Motions

Farm Dam Policy

The Hon. S.L. GAME (16:15): I move:

That this council—

1. Recognises that certain South Australian districts remain in a drought that is among the worst in recent times, and that this drought continues to place devastating mental and financial pressures on these communities, including and in particular farmers;

2. Acknowledges that this drought has severely impacted the production capacity of many farmers and food producers, notwithstanding the state government's recently announced assistance packages;

3. Recognises that small dams on farmers' properties can represent an economic lifeline for farmers, enabling them to water their livestock and irrigate their crops; and

4. Urges the Malinauskas government to review its farm dam policy to allow SA farmers to have one dam—up to five megalitres in volume, and a wall height of no more than three metres—for every 100 acres of land they own, without needing a permit through the Landscape Board of South Australia.

Today, I rise to speak to this motion on behalf of the many drought-hit South Australian farmers who are trying to survive one of the worst droughts on record for certain areas of our state. As we know, these farmers have not seen decent rain for many months and some have conceded that even substantial rainfall events immediately would do little to address their current dire financial circumstances.

Preventing farmers from freely and rapidly constructing dams on their dry properties represents an unnecessary self-harm for this state. Under the current conditions outlined in the Landscape Act of South Australia, anyone wishing to construct or modify a dam smaller than five megalitres, with wall heights of three metres or less, requires a permit for something known as a WAA (water affecting activity). This WAA must be obtained from the landscape board, while anything larger than five megalitres or greater than three metres in height requires development approval from the local council.

Most of us are aware of the delays typically involved with gaining development approvals from local government, but this motion is focused on approvals from the landscape board, which is run by the Department for Environment and Water. One of the conditions for applying to the landscape board is that the application must be received at least two months in advance of scheduled construction works.

Given the unpredictable nature of weather and farming, this two-month condition can be problematic. More importantly, after consulting with stakeholders it has become clear that this permit process with the landscape board must be eliminated altogether. It is lengthy and exhausting. Farmers need to be able to construct small dams to those dimensions—five megalitres or less in volume, wall heights of three metres or less—so they can literally get on with business, and that is the business of growing and producing food for the people of this state. It does not get any more important than that.

Allowing this controlled construction condition could and would allow a number of farmers to continue pursuing their livelihoods at no cost to South Australian taxpayers and at no cost to the state's environment. Indeed, dams also act as wetlands, with their own ecosystems, flood mitigation ponds and even emergency water sources in times of fire, helping to protect lives, properties, livestock, implements and more. Dams of this size are environmentally friendly because wildlife come to drink out of them. We have all heard the awful stories about starving wildlife in this current drought.

One farmer estimated to our office that dams in this state would currently be collecting no more than 1 per cent of our total rainfall. Bypassing the landscape board system and allowing farmers to make decisions like this on their own land makes sense and has no downside. We must protect our state's food bowl, especially at this incredibly challenging time for our farmers and food producers. The government has already taken action to recognise and address their struggles. This change would not cost taxpayers an extra cent, but it would save jobs, livelihoods and potentially more.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.