Select Committee on Water Supply Needs of Eyre Peninsula

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (Leader of the Opposition) (16:24): I move:

That the report of the select committee be noted.

I rise to speak to the report of the Select Committee on Water Supply Needs of Eyre Peninsula, tabled in this place yesterday together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence. Before I do, I want to place on the record that, as Chair of this select committee, I did find the timing of yesterday's announcement by the government of SCAP and subsequent cabinet approval for Billy Lights Point as the site of the desalination plant quite remarkable and incredibly disappointing.

Why the government could not wait another 12 hours to see the select committee's report, which was tabled in the parliament yesterday afternoon, and consider its recommendations is something that is beyond me. Our committees have a very important role in our parliamentary system, so I think it is incumbent on this government to acknowledge that. The fact they went out announcing the approval yesterday morning when they knew that this report was being tabled is incredibly disappointing and somewhat arrogant.

Nevertheless, the government's announcement does not detract from the diligent work of the committee over the last few months. This committee was established via a motion in this place in February this year after significant concerns were raised with members in this place over the current government's decision to place much-needed desalination plant infrastructure, which was identified back in 2008 as being crucial to water independence and security on Eyre Peninsula, at Billy Lights Point.

The committee met in Adelaide on six occasions to hear evidence from 32 witnesses. The committee also travelled to Port Lincoln in May of this year and heard from a further 23 witnesses. The committee was cognisant of the need for timeliness with this process, and I thank the committee members and staff for their hard work in what was a fairly intensive period of hearings as well as travel.

It is no secret that Eyre Peninsula is facing a critical water supply crisis. This is due to over-reliance on existing groundwater resources, which are under severe stress. The Uley South Basin, the primary source of potable water, provides 68 per cent of the region's supply; however, extraction over decades has pushed the basin to unsustainable levels, raising concerns about salinity and the ingress of seawater.

As stated, it was back in 2008 that SA Water proposed a desalination plant as a climate-independent water source. This report examines the delay around the construction of that desalination plant and now the controversy surrounding the selected site of Billy Lights Point as well as providing a broader examination of water security on Eyre Peninsula. Eyre Peninsula's water supply issues have been recognised for decades across successive governments. Historical reliance on aquifers and reservoirs has led to depletion and salinity issues.

The committee heard evidence that climate conditions and the unpredictability of rainfall are adding stress to the basin. Critically, the committee heard evidence that the region's water distribution infrastructure is ageing or non-existent, further limiting capacity. These challenges have spurred calls for a reliable long-term solution to secure water for domestic, agricultural and industrial needs. Desalination has been the preferred and practical option, offering resilience to climatic variations whilst not impacting current water sources; however, the implementation of this solution has faced significant hurdles, particularly regarding the proposed site.

The South Australian government announced plans in March 2023 to construct a desalination plant capable of producing 5.3 gigalitres of potable water annually, with an estimated cost of what was then $313 million but figures are currently being estimated at $350 million. The plant is expected to meet the peninsula's current water demands, addressing risks of overextraction and groundwater depletion. The proposed location at Billy Lights Point has sparked widespread opposition and, as previously mentioned, this is largely what spurred the formation of this select committee.

No-one on the committee was debating the need for a solution. The terms of reference were not to dispute that point. Rather, it was to respond to calls from community, from industry, from cultural groups, from local government and from scientists to independently investigate the best solution from all the evidence available.

SA Water prioritised Billy Lights Point for the desalination plant, citing its proximity to existing infrastructure and cost efficiency. The location also, on paper, allowed for timely delivery of the plant by mid 2026, crucial for avoiding water shortages when groundwater allocations are reducing. However, the committee heard that this decision has been met with resistance and opposition from several stakeholders, including local government, environmental groups, aquaculture operators and traditional owners.

Whilst this opposition exists, the committee heard evidence that there remains the real risk of delay through potential future legal proceedings. Whether those proceedings eventuate or not is not a matter for the committee, except to note that such proceedings may impact on the delivery of the plant to the community in the required timeframe, and this should be considered in any future or current decision-making.

Throughout the committee process, I think it is fair to say that there were differing views in regard to the science and modelling used by SA Water to determine the suitability of Billy Lights Point as the selected site, particularly around the potential effects on the environment and the potential impact of brine and chemical by-products on marine life.

I would like to share some of those concerns that were ventilated through oral and written submissions within the committee process regarding the desalination site at Billy Lights Point. Boston and Proper bays, which are adjacent to Billy Lights Point, are, according to evidence received, characterised by poor water circulation, limiting their capacity to disperse the brine and chemical by-products of desalination.

In our report, numerous experts warn that these highly saline discharges could harm marine ecosystems, particularly benthic organisms and semi-sessile species; disrupt the spawning and growth of aquatic life, including King George whiting and blue swimmer crabs; and also jeopardise aquaculture operations, with the entrainment of mussel larvae identified as a critical concern.

The bay's ecological fragility is further compounded by the presence of dormant dinoflagellate cysts in the sediment. Construction and operational activities risk, according to evidence, activating these toxins, potentially causing paralytic shellfish poisoning. According to a number of witnesses, such disruptions threaten not only marine biodiversity but also the region's reputation as a premium seafood supplier.

Aquaculture and seafood industries on Eyre Peninsula contribute over $400 million annually to the South Australian economy. The committee heard from witnesses that the proposed desalination plant at Billy Lights Point is, from their investigations, scientific studies and understanding, a direct threat to these industries, with direct impacts on mussel farming, which relies on natural spat settlement in clean waters, and also more broadly on the peninsula's 'clean and green' branding, which we all know is critical for maintaining market competitiveness in both domestic and international markets. Multiple representatives from the aquaculture sector emphasised to the committee that even the perception of environmental degradation will harm their industry.

Another key concern was raised by the Barngarla people. The Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation, as traditional owners of the region, have expressed strong opposition to the proposed site. Billy Lights Point holds significant cultural heritage, including ancient fish traps that are interconnected with the local marine ecosystem. The committee heard evidence that for the Barngarla people any harm to marine life could diminish the function and spiritual value of these heritage sites. During evidence, the corporation's legal representatives criticised SA Water's engagement process, highlighting the lack of comprehensive heritage assessment and inadequate consultation.

The committee also considered the findings of the site selection committee, which was initiated by the previous Liberal government in response to community opposition to the site of Billy Lights Point. It was clear that the previous Eyre Peninsula Desalination Plant Site Selection Committee—in its full name—was established to explore alternative sites, and they recommended Sleaford West as the most suitable location. This site was identified based on criteria including environmental impacts, social licence and feasibility; however, SA Water were quick to reject this recommendation, citing higher construction costs, and geological and planning regulation challenges.

The committee found that the site selection committee was effective in its purpose of examining a range of sites for a desalination plant on the southern Eyre Peninsula, and that the site selection committee engaged with stakeholders in the community in an effective and efficient manner. The committee also notes that SA Water did not adopt the site selection committee's recommendation for sites to locate a desalination plant, and the agency cited costs to its customer base as one of the key reasons not to adopt the site selection committee's recommendation of Sleaford West to locate the desalination plant.

The committee also heard evidence, and it was well ventilated publicly, that the Premier and his Labor ministers attended a country cabinet community forum on 9 May and announced, despite the development application for Billy Lights Point not having been through the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP), that Billy Lights Point, in the government's view, was the only site option for the desalination plant for Eyre Peninsula, citing risk to the community of running out of water with further delays.

The select committee has in its report urged the government to reconsider the site selection process, emphasising the need to prioritise community support and environmental sustainability over short-term cost savings. A recurring theme in the report is the lack of transparency and meaningful community consultation. The select committee made a finding that SA Water, and by virtue the government, had prioritised costs and deadlines over environmental, cultural and social considerations.

Stakeholders in their evidence emphasised the need for a participatory decision-making process to rebuild trust between the community and government authorities. The aquaculture industry, and the Barngarla people in particular, called for greater involvement in site assessment and decision-making processes.

The report has called for a comprehensive and integrated approach to water planning on Eyre Peninsula. Our key recommendations include that the current state government acknowledges that successive governments have been aware of the issues of water supply on Eyre Peninsula for decades, but that mismanagement of water supplies has led to the current crisis, and acknowledges that there need to be definitive and informed decisions made to ensure the longevity of current supply sources and sustainable future long-term alternative water supplies.

The committee also recommended that the government acknowledge that social licence does not exist within the community for the proposed desalination plant at Billy Lights Point due to the significant community, cultural heritage, industry and environmental concerns regarding the location, and reconsiders an alternative location for the desalination plant that minimises impact and maximises regional support, as identified by the state government's site selection committee.

We also recommend that the government formally engages with the federal government's National Water Grid Authority to secure funding for delivery of long-term water supply for Eyre Peninsula, and that the government commits to a comprehensive independent audit of Eyre Peninsula's water distribution network to establish the current conditions of the pipes and related infrastructure across the region, and the network's capacity for change to support current and future distribution needs.

The committee also recommends that consideration be given to the scope of the Northern Water project, to include the design and costings for it to be connected to the wider Eyre Peninsula water supply network, and it recommends that the state government urgently commits to the investigation of alternative water supply projects, water efficiency measures, incentives and pricing structures on Eyre Peninsula to ensure a sustainable future long-term water supply for the region, noting particularly the potential for delays caused by the absence of social licence, the communications with the federal government, National Water Grid Authority, and the potential for legal challenges.

The committee heard about innovative and decentralised water supply options, such as offshore modular desalination plants and enhanced wastewater reuse. Stakeholders proposed several innovative approaches to ensure regional water security. Finally, the committee did recommend that the state Labor government table in parliament a response to this report, including the findings and recommendations, within four months of the tabling of this report.

The Hon. R.A. Simms: Good luck with that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: Given that they do not table questions on notice within the required timeframe of the sessional orders, I am certainly not holding my breath on this last one.

I would like to thank my fellow committee members. I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Ben Hood, the Hon. Justin Hanson and the Hon. Russell Wortley. Can I also thank the support staff, secretary Leslie Guy and research officer Dr Merry Brown, for their hard work. Of course, I also thank all those who gave evidence to an extremely thorough investigation.

While the need for a climate-independent water source is undeniable, the proposed desalination plant at Billy Lights Point has revealed multiple significant shortcomings in both planning and stakeholder engagement. Environmental risks, economic implications for aquaculture and cultural heritage concerns underscore the necessity of re-evaluating the site selection process, as well as looking at other water supply projects, including water efficiency measures for Eyre Peninsula.

The select committee's recommendations provide a road map for addressing Eyre Peninsula's water challenges. By reconsidering the plant's location, rethinking solutions and improving community engagement, South Australia can secure a vital, sustainable water future for the region whilst preserving its environmental, economic and cultural assets.

Despite the government's rhetoric of full steam ahead, I do hope that the Premier and the minister take the time to read our select committee's report to seriously consider these recommendations and to reconsider their draconian approach to decision-making on Eyre Peninsula. With that, I commend the report to the chamber.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:42): I rise briefly to associate myself with the remarks of the Chair of this committee and to commend this report to the council and to the government. I echo her thanks to our researcher, Dr Merry Brown, and to our expert secretarial support, Ms Leslie Guy. Indeed, the members of this committee worked quite collaboratively, quite constructively and very quickly, I believe, to produce this report. It is a pity that the government could not wait just a few hours more to see what this committee had to say, rather than make their announcement without waiting for that document this week.

We know that water supply on Eyre Peninsula has been an issue for a very long time. Indeed, in the evidence to the committee, we saw reflections of the Eyre Peninsula Water Summit of some 22 years ago, identifying the very same issues that we still see today, namely that:

Eyre Peninsula has a serious water problem that needs early intervention;

in the long term, the solution does not lie in further exploitation of their underground basins;

lack of adequate water is and will continue to be a problem for business, for industry, for the environment, for the community and for developmental and environmental management; and

large-scale desalination does seem to be something that does have not only social licence but less controversy, in this case, than it would otherwise.

I note that the findings of the committee were agreed to by all members of the committee; that is, Labor, the Liberals, the Greens and SA-Best. That is quite a feat in itself, but it probably echoed the majority of the community of Eyre Peninsula as well. Finding No. 10, in particular, is that the committee found that there is no social licence for SA Water to locate a desalination plant at Billy Lights Point—no social licence, for a number of reasons.

Certainly, the Greens were probably more convinced on certain parts of that and probably gave greater weight to certain parts of that than perhaps did the Liberals, SA-Best or even Labor. The case of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation was, I think, evidence of a very poor consultation, very poor cooperation between SA Water and the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. I found it quite concerning to be given one story from SA Water but to hear a very different story from the Barngarla people and their legal representatives.

I note that the SA Water board has, for the 2022-23 year, allocated an amount of $330 million for the total project budget for this. That, of course, is an allocation that only in this case will suit Billy Lights Point, because it is the cheaper of the options when compared by SA Water to Sleaford West. Their real costs in documents they presented to us for Billy Lights Point were $330 million (or nominal $330 million), surprisingly coming in at the budget they had set for Billy Lights Point, but far more expensive for Sleaford West—$489 million being the supposed real cost and $511 million being the nominal cost. I note that they have written Seaford West in that document, not Sleaford West, so there we go. I think that pretty much sums it up actually.

The Greens came into this inquiry with an open mind. We were happy to listen to the evidence, we certainly found it compelling that there were 40 submissions, dozens of witnesses and deep, deep distrust in the community of SA Water and increasingly of the government. Successive governments have let down the people of Eyre Peninsula on this matter. The environment, industrial and Aboriginal issues may be given whichever weight you like to give them in whichever matrix you wish to use, but the reality here is that SA Water has gone for a cheap option for them, with the threat of increased water prices for South Australia, with little reference to ESCOSA or their social licence to operate.

Not only did the Greens contend that Billy Lights Point does not have a social licence in this case, we question SA Water's role in this debacle. We think the government should have been asking them harder questions, pushing them harder, pushing back harder, and I hope the government reads this report. I would note that the potential court costs have not been factored into the SA Water budget, yet we knew by the end of the committee that SA Water knows there is a legal challenge ahead, and it is not just going to come from the Barngarla people.

I would not be surprised if we saw some form of green bans on Eyre Peninsula with regard to this very controversial proposal. They have chosen the cheapest option and not the option the community supported, which was well researched and recommended. This is incredibly disappointing. We know time is of the essence, but really the choices here from SA Water have been constructed on very flimsy premises. With that, I commend the report.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (16:48): I rise to echo the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and Chair and the Hon. Tammy Franks, and of course to express my disappointment, but I do not think surprise, at the announcement yesterday pre-empting that this report would be coming out today. It really is indicative of the way the government has treated this entire process from beginning to end. If ever there was an example of the country cousin who does not get any coverage in Adelaide and what we can get away with, this has to be it.

I note that the Leader of the Opposition talks about the importance of this committee system. It might be important to us, and it was certainly important to the people and individuals who presented to that committee and gave up their time not only to express their dissatisfaction with the ultimate choice but also to talk about so many more viable opportunities that they feel have just been ignored by successive governments and by SA Water for a very long time.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks said, this is not a new issue. We have known about this issue, successive governments have known about this issue and SA Water has certainly known about this issue on Eyre Peninsula for 22 years. If you went to Port Lincoln today and asked anyone if they are going to get a desal plant, they will laugh at you because they have been hearing about a desal plant for so many years that they just do not think it is actually going to happen—even today when they know, after the Premier's country whatever we call it, community cabinet, whatever it was, the community meeting—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Country cabinet.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Country cabinet: a hall full of people who were told, 'This is the only option. You are getting a desal plant and you are getting it at Billy Lights Point,' despite the fact that there was no approval for that, pre-empting a process that had not been completed yet. I still do not think many of them believe it, because they have been sitting back, waiting and watching this debate play out while water security has become critically dangerous for some 22 years.

I, too, thank everybody who has taken part in this, in terms of acknowledging the work of my colleagues and also the secretariat, but pay special thanks to those locals from across Eyre Peninsula who tried desperately—and I think many of them would think in vain—to impress upon us the importance of water security for their region.

There is no question in my mind that, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has said, this is the easiest, cheapest and most efficient option in the face of communities being threatened with, 'You're not going to have any water when you turn on your taps,' with water security becoming critically at risk for those communities.

We have come to that decision with zero regard for the lack of social licence that forms part of the recommendations; with a lack of regard for the widespread opposition; with a lack of regard for the cultural significance of the Barngarla people and the concerns that they have raised as well; and with a lack of regard for the concerns raised by agriculture, aquaculture and seafood industries.

I remind honourable members that when we are talking about the seafood capital of Australia we all look at Port Lincoln. The inconsistencies and differing views in regard to the science and modelling that was used by SA Water were quite rightly very topical, because you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You cannot be pointing at Port Lincoln in one instance saying, 'Look at our regional towns and how amazing they are and what they contribute to our seafood industry, not only on an Australian level but on a global level,' and at the same time compromise the very being of that industry by proposing a desalination plant smack bang in the city centre where much of that production for some of those sectors of that industry occurs.

You cannot do that when you have the opposition and concerns that have been raised by the local Indigenous community. You cannot do that knowing that we are not just talking about Port Lincoln, either—we are talking about the whole Eyre Peninsula. We are talking about an entire region, and all the focus is on this one spot on Eyre Peninsula at Port Lincoln. It will be the centre of attention, for none of the reasons that Port Lincoln locals would have ever anticipated.

I will say in relation to SA Water that they certainly did face a lot of scrutiny and criticism throughout the committee process. I am by no means suggesting that that was not well placed, but I do maintain the view that, in the absence of government committing funds to address this issue, I do not know what real choice they have sometimes. I think we started with 22 sites; there was a large number of sites and it was gradually reducing in terms of sites.

When you start talking to governments about funding these projects, the government is looking at project A over here at $313 million or $330 million, baseline case. Of course it is the best proposal; it is the cheapest, it is the fastest and it is the easiest. It is right next to infrastructure. It is literally at everyone's front door. Then you are looking over here at option B at $580 million. You do not need to be Einstein to work out that even SA Water is going to say, 'We will just choose this one because we've got Buckley's chance of getting a government to commit to what would be the best option over here, and we will deal with the legal challenges if and when they arise.'

There are three groups—Yumbah, Clean Seas Seafood and the Barngarla people—who have already indicated quite strongly that they will be taking legal action. When you are talking about Sleaford—and I am not the expert but I could see the problems with Sleaford—on the one hand, with all the experts in the room from government who are saying to you, 'This isn't an option because we are facing processes and potential legal challenges that might push things out by one, two, three or four years and we won't have water supply and security if we wait that long, but we are going to choose this side over here because it is really quick and cheap and easy,' but we are going to ignore the fact that there at least three groups who have openly said that they are going to challenge this legally.

We actually do not know whether Billy Lights Point is going to go ahead or in what timeframe it is going to go ahead, and the government certainly cannot bank on the figure of $313 million or $330 million because they have not factored in the fact that there is very likely going to be legal challenges to Billy Lights Point. We certainly have not factored in, based on the differing science, whether there are going to be any other legal repercussions as a result of this because of damage that is actually caused as a result of the desal plant, if indeed it goes ahead.

I have to then agree with the locals at Port Lincoln that the idea and concept of a desal plant at Port Lincoln, whether it is at Billy Lights Point or anywhere else, is a bit pie in the sky right now as well, because none of us know what is going to happen in the face of those legal challenges, not at Sleaford West and not at Billy Lights Point.

The one person we have not acknowledged today who ought to be acknowledged is the former member, Mr Peter Treloar, who did an extraordinary job, together with his team. He is the former presiding member of the site selection committee; I think that is his appropriate title. I do not think any of us came across a single person who presented evidence or spoke at that committee process and did not speak in the highest of regard about the way that Mr Treloar conducted that whole process.

It is little surprise to me if he is disappointed with where we have ended up, because everyone who joined him in that process in terms of whittling that list down to four sites did so in genuine good faith. He wanted what was best for his community, even though he is not the member over there anymore. He wanted what was best for Eyre Peninsula, even though he is not the sitting member anymore. He brought others along with him on that journey and they made selections based on what they thought was best for their communities, only to have those overturned by SA Water and disregarded by the government.

It was a kick in the teeth for locals, particularly at Port Lincoln, and all those people who attended that public meeting, when they were told, 'There's no discussion to be had here. This is it. This is what you're getting, like it or lump it. That is where we are ending up. This is where you're going to get a desal plant.' And there was the threat—and this irked me during the evidence—that, 'If you don't come on board, if you don't toe the line and if you don't follow the advice, you are not going to have water, and you are going to be responsible for the other regions not having water.'

That is a terrible threat to issue to a community that is not responsible. This is not a problem of their making but in the end the community is basically threatened with, 'There are changes to the water allocations for the region due to come into place. There is a sense of urgency which keeps getting pushed up in terms of its timeframe, and if we don't do this right now, you're not going to be able to turn on your taps in coming months.'

That is a terrible predicament for the people at Port Lincoln, and Eyre Peninsula more broadly, and the fact remains that despite all of that—and the committee did find that there was not consistency and there were differing views in regard to the scientific modelling used to determine the suitability of Billy Lights Point. There was conflicting evidence over the engagement with the Barngarla people and BDAC. There was conflicting evidence over SA Water's engagement with the aquaculture industry and the seafood industry.

There were differing views in regard to the potential impacts environmentally in terms of aquaculture, in terms of fishing, in terms of agriculture, in terms of native title holders, and there was absolutely—and remains absolutely—no social licence for the desal plant that has been proposed at Billy Lights Point. All of that has been reflected in the body of work that members will have the opportunity to peruse at their leisure, and the government will have the opportunity to respond to within four months of this report coming through.

My closing remark will be this: none of us here know what the best site is. It is not our job to know what the best site is, but there is a dedicated bunch of people who are both local to the area and passionate about their communities, who have a good idea about the sorts of things they would like to see in their communities to ensure water security for the entire region. I think it is about time we stop ignoring those voices, take on board some of the things that they have said, take on board the spread and the demographic of that particular area in Port Lincoln, the divide between agriculture, seafood and community, and the needs of each of those, and try to put in some reforms that will actually empower that community to ensure their water security going forward.

My bet is that this is not going to be resolved as easily as the government thinks, that there are going to be the challenges that have been touted publicly and within the committee process. You certainly do not have any social licence for this, but if you do not have the intestinal fortitude to at least come back to this place within the four-month timeframe and respond to the individuals who took the time to attend those hearings, provide evidence, provide alternatives, provide solutions, provide amendments, recommendations, suggestions and all of the above, then the disservice that you are doing to that community is unacceptable. I do not think there is any other word to describe it.

It might not make the front page of The Advertiser but those individuals go to vote as well, and you may not be worried about it because of where politics sit, but politics change, and I think that that community will certainly hold us all accountable one way or another for the ultimate decision that we make. I would not look at that recommendation lightly and think that it is just the select committee and we do not really need to be responding, because it is not the members of the committee you owe that responsibility to. It is the local communities on Eyre Peninsula and Port Lincoln that you owe that responsibility to.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.