could trigger expensive workarounds. If the program had stopped then, the significant environmental and production benefits seen in recent years would not have been achieved.

Therefore, if the regional drainage component of the Upper South-East program were to be completed, a clear mandate was needed. For this reason, the Upper South-East program approached the minister for environment and conservation and the mandate for phase 3 was provided by parliament in the form of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act.

The second point I would like to clarify is the arrangements regarding the ongoing management of the South-East drainage system. During debate on the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Bill in 2002, clauses were included to make it clear that the management of the Upper South-East drainage system would primarily revert back to the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board.

However, in 2006, parliament was advised that ongoing management arrangements would be considered as part of the review of the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act. As the member for MacKillop acknowledged during the second reading debate, the government recently introduced the South East Drainage System Operation and Management Bill 2012 into parliament.

This bill was prepared in response to the review of the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act, which found it insufficient to meet contemporary requirements. This bill is part of a process towards greater integration through managing the total drainage system under a single umbrella. The government is committed to ensuring that the integrity of the South-East drainage system is maintained, both in terms of the ongoing management of water in the drainage system, wetlands and watercourses in the South-East and any future infrastructure works such as the proposed South East Flows Restoration Project.

In relation to the member for MacKillop's concerns regarding the amount of water the government believes it can deliver to the Coorong's South Lagoon, I provide the following information. On average, the current South-East drainage system delivers between 25 and 30 gigalitres per year of water to the Coorong's South Lagoon. If the proposed South East Flows Restoration Project progresses, it could deliver additional water to the Coorong's South Lagoon.

This volume will depend on the scope of works that are undertaken and final estimates will be included in the business case as it is completed. These will take into account the measured and modelled historical flows under both current and climate change scenarios. The member for MacKillop may be interested to know that in 2009, 2010 and 2011, the Blackford Drain alone discharged 31 gigalitres, 28 gigalitres and 19 gigalitres of water to the sea. All of this water would have been available for diversion as the majority of local wetlands on the proposed alignment are filled by local run-off. However, this water could supplement their needs.

Finally, in response to the member for Hammond's concerns regarding compensation, it is the government's intention that landholders or persons with an interest in the land may be offered compensation under the act in accordance with the principles and processes of the Land Acquisition Act. If the South East Flows Restoration Project is approved, the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act would be used to acquire the interests in land through statutory easement and to undertake works on private land.

Just to conclude, I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I note the comments of the member for Chaffey who indeed told us what we should be doing. In the main, with respect to his comments, I am pleased to inform the house that what he stated is exactly what we are doing, whether it be the monitoring aspects of the system, but really his comments indicated what it is we are actually doing. I also acknowledge the newly-appointed shadow person for water and her enlightening contribution to the debate. I thank members for their contributions.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

New clause 1A.

Mr PEGLER: I move:

Page 2, after line 4—After clause 1 insert:

1A—Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act will come into operation on assent.

(2) Sections 2A and 2B will come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation.

This amendment basically talks about when it will start. My understanding of this amendment is that amendment No. 1 (the commencement) is subject to No. 2, which is sections 2A and 2B. The minister might be able to inform us more but my understanding is that this act cannot be extended unless sections 2A and 2B are proclaimed. I will ask the minister to inform us on that one.

The CHAIR: Given that it is quite a short bill, I will allow comments and questions right across the clauses; that might make it easier to deal with. I am saying that if you want to deal with all the issues, you can do them at once.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Firstly, I indicate that the government supports the member for Mount Gambier's amendments and I agree with his comments previously that a staged approach should be pursued. I also agree with the need to engage the South-East community regarding the broader package of works in the context of community desire to conserve and use water more efficiently in the South-East landscape. With respect to the member's specific question on amendments proposed at sections 2A and 2B that come into operation on a day to be fixed by proclamation, when is the proclamation likely? I understand that proclamation will occur once the necessary arrangements are in place to enable the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board to take over the management of the completed project works which fall outside of the revised project area.

The CHAIR: Member for Mount Gambier, does that answer your query?

Mr Pegler: Yes.

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, do you have something on this matter?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, I do. I raised this issue with the member for Mount Gambier. I indicate at this stage that the opposition will be supporting the amendments of the member for Mount Gambier because we think they improve the bill but we will still not be supporting the government's bill in its entirety. We think this will improve it but we still do not think it satisfies the matters that were raised earlier on. I might come back to some of those as we go through the committee stage.

I raised with the member for Mount Gambier earlier about when the commencement would occur. The minister's response just now confuses me. He indicated that it would occur at a time when the regulations are made to allow for the transfer of the ongoing management to the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board; that is what I believe I heard him say. My reading of the minister's second reading contribution on this bill is that this act has an expiry date of 19 December 2012. In June 2011 the Upper South-East program was completed and the Upper South-East drainage system moved from construction to operational phase in order to enable this management to continue. The expiration date of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 needs to be extended.

To me, that suggests that the minister is saying to the house that he needs another four years in which to implement the regulations to transfer the management to the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board. Does that mean that apart from the intervention of the subordinate legislation act we may not see you proclaim these particular clauses for something up to four years? I think what the committee wants to know is: is it your intention to implement or proclaim these particular amendments, if they are successful, virtually forthwith, or will they be left to some future date? As I say, apart from the Subordinate Legislation Act, that could be as far out as two years away.

The Hon. P. CAICA: As I mentioned earlier, the proclamation will occur once the necessary arrangements are in place to enable the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board to take over the management of completed project works which fall outside of the revised project area. I think the member for MacKillop used the word 'regulations'. It might be as simple as entering into an agreement with the board to take over those particular responsibilities. If we are working to a time line—I mean, I do not want to be bound by this, member for MacKillop—I would be hopeful that anything between three and six months would see that occur; that is what we would be aiming for.

Mr WILLIAMS: Is the minister prepared to give an undertaking that this will occur before the end of June, or no later than the beginning of July next year?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Given my comments earlier that we would expect three to six months, I think I can certainly give the undertaking that best endeavours will be used to meet those timeframes and those timeframes that the member for MacKillop just stated.

New clause inserted.

Clause 2 passed.

New clauses 2A and 2B.

Mr PEGLER: I move:

Page 2, before line 10—Before clause 3 insert:

2A—Amendment of section 3—Interpretation

Section 3(1), definition of Project Area—delete the definition and substitute:

Project Area—the Project Area is constituted of—

(a) subject to paragraph (b)—the area or areas of land described in the revised Rack Plan 1067 lodged in the Surveyor-General's Office at Adelaide, as at 9 November 2012; or

(b) if the regulations describe or delineate another area or other areas of land to constitute the Project Area—that area or those areas;

2B—Amendment of section 4—Identification of Project

Section 4(3)—delete subsection (3)

This further amendment to the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management (Postponement of Expiry) Amendment Bill to reduce the current Upper South-East project area will provide that the project area is reduced by more than half, and I think I counted up about 40 hundreds in the management area, and this will be reduced back to 16.

The Upper South-East project area defines the area in which the minister can carry out works. My purpose in moving this amendment is to limit the spatial extent of the minister's functions regarding infrastructure works to those areas required to deliver what is currently being discussed and proposed with the community as stage 1 of the South East Flows Restoration Project.

Proposed works involve the diversion of saline water from the Blackford Drain through the Taratap and Tilley Swamp drains into the southern lagoon of the Coorong. Whilst this water is saline, I might say that it is about 90 per cent better than the water in the southern lagoon, and it currently runs out to the sea at Kingston. It will greatly enhance the ecosystems and environments of the southern lagoon of the Coorong.

I understand that there is broad community support for stage 1, and I also understand that most of the issues raised by the community regarding the broader South East Flows Restoration Project concern areas south and east of the project area that I am proposing. I would encourage the minister and relevant agencies to undertake thorough hydrological studies and a proper consultation process before considering any of the broader package of works proposed in the South-East outside of the area I am now proposing, in the context of the community desire to conserve and use water more efficiently in the South-East landscape.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Again, I indicate that the government will be supporting this amendment as proposed by the member for Mount Gambier. I make this point to start off with: the amendment will restrict some functions that I have as minister, including the area in which I (or the minister) can carry out works. Notwithstanding that, though, the revised project area still covers stage 1 of the South-East flows project, which I think is important.

Also, to reinforce the comments made by the member for Mount Gambier—and I agree with those comments—a staged approach should be pursued. I also reinforce the point that, if we are to get the best possible outcome, we need to engage the South-East community regarding the broader package of works in the context of community desire to conserve and use water more efficiently in the South-East landscape. We are very supportive of what it is that the member for Mount Gambier has proposed here. Notwithstanding the fact that, I believe, we undertake that particular process anyway, but it does not hurt to be reminded that that should underpin the process by which this matter progresses.

Mr WILLIAMS: Just one quick question to the member for Mount Gambier. His amendment refers to rate plan 1067 lodged in the Surveyor-General's office at Adelaide as at 9 November 2012. My understanding is that this would restrict the works basically to that area of the South-East north of the Blackford Drain. I ask the member for Mount Gambier to confirm that.

Mr PEGLER: It will include the hundreds of Santo, Messent, McNamara, Laffer, Neville, Wells, Petherick, Duffield, Landseer, Peacock, part Lacepede, Murrabinna, Minecrow and Woolumbool.

Mr WILLIAMS: I indicated that the opposition support these amendments because we do think it does improve the situation, but we still have concerns. As the local member, I have serious concerns about the concept as it has now been worked up, particularly with regard to the route proposed to shift water. As I said in my second reading contribution and again as the local member and somebody who has been involved in water management in the South-East over a long period of time, I do support the principle of shifting water from the South-East to the north. I think that should be done under a very strict management plan where the needs of the South-East are paramount and only water that is excess to the needs of the South-East is allowed to be moved northwards. That is why I commented about the volume of water that the government seems to be intent on shifting back to the southern basin and the Coorong.

In his remarks concluding the second reading debate, the minister talked about the outfalls from the Blackford Drain in the last three years—31, 28 and 19 gigalitres in each of those three years—which is a substantial amount of water, but my understanding is that the plan I have been briefed on is to shift a lot more water than that to the north over and above the water that is currently flowing out of the upper South-East scheme.

More importantly, my concerns and the concerns of my constituents are that the proposed route takes the water further to the east than is necessary and cuts off an opportunity to provide some other important drainage relief, particularly in that area south and south-east of the town of Kingston, an area which becomes inundated and has very little drainage service at the moment. It is an area from which a significant amount of high quality water could be generated to be moved to the north. The proposal that has been put to me would deny any future opportunity to harvest water from that area because it will take the water out of the Blackford Drain at a point too far to the east to allow that to occur.

There is still the need for a lot of investigation and consultation with the local community. To my mind, the proposal is to run the water down what are known as the ephemeral lakes, which is basically a continuation of the Coorong, that part of the landscape which reflects the land form of the Coorong but is generally dry. It is called the ephemeral lakes because they are ephemeral. In times of high rainfall they do collect and pond some water, but generally they spend most of the year as dry lake beds. There is an opportunity, I think, to run the water northwards via those ephemeral lakes. In an earlier discussion I had with the minister, a significant player—I think one of the people in the South-East who has a very good knowledge of the drainage system and the historical water flows in the South-East—suggested that that be the preferred route to shift water to the north.

I understand that in the initial stages there were some concerns from the department that it might be difficult to obtain access to those areas because of native title issues, but more recently I have been informed that the local Indigenous communities and the local native title holders find that the preferred route as well. It is one that I am certainly prepared to advocate, and I am pretty sure that the people I have been talking to in my electorate are prepared to advocate for it as well.

So the proposal that is reflected in the briefings that I am sure the member for Mount Gambier has had, and the briefings that I have had, again denies that opportunity: it is to shift the water in a newly-formed drain path, which would be to the east of that. In fact, my understanding is that the plan is to shift the water out of the Blackford Drain and connect into the recently constructed drain which runs up the Taratap Flat.

That would work, there is no doubt about that, but I think it denies us greater opportunities in the future and creates some other problems which are of concern to landholders not just in that area but certainly landholders further south, who believe that there will then be impetus to continue the drains further south to pick up water in that region. That has been hotly contested by the local community, and that is why I have lobbied amongst my colleagues on this side of the house to oppose this bill, because I think the minister should be obliged to ensure that he gets full approval from the local community before going ahead.

That is why the opposition is arguing that we should allow this bill to expire. That would force the minister to come back to the parliament at a future date, when the parliament can assure itself that the local community has been fully consulted and is in agreement with what will be a significant change to water flows in that part of the state. As I said in my second reading, I think there is a huge opportunity to get a win-win-win situation here, but there is also a huge opportunity to make yet another mistake with regard to water management in this state. Goodness knows we have seen enough of those made, historically.

Notwithstanding that the opposition is supportive of the member for Mount Gambier's amendments—they do improve the situation—they still allow the minister the opportunity to go ahead without having to come back to the parliament and get a final approval from the parliament. In my opinion that would still allow the minister to ride roughshod over the wishes of the communities in the South-East, and even down as far as the Lower South-East.

There are significant management issues which should be addressed in the South-East. It was put to me recently that before one drop of water is taken out of the Mid and Lower South-East and shifted north, the South-East communities should be demanding to get commitments from the government of South Australia about a whole range of issues to do with water management. I have raised a number of them over the years, but obviously one is controlled structures throughout the existing drainage scheme. Another one may well be a commitment that the government will not impose an additional cost on people in those communities in return for the contribution of water into what is, in fact, part of the Murray-Darling system, the Coorong.

So there is a whole range of issues which the communities of the South-East still want to canvass. The opposition's position is that it does not want to leave the minister with these powers before those issues are canvassed and before the communities of the South-East have an opportunity to have their say and be assured that they will be looked after into the medium and long term.

The Hon. P. CAICA: There was no question there but I will make a quick comment. My inclination is just to thank the member for MacKillop for his comments, sit down and get this bill over and done with, but I think I need to make a couple of points.

One is that we are doing this in two stages. Stage 1, of course, is utilising the existing alignment. I am informed that, generally, the landholders who have been engaged during this phase 1 are supportive of this particular process. The greater debate is on phase 2 which was indicated there, but I have also given a very strong indication to the house, based on the amendments being moved by the member for Mount Gambier, that underpinning this whole process will be that ongoing consultation with the community on aspects of phase 2; that is why we are doing it in two tranches.

There are concerns about the route. I have had plenty of discussions with a lot of people—even those who the member for MacKillop has brought to my office—about what might be the best possible route. I have also spoken to my friends, the Ngarrindjeri, down south about their preferred position. The advice I am receiving is that there is concern about the route.

Also, if we look at the ephemeral lakes there, the impact on the coastal lakes due to the lack of fall, because there is a lack of fall across there, the preliminary advice I have received—and I am in no position to deny that advice as being anything but accurate—is that we will be looking at a floodway about 200 metres wide across those ephemeral lakes.

To finish off, I would say that there is general agreement to date about stage 1—utilising existing alignment—with a few issues that still need to be sorted out. Phase 2 will be undertaken through consultation with the community as to the route and other aspects of it, just as I have committed to in my response to the amendments from the member for Mount Gambier.

Mr WILLIAMS: I will respond to a couple of things that the minister has just said. The difficulty in flowing water to the north across the whole of the landscape because of lack of fall is a recognised difficulty. That is one of the reasons why I have been saying, minister, both in here and in my local community, that I think the target that the government is setting itself—if my memory serves me correctly and it normally does, I think the target was up to 90 gigalitres a year to be recovered out of the South-East, including the Upper South-East, to flow into the Coorong—is too high because of the very issue which the minister just talked about, which is the lack of fall and the ability to get that amount of water transferred.

Bear in mind that we can only harvest the water for a couple months of the year. It is not as though we have got all year to shift this water: it is only harvestable during the wet part of the year and it is only for two or three months of the year that the water is available in any great volumes, so we have to be able to transfer it relatively quickly.

The other issue which the minister talked about is that he has general approval for stage 1 or phase 1 of the project as has been discussed. That does not surprise me but that is not the issue. I am not suggesting that the people on the suggested flow path have any objection to it. What it does is cut off the opportunities into the future from where you collect or harvest more water from as you move to stage 2 or phase 2. That is the objection that I have to the project as envisaged by the department at this stage.

I think the point of taking water out of the Blackford Drain is too far to the east and that cuts off your options as you move to a possible stage 2 or stage 3, or whatever, into the future. Notwithstanding you might lose some fall, the closer you get to the coast, the greater the opportunities are for the future.

This is why I emphasise and I will re-emphasise that we now need to have a full and complete discussion. There is no point just discussing the stage 1 proposal with the people at that geographic location because that will have implications as to how you can implement stage 2 in the future. We need to go back and have a full discussion with the whole of the South-East community about what our endgame should look like.

We should ensure that we have had that complete discussion and got complete agreement and approval from that community before we even implement stage 1, which, in my opinion, if it is implemented as proposed, will cut off future options. That is my concern, and that is why I say—and I repeat it for the benefit of the house—we have made mistake after mistake after mistake. There is no need for us to continue doing that. We can get it right, but it means having full and proper consultation about not just stage 1 but about what we want to see at the end of this process and make sure we get it right through that. Notwithstanding that, the opposition supports this amendment.

New clauses inserted.

Remaining clause (3) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:42): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Again, I thank all members for their contributions and reinforce just one point, that implicit in this whole process, whether it be phase 1 or phase 2 of this process, is the ongoing consultation and engagement with the community of the South-East. We are committed to ensuring that continues. I thank members for their contributions and I thank those who supported the bill.

Bill read a third time and passed.