South-East Drainage System

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:45): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation some questions regarding the South-East community drainage scheme.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Family First has been very concerned about the government's direction on the South-East drainage scheme and the direct, very serious, negative impact on the bottom line of farmers throughout the region. Last Wednesday, I understand the minister went down to the South-East and as a result of that two very highly respected people from the South-East with absolute knowledge, namely Mayor Peter Gandolfi and a very committed young farmer, Juan Williams from the South-East, are quoted on page 3 of the Stock Journal about the decisions and obstructive way in which the minister went about the issue.

The minister in the article, and apparently at the Mount Gambier meeting last Wednesday, said: 'This is the last roll of the dice.' However, he wants to solve the ongoing issue during this term of parliament. He also allegedly said that the government would only spend $2.18 million, the cost recurrent per annum $4 million to $5 million, and claims that the community will have to work it out for themselves because otherwise that is it from the government. My questions therefore are:

1. Does the minister agree that there was no commitment or agreements contractually or any other way with the landholders down there when this scheme went through the South-East, and that they were not told that they would be expected to contribute significant amounts of money recurrently?

2. How did the Natural Resources Management Board find $300,000 for the consultancies, given that the Natural Resources Management Board, according to the minister, is a levy dedicated to issues local? Did the minister have any direct or indirect input in ensuring that $300,000 was made available from the NRM board in the South-East?

3. Finally, if this is the last roll of the dice, minister, what does the government intend to do if the farmers continue to baulk at providing money that is in the public good and not only in the interests of those people in the South-East?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:48): I thank the honourable member for his most important question, although he has some of the details slightly wrong. That's not unusual for the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. He does rely on some very prestigious sources. As we all know, in his question about what were landholders told about the scheme, the scheme about the drainage system has been around for over 100 years. We know some of those drains were put in, shall we say, informally. Some were put in by governments or local governments, some were put in by landowners without perhaps having the right.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: Some landowners pay huge levies.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Indeed, as the Hon. Mr Ridgway says, people have been paying levies for these areas for a long time. The levies have come off; there have been other schemes to pay for the drainage board. What we know is that it is not working and has not worked for decades. This government came to this parliament with a plan of how to fix the drainage scheme, and that was the SEDSOM bill, but in its wisdom this chamber chose to reject it. We are left with a decision about how to fund a legacy piece of infrastructure, vitally important to the local economy in the South-East, where the government now gives $2.2 million—or $2.18 million, I think it is—annually for ongoing maintenance of the drainage system to the board and recognises that more could be spent on the facilities.

Indeed, we put $6 million up for two financial years to actually address some of the most important priority constraints for the area and those drainage systems. But, at the end of the day, someone has to pay. If they want more work done on that drainage system than what the government is providing through its $2.2 million annual allowance, then someone is going to have to pay for it. The government is quite adamant that the taxpayer of South Australia has put in its share and someone else will have to come up with a system of how to do it. The SEDSOM bill that was before this chamber had a plan to do that. It was introduced by a former minister in the other place and it came up to this council and the council rejected it.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes, indeed. So, the chamber said, 'We're not going to pass your bill, minister.' So, we are left with this stalemate—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: He's not telling the truth. He's misleading the chamber and he should resign forthwith.

The PRESIDENT: He's not misleading the chamber. He got a bit confused on the way it was rejected, and it was going to be rejected. Can we listen to the minister's answer without any interruption? The honourable minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The SEDSOM bill proposed to establish a legislative framework for the integrated management of the total South-East drainage system, including related infrastructure and the wetlands associated with them, to meet economic, social and environmental objectives. You would think on the face of that it would be a good idea.

The SEDSOM bill was prepared to repeal the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act 1992 and create a new South-Eastern drainage management board to replace the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board. The SEDSOM bill proposed the development of a South-East drainage and wetland management strategy by the South East Natural Resources Management Board. The role of the proposed South-East drainage and wetland management strategy focused on setting directions for management in relation to surface waters, including the management of water and the drainage system in the wetlands and water courses in the South-East.

The new South-Eastern drainage management board, had the legislation been successful, would have had the responsibility of operating the drainage system, managing water flows, wetlands and water courses in accordance with the South-East drainage and wetlands management strategy. The new board will prepare a three-year business plan to identify resource requirements and a work program that includes an assessment of the risks and identifies priorities for each of those years in respect of the board's functions.

During 2013, recognising the importance of the preparation of such a strategy, the South East Natural Resources Management Board and the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board resolved to work together to develop a South-East drainage and wetland strategy. The two boards, I understand, are currently working together to progress the development of the strategy.

I said publicly and in this place that the SEDSOM bill will not be reintroduced to parliament until the South-East community has had the opportunity to discuss and recommend options to establish a sustainable funding model for the optimal management of the South-East drainage system. I outlined in this place yesterday how that will occur: through a community panel, which I have asked the South East Natural Resources Management Board to initiate. They have done that. I have reported to the chamber about that.

We have in the premise of the honourable member's question, and I think it is pretty plain on the face of it, that he is saying that the South-East community should not be paying for the upgrades, maintenance and the operation of the South-East drains, even though they bring great wealth to the region and to the landowners associated with those drains. He is saying that that should be socialised across the whole state. Well, Mr President, we do that already by supplying $2.2 million a year for the upkeep of those drains.

The honourable member has to grapple with this concept. He may not like it, but he has to grapple with this concept: a little while ago, a member of the other place had, through his mates in this chamber, an amendment inserted into an act—the wrong act, as it turns out, but we will put that to one side—to take the Save the River Murray levy off people, including people in the South-East, who had no direct connection to the River Murray. They said, 'We shouldn't be paying for that. The River Murray doesn't concern us. We're not connected to it in any way. That should be paid for by others.' So, that passed this chamber and that is what happened, in practice.

It is a little difficult for people like the Hon. Mr Brokenshire to come into this place and say, 'The South-East drainage network, who does that benefit? Does it benefit people in Whyalla? Does it benefit people in Iron Knob? Does it benefit people in the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges?' Well, yes, it does. So, on behalf of those people, the government contributes $2.2 million. But there is an interesting conundrum here. He is saying on one hand that the South-East should not be paying to save the River Murray but, on the other hand, the whole state should be paying to upgrade and maintain the drainage system. A little bit of hypocrisy goes a long way for the Hon. Mr Brokenshire.