WATER SECURITY

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:34): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question relating to water security.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On 3 June 2009, the Leader of the Government, in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, said:

In relation to the Port Stanvac desalination plant, it is just rubbish to suggest that the opposition could have built another plant earlier. In any case, why would you do it? This is one of the things the opposition is saying: that it would have had it two years earlier. We have not needed it yet. Sure, we are going to need it in the future but, if it had been built two years earlier, you would have spent all that money and for what...The thing is that this government will build it when it is needed…

He then went on to say that the opposition's criticism of the government's tardiness was the assertion of an ability to predict a drought.

In his foreword to the Thinkers in Residence report of the late Peter Cullen, the Premier stated:

The water situation in South Australia has become critical.

Further on, he states:

I do believe, however, that South Australians are coming to realise that we now need to act with some urgency.

The Premier's foreword was published in September 2004. Last month, the Minister for Water Security was asked by FIVEaa's Keith Conlon how long the drought had been going. Her response was:

The worst part of the drought started in about 2002.

So, it is not a matter of being able to predict a drought; it is a matter of the government being able to face the facts and take action now for the past. I ask the Leader of the Government: first, if investment in water is a matter of responding to prevailing conditions, why does National Water Commission data show that per capita spending on Adelaide's water and wastewater infrastructure decreased by more than 25 per cent from 2003-04 to 2007-08 while the national average more than doubled?

Secondly, did the drought start later in South Australia than anywhere else in Australia, or were the minister's interstate Labor colleagues recklessly investing before a drought set in; or is this government negligent?

The PRESIDENT: Order! You are asking the minister to give an opinion. Part of that question is out of order.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:37): Droughts are, of course, spatially based, if you like to put it that way. At any given time, you can have a drought in one part of the country while there are floods in another. Indeed, earlier this year, we had floods in Queensland—quite large floods, in fact. I believe we had nearly 400 millimetres of rain in one day in parts of the coast that were flooded and, at the same time, we had a drought here.

The fact is that a drought in South Australia will obviously be different to a drought in other parts of the country. In any case, for South Australia's water security, it is almost more important that we have rain in the catchment areas of Victoria for the Murray-Darling Basin than within our own state because, recently, in the opening of this season, we have had some reasonable rains. Water in our local catchments in the past year has been reasonable, but we need water in the catchments, particularly for the Hume Reservoir and Dartmouth Dam. I am not really sure what point the honourable member is making in relation to that.

The fact is that we did have a drought in 2002, but the point I make is that, based on all previous historical knowledge of drought, you do not get the sort of rain deficiencies over such a continuous period as we have had in recent years. That is what is most unusual. We have had some years where we have had some quite severe rainfall deficiency and severe reductions in inflows into the catchment area, but what we have seen in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin is three years in a row—and this year is not looking much better—of quite unprecedented rain deficiencies within the catchment area. So, this is a problem that has emerged. When you plan for any natural event, you do it on the basis of risk management. If you plan for an earthquake, you do it on the basis of what has happened in the past 100 years and what the probabilities are if you are doing it for bushfire, floods and all those sorts of things. We manage them on the basis of probabilities, and we try to manage around those. That probability, of course, is based on historical knowledge.

In relation to water, the fact is that all our historical knowledge is now being set aside because we have had these quite unprecedented events. The point I was making in my earlier answer was that no-one predicted that there would be such a prolonged period of water deficiency within that time.

Anyone can say, 'Let's build a desalination plant', or you can say, 'Let's build a sports stadium'. If you want to build that sports stadium it helps to know, for example, who will use that stadium, it helps to get a decision on a site, and it helps to know whether football, cricket or soccer will be played there, and then get the groups to agree. Anyone can come up with the idea, 'Let's have a stadium; it will be a mere half a billion dollars of taxpayer's money', but you have to look at all of it. With the desalination plant it is very easy to put out a press release saying that we should have one, but all the details and economics have to be worked out—where it would be put, how the water would be treated, etc. This government has done that work in great depth, and it is now under way.

The last part of the honourable member's question talked about capital investment in water, and I draw the honourable member's attention to the Budget Overview for this year—in particular, the section on water, which indicates that in 2009-10 $833 million will be spent on the $1.8 billion 100 gigalitre—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Seven years after the drought started.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It would be nice if we could have spent it before the drought, if we had known when to do that. What if we get a 100-year flood? Perhaps the member could tell us when we will get a one-in-100-year flood in the city. If the honourable member can predict drought, presumably he can predict flood. This government has been putting significant investment into water security measures, and it has also been putting significant investment into dealing with floodwater issues. We know that our city is built on—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Well, Gawler for a start, if you want somewhere.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The minister will refrain from responding to interjections.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Thank you, Mr President. The fact is that this government is embarking on a massive investment program for water, the likes of which the state has never seen. We will be investing in that, and it will guarantee water security for the future. However, as I said, if the honourable member has a crystal ball perhaps he could help us out with predicting earthquakes, floods, and bushfires; he can tell us when all these things will happen. It would make it very much easier for those of us in government if we could have the benefit of his knowledge on those things.