Northern Water Project

The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:27): My question again is to the Premier. Was Cape Hardy previously identified by the government as the best-performing site option to focus any further studies regarding the Northern Water project and, if so, when?

The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:27): The Northern Water project is obviously, for the lack of a better term, huge. It is a massive investment that we are looking at on behalf of the state government. But it is more than that, just being huge, it is also complex. We have only seen one really substantial industrial scale desal plant built in South Australia in recent memory, down in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. That project, in terms of delivery, had challenges and we should anticipate that there will be challenges on this journey as well, hence the necessity, and the value, in doing as much work as we can in terms of that pre-feasibility exercise and, as part of that, site location is a critical consideration.

The work that has been done thus far is looking closely at two sites—as the Leader of the Opposition would well be aware—Cape Hardy and also Mullaquana. Both Mullaquana and Cape Hardy have their respective virtues and disadvantages. That is why we are undertaking a comprehensive exercise. With respect to Cape Hardy, there are a number of elements that bring with it a degree of attractiveness. Most of those things go to some of the science that sits around it, in terms of its location on Eyre Peninsula, but one of the consequences of Cape Hardy is that its proximity to the principal place the water is being transported to is that little bit further, which means, of course, more pipeline, which means more expense. Mullaquana, if it works out to be appropriate in a geological context, in a context environmentally, particularly in terms around the discharge of the saline water—if you can overcome those hurdles Mullaquana has the advantage of being relatively closer to Olympic Dam. That's why the work needs to be done thoroughly and comprehensively.

The original work that has been undertaken on Northern Water thus far, of course, originated in Infrastructure South Australia. It was never the intention to have Infrastructure South Australia do the delivery of the project. They are not an infrastructure delivery agency. Our principal infrastructure delivery agency in government is the Department for Infrastructure and Transport. I say we are doing a lot of work around the business case and in the lead-up to it. So it was always going to be transferred out of Infrastructure South Australia. That has now largely been done, as the minister alluded to in his remarks earlier, but we will continue to go through this.

Let me just say something for the benefit of the opposition, for the public record and for the news media: history tells us that whenever we embark on an infrastructure project as complex as this one, as large as this one, we can expect there to be challenges along the journey. There will be problems we have to overcome. There will be drags on time, there will be drags on cost and there will be issues that we have to encounter with communities along the way. That's all to be anticipated. I think it's reckless and foolhardy to suggest that any project of this size won't encounter those challenges. This will not be an exception.

It is the determination of the government to ensure that this project is thoroughly examined before we reach any FID with any commercial offtakers, such as BHP. Our determination is to make sure we do as much of that work as we reasonably can to ensure that the project is a success in the event that it is in the best interests of the state.