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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2012.)

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:17): I rise to speak on the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management (Postponement of Expiry) Amendment Bill. The bill has, basically, been brought before the parliament to extend the life of the act for another four years. While I do not support that, I do support a reduced version of the proposal and I will be moving amendments of that nature later on. The member for MacKillop gave us a very good history lesson on the drainage in the South-East and I will not go over those matters anymore, except to say that drainage is a vital part of the South-East.

It is important to realise that production from the South-East is very large and forms a very large part of the state's economy. The South-East has, by far, the majority of forestry in the state, regardless of who owns it, and it certainly contributes to the economy of this state. The number of dairy cows that are run in the South-East is the majority of what the state actually runs. We also have a large percentage of the state's lamb and beef production, along with our vineyards and other horticultural products and crops. All of those industries rely on water in one way or another; they rely on the drainage system to be able to exist. Of course, they also rely on the aquifers both to irrigate and for stock and domestic purposes.

The effect of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Program should be brought to the attention of the house. When this first came in, there were many properties where the land was fast becoming saline and their production was being greatly reduced. Some of those properties that used to run five dry sheep equivalents to the acre were getting down to two, and rapidly heading towards one, sheep to the acre. Once we put in some of these drains that reduced the salinity of the lands, the production on those properties has greatly increased, and every one of those farmers who I have spoken to has been very pleased with what the system has done for their properties and for the landscape.

It is important to manage our water in a proper manner, and that is not just drainage, of course; it is also making sure we manage the aquifers. It is great to see that salt water going out to sea or into saline lakes, but I think we have to be extremely careful how we handle our good water and we must make sure that the aquifers are looked after in a proper manner in the first place.

There is a divergence of opinion regarding the management of drainage in the South-East. I think most people do agree with the saline water going out to sea or being diverted to the Coorong but, as far as fresh water goes in the South-East, I think there is a lot more work to be done on how we can use a lot of that water in its present place to recharge our aquifers rather than sending it north or out to sea. I think there is a lot more work to be done there.

There certainly is general agreement with stage 1 of the South East Flows Restoration Project which will basically take water from the Blackford Drain up to the southern lagoon. That will cost about $60 million and I think there is about 20 megalitres of water, which is saline. It is probably up to about 10,000 ECi, but do not forget it would be going into a lake that is much higher than that, so it will certainly restore that southern lagoon of the Coorong.

With regard to the act that is before us, I have certainly never agreed with the compulsory acquisition of land without compensation. I do understand that, for the betterment of a community or a society, sometimes you do have to compulsorily acquire land for the betterment of the vast majority, but I think that when that land is compulsorily acquired, those people should be adequately compensated for what they have lost.

I have always had a problem with transferring good water particularly from the Lower South-East to the north rather than perhaps using that for recharge, so I think there is a lot more work to be done there. I will certainly be supporting stage 1 of the REFLOWS project and of course the extension of this bill is before us so that that can commence. I will be moving an amendment later, so without further ado, we will wait until we go into committee to see how those amendments go.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:23): I rise to speak to the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management (Postponement of Expiry) Amendment Bill 2012. I note the comments made when we last sat here by the member for MacKillop, who is the member for the area where this drainage work has been happening. He noted in his speech, and I will say it in mine, that we on this side of the house certainly will not be supporting this piece of legislation and there is a range of reasons for that.

Drainage works, and private drainage works especially, have taken place in the Lower South-East and the Upper South-East over many years. While I accept that this bill is linked to the drains north of Naracoorte and up through to Salt Creek, there is much work being done through the Lower South-East as well.

I look at the work that Murray McCourt instigated in 1957 with the Woakwine Cutting, with a workman whose name was Dick MacIntyre, when they worked for three years, day and night, with a D7 bulldozer, a ripper and a towed scoop, to dig out the Woakwine Cutting and open up swampland down near Lake George near Beachport. It was quite a major operation to get that land dewatered. It is a very steep cutting—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, Murray McCourt. The cutting is not quite 30 metres deep, and it is about 36 metres wide at the top and cuts down to about three metres wide at the bottom, and it has made those swaps a very valuable asset to that family. I would also like to make mention of the works of another major landholder in the South-East (the area this bill affects), Tom Brinkworth, and the work he did in regard to drains down there, in order to drain water up towards the Coorong to the Salt Creek area.

I remember going down there when they had a day when you could tour around the work Tom had instigated. They had Opera in the Wetlands, and it was a fantastic evening. Once we had gone down and inspected the area, we had a drive around to see the work that had been done with massive scrapers and excavators, and then, to top it off, there was this grand event held outdoors.

I will never forget the site of two big Komatsu bulldozers—about equivalent to a D11, for the Caterpillar fans out there. There was one each side of the stage and, at the appropriate time, they both lifted their blades together. If you have a bit of diesel in your veins, it was something worth seeing. It just showed the dedication.

Murray McCourt and Tom Brinkworth are just two individuals who have partaken in that work, and the work was done to make land more productive. I know there were a lot of issues in these drains, around having access to cut. One of these drains originally was going to go through the Messent Conservation Park, and this was obviously causing a lot of problems with the environment department. In the end, it did not happen.

I note that Messent has not been managed that well since then, because there was a planned burn-off there in recent times, and let us just say they overachieved quite successfully; they were going to burn about a quarter of the park but burned most of it, so you have to wonder what happens sometimes.

In regard to the legislation, the original legislation had a sunset clause of four years, and the minister at the time was sure that the project would be managed and finished appropriately. The minister of the day said:

The certainty of alignment will enable the drainage component of the scheme to be completed quickly.

I also note the comments of the member for Mount Gambier about compulsory acquisition. The minister went on to say, 'All of these alignments are to be acquired at no cost by force of the legislation.' Like the member for Mount Gambier and the member for MacKillop, I find it abhorrent in the extreme that the government thinks it can just walk in and acquire land and not pay the appropriate compensation. I say that from a little bit of experience.

I have mentioned this in the past, but I did not have the exact article from The Mail in 1950, in which my grandfather, Len Pederick, talked about the second home up at Angle Vale he had lost in 11 years due to compulsory acquisition. He lost the first land in 1939 for the munitions dumps and then in 1950 for the Edinburgh air base. My father thought he had got around compulsory acquisition when he moved down to Coomandook in 1961 and within only 10, 11 or 12 years, from memory, the highway needed to be deviated, so there was more compulsory acquisition. Thankfully, it was only about seven acres out the front and it was appropriately compensated at about two and a half times the value at the time.

If there is any acquisition for something like this—and from what I understand, this drain is a line through the landscape with 100 metres either side, so it would be a significant acreage taken up for this project—I believe farmers should be adequately compensated. I note that this bill was debated back in December 2002 and the scheme was due to be completed by 2006 and was not completed until 2011. It was always, I believe, the intent of the act to hand control over this scheme to the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board. That could easily be done because they have been managing the rest of the drainage scheme in the South-East and I am talking about drains that were dug way back in the 1860s and were still being dug in the 1870s.

I note the comments made by the member for Mount Gambier today about the South East Flows Restoration Project and the minister talked about how one of the reasons for retaining the act might be that it could serve as a vehicle for that program. We would like to see some better outcomes in regard to getting water into the Coorong, but we want to see the right outcomes and we believe that the appropriate legislation could be drawn up at the time to do that instead of stretching this expiry date over time.

Part of the reason for the drainage works is that land has been cleared in this area over time—all the native scrubland, tea-tree etc.—and lucerne was put in. The main variety was Hunter River lucerne,and anyone with a farming background in South Australia will know that it was around the mid-1970s that Hunter River lucernewas wiped out by aphids. Lucerne is a deep-rooted plant so it could drag out all of that useful water to keep it green for a very long time, because it has a big taproot. That was basically doing the job of a drain while the Hunter River lucerne was in place and that had replaced the natural scrubland over the landscape that was there before.

Drainage works can be the ire of some of people and some people think they are a great thing. I know that, from my observations of the South-East, having travelled through there quite a bit in the 1980s and 1990s and up until today and working down there over that time, you can see they do the job and you note that in the dry years they are not that necessary. In 1992 they would have been necessary, because that was quite a wet year for everyone. We need to make sure that we put the right programs in place when it comes to inflicting drains on farmers and the community and make sure that the right procedures are put in place.

I fear that with the extension of this legislation, other drains involved with the REFLOWS project could be tacked into it and no compensation at all be paid to farmers and members of the community. We believe that when it is needed introduce the appropriate legislation at that time, with the appropriate compensation guidelines in it if there is the need for people to give up land. I have said it before: a 200 metre strip of land through this country is quite valuable, and we are not getting any more of it. Obviously you cannot clear country anymore—

Mr Pengilly: You can, but you can't get caught.

Mr PEDERICK: One thing I will say on that is that we obviously need some better management of native vegetation in this state, with the plethora of fires that are happening, and we need to do that, whether it be privately-owned scrubland or heritage scrub or whether it is publicly-owned land like national parks. We really do need better management of native vegetation in this state.

With those few words I indicate, as the member for MacKillop has indicated, that we will be opposing this legislation. We believe that other legislation could be put in place as far as projects regarding bringing water from the South-East to the Coorong are concerned. Just on that, I know that water could be used as far as savings targets involving the Murray, but we have to make sure that we get all that right so that we are not robbing Peter to pay Paul. As we know too well in this state, the Murray has been fought over for well over 100 years and we are still not quite there.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Is it Paul robbing to pay Peter? I am not sure. Thank you, member for Chaffey. We have to make sure we get this right. As the member for MacKillop indicated in his contribution, the South-East conservation and drainage board could take over, manage this and get on with the job, so we believe this legislation is not necessary. When it comes to the time for any other projects, the appropriate legislation can be debated in this house and the other place so that we get the right outcomes not just for the community but for the farmers and the water users of this area.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:37): In contributing to this debate I do so as the newly appointed shadow minister for water for the opposition, and I am proud to have that area of responsibility along with the environment and natural resources, climate change and the like. It is a very new and interesting portfolio.

I start by thanking the member for MacKillop for assuming responsibility on behalf of the opposition for the carriage of this bill. This is an area not only of significant importance for the state but also one with which he is personally very familiar and for which he has clearly exhibited some passion, as it traverses his electorate.

The outstanding aspect of concern about this bill, in particular its extension of applicability, is that on all accounts of the contribution made by the government in developing this legislation—that is, the principal act—from 2002 until, I think, 2006 before it finally came into place, is that its work has expired. As has been pointed out by the member for MacKillop, the structure that was typically used to develop projects involving drainage into the Coorong and the lakes area was flawed in several aspects.

One is that the new structure effectively deprived the local board—the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board, I think it is called—from doing what it had been doing for 100 years; that is, to raise the necessary revenue either directly or, of course, with submissions that it would put to various levels of government to be able to undertake the exercise and to ultimately manage the structure. That was something that the government decided it was going to do. The revenue from any levy that was to be obtained was to go to the minister and they would completely circumvent a structure which had essentially operated very well for 100 years.

The second aspect, which we on this side of the house considered to be unconscionable, was the provision in the act to enable the government to compulsorily acquire land on which they would construct the drain without compensation. We have laws in this country and, indeed, in this state which protect the right for people to be reasonably compensated when it is necessary for governments to acquire property—that is, real estate—for the good of the community. It is very clear that there be a just process for the assessment and payment of compensation.

In addition to that, on our side of the house, a fundamental tenet of the Liberal Party of Australia's constitution is the protection of the entitlement of people to have some reasonable compensation. So, we do not support a structure which proposes or perpetuates that inequity. Accordingly, as outlined with the historical aspects by the member for MacKillop, these are the reasons for our objection to a continuation of a poor structure.

May I say this though: it is of great concern to me and, I am sure, to others in the house that the government, despite its protests of having a significant care factor for the Coorong and Lower Lakes area and the importance of undertaking projects that would enable the recovery of these areas, particularly since the period of drought, has an appalling record. For example, I note that the government wants to extend this structure to enable it to progress a further project, that is, the South East Flows Restoration Project, which, as I understand it, will cost about $130 million and which will allow for about 50 gigalitres of fairly saline water (as pointed out by the member for Mount Gambier) to drain into the southern point at Salt Creek on the Coorong.

This is a project that has been around for years. They did the small project, which has been detailed by the member for MacKillop, but I noticed that the allocation of $610 million from the Murray Futures Fund for important projects included a 10-year project, of which $200 million was allocated to the Lower Lakes and Coorong recovery, in addition to the $120-million Lower Lakes pipelines which have effectively occurred. As published by the government, it was:

...to undertake a series of medium to long-term projects around the Lower Lakes and Coorong to help protect this valuable Ramsar site and to sustain the communities reliance on it.

Wonderful aspiration, but, as usual, a government short on delivery. I am very concerned that hundreds of millions of dollars appear to be sitting around in funds and are not actioned, when this area of the Coorong and lakes has been under severe pressure and has been struggling to survive let alone be resuscitated, particularly in some of the wetland areas, for some time now. It seems to me very concerning that the government had all this money sitting there and have not actioned this project.

We are yet to see, as a result of the terms of settlement from the Murray-Darling Basin plan and federal legislation, as to what part this particular project will play in providing some environmental credit for the South Australian contribution to the River Murray attached to it. In any event, I make the point that they are very late in the delivery of what appears on the face of it to be an important project, which could have at least been advanced in the 11½ years of the lifetime of this government, and yet we still have not had one extra drop through this particular project. That is very concerning.

I also mentioned the foreshadowed amendment by the member for Mount Gambier. I certainly do not have any appreciation of the significance of the areas of water in the South-East, except they have got plenty of it. Certainly the member for MacKillop and the member for Mount Gambier would have an understanding of the regions that are subject to salinity problems and other areas where there is fresh water and, accordingly, a much greater opportunity to utilise that water for other purposes.

The South East Flows Restoration Project is one which, as I understand it, will at least be capturing from the Blackford Drain region, north into Salt Creek, and would only be capturing water that is saline and would not (if I could be so crude as to say) just interfere with the freshwater supplies east of that region. As I understand it, the member for MacKillop may have already indicated that we are sympathetic to the tightening of the boundary. If the structure is going to continue, at least it could be reduced to accommodate that amendment, which is sensible in the circumstances. With that contribution, I indicate that we will be opposing the bill and supporting the foreshadowed amendment.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:48): I would like to make a small contribution, to speak about the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management (Postponement of Expiry) Amendment Bill. Of course, it is something that is dear to my heart—any water related proposition that is for the betterment of our state, of our waterways, of course, supporting a healthy environment. The drains were not put there to support a healthy environment. The drains were put there to rehabilitate land, to reclaim land, but they were put there with all good intentions to be a part of a sustainable landscape. In doing so, it was about gaining a balance between the landscape, between productive land, and reclaiming the land for the betterment of that landscape.

Having been born in the South-East but having very limited knowledge of what the drains were always about, I would like to acknowledge the member for MacKillop, whose ancestors went to the South-East to dig the drains. As he said, back in those days the drains were dug with pick and shovel and barrows; the most modern technology back then was probably pulling a delver behind a horse, and that was probably state of the art back in the early days. The member for MacKillop's extensive knowledge about just exactly how the drains have worked, from their early inception right to the current day, has obviously given me a reason to stand up and make a small contribution.

When the drains were first initiated, it sounds as though some of the early pioneers in the South-East took it upon themselves in many instances to reclaim land, because obviously we have a vastly different landscape today from yesteryear. Back then, a huge amount of underground water used to bubble to the surface and the drains were just a small groove in the landscape that would then run and create a self-flowing stream.

But today it is different: we do not have those self-flowing streams. We have a much higher demand, an allocation if you like, that is put on the underground aquifer, and also the allocation that is drawn off what was underground water that is sitting on the surface has had a huge impact on the storages and the way that water is being used, and I think over time we have seen different needs or different requirements on that groundwater and on that surface water.

I know that the forests were there a hundred years ago, but we are seeing a huge amount of food production, agriculture production and horticulture production that draw on that underground water and, specifically, these days it is pumped at large volumes from the aquifer due to necessity because of some of these new crops. Particularly in agriculture, we do not talk about just lucerne production these days: we are talking about seed production, we are talking about pasture, and we are talking about horticulture, and horticulture is quite a growing industry, particularly in the South-East, that requires regular water and bores that those pumps draw on.

From the documentation I read, and from listening to the member for MacKillop, listening to the member for Mount Gambier and listening to the member for Hammond, those resources are in depletion at the moment. We are seeing the bore levels drop, which is particularly noticeable in low rainfall years, and it is coming up as evidence that if we are going to have a sustainable landscape we have to be very careful how the drains are implemented, how those drains are designed and just how the drains are going to be for the betterment of the landscape and sustain an environment and sustain an economy. That is about striking a balance between the governments implementing Riverina recovery projects, about governments issuing water licences, about a sustainable allocation regime, and it is about governments having a good understanding and not relying on people who sit in offices, bureaucrats, who make decisions.

It is about having informed procedure, informed decisions and drawing on the knowledge that is grassroots to making informed decisions. It is about going to the farmers and to the LAP groups. It is about using the expertise that is on the ground that is monitoring what goes on. It has been a real bugbear of mine that we have too many government decisions and that too many of those decisions at the pointy end are made from untested science. We see a lot of it that is drawn on from bureaucrats sitting in high-rise buildings.

It is not drawing enough on the ground base knowledge. It is not drawing on what the farming communities are seeing on a day-to-day basis. It is not drawing on the historic knowledge that we have of cycles—we have dry cycles and wet cycles but today we do not see the water bubbling from the ground. Even after a huge wet season we are still seeing depleted resources and we are seeing issues that I think are really telltale in that we need to monitor the way that the water is used. We need to monitor exactly how the drains are going to be built and exactly what part of the drainage system will be diverted out to sea.

I am a firm believer that we should not have water easily diverted out to sea. Any change of landscape, any change of the way that nature has set up the land use or the land base needs to be addressed but it needs to be addressed in a way where, rather than doing the easy option and diverting water out to sea, we need to be using it in a better way. Obviously, with a lot of the drainage system to the east of the South-East we need to be looking at how we can inject that water back into aquifers.

We have areas of high saline water and areas that are not good for the landscape and not good for production and, again, they could be drains diverted into the Coorong which, as we speak today, is very much a hypersaline environment. It is an environment which has been quite adaptable to change over the last 100 years but, again, the question could be asked: is this government holding back water that could be diverted into the Coorong because they have an ulterior motive? That is, it is going to have to dip into its pockets, dip into its pockets and water resources in the very near future to help with the sustainable Murray-Darling Basin plan.

I notice that the government has been sitting on its hands with some of those projects. Those projects could contribute water into the Coorong and would also export a highly saline environment through the mouth of the Murray, and would help sustain a much fresher environment. The drains have been in operation over many years. It is a very expensive exercise to dig drains and a very expensive exercise to maintain the drains and the landscape that, once again, relies on that water flowing past to take the salts out and move the salts into another environment that is more susceptible.

The drains are very dependent on just exactly what is happening below ground but also, just as importantly, what is happening above ground. Again, there needs to be a balance between groundwater and surface water. It is not about just implementing a drain to reclaim land for agriculture, horticulture or viticulture: it is about having a sustainable landscape where we can utilise the precious resource that is water. I am very familiar with that, particularly living on the River Murray and having an electorate that is very reliant on the River Murray. However, we are also very reliant on a healthy environment. The environment is the telltale of a healthy river, of a sustainable river, and also of a sustainable economy that is so reliant on the precious resource of water.

I talk about the betterment of the environment and what the environment means to the landscape. We do not just talk about the wildlife, the fauna or the trees that rely on the water supply to keep them alive but we also talk about the regeneration. We talk about varieties have been in existence for perhaps thousands of years and we have seen many, over the years, that have become extinct, but we have also seen new varieties. We are finding new species on a weekly or monthly basis. We are finding new species of wildlife, birdlife and fish and seeing new varieties of plants and trees. I think that they are testament to what a balanced environment is all about. That is what the drains need to be.

I would also like to acknowledge some of the expertise over the years, and why the drains are there. Tom Brinkworth is a man whom I have met on only a couple of occasions but a man who has had significant impact on the progress of the drains, on the progress of perhaps the landscape in his part of the world down there in the electorate of MacKillop. I think that his decisive actions prove that that is why the drains were started and why government today seems to slow that progress down.

Just touching on compulsory acquisition, that is something that I am bitterly opposed to. I think compulsory acquisition is something that is part of history, and today it should be part of a bargaining tool. To come in and acquire a piece of land, there is a price tag to that piece of land. It must be acknowledged that a lot of that landscape down there is regarded as black gold. That country is deep black loam and it must be, I think, fairly compensated for any form of compulsory acquisition.

Just in closing, I would like to again acknowledge that the member for MacKillop and the member for Mount Gambier have quite some knowledge of just how the drains have worked, they know the local identities and the history around why they were built, how they were built, and the positive impacts they have had, but also noting the negative impacts that these drains have had over the many years that they have been in existence.

It is about using that history. It is about using that knowledge to see how those drains can be put to better use, not only to the landscape in the South-East but we can use the highly saline water and divert it into the Coorong for the betterment of the Coorong. It is about retaining environment in the South-East. It is about retaining the landscape, but it is also about a sustainable scheme. It is about striking a balance between the environment, the economy and the landowners. Again, I will not be supporting the bill in its current state. Having made a small contribution to this bill, I support all the speakers on this side to better work through this and make it a bill that will benefit all involved.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. P. Caica.