Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Murray River, Lower Lakes MURRAY RIVER, LOWER LAKES The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council MURRAY RIVER, LOWER LAKES The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:55): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of Government Business some questions. Leave granted. The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Today, minister Maywald in another place made a ministerial statement about water and water supply, particularly to the Lower Lakes. In that ministerial statement the minister said: ...South Australia is not responsible for over-allocation of the Murray-Darling Basin and is not responsible for the drought. We understand that the government is not responsible for the drought, but the minister goes on to say in her statement, 'Community consultation has guided the government's efforts in' and, amongst a number of dot points, it says, 'coordinating pipelines around the Lower Lakes to deliver potable and irrigation supplies.' My question is: why did the minister in the other house say that the government has provided coordinated pipelines around the Lower Lakes to deliver potable and irrigation supplies when, in fact, there are two areas (Point Sturt and Hindmarsh Island) that are desperate for potable water and pipeline infrastructure but, so far, their requests over nine months have been totally neglected by this government? The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: The minister will disregard some of the opinion in the question. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:56): I thank the honourable member for his question, but my understanding is there has been a very significant amount of money (I think something like $600 million was provided to this state from the commonwealth Murray Futures program) to build pipelines around the Lower Lakes; and, of course, I think we are all aware there has been a pipeline built to the Meningie region and other areas. I am not sure whether that program has been finished—clearly, it takes time to build all of those pipelines—but I know a very significant amount of taxpayers' money has been put into building pipelines in that region. I will take the question on notice to the Minister for Water Security and get the latest update in relation to those areas. Clearly, given the size of the area around the Lower Lakes and the dimension of the problem, notwithstanding that such a large sum of money has been spent to deal with these issues, it is obviously very difficult to try to resolve this issue, even if it is in a temporary sense, for everyone who lives in the region. As I said, given the amount of money that has been spent, I think the government has done probably more than one could reasonably expect in relation to trying to satisfy everyone who is affected around the Lower Lakes. It is a massive problem. As I said, I will refer the question to the minister and bring back a reply regarding progress in relation to any communities that may not yet have had the benefit of those pipelines.