HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2007-10-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER SECURITY

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (11:31): I rise to make a simple point, and the simple point is that this government, and the Premier, have completely failed to lead this state through its current water crisis and the worst drought on record. The Premier, as leader of the government, needs to be soundly condemned for his failure, after six years, to see this coming—other premiers have seen it coming—and for his failure to take the necessary actions to avert what could become a state of crisis as soon as June next year, if not sooner. The government has had six years. During that time revenues have exploded, property taxes have gone up by 75 per cent, total revenues to government have gone up from $8 billion to $12 billion, or more, with more money rolling across the counter.

How has that money been spent? It has not been spent on securing our water. It has not been spent, as it has been in Western Australia, on building a desalination plant. It has not been spent, as it has in other states, on building stormwater infrastructure or wastewater infrastructure. In fact, as the house has heard, Prime Minister Howard offered money three or four years ago for projects that have been left languishing on the table and only picked up in the last few months as the crisis has deepened. Where has the money gone? It has gone on tramlines down King William Street. A sum of $22 million has gone on yacht marinas down in the Treasurer's electorate of Port Adelaide. It has gone on $100 million opening bridges, again, down in Port Adelaide. It has gone on a big fat, lazy government that has grown by 12,000—10,000 positions unbudgeted.

The Auditor-General has raised the alarm about the cost of government: wages growth, the number of public servants, ICT management, government savings initiatives. This government has had six of the easiest years in this state's history to be in government. A primary school student could have run a budget for the last six years, it has been so easy. The Auditor-General has confirmed it. He has said that unforeseen windfall benefits have been received that have saved the budget year after year. The Treasurer and the Premier have set targets for spending and have consistently blown their budget every year—$2.5 billion spent, more than budgeted, on expenses. Their excuse is: 'Well, there are cost pressures. Things are expensive.'

Anyone who runs a household budget knows that there are cost pressures, but you must cut your cloth to suit your income and you must get your priorities right. In Western Australia, as just one example, they looked at the rainfall patterns, they looked at flows into dams, they looked at the situation they faced with regard to water and they made decisions early. They are doing the same thing in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, but here it has caught the government by surprise, so much by surprise that it cannot even make up its mind, even now, on what it wants to do. By contrast: on this side of the house, we have been out there for nearly a year saying 'build a desalination plant'. We have put out a 19-point plan of action to solve our water crisis. We have come out with 10 action points for the Riverland. We have got our policies out there. Where are your policies? The glossy brochures are apparently still being printed.

I make this important point: a year ago ministers were saying that a desalination plant to provide more water for Adelaide would be ruled out. The Advertiser reported that on 14 October. Minister Hill, acting administrative services minister, said, 'We don't believe a desal plant is necessary for Adelaide.' That is what he said. The water security minister scotched the idea, 'not needed' she said. Then we have, facing spectacular pressure from the public, the amazing revelation by the Premier that we would build a desalination plant. In fact, under public pressure he cracked and he said, 'We are going to have a desal plant'—it had all built up—'I promise you we will have a desal plant.' There was just one little problem: he said at the time, 'I have the Treasurer and the cabinet right behind me on this. They are right behind me. I am promising you a desal plant and they are on the wagon. They are with me 100 per cent.'

Look at the media quotes on the day. There is just one little problem: the Treasurer was overseas. He was not in town when the big backflip occurred. Suddenly, the Liberal opposition's idea for a desal plant was back in vogue with the Premier. So, a couple of days ago, the Premier went on ABC Radio and said, 'If we build a desalination plant...We have made no firm commitment yet.' Even yesterday in response to questions, he said, 'This has not yet been agreed upon by cabinet.' I am glad the Premier has made the decision, because we need some action—we need a desal plant—but the problem is the processes of government on that side of the house are exactly as the Auditor-General reports them. They are a shambles.

We have the Premier coming out with a $1.4 billion promise before he has it stocked away with his Treasurer, before he has talked to his cabinet about it and before he has sign-off from cabinet. He has just scribbled out a cheque for $1.4 billion—not a problem, plenty more where that came from. Now we have the Treasurer backpedalling so fast because he wants to get out of that desalination plant and row his canoe as far downstream as he can get. He was here yesterday saying, 'We have not agreed to it yet.' Who has agreed? Has the Premier agreed? Has the Treasurer agreed? Has the cabinet made a decision? Do we know what is going on? Could somebody please turn on the lights? What is going on with this state government?

Of course, it is not the only backflip, confusion or nonsense we have heard from the government. Prime Minister Howard was out there with money on the table to recycle waste water from Glenelg back into Adelaide three years ago. They turned it down. He was out there with money for the extension to the Bolivar-Virginia pipeline program years ago, but where were they? Nowhere to be seen. He was out there with money for waterproofing the South. Where were they? Nowhere to be seen. Suddenly, now, they have woken up and, over a champagne and bacon and eggs breakfast one morning, they have said, 'My heavens! There is a water crisis. We had better do something.' I can tell you, Mr Speaker, it certainly is a crisis.

They have no plans of their own, and I am very tired of hearing them ask, 'What are your plans?' Well, here they are; you had better read them. There are 19 of them, and you had better start work on them. You have no plans of your own. Get out there. Form a Premier’s Water Council. Take immediate action on a desal plant. Think your issues through. Not only that, your Premier and his other Labor premier friends have, in my view, deliberately set out to destroy and sabotage the Prime Minister's $10 billion rescue package for the Murray. That money could have been improving irrigation infrastructure and buying back unallocated licences all this year. Bracks was seen as the dark horse and the spoiler, because we would not want that money on the road reflecting well on a federal Liberal government, would we? You have played politics with Kevin Rudd over the lives and the futures of South Australian farmers and irrigators—that is what you have done.

We moved an urgency motion in this house earlier this week to focus the government's attention, and its reaction was instant: a reannouncement of a few million dollars to help with a range of rural programs.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Well, we welcome that—the appointment of a Liberal to help them sort out the mess. When you get into trouble, call a Liberal. Good on them. Maybe that will help and I hope it does; I am sure it will. Maybe some common sense will be delivered to the government. But I say to South Australians: it is neglectful, shameful and inexcusable that, for six years during the most buoyant economic times while awash with money, this state government has not only not seen this crisis coming—although water restrictions were introduced years ago; the drought started a long time ago; all the warning signs were there—but also they have abjectly failed to do anything about it. Of course, they thought they were being very smart by appointing a National Party friend into the Labor Party camp to act as water security minister. Hasn't that been a big booming success! I can tell you that the Riverland irrigators are not very happy. Again, not content to simply oppose and criticise, we on this side of the house already have out there a 10-point plan of action.

The Hon. K.A. Maywald interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: It is about water, or money for water, minister. You need to get more money to the irrigators. Sure, we know that we cannot make it rain—we all know that—but we can manage the scant resource better. We can also assist with low interest loans for irrigators to better engage in the market. There are ways we can help. We can fast track desalination. The minister wants to do this in five years. We wanted you to start work in months, not years. We can provide support to families, create jobs in the regions and help with tax relief. There are things we can do to help people. But I have a shocking and startling bit of news for our failure, the Minister for Water Security: it is going to cost some money. Sorry to tell you that but, when you are faced with a crisis, and you are the government and you have windfall revenues, you may have to spend some money on the crisis. I know this is a startling realisation for the current government.

We have seen the glossy brochures such as Waterproofing Adelaide again and again. We have had the announcements and the re-announcements. No doubt, the glossy brochures are being printed now and staff are being sent down to West Beach to reconnoitre a sandy patch for the Premier to squeeze the sand between his toes as he gives out glossy brochures to the media in a few weeks or months time to tell them that they have finally made a decision. It is like giving birth to quads. It has gone on for years, and you just do not know what the outcome is going to be when it finally happens. And when you do, it is a big surprise.

It is a case of a negligent and reckless government that has failed South Australians so miserably. The government did not see it coming, it failed to invest in ameliorating its effects. Even now that the crisis has developed into a state of emergency, the government still does not know what to do. We have the Premier out there making promises based on who knows what research, which he has not even taken to cabinet, in response to pressure from the opposition and the public calling for action. We have the Treasurer up here disagreeing in parliament with his own Premier, virtually saying to him, 'Look, we haven't signed on; there's no cabinet agreement.' Do not be surprised if after the end of the federal election we get a backflip. Do not be surprised if the Premier's promise turns out not to have been a core promise. Maybe we will get a $2 million desal plant at Port Adelaide and not what we were told we would get some weeks ago.

I say to the house: it is a disgrace that the Premier's leadership has failed on water security. If this drought does not end, there will be more to come, and it could get very ugly for families, for Riverland producers, and for our dry acre farmers. The Premier's leadership on this warrants the closest security, and it is a time for action.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Leader, I understand that the Speaker was very indulgent and allowed you to speak despite the fact that you failed to move the motion. Is the motion formally moved?

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I move:

That this house—

(a) notes that the Premier's failure of leadership on water security in South Australia has exposed the people, businesses and families of South Australia to extreme hardship and risk;

(b) condemns the Premier for persistently misrepresenting in parliament the indicative cost estimates obtained by the opposition for the construction of a desalination plant in South Australia, which were based upon construction costs of existing or proposed plants elsewhere in Australia;

(c) notes the Premier has had six years of easy government to resolve the water security crisis in South Australia; and

(d) expresses concern that the Premier refuses to take personal control of the water security portfolio and that he still does not know what must be done, how it will be done, where it will be done, how much it will cost to do it or when it will be done.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Is that seconded?

An honourable member: Yes, madam.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Any further speakers?

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Schubert, I heard that comment. It is important that the proper standing orders of this house be implemented, whether by the leader or any other member.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD (Chaffey—Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water Security, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Small Business, Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Trade) (11:47): I rise to oppose this motion for the nonsense that it is, and put on the public record for the purposes of this debate the work that the government is currently undertaking in regard to water security into the future. We are in the grips of what is the worst and most extreme drought ever on record in this state. The South Australian government recognises the difficulties that our communities are facing, and we have been working with our communities to help minimise the impact of its extenuating circumstances. We have also been working very proactively with the federal government in order to ensure that we can maximise the relief and benefit that can be provided through federal means also.

In relation to the current drought circumstances, South Australia recognised early last year that the inflows into the Murray-Darling Basin system were not eventuating as we would normally expect, even in a drought year. By October last year we established a senior officials advisory group to advise cabinet at a very high level in regard to what options we may need to consider to secure our supply as a consequence of the drought. The Water Security Advisory Group is made up of eminent people from right round the nation. The Water Security Advisory Group is supported by the Water Security Task Force, which has been established across government. The task force is chaired by Paul Case, and has on its membership chief executives of each of the departments that have responsibility in managing the current drought circumstances. Underneath the Water Security Task Force we have also established a technical group of key experts from across government who are feeding into the Water Security Task Force to deal with the myriad issues that we are facing. We also established the Desalination Working Group earlier this year, I think in February or March, to work through the issues of desalination for Adelaide.

This is on top of the work that the South Australian government has undertaken—extensive work that has been undertaken to develop the Waterproofing Adelaide strategy. The Waterproofing Adelaide strategy was released in 2005, and it is a comprehensive document that looks at water security future for Adelaide. Since the document was released in 2005, we have seen extenuating drought circumstances. The Waterproofing Adelaide strategy was developed on the basis of the 100 years of records that we have for the Murray-Darling Basin system. Up until last year, Adelaide was considered to have one of the most secure water supplies in mainland Australia. This was as a consequence of the fact that, whilst we have only less than one year's supply in our storages in the Adelaide Hills, we are backed up by the very large storages of the Hume and Dartmouth dams, and they have served us well in the past.

In the 116 years of records we have and through the development of the Waterproofing Adelaide strategy, a whole range of scenarios were considered, and in the worst-case scenario planning no-one ever envisaged what we have experienced over the past 18 months. We have seen a complete collapse in the Murray-Darling Basin system like never before. That is the basis upon which we have had to go back and revisit Waterproofing Adelaide. In revisiting Waterproofing Adelaide we recognised that we needed to consider further, as we said in the Waterproofing Adelaide document, that we would need to consider on the basis of need whether desalination should be included as part of the process.

We recognise that desalination takes a long time to deliver. I think that I need to correct the record of comments made by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the Perth circumstance. Perth started to see a decline in its water supply 30 years ago, not two years ago, and suddenly plucked a desalination plant out of the air, as the leader would have. This occurred 30 years ago. I think that what the opposition—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: Yes, we certainly have. Have you ever read the Waterproofing Adelaide document? You obviously have not. I think that it is really important that we recognise that, after 30 years of significant decline in water supply, the Western Australian government finally responded, and established a desalination plant, which was opened just recently. They are now looking at building a second desalination plant. They are also investigating other options, such as underground water. We established the desalination working group because we understand the complexities of these kinds of projects, unlike those opposite, and we believe that we have to do these things properly.

If you are going to have major investment in infrastructure that will be long-lasting and have a cost impost on the community going forward into future generations, you must ensure that you have the work done and that you have it done right. What we are doing, through the desalination working group, is investigating a whole range of options. Knowing that it takes up to five years to build a desalination plant, depending on site selection, environmental requirements and the infrastructure necessary to support such a plant, we commenced an environmental baseline data study for the gulf. This was in the budget, and it will be one of the most important parts of the establishment of the desalination plant in relation to the disposal of the waste brine, which will be required as a consequence of a desalination plant's being established. That work is underway, and it is crucial to ensure that we are able to make the right choices in regard to the engineering solutions necessary to minimise and, in fact, ensure that environmental damage does not occur.

We have also investigated fully the option of increasing storage capacity in the Mount Lofty Ranges to ensure that we can double the capacity from less than one year to two years. There is a reason that that is a very good policy and is supported by the Liberal Party federally for us to investigate these options. The reason that the coalition government federally believes that it is a very important consideration is that we have a 650-gigalitre rolling licence in the Murray-Darling Basin. That means that there is a strong recognition of the variability of supply in the Adelaide Hills catchment area. Historically, Adelaide has drawn upon the River Murray when the catchment—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Hammond can hear that the minister has a very quiet voice; his voice is very loud. Hansard cannot hear when he interjects.

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: So, the issue is that historically we have used the Murray-Darling Basin, the River Murray, Hume and Dartmouth as back-up storage to supplement the Adelaide Hills catchment area. Usually, around 40 per cent of Adelaide's supply comes from the River Murray and, in a dry year, it can be up to 90 per cent. That rolling average means that we can take more in the years we need to take more to supplement the supply and, in wetter years, we take less from the River Murray. This year, we have experienced difficulty in the delivery of the water Adelaide is due under the agreement of all states, whereby Adelaide takes less than 1 per cent of the water supply out of the Murray-Darling Basin; 54 per cent comes out in New South Wales; 30-odd per cent comes out in Victoria; and 6 per cent in South Australia, of which only 1 per cent is Adelaide-based.

I think that it is really important to make that point because, if we cannot get less than 1 per cent of the water down for diversion to this end of the river, then our river is in serious trouble. That is why we have strongly supported the national approach to the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. We believe that it is well and truly past time for the national interest to apply to the management of the River Murray waters.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. K.A. MAYWALD: That is incorrect. South Australia strongly supports the $10 billion plan and has continued to strongly support it. I have worked incredibly closely with your federal colleague Malcolm Turnbull on this plan. I have worked very hard with him to ensure that we can get the best outcome. I think that members opposite really need to get on board with this national plan, instead of trying to pull holes in it, which is what they currently continue to do. In fact, what the Liberal Party constantly does is carp, whine and try to denigrate any of the efforts being made by this state to secure water supply.

What Mount Bold, increasing the supply in the Mount Lofty Ranges and doubling the capacity in the Mount Lofty Ranges reservoirs will do is enable us to manage more effectively that 650-gigalitre allocation we have from the River Murray. Currently, we use the Hume and Dartmouth dams as back-up storage to the Adelaide Hills, which means that, in the driest years in the River Murray, we often require more water out of the river. Obviously, if we were able to draw more water out of the river when there was more water in it, and store it in Adelaide rather than the Hume and Dartmouth dams, we could minimise the transmission losses of getting that water to South Australia when it is needed, giving us back-up and insurance in our own backyard rather than in Hume and Dartmouth.

When building a desalination plant—and this is what you have to do when you look at nature infrastructure projects such as this—you need to look at all the components. In building a desalination plant, you need to ensure that, in producing that water, we have somewhere to put it so that we can manage it across Adelaide.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:57): I am more interested in shedding light on this issue than generating heat. I understand the opposition's motion, because that is its job—to put the wood on the government. I think we need to remember that this crisis we face in terms of water supply has snuck up on us like a thief in the night. That is not to say that the present government should not have done more but, equally, you could ask: why did the previous Olsen government not do more, why did the previous Brown government, of which I was a minister, not do more about it, and why have we not collectively been aware of this impending situation?

I think that it is unfair to suggest that this is solely the responsibility of the current government. It has to deal with it, but you cannot put the blame on the current government and ask why it has not done anything. It could have done more, but why did previous governments not do a lot more since the time of Playford? If it were not for Tom Playford, we would be really in a pickle at the moment. As far as I can recall, he is one of the few people in the last 50 or so years who has really done much to increase our water capability and storage. I think that there is nothing to be achieved by playing the blame game. I understand the politics of it, but what we need to do is address the situation and look for solutions.

What is happening with the Murray at the moment that I find staggering is that we are still getting additional plantings for irrigation, to a lesser extent in South Australia but more so in Victoria, mainly of almonds and olives. This is happening at the expense, I believe, of the family farmer, the family based irrigators, who cannot afford to sustain their operations with the current cost of irrigated water, which has increased more than ten-fold in the last 12 months. So we have the MIS (managed investment schemes) run by the Macquarie Bank, its subsidiaries, and Timbercorp and others. They can afford to buy the water at the high price, so we are seeing continued and increased plantings along the Murray despite the fact that we all know we are in a very tight water situation. There is water if you have the money to pay for the licence. As we know, many irrigators are selling their licence because it is more important to them to sustain themselves through selling their water licence than it is to try to maintain their family irrigation allotment. I find that very disheartening and unacceptable.

The other thing that should happen is that we, I believe, as a community are entitled to know who is getting these irrigation licences. I understand this may be revealed under the new arrangements if the Howard plan is implemented, but there is no reason the holders of those irrigation licences should be kept secret. We can find out who owns a particular house or farm in South Australia and we can find out who owns the land on which the irrigation is occurring, but at the moment we are not to know who owns the water licence, and I think we should.

In respect of the management of water (and I have argued this case to the Premier by letter), I think we should have one minister for water. That is no reflection on either of the two ministers; I just think it makes sense to have one minister responsible for above ground water and below ground water because, as far as I know, the water comes from the same source ultimately. As I say, it is not a reflection on each minister, but I think it makes sense to have one minister responsible for only water and nothing else. Water is so important to South Australia, there should be one minister looking after it.

In respect of the desalination plant, people want it to have happened yesterday. We all might want something like a desalination plant, but I am concerned that we get a plant under the appropriate circumstances, with proper costings, in a proper location and with proper regard for environmental factors. It is important if we have a desalination plant that it be in the right spot and properly costed, not just a knee-jerk reaction to the current situation. It is better to take a bit of time and get it right than rush into it and get it wrong. There are various options in terms of location, and one of the things that needs to happen is to look at the alternatives because it may be that a desalination plant does not stack up when you look at the opportunity cost, which is an essential ingredient in any economist's assessment—that is, the cost of not doing other things.

Is it more desirable to have a desalination plant, or could we do the same thing or something similar by treating our stormwater and better using our grey water and rainwater? I agree with the bill put forward by the member for MacKillop: we could do a lot more with plumbed-in tank water. I would hope that the group looking at the desalination plant is not just looking at it in isolation but also in true economic terms in regard to opportunity cost—the cost of not doing other things which may be better in a whole range of ways (environmentally, economically, and so on).

The minister for the environment who is responsible for underground water has taken some steps in terms of prescribing what can happen in the metropolitan area. I think it needs to go further, because the last water resource for Adelaide is the underground water and, from my reading of history, it has saved the day in the past. Currently, you can suck out as much water as you like in Adelaide to water your lawns, day and night. I have written to the minister recently about it and she says that domestic users do not use a lot. I do not think that is the point. The point is, first, it causes angst because other people who are on restrictions can see their neighbour flooding their place with water drawn from the aquifer; and, secondly, I think it should be kept as an emergency resource.

There should be an emergency resource if Adelaide gets to that desperate point. I think the article about bottled water was an exaggeration. If we got to a point where we needed to rely on spring water from the Adelaide Hills, you might as well play Dixie. You could truck or rail in water from parts of the South-East, or elsewhere: it would be a lot cheaper than supplying bottled water. There is plenty of water in Gippsland and places like that. If you had to, you could bring water by rail from the Northern Territory. In fact, they do not have restrictions in Katherine or Darwin. They were proudly boasting to a delegation of MPs recently that they do not have restrictions. They said there are no restrictions because they have so much water. They also made the point they do not want us pinching it, either, and I agree with that. People advocate a pipeline from northern Australia down south. Economically, it is not viable, and also it is not desirable for other reasons.

I think fundamentally the government needs to revisit the issue of a population target for Adelaide of two million people. Before you have a target such as that you ought to have a target to ensure that you have enough water for two million, which I question at the moment. If you have the water, maybe you have an argument for having two million people, but at the moment we do not. We need to interconnect our reservoirs. Myponga, which has been a very good collection area in terms of water, is not fully linked into the metropolitan area—it only links into part of the southern metropolitan area—and that should happen. We should be able to switch water supply more readily. Our hills reservoirs currently hold in excess of about 78 per cent of their capacity, and we should be careful with it, but we are not at the point of absolute desperation yet.

I think the worst thing that could happen at the moment is for it to rain heavily (which, no doubt, it will in due course—I am an optimist), so that people will forget all about the issue of the drought and so on and we will put it on the backburner and go back to sleep again like we have been for the last 30 years or so. I think that would be the biggest mistake of all. We need to look at things in terms of the quality of the Murray water. Salinity is an issue. Sadly, there has been too much bushland cleared adjacent to the river, and we are paying the price for that now.

Even the quality of the water in the Murray is still subject to bad behaviour by some people with their houseboating activities. Most are doing the right thing, but some are not. All in all, the government needs to get on with this: it should have been doing more, but so should have previous governments. We will not achieve anything by blaming people. The issue now is: what is the best solution for a very serious problem which faces us all? I look forward to some positive outcomes from this place, rather than simply engaging in criticism, which I appreciate is the legitimate role of the opposition.

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Cheltenham—Minister for Families and Communities, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Minister for Housing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Disability, Minister Assisting the Premier in Cabinet Business and Public Sector Management) (12:07): In relation to water policy in this state, the Labor Party has a proud history of leadership, and I will take members through it. What has been a feature of water policy in this state has been its bipartisan nature. I will refer members to a little recent history in relation to this parliament. John Hill, as opposition minister for water resources, established the select committee—supported by Karlene Maywald, the member for Chaffey—in relation to the River Murray.

That select committee made a number of recommendations on a bipartisan basis for the protection of the River Murray. It led directly to the establishment of a ministry for the River Murray when the Labor Party formed government in 2002. When we looked at what passed for water policy by those sitting opposite, we found our water authority spending more time worrying about water security in East Java than they were about water security in South Australia. That was the legacy with which we were left. Extracting the water authority from a foreign country was our first step to ensure that it paid attention to the serious water issues that existed in South Australia.

The next step we took was to put in place an extensive process of community consultation, drawing on all the experts across the nation to establish our Waterproofing Adelaide policy, a policy which consistently has been regarded as a first-class water policy. On a national scale, we led the nation in relation to the national Living Murray initiative. The ambition, initially, was for an extra 500 gigalitres of water down the river, increasing to 1,500 gigalitres—an initiative led by South Australia. In relation to the most recent crisis—the one in 1,000-year drought which is now afflicting the Murray-Darling Basin and the subject of so much contemporary debate—we once again led the national response.

We led the national response by brokering an arrangement (which, initially, was scoffed at by other states and territories) for a commission to control the circumstances of the Murray-Darling Basin. We were not prepared to allow the commonwealth government to simply take over responsibility for that important basin for South Australia, knowing, as it inevitably would, it would be taken over and dominated by the interests of eastern states. We were not prepared to enter into any arrangement that did not ensure that South Australia's crucial interests were guaranteed.

There has been a history in this state of understanding the precarious nature of South Australia at the end of this river. South Australia has always adopted an extraordinarily conservative approach to the issue of water. When other states were allocating water hand over fist, we in this state capped our water licences in the 1969 to 1971 period. We have consistently accepted a lower but more secure set of licences out of the Murray-Darling Basin than other states and territories because we always understood the precarious nature of our water allocation from that system. But what actually happened during that period when we capped our extractions from the River Murray in 1969 to 1971 and which have remained capped since—

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: There was, and I acknowledge that conservative governments consistently have taken sensible decisions about the security of our water. What was happening upstream? Upstream conservative governments were overallocating resources from this river to put us in the position that we are in today where the river is hopelessly overallocated by virtue of the responses of New South Wales and Victoria—coalition colleagues of those sitting opposite.

Coming back to more recent history, it is somehow suggested by those opposite that this one in 1,000-year drought should have been anticipated by us and that steps beyond the sensible steps that we have taken to date should have been taken. Let us test the credibility of that suggestion. I noticed in an earlier interjection that the member for MacKillop said that we should have known about this since 2002 because the drought was well known at that time. That was the suggestion. In the most recent election campaigns, when things really count—not coming in here and spraying around a few numbers and a few allegations—when you are obliged to put real promises on the table to try to persuade people to vote for you, we have the Liberal Party policy for the 2006 election.

What was it?—'To convene a high level group to evaluate the alternative water source options so that by 2009 a plan is in place to remove Adelaide's reliance on the River Murray and water restrictions.' That was the sense of urgency that those opposite had in relation to water security. It is absolute nonsense for them to come in here now and somehow get a rise out of the current misery which is being experienced in the South Australian community from this drought and to point the finger at this government to say that it should have anticipated the extent, length and breadth of this extraordinary natural phenomena. It is completely undermined by their policy.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL: Well, about what we would have built under your policy—a very similar amount. Our most recent response has been to establish all the various elements of water policy under one minister, the Minister for Water Security, the member for Chaffey. As she has just outlined, the minister has been working assiduously on every conceivable policy response—including infrastructure responses—to deal with this crisis. We have been working collaboratively with the commonwealth government. There was an opportunity for those members opposite to behave as sometimes oppositions do to a state or national crisis and to act in a bipartisan fashion. That was available.

However, when you are in such awful strife in the polls and you need to get a rise out of something, you are prepared to behave in an unprincipled fashion. Members opposite are prepared to lean on the misery that this drought has brought and seek to make political mileage out of it, and that is what we are observing. There was an opportunity for this community to come together by ensuring that both sides of politics saw this as a state responsibility to pull together to promote ideas for the wellbeing of this community. But what we see are the politics of a desperate opposition leader.

I know he spent a lot of time in the Economic and Finance Committee watching ministers Conlon and Foley excoriate the previous government. He tries to model himself on ministers Conlon and Foley. But, you see, he is not as witty, he is not as strong and also he does not stick to the facts. They did have a devastating effect on the previous government but they did it by using the facts. They did it to devastating effect. He watched them and he was slightly envious. He thought, 'I'd like to be like that. I'd like to be big and tough like them and cause as much trouble for Mr Rann as they did for Mr Olsen,' but he is not really in the same league, you see. He tries very hard but he strains and it shows. He cracks a joke and it is not that funny, or he makes a remark about something and it just proves not to be true. So, it will unravel, I predict. He has had a bit of fun taking a rise out of the drought but, in due course, it will unravel.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:17): The last speaker for the government, the minister, demonstrated that the government's problem is that it has a small grasp of the facts behind the argument and always plays the man. The minister decided that he did not have anything sound to backup his argument (and I will refute the points he made earlier in his address), and he ended up playing the man because that is the only thing the government knows how to do. That is the only thing they know how to do in the Labor Party. They are good at it, I will give them that, but they are not very good at running the state.

The minister tried to suggest that the previous government did not do the right thing, and he talked about East Java, and that sort of thing. As I said in an article that was published in The Advertiser a week and a half ago, the previous government turned SA Water from an organisation that used to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of about $50 million a year to an organisation which now underpins a water industry in this state and which turns over more than $500 million a year (it was not there previously), and an organisation from which, in six budgets, the Treasurer has sucked out $1.6 billion.

We did not get from the minister when she was speaking the real reason why the government has not addressed this problem, but we did get it during her interjections when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. We did get it then. She said, 'Where's the money coming from? How are you going to pay for it?' That is what she said, and that is the real reason that South Australia is in this dire situation. The real reason is because the government is out of control with its budget (and the leader talked about that and I will come back to comment on that in a moment), and it has been praying for rain.

It's only hope is to say, 'We won't make a decision on doing anything. We won't go down the path of desal. We won't go down the path of fixing the water and recycling in the north and from the Glenelg Waste Water Treatment Plant or from Christies,' when the federal government has had the money sitting on the table since 1994. The government says, 'We won't put $1 into that because we don't have the $1. We've wasted it. We've spent it. It's gone.' And that is because we have a school boy running the Treasury—a school boy who does not know what he is talking about.

In question time yesterday when the Treasurer was extolling his virtues, I said, 'Yes, you can balance your budget because you put borrowings in and call them revenue.' He lambasted me and said, 'The shadow minister does not know what he is talking about.' Let me read what he read out of the Auditor-General's Report yesterday in question time. The Auditor-General said:

One of the government's primary fiscal targets is the achievement of net operating balances every year. This means that revenues are covering expenses, including interest in depreciation.

After question time I got the Treasurer's 2007-08 Budget at a Glance. Page 1 of Budget Paper 1 indicates a net operating budget surplus deficit of $38 million last year and $30 million this year. Net lending was $176 million last year and $428 million this year. They are going in as revenue on his net operating budget. The Treasurer does not even understand what he is doing. The Minister for Water Security says, 'Where are you going to get the money from?' No wonder she says that, because the Treasurer has got no damn idea because he has no idea where the money has gone. That is the problem we have got. That is the problem the government and the Minister for Water Security is facing. They do not have the money and they have wasted the last 12 months praying for rain so they would not have to face this problem. They are praying for rain! The government might have used Monsignor Cappo for something he is good at: it should have had him praying for rain because it would probably be better than what he is doing. He is an expert at it. They have not even been successful in praying for rain.

What we got from the minister is what we always get from the minister: we get told what we all know, but we do not get told what the minister has known and hopes that nobody else knows. We get told how dry it is and all the statistics and numbers about how much water there is and is not, but we do not get told that the government's own documentation has been warning them of this for years. The Waterproofing Adelaide Strategy of 2005, which the minister herself talked about, highlights the problem. If you turn to pages 14 and 15 of that document (I have read it and, although I do not have it in front of me, I know that there are a couple of graphs on those pages), it shows the difference between Adelaide's water supply and demand. They have two graphs for supply, one for wet periods and one for times of drought. We are in drought at the moment.

How long have we been in drought? Since 2002! The minister cannot claim that she did not know that the Murray-Darling Basin has been in drought at least since 2002. But the Waterproofing Adelaide document says that in a period of drought, by the time we get to 2007 the demand for water in Adelaide will exceed supply. It is a known fact and has been known by this government for at least two years because it is in its own documentation. What has it done? It has prayed for rain, prayed for rain! And it has not rained.

The minister a few moments ago read from the opposition's policy for the previous election. The minister failed to say that the opposition subsequently said, 'Gee, this drought is going on.' We recognised that. The government will make out that the opposition did not recognise that. In November last year I and some of my colleagues went to Perth to look at the desalination plant there. We went to talk to the people who built it and to people in the Western Australian water supply business and said, 'What's behind this, how's this happening, what's it costing, how did you procure this?'

We got that information and came up with a policy because we recognised 12 months ago that that was where we would have to go because the drought was continuing. Oh no, the drought's not continuing, notwithstanding that the Premier has been talking for 20 years about global warming and climate change. He says that we will rely on the River Murray. He said we will build another dam at Mount Bold and pump more water out of the Murray. Yet he has been claiming for 20 years that the River Murray will stop flowing. That is the government's response because it has been hoping and praying, hoping and praying.

The motion is a very important one and it must be taken seriously, in spite of what the Minister for Families and Communities has just said. The opposition has been incredibly responsible and, without the opposition and its alternative policies and putting a bit of pressure on the government, I would be amazed if the Premier had put up his hand and said that we will build a desalination plant. He has only taken that step because of pressure from the opposition. As the leader pointed out, in taking that step he did not ask the question that the Minister for Water Security has asked: how will you pay for it; where is the money coming from? He knows, like his Treasurer knows, that there is no money, the money has been spent, it has been squandered and wasted.

SA Water has returned to this government $1.6 billion in the six Treasurer Foley budgets. That would build a desalination plant for Adelaide on the government's costings: $1.4 billion, plus 10 or 15 per cent underbudgeting, as that is the way it always operates. It would still have paid for it. SA Water could have built it if the government took the right decision at the right time, but instead it said, 'We will take the money and we will squander it on something else.' Therein lies the problem, and that is why South Australia is facing a crisis. I have not even talked about the poor irrigators on the river, who are facing a huge crisis, as are the finances of this state.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN (Mount Gambier—Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests) (12:28): I rise to caution the house about the potential consequences of a debate like this. Obviously oppositions of either flavour dine out on disaster, which is understandable, but we have to be careful that we do not create false hope. I will come back to the fact that we need to be honest and consistent, and I will quote to members what they have said in recent days, which I happen to agree with but which is now totally inconsistent with what they are doing presently. We were lashed with a limp lettuce on Tuesday and I saw some members opposite cringe at some of the things their leader was saying because they were not consistent with what they had been saying earlier in the year. I will come back to that. We all must be careful that we do not say things in here which, read in the hard cold light of day elsewhere, create false hope. We have farming families and communities in desperate circumstances, much of it beyond our control. There are things we can do together to support these families through this crisis, or we can come in here and play games and exacerbate the problem. Political point scoring and debate point scoring in this place can sometimes be particularly damaging.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: We all do it, I agree, it is the nature of this place. But I am saying that there are times we need to be aware of the ripple effect of the sport we play in here. I am as guilty as anyone else, absolutely. We understand the game. We understand the role of oppositions. I challenged the leader of the opposition in the other place recently about making phone calls and saying to people, 'Have you got any dirt on McEwen?' His answer to that was, 'That's the sport you are in and you had better get used to it.' Okay, that is the sport I am in, I had better get used to it, but please do not damage innocent third parties and create false hope.

I come back, briefly, to the point that I made in terms of the member for MacKillop's wanting to score debating points on Tuesday by saying that the Premier had dreamt up the idea of the regional drought coordinators, when he was in possession of a letter from one of his own colleagues supporting that very request from the leader of the drought task force on Eyre Peninsula.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: I read the Hansard. He said he made it up on the spot. He wasn't lobbied. It was something he dreamt up. He dreamt up nothing.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for MacKillop, you have had your say.

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: To score a debating point, and fair enough, what the member for MacKillop was trying to suggest was that the Premier had made it up. The Premier had not made it up. It was actually as a consequence of a written request and followed up and supported by the member, and appropriately so. I am delighted that she did that.

The second point is consistency. We must be consistent as, in a bipartisan way, we approach this drought. I compliment those opposite who have, to this point, been consistent. Now we find ourselves very close to a federal election where these issues are going to become political. So, the challenge now is to remain consistent and still find a point of difference. I will put a few quotes on the record, as follows:

We face a huge challenge in the Riverland, and a lot of that is no-one's fault. A drought is a drought, and this is the grandmother of them all as far as the Riverland goes.

Member for Frome, Rob Kerin. Further:

I also want to pay recognition to the minister responsible for primary industries in relation to what the government has done for exceptional circumstances applications across the state. The support that minister McEwen and the honourable member for Frome, our previous shadow minister for agriculture, and the support that federal minister McGauran has given to South Australia to exceptional circumstances applications deserves mention.

He is absolutely right: complimenting everybody, getting together, doing this in a bipartisan way, McGauran being prepared to revisit the criteria for EC, and as a consequence of that we can claim that, basically the whole of the state is EC declared. The member for Goyder recognises that he was responsible for that quote and, I might add, has been consistent in his support. I quote again:

I want to address another good part of the budget, and that is the $18 million in 2007-08 to address the impact of the drought on regional and rural communities, including an extension of state-based concession programs to drought-affected families, increased mental health services, natural resource management levy relief…

I am sure that the member for Hammond recognises that in supporting what we are doing. He was prepared to put that on the record and I thank him for that. Further:

I appreciate what the minister (Hon. Rory McEwen) said today. The government is being proactive and I congratulate it for that.

That was said by the member for Schubert. Thank you member for Schubert. On the record, I appreciate your bipartisan support in terms of what we are doing. One final one:

It is very difficult for governments to do anything. In spite of the Premier that we have, I do not believe that he can make it rain; and I am sure that if he could he would have, as all of us would have. But, it is difficult, and there are not a lot of things that governments can do.

I quoted that more accurately today than I think I did when I spoke to the urgency motion on Tuesday, and the member for MacKillop would be aware that that is what he said then, and I know that he believes it now.

Mr Williams interjecting:

The Hon. R.J. McEWEN: As I said, I know he said it then and I know he believes it now. The important thing in this debate, I think, is to recognise the partnership between state governments and the federal government when it comes to drought, and the partnership we have when it comes to natural disaster. The agreement is that states will lead natural disasters, as this state appropriately has in terms of EP fires, the Virginia floods, the Karoonda wind event and the Riverland wind event. Certainly there are plenty of examples where we have led it, and then the federal government has done the right thing in terms of complementing its support financially when it has needed to. In terms of drought, the policy is the other way around.

Drought is led fundamentally by the federal government, and it comes in a number of components, and the state governments complement it when they can as part of that deal. I might add that the state governments are not asked to do anywhere near as much as the federal government, and appropriately so. That is the deal—that is the package—and, if we want to start picking it apart, we need to pick apart the whole thing. McGauran is very good in that regard. He appreciates and accepts the responsibility where he needs to lead and, equally, he challenges us in areas where we need to lead if he feels that we are not doing enough.

It is important in that context to understand and to truly communicate to rural communities what is available. Even the leader, in his statements today, has revealed that he totally misunderstands what ECIRS does in terms of interest rate support, claiming that there should be interest rate support. There is interest rate support: 50 per cent in the first year and 80 per cent in the second year. The Australian Bankers Association had further discussions, I believe, with McGauran this week about some different arrangements, and I understand that McGauran has rejected them.

There will be continuing lobbying around not only managing present debt but also managing interest rates on future debt because more debt will be accumulated as people attempt to manage their way out of this crisis. There will need to be further carry-on finance with interest paid on it, and there will need to be mechanisms where support can be offered for further debt which can be added, I might add, within the interest rate subsidy scheme to present debt in approved circumstances. It is important that everybody understands that and that it is accurately communicated.

The same goes for the Centrelink benefit. It is important that people understand that they have access to a Centrelink benefit without the work test, and appropriately so. It is important that families that have to put food on the table are encouraged to access that. There are a whole lot of other mechanisms out there where we do what we can, at state and federal level, to support businesses, farming families, the farms themselves, the farming businesses and businesses relying on those farms and farming families—and we do as much as we possibly can. We must be doing that and we must be communicating that in a responsible way. We must not be playing politics with it.

The final thing we must do is to be honest and frank that, as a consequence of these business pressures and as a consequence of the drought, some farms will not survive, and there is now an enhanced federal package—and again I say thank you to the federal government—to assist people to move off the farms. We must be communicating that as an option.

Time expired.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:37): We have heard various ministers on the government side talking about consistency and giving the history of the management of water resources in South Australia. Unfortunately, the history of the Labor governments in South Australia has been one of a lot of talk and not much action, going right back to 1967 in the Mr Drip campaign. Then they ignored Susan Lenehan's '21 Options for the 21st Century' in 1989. What do we see? Waterproofing Adelaide in 2004, which is just a rehash of some of Susan Lenehan's suggestions. There is very little we can do about the drought. As a city member, I have a lot of constituents come in and complain that they cannot water their gardens and I explain to them that we are in a crisis situation. I have a lot of empathy, as a former country practitioner and veterinary surgeon, for my fellow country South Australians because they are doing it very tough and some of them are doing it extremely tough, particularly with the equine influenza outbreak on top of it and the associated restrictions.

We cannot do much about the drought. Governments cannot make it rain, as we hear and say all the time. I should note that in Susan Lenehan's 1989 '21 Options for the 21st Century', on page 11, the then minister for water resources talked about cloud seeding. I do not know the current science behind cloud seeding; I do not know whether or not it is a feasible option. But certainly in 1989, when Mike Rann was sitting around the cabinet table with Susan Lenehan, they talked about cloud seeding then. So, perhaps you can make it rain. I do not know the latest on this but, if we can do that and if it is not going to have an unreasonable economic impact, that is something that should be looked at.

Let me now return to the issues facing the metropolitan area and what this government has not done. Let's look at what Mike Rann said in the foreword to Professor Peter Cullen's thinker in residence report entitled 'Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century'. On 2 September 2004 Mike Rann, Premier of South Australia, stated (page 5):

The water situation in South Australia has become critical…I do believe, however, that South Australians are coming to realise that we now need to act with some urgency.

He said that in September 2004—three years ago. He obviously did not listen to the other thinker in residence, Charles Landry, who, in 2003, identified a culture of constraint in South Australia. He said that South Australians were good at talking and less good at doing. He pointed out the tendency for 'rules to determine policies, strategy and vision rather than vision, policy and strategy to determine the rules.' Mike Rann has not listened to Peter Cullen; he has not listened to Charles Landry; and he certainly did not listen to Susan Lenehan back in 1989.

I do not think that Mike Rann was Don Dunstan's press secretary in 1967—I think he came a bit later than that—but he should read Playford to Dunstan: the Politics of Transition by Neal Blewett and Dean Jaensch. What did Dunstan do in 1967? Dunstan had a mass media campaign urging voluntary restraint in what was then one of the driest years on record—1967. The authors state:

With a jingle on the theme 'use the water you need, don't waste it' recorded by a local folk trio; with persuasive rather than didactic advertisements, cleverly conceived and technically accomplished; with practical and effective gimmicks such as a free washer replacement service and a children's water watchers club; with a campaign villain, Mr Drip, a campaign hero, the water-skimping citizen, and a campaign general, the Premier himself—

I am surprised that the Premier has not picked up on this, and become the general—he is more like Mr Drip, at the moment. The authors continue:

...the operation was a brilliantly imaginative exercise in governmental public relations.

That is, unfortunately, all that we have had. The thinkers in residence have said that it is public relations, public relations, and public relations. In her 1989 paper entitled '21 Options for the 21st Century', Susan Lenehan states in the forward:

A responsible government...must prepare for unforeseen circumstances.

What if the River Murray, the backbone of our water supply, was no longer available?

What if there was an inordinate increase in demand?

What about the greenhouse effect?

That was 1989—the greenhouse effect. When you go through all of the options that were put up in 1989 by the Labor government, which they totally ignored, there is everything from cloudseeding through to towing icebergs here, and then we had the Ord River scheme, the River Murray/Morgan-Whyalla pipeline, sealed catchments, and they did talk about sea water desalination. On page 18 of Susan Lenehan's report there is quite an extensive investigation into seawater desalination. Peter Cullen talked about desalination. This government has been all talk and no action. Let us be consistent about that—that is the only thing that the government has been consistent about: it has talked about it but it has done very little.

We see options for 10 years out. Mount Bold has filled only once in the past 10 years; it is just inconceivable. Let us look at what Peter Cullen said in his recommendations, which again have been ignored by this government. This government is consistent in that it is just ignoring all the advice, right back from Mr Drip in 1967 to Susan Lenehan in 1989, and then Professor Cullen in 2004. Recommendation 10 states:

SA Water should be encouraged to use recycled water as a replacement for potable water in appropriate uses...

But what do they have down at the Bay at Glenelg? They changed from B class water to A class water. They then put up the price 1,600 per cent—1,600 per cent the price went up. We find that people who were using it before do not use it. The recycling use has gone from 11 per cent down to 6 per cent—that is a bit of genius, that is. It is an absolute disgrace that all of that water is going out to sea down there. Recommendation 11 of Peter Cullen's paper states:

The government should clarify the control and responsibility for stormwater and encourage its use as a commercial resource, as water supply for appropriate uses.

Okay; we have set up the Stormwater Management Authority. It is more about detention and retention rather than recycling. We need to look again at recommendation 11. Recommendation 12—this is in 2004 and it is signed off by Mike Rann saying that we need to adopt a degree of urgency—states:

The government should develop a state policy towards desalination that addresses planning issues, access to saline water, disposal of brine and management of other environmental impacts. The support government may provide to appropriate proposals could be outlined to encourage innovation in this area.

In 2004 they were talking about that. This government has consistently done absolutely nothing. Rather than talk about it, they ignored Susan Lenehan. They tried to find out what our policies were. We had some good policies back in 2002 and 2006, but the government has come up with nothing, other than recycling its old policies. Don Dunstan came up with a glamour campaign in 1967, and millions are being spent on advertising by this government that should be spent on waterproofing Adelaide and looking after families and communities in distress. What do we get? We get a consistent approach—that is, just ignore the impending crisis and hope that it will go away.

I remind the house that, in my first budget speech in this place, I said that economists were only put in this place to make meteorologists look good. I had to go to the bureau and do penance. In the recent budget, the Treasurer relied on the drought breaking. So, the economists were relying on the meteorologists to make them look good. These are the dire straits this state is in. We cannot stop the drought, although we might be able to help with cloud seeding. Get on with it and do something about ensuring water security. Show us some leadership. Let us do something about water security for this state.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite—Leader of the Opposition) (12:46): I move:

That the motion be put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Enfield was on his feet.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have moved that the motion be put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Enfield was on his feet. I am obliged—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have moved that the motion be put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I heard you. The member for Enfield.

Mr RAU (Enfield) (12:46): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have moved that the motion be put. I think that that question needs to be put to the house. The government is clearly filibustering. I have moved—

Members interjecting:

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that you get advice from the Clerk.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, leader. Please sit down while I—

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I have moved that the motion be put.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please sit down. My decision stands. I looked to the right of the house, as the last speaker was on the left, and I gave the member for Enfield the call before I saw you on your feet. The member for Enfield has the call.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT