Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACT REPORT 2010-11

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon G.A. Kandelaars:

That the 2010-11 report of the committee be noted.

(Continued from 29 February 2012.)

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:46): I will just let the Leader of Government Business know that I will not spend too much time on this because it may give the government a chance to get to some government business a little earlier perhaps than it had anticipated. Having said that, I do want to make a few remarks. On behalf of all members in the Natural Resources Committee, I commend the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, and the Hon. John Dawkins, who has already commented on this matter. I do not want to go over ground that they have already covered. We unanimously supported the report of the committee.

I want to basically talk about two or three things. First, if members have not visited this area and they happen to be down there at any time, I encourage them to actually go and have a look at even just a small part of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management project. It is actually a significant investment and one that was very much needed. Historically it goes back a long way but, in fairness to both major parties, both have been committed to the expansion of the South-East drainage scheme.

There is clear evidence that that South-East drainage scheme generally is working really well. There are few areas of concern. There is a court case around one of those at the moment, which I will not go into because it is sub judice. However, apart from one or two examples like that, I think it is fair to say that the bulk of the South-East community is very pleased with the results of that drainage scheme.

There are issues still to be worked out about ongoing maintenance, and that to me is an issue that we will really have to focus on. Part of that involves who is going to pick up the bill for the maintenance of the scheme. Whilst it appears to me that the construction of that drainage scheme has been very good—and we had the opportunity of meeting with some of the key people involved in the management of that construction—like any scheme, particularly a drainage scheme and one in a high rainfall area, there will be significant ongoing maintenance.

Whilst primary producers did contribute to the drainage scheme—and, of course, so did taxpayers across the state—the fact of the matter is that this drainage scheme is for the public good. It is for the public good because it allows economic opportunity and economic growth through primary production in the region. So it is for the general public good.

It is also pretty important when it comes to food security. As well as that, it is for the environmental good, and that environmental good is something that should not be underestimated. That is why I have said to the community privately and publicly in the South-East that, on behalf of Family First, I for one will be opposing any cost in the maintenance to primary producers. We have a pretty significant budget in this state; it is a matter of how we prioritise the management of that. We spend a reasonable amount of money on maintenance of infrastructure that is for the public good. I see no reason or justification as to why primary producers should now be asked in a region to cough up millions of dollars a year to maintain something that they have already put a direct investment into.

Also, I must say on the public record, as part of their goodwill to their project, they have some fairly inconvenient farm management issues to address because the drains obviously had to go in the most suitable places and farming management practices would be harder for some as a result of that. They are putting goodwill into it as well, but I believe there is a very strong argument that we should not be seeing them paying for this maintenance on an ongoing basis. I will have more to say about that when we get to the specific legislation. With those few words, I commend this report to the council. I am very proud to be part of the committee that went down there and put this report together.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:51): I thank the Hons Robert Brokenshire and John Dawkins for their contributions. Certainly, from my perspective, the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme appears to have brought some great benefit to the local community, particularly in enhancing farm production and reducing the consequences of salinity in much of the Upper South-East. As I said previously, there are some issues, and the Natural Resources Committee have decided that they will revisit the Upper South-East drainage system to see whether some of the environmental outcomes that the scheme had hoped to achieve are achieved. I commend the report to this council.

Motion carried.