Reservoirs

The Hon. J.E. HANSON (14:50): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. I refer to the minister's response to the supplementary question from the Hon. Michelle Lensink in this place on 1 November 2016. That was prior to my being here, but I have gone through the Hansard. Will the minister update the chamber on the use of our reservoirs for recreation or to provide safe, reliable drinking water to all South Australians?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:50): I thank the honourable member for his important question and the observation that he has been an avid reader of my Hansard speeches for some time. It is good to know that someone was looking at it.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Yes. Just over a year ago, I think in November 2016, the Hon. Michelle Lensink asked me a question regarding the use of South Australia's reservoirs for recreational activities. I think, from memory, she requested a costing figure on opening up our reservoirs for these recreational purposes. Subsequently, of course, we now know that the Liberals have announced a policy of opening up our reservoirs to the public, in particular Happy Valley reservoir as part of a Glenthorne Farm proposal for recreational activities, including kayaking, fishing and walking trails and so on and any number of other reservoirs too, as I understand it.

I have had a long record of supporting and promoting the benefits of South Australians exploring and enjoying our beautiful natural resources. I have also had a long record of protecting South Australians' best interests, particularly in relation to our state drinking water supplies. This proposal of the Liberal Party to open up our online reservoirs—the ones about which the Hon. Michelle Lensink was clearly asking for some funding comments over a year ago—I believe is incredibly unwise. It is potentially dangerous and it is certainly going to be very expensive, but most of all it lacks in common sense and ignores scientific advice and best practice from around the world.

The state government is properly protective of our critical water systems. It is important in South Australia, the driest state, that we maintain a number of reservoirs ready to supply our water needs, especially in the case of dry periods, which we all know we face from time to time. One year on, the opposition has failed to cost their proposal and unsurprisingly failed to detail how they would afford this cost.

The Liberals' incredible proposal that they want to open up drinking water reservoir supplies for access by the public for people to swim in, fish in and boat in raises more questions than we have time here to go through, and I could spend some time at great length doing exactly that. The gaping holes in the policy and their lack of logic are completely astounding, but of course it is on a par with them not taking any expert advice on any of the proposals they have released to date, including their health policy and many others. They are not interested in talking to people who have been working for a very long time in the field.

Happy Valley reservoir, for example, supplies somewhere between 30 per cent and 70 per cent of Adelaide's daily drinking water needs. I point out that recreational use of Adelaide's drinking water supply reservoirs could pose a very significant contamination issue, obviously, and could seriously threaten the security of safe, clean and affordable water to Adelaide. As such, the government's priority will continue to be the protection of drinking water supplies and public health, something the Liberals have a very cavalier attitude to.

I'm advised that a preliminary assessment by SA Water estimates that to address the increased water quality risk, if the Liberals' proposal is ever to see the light of day, a capital upgrade costing in the vicinity of between $16 million to $22 million would be required for the Happy Valley Water Treatment Plant alone. This would also lead to an estimated increase in operational costs for the treatment plant of, I am advised, between $700,000 and $1.5 million per annum—again, for that one reservoir. The opposition has failed to detail how they will afford this extra cost. The question must therefore be asked: are they simply going to pass on these costs to SA Water customers and drive up the average water bill?

In addition to these costs, a preliminary high-level estimate of the capital costs required to provide infrastructure that will be needed for safe access, such as roads and car parks, toilet facilities, boat ramps, a three-sided jetty, shelters, a system of buoys to protect people using their kayaks from going over the top of spillways, and security fencing, indicates a potential spend of over $5 million—again, just for Happy Valley.

This does not include ongoing maintenance or management costs such as ranger patrols, rubbish collection, cleaning of toilets, which of course would be substantial. Also, as a result of the increased water quality risk presented through recreational access, additional water quality testing and monitoring is also going to be required to ensure the health of our drinking water is maintained.

These are incredibly staggering costs to open up the Happy Valley reservoir on its own. None of the others is contemplated in these costs; it is just Happy Valley reservoir on its own for recreational activities. But the cost for the Liberals' Glenthorne Farm proposal does not stop there. How much taxpayers' money will be used to buy back the farm the Liberals sold in 2001 when they were last in government? The Liberals' policy is literally a blank cheque with the taxpayers of South Australia footing the bill. Whilst those opposite say that there are examples of reservoirs being used for recreational purposes occurring interstate, they are neglecting some very fundamental differences.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The Hon. Mr Lucas pipes up, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah.' For example, the Wivenhoe Dam, which is one of the few drinking water supply reservoirs in Australia that is subject to recreational access, is 100 times larger than the Happy Valley reservoir. As such, it has a significant dilution factor and a water residency time, both of which are considered important as part of any water quality risk assessment. In moving the motion for the opposition's Glenthorne Farm proposal, the member for Bright in the other place said it will take a generation or several generations to scope and enact this pie in the sky scheme.

As I said last year to the Hon. Michelle Lensink in response to her request that the government cost the Liberal Party's proposal, it is no wonder they have been put out of government for so long and it is no wonder they will only be back in government by 2036 at the earliest. That is the Hon. Mr Lucas's plan at least. That is the one he clutches around with him all the time: back in government by 2036. It seems obvious that it will take them generations to achieve any of their proposals at all.

I am not the only one that is deeply concerned by the opposition's very fanciful policy. Last week, I received an email from a concerned constituent about the Liberals' reckless proposal, Professor Don Bursill AM, SA Senior Australian of the Year in 2011, former chief scientist of the South Australian Water Corporation between 1990 and 2005 and a former CEO of the Co-operative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment 1995 to 2005. Professor Bursill is internationally acknowledged as one of Australia's most respected water scientists and spent almost 40 years in the water industry, with a principal interest in water quality policy, planning, management and treatment. He presided over the current national drinking water guidelines, the national drinking water guidelines. He also had a large influence on European Commission water regulations, as well as the WHO international guidelines for drinking water quality. He is someone, I think, we can all agree knows something about water and water safety.

For those opposite, this is someone who understands the difference between good water policy and the potential cost, not just in monetary terms, of a proposal like the one they have put forward. Professor Bursill forwarded his response to the opposition's proposal for our drinking water reservoirs to be open for recreational activities, in which he states, 'There is a real and significant risk associated with opening up the system in this way.'

He went on to say that no treatment process that is used by any water authority in the world is 100 per cent effective 24/7. Some have very high efficiencies but not absolutely so, especially when under stress such as during storms or when demand is at a maximum—I might also add, during periods of dryness. He said multiple barriers between potential sources of contamination and the consumer are fundamental aspects of all current best practice water supply systems so that a failure in one area can be adequately dealt with in another. Protected reservoir reserves are part of that multibarrier system. Removing this protection requires another operational response to ensure public health safety.

Professor Bursill also referred to the publication Safe Drinking Water: Lessons from Recent Outbreaks in Affluent Countries by Canadian authors, Steve and Elizabeth Hrudey. This publication, he advises, was specifically written to alert people—including presumably the opposition—to the ongoing occurrence of drinking water incidents that leave people ill or even dead through failures of systems thought to be safe. Quite pointedly, he states, 'Complacency and poor decision-making are common factors in these many incidents analysed in that book.'

This email was also sent, I understand, through the Liberal candidate for Newland. It has been some time since those opposite have been in government, obviously, but to govern is more about delivering policy based on good advice than flights of fancy. One has a responsibility to do some research on the risk/benefit equation, clearly lacking in the Liberal Party's policies. Acting in the best interests of those who put us here and sound decision-making—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: —even when that means not doing something that sounds fun to the Liberal opposition but has potential problems in the real world, has particularly far-reaching consequences when you are talking about water policy.

In 2014, the state government committed to investigate the potential for recreational fishing access at offline—that is, non-supply to drinking water pipelines—SA Water reservoirs. We have opened up the offline Warren and Bundaleer reservoirs for this purpose, and the Tod reservoir, I am advised, is expected to be opened in early 2018. We are also identifying alternative inland water bodies for shore-based recreational fishing opportunities.

This is what good decision-making looks like. It is what strong government looks like: acting with foresight and forethought, planning and vision, and utilising expert advice so that we protect the interests of South Australians. We look after their health and, most importantly, we look after their very important and safe drinking water supplies, something entirely absent from Steven Marshall, the Leader of the Opposition and member for Norwood's Liberal Party policies that we have seen so far.