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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 28 November 2012.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:02): I rise to make some remarks on this rather small bill, which is really just an extension of the Upper South East Dryland and Salinity Flood Management Scheme. It is a scheme that has been in the making for some time, and the digging of the drains and some of the ongoing costs have been funded jointly by the commonwealth state government and local landholders, and I understand that that funding was first obtained in the 1990s. The scheme has progressed at some sort of glacial pace. We are pleased that the drains were finally completed in June 2011 and so the scheme is transitioning from construction to the operational phase.

It is not envisaged that ongoing management will be performed under this act. However, I think that the second reading explanation that accompanied the tabling of the bill gives some fairly fuzzy and hazy rationale for why the scheme is being extended. It refers to a companion bill—the South East Drainage System Operation and Management Bill 2012, which has been tabled in the House of Assembly and will be debated next year. That bill is to provide the ongoing management now that the drainage system has been completed. The second reading speech says that, however, until this SEDSOM bill progresses (to use its acronym), it is imperative that the expiration date of the Upper South East Dryland and Salinity Flood Management Act is extended.

In addition, it provides another couple of reasons and says that the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 (which 'this bill' means) 'could serve'—and I like that word 'could'—'as a vehicle for potential infrastructure works,' and further it says that it 'could also be used to acquire the interests in land through statutory easement and undertake works on private land'. I do not think those are conclusive enough reasons for the continuation of a further extension.

I would like to refer honourable members to the second reading contribution from the member for MacKillop, Mr Mitch Williams, who, in his contribution in the House of Assembly on 15 November, made quite a comprehensive coverage of the scheme. I am not going to go into the same level of detail.

What he talked about was the history of clearance in that particular area; development of dryland salinity as a result; the establishment of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Scheme; the digging of the drains and how that was funded; and some of the contentious happenings that took place over that period of time. He talked about when the act was first debated in December 2002 and similar to today, it was the last day of sitting that it was debated, which may or may not be a coincidence, and I quote from his speech. He says:

The bill did eventually go through. I have gone back and picked up the Hansard and reviewed the contributions made by the minister in introducing the bill back in 2002. It was introduced on 4 December and we completed the debate on 5 December, the bill having already gone through the upper house, which in itself is unusual, but the minister was anxious to get it through. One of the interesting things about the original legislation was that it had a sunset clause in it of four years—

I just remind the house we are talking about December 2002, so that is some 10 years ago—

and the minister was adamant that with this measure, he would be able to complete the project very quickly and certainly within the four-year life of the legislation. He said—

This is Minister Hill—

one of the things the bill did was give the government the ability to compulsorily acquire land.

That is one of the things that, at that time, the member for MacKillop objected to and thought that those powers were too coercive. Referring back to a speech he gave in 2002, he said:

I do not think the minister needs the powers. I doubt whether given these powers the minister will progress the scheme very quickly.

He goes on in his contribution of two weeks ago in the House of Assembly to say:

How prophetic were those words...because the scheme was not completed by 19 December 2006. In fact, the scheme was not completed until 2011, and twice previously the government has come to the parliament and asked for an extension. In 2006 the parliament extended the legislation for a further three years and then in 2009 it was extended for a further three years. It is due to expire on 19 December this year and the government is now asking for a further extension, this time for another four years.

He said then that the powers were draconian and unnecessary and that this is a bad piece of legislation; he is of the same view, and I agree with him. These powers do enable the government to have fairly extraordinary powers over landholders in the South-East, and we do not think that those powers should be provided lightly. Given the passage of time and the number of times the government has come back to this place and that it has not actually placed comprehensive reasons on the table as to why the extension should be granted, they are very, very woolly rationales, indeed.

One of the other issues which we would be supportive of, if it was the sole reason—well not actually if it was the sole reason but we think could be done through other means—is to provide flows of water from the South East Drainage Scheme into the Coorong. It may well be that the government is seeking to return water through the Murray-Darling Basin system through this scheme. That would be a commendable thing, but it should not be done at the expense of the people of the South-East. If that is something that the government is keen to progress, then it should bring a separate piece of legislation to that effect.

In summary, we do not see a need for this extension. The drainage scheme is completed. a management bill is to be debated shortly, and we think this is just a sloppy way of giving the government a little bit more time to have coercive powers over the landholders in the South-East. We do not think that these powers should be extended yet again, when initially this was suppose to be completed in 2006, and we will oppose the bill and seek a division if the President does not call against, although we will support the second reading.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:11): I rise to advise the house that Family First will not support the government on this bill. We oppose it for two or three key reasons. First, back in 2002 the government actually advised the parliament that there would be a sunset clause on this, that it would cease to be required after 2006, and that the work would have been completed. Since then they have had three extensions, I understand, to complete work.

The legislation is fairly draconian from the viewpoint of lack of support to farmers in the area when it comes to what I believe are the basic rights all citizens should have, particularly farmers going about farming on their properties. I am also advised that there is no compensation for the work and the imposts that occur on those individual farms. I have with the Natural Resources Committee visited the area extensively in respect of an inquiry we had on the drainage scheme we had in the South-East.

I acknowledge that the scheme has been by and large successful, and most of the people the committee and I spoke to were actually very pleased with what had happened; some were not, as they believed they had damaged the environment in putting in those drains and that areas that had been naturally wetlands in the past were no longer wetlands because of the drainage. But, when it comes to the overall productivity and returns to agriculture and the salinity issues, then overall it is fair to say that the scheme has been successful.

Whilst I am aware that the state government currently has an application in to the commonwealth government for some money which, if approved, will allow fresher water than is currently in the Coorong into it, particularly in the northern end of the Coorong, it may argue that it wants this legislation through so that, if it gets that funding and ultimately decides to put water into the Coorong to assist with the extreme problems of salinity there, it needs the legislation for that.

However, I put on the public record that Family First will look at that on merit (and I have already advised minister Caica of this), so if they decide to put one or more drains into the area to address the issues in the Coorong, and if they have to bring in separate legislation, I flag that we would look at that quite proactively and, subject to the normal checks and balances, we would support the government on that occasion, with the caveat that support would be subject what to local landowners had to say and our deliberations and consideration for them.

In our opinion, it is high time the government considered farmers much more positively and fairly than has been the case in the 12 years or thereabouts that the government has been in office. With respect to the maintenance of the drains, there are a couple of issues. The government says it wants this legislation so that it can continue to maintain the drains. I understand there are already processes and mechanisms in place for that, and I understand the government may be looking at bringing in some other legislation specific to the ongoing maintenance of the drains, and we will look at that at that time.

I also place on the record again what I have already publicly said: when the government does that—which I understand will probably be some time in the first half of next year—if it has significant direct impact on agriculture (that is, on farmers' pockets), we will put the government on notice that we reserve our right to argue against it. We are seeing far too much of a trend where this government wants to tax and charge everybody out of existence and then still look at full cost-recovery on top. Farmers and the community generally have had enough of that.

At the moment we have some other issues to deal with, such as PIC fees, and the government is still deciding what it is going to do with that. Again, extraordinary costs to farmers is something that we will continue to oppose, and some of the strong rights in the legislation in relation to access to farmers' properties need to be debated and addressed as well.

In The Border Watch, we see an article referring to 'proposed drain sparks fiery debate' and 'landholders issued firm warning as project cost balloons to $130 million'. I see other government projects that balloon out, and the government does not turn around and try to directly hit stakeholders. I note with interest that there has been quite a lot of representation from landowners directly to the water and natural resources department regarding the drainage scheme.

I received an email today from a gentleman, and I want to put it on the public record without naming him. He said he was always perplexed that the deep drain advocates in the Taratap region who argued for environmental benefits of those drains for the Coorong did not argue for Blackford Drain water to be diverted to the Coorong. He said, 'It did seem to me an obvious thing to do.'

There have been other discussions about that, and I note that the member for Mount Gambier in the other house moved an amendment, which the Liberal party supported, that the act only cover the Blackford Drain project area and remove the balance of the areas in the bill. Notwithstanding that, the position now, after deliberation, is to oppose the bill for the reasons I have highlighted.

If the government has issues with the Blackford Drain and diversion to the Coorong that it wants to address, then I think the government needs to bring in some specific legislation for us to look at. I would urge the government to do some serious consultation with the community before it brings that bill into the parliament. If the consultation is right and the community supports it, then there will be an easy passage through the House of Assembly and hopefully also the Legislative Council.

I also want to put on the public record a couple of other things before I conclude my remarks. I am aware that when there were meetings regarding this legislation and other issues around the costs of maintenance and other possible drains, there were about 50 people at a public meeting at Lucindale. I understand that the Wattle Range Council, the District Council of Robe, several Mount Gambier City Council members and the South East Local Government Association were also in attendance at that meeting. Those 50 people, I am advised, were absolutely opposed to seeing this legislation extended.

I have also been advised that a meeting at Beachport was attended by about 60 people. The overwhelming majority also opposed any further extension of this legislation. I understand that, whilst it is still to report, at least three people have given evidence to the select committee inquiring into the sustainability of farming expressing concern about an extension of this legislation.

So, at the end of the day, weighing it all up, yes, the drainage scheme and the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 were essential. By and large, as I said in my earlier remarks, I believe it has been successful and I congratulate all involved in that, but there comes a point when you cannot continue to mislead the community and request extensions of legislation when, right at the beginning, the minister of the day on behalf of the government made an absolute commitment to a sunset clause.

People in the community supported it and those of us in the parliament supported the legislation based on the fact of the advice from the minister of the day that the government would honour that sunset clause. This has not been done and it is time now to ensure that there is a sunset clause that is finalised and that this legislation lapses. So, with those remarks I say, again, that we will be opposing the bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:20): My comments will be brief, which corresponds with the length of the bill but not with the length of the history of this saga. The Greens have been consistently on the record over the years opposing many of the different aspects, works in particular, that were made possible through the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act. In fact, a check of the records would show that the Greens opposed the first extension of the bill on 21 September 2006, we opposed the second extension of the bill on 1 December 2009 and we are opposing it again today.

I do not propose to go through a history of the scheme, or a history of the legislative extensions to it. I just make the simple point that when it comes to the modification of the landscape in the Upper South-East of this state, it has been extensive. The number of natural wetlands remaining is now very few. I recall, from the last time we debated an extension to this bill, something like 6 per cent of naturally occurring wetlands is all that remains in that area.

From my discussions with the government, and I appreciate the government briefing I obtained, with the opposition and affected landholders, I am quite comfortable with the fact that there is very little lost by not extending this legislation further. In fact, the prospect of the act not being extended will delight many in the South-East, who have struggled with the lack of consultation and the poor practices of the old water department (the now Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources). I hope that the fact, and I think the numbers are clear, that this bill will be rejected by this chamber is a wake-up call for the government to smarten up its approach when working with affected communities.

The main consequence of not extending this legislation is that the operation and maintenance of the drainage scheme will revert back to the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act and the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board. That is a scenario that was always contemplated. My understanding, from talking to local people over the last little while, is that the drainage board engenders far more confidence and respect to competently handle the ongoing management of the drainage system than the old department for water ever did.

One risk, I think, of not extending the act is that someone might decide to do illegal earthworks in the knowledge that the fine is slightly lower. As I understand it, it is a $10,000 fine. However, my understanding is that the drainage board has been able, in the past, to act to stop further works and I see no reason why they could not act to do so again.

A second unresolved issue, as I understand it, is the finalisation of land titles. There are also a number of statutory easements unresolved and ongoing compensation claims. If the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act lapses, the question then is: who should be responsible for finalising those issues? In my submission, the department (now the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources) should keep that responsibility. It would not be fair to pass that legacy of unfinished business onto the drainage board. These issues should have been resolved by the department many years ago.

So, with those brief words, I indicate that the Greens will be opposing the bill at an appropriate stage. I understand the opposition is letting it go through to second reading and they will vote against it later, but whenever it happens we will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:24): I also want to briefly put my opposition to the second reading of this bill on the record. Firstly, I would like to say thanks to Holly Hershman from minister Caica's office and departmental staff for briefing my staff and myself on this bill, and for their general accessibility on other legislative matters in the environment and water portfolios.

However, the timelines we are being given to pass this bill do not really show due respect to parliamentary process and the role of the Legislative Council. Having a bill appear on our Notice Paper for the first time today and then hoping it will be dealt with before dinner for the sitting year is less than ideal, to say the least.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: And not even on the priority list!

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: Indeed; the Hon. Ms Lensink interjects, 'Not even on the priority list,' and that is certainly an important point to raise also. I appreciate that the minister Caica has shown a more engaging and less cavalier approach than some of his colleagues might have with their 'urgent' legislation—and I should point out to Hansard that 'urgent' should be noted in quotation marks.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: You know how I feel about grammar, Ms Franks; apart from cats, punk music and Pokémon, it is the most important thing in my world—of course, apart from politics also. The fact remains that ministers need to sort out amongst themselves what the priorities are and ensure they reach this chamber in time to allow for cross-benchers (and everyone else, I would argue) to give bills due diligence and consideration, otherwise we cannot discharge our duties as members.

Whilst I appreciate that the content of this bill is rather straightforward and simple, the politics of South-East water management could not be categorised as such. My office has been told this morning that the local community does not feel adequately consulted on this matter, and some of the more draconian aspects of the legislation continued by this amendment mean that the department, rather than the local drainage board, maintains more control than landholders and local stakeholders would like.

If we today allow this legislation to pass, then some of these bad practices can continue. I would prefer that the minister and his department go back to the drawing board and that more comprehensive consultation and engagement with landholders, stakeholders and the local community be undertaken. For these reasons, I feel I must oppose the bill today.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:27): I thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate thus far, although I might lament the fact that the contributions have not been as favourable as I might have preferred. Nonetheless, I can sense the will of the house, and I suspect the third reading will not be favourable either.

I understand the Hon. Michelle Lensink has some questions she wants to put on the record at clause 1, so I will not delay the house any further; we will go into the committee stage if the house approves, and then I will put my neck on the block for the third reading.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I have a couple of fairly short questions which arise from the second reading from the government minister which was tabled on 27 November. The third paragraph states:

However, until this progresses—

which is the resolution of the new SEDSOM Bill, which will take over the two existing acts—

it is imperative that the expiration date of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 is extended in order to enable the ongoing management of the drainage system.

Could the minister please expand on what is so imperative for the extension of this act?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My understanding is that in 2006 the extension of this act was foreshadowed and the need for new legislation was discussed then. I understand that legislation has been introduced into the other place and is still yet to be considered. The imperative which was mentioned and which the Hon. Ms Lensink asked about is that we need to have this legislation passed for the purposes, in particular, of ensuring that the system is not interfered with in between now and the time that the new legislation is going to be introduced and, hopefully, passed.

I understand also that by not agreeing to postpone the expiry of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act for an additional four years, members will effectively compromise the operation and maintenance of the South-East drainage system until the South East Drainage System Operation and Management Bill has been passed and significantly diminish their commitment to a healthy and sustainable South-East drainage and wetland system and the Coorong South Lagoon.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The following paragraph, which I referred to in my second reading contribution, uses the word 'could', and in this context it is talking about the existing act this bill seeks to amend and states 'could serve as a vehicle for potential future infrastructure works such as the South-East Flows Restoration Project'. Can the minister explain why those terms are used as being fairly non-definitive rather than actually spelling out exactly what the need for this extension is?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that the word 'could' is used because we are still to develop a business case for South-East flows and, as yet, we have not completed that business case or had consideration by a funding partner.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Was it the commonwealth that was considered as the funding partner?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is yes.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: The final paragraph states, 'If this project,' and I think that is referring to a REFLOWS project, 'is determined to go ahead as a result of consultation, the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act could be used to acquire the interests'. Could the minister outline what form of consultation was anticipated by the use of those words?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The intention was that, if we were to deliver this South East Flows Restoration Project, there would be consultation with the broader community, individual landholders on the alignment and special interest stakeholder groups. The intention has always been to develop and deliver this program in a collaborative fashion.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: As a hypothetical question, minister, if the community said no, what would be the government's response to that?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I imagine that, in that hypothetical case, we would have to work harder to win the support of the community.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: My final question is: that paragraph also refers to works to be undertaken on private land. Can the minister outline what sort of works were being anticipated?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that that work on private land would essentially involve the widening of existing drains, new fences and new occupational crossings. I just have a further few remarks, if I might, in relation to some comments made by the Hon. Mr Brokenshire in his contribution to clarify a matter or two, and also in regard to some of the comments made in the other place about compensation provisions under the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act.

I am advised that the act does provides for three classes of compensation, contrary to what some people have been saying in this debate. In relation to the South East Flows Restoration Project, it is the government's intention that landholders or persons with an interest in the land will be offered compensation under the Upper South East act in accordance with the principles and processes of the Land Acquisition Act.

I am also advised the government has agreed to a reduced project area. This will restrict some functions of the minister, including the area in which the minister can carry out works to the area required to deliver stage 1 of the South East Flows Restoration Project, should it be approved.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Based on the answer from the minister, I ask the minister: what is the total budget that the government has for compensation? How much has it paid? What does it work on per hectare? If you are going to come in and tell us that—which is contrary to what we have been told—then put some facts on the table. How much money have you budgeted? How much have you actually put out there and what does that equate to per hectare? What model do you have for this compensation?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: My advice is that that is dependent on the business case, which is still under development, and it would, of course, be dependent on the uptake.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Not a good answer, minister.

The CHAIR: I am happy with it.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion, Minister for Social Housing, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers) (16:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Third reading negatived.