HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WESTERN MOUNT LOFTY RANGES WATER RESOURCES

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:09): I move:

That this house calls on the Rann government to ensure that the water allocation plan in relation to the prescription of the Western Mount Lofty water resources does not restrict primary producers and industry in maintaining and improving the viability of their businesses.

This is a most serious matter facing the future of an extremely unique region, not only in South Australia but around the whole country. The government has only one chance to get this right. The unique and individual character of the Adelaide Hills cannot be overstated. It is a beautiful region, with valleys filled with orchards and vineyards, open grazing paddocks or those where vegetable crops are grown, from stud cattle to alpaca properties, from flower growers to dairies.

It is also a very popular tourist destination, a short drive from Adelaide with attractions right across the district. It is a very liveable area. It is pleasurable to take in the environment: the rural aspect, the clean air, the charming townships and picturesque views. Once you drive up through the Heysen tunnel, you begin to feel refreshed and relaxed as you leave the stresses of the city behind. It is little wonder that so many people are choosing to make the Hills their home.

Importantly, however, this region has a long history as a food bowl for the state dating back to the earliest days of European settlement. Settlers grew produce and walked it to markets in the towns to sell what they had grown. The Hahndorf Pioneer Women's Trail Walk is a reminder of those days, as hard as it is to believe today, when people actually carried their produce from their farms around Hahndorf to the city.

That is hard to imagine today, but of course people also used drays and horses and carts in those days. The supply of fresh fruit and vegetables and other primary produce did not stop at supplying the local populations. As farms developed, so did their markets and the Hills have been exporters of their produce for many years, supplying countries all around the world with their produce.

An important consideration in the Hills is the significant pressure on land for development. The more land given for housing development, the more the Hills will be changed from that which makes them unique. Whilst there are planning laws in place to try to limit to this pressure, the situation remains ever present and very real.

In recent years, large tracts of land have been made over to residential development. Part of the reason given is that that land is no longer viable to sustain an agricultural enterprise. Some in the community may wish to argue that much of the Hills region is no longer viable, as larger-scale operations bring economies of scale and a level of viability that smaller-scale farming enterprises struggle to achieve, with many of the farms in the Hills considered small in comparison with other regions.

It would be totally devastating to this region to allow more land to be taken over with that argument. It also raises an essential issue. Hills-based primary producers require support to maintain their viability. By maintaining the viability of their businesses, we should protect this valuable region for its best purpose and that is as a food bowl for Adelaide and beyond. We cannot therefore be excused by taking away something that is vital, such as water.

Agriculture-based businesses are the same as any other businesses in that they are continually striving for improvement: some choose to expand their business as the markets develop; some find a niche market to target and develop. The principles are the same: it is a business. Costs must be covered and profit is the aim; continual investment is necessary. However, in agriculture one thing is essential, and that is water. You need water to grow crops or water stock. There is no way around that one essential element in agriculture.

The amount, the volume and the quality may vary, but agriculture-based production is not possible without water. That is why the process to prescribe the water resources in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges is critically important; it is important to the growers and it is important to the entire community. The department has taken a snapshot of water use over a very short period of time—only three years—to determine future water allocation. Great concern is being caused to many by the fact that their entire future will be determined by a snapshot—a very short period of time in the past—potentially restricting their business and stifling future growth.

Considerably more consultation is needed with primary producers and primary industry groups. Primary producers in the Adelaide Hills are calling for an improved level of consultation. They see no reason—and I agree with them on this and with all the issues that they raise—why each farming property cannot be visited and assessed individually, to ensure a thorough process is carried out. Time is a real issue in this matter.

The government has outlined its time frame. It wants the water allocation planning process completed by the end of 2008 and water licences to commence issuance to existing users in 2009. A draft water allocation plan is expected by June this year—in only three or so months' time—however if the work has not been finalised, if the consultation has been insufficient, or the data collection not completed, then the government must either extend the time frame or invest more resources into the process in order to meet the time lines.

I am confident I have correctly gauged the feeling amongst my constituents that, if more time is needed to carry out the work thoroughly, then no-one will complain about an extended time frame. They want the job done properly. The government will state that community consultation has occurred. The quality of that consultation has been lacking, as many questions remain unanswered.

The Natural Resources Management Board did conduct community consultation meetings in October 2007. I attended the Gumeracha meeting at the town hall, which was full, with over 250 people attending. This obviously demonstrates the level of concern in the community. My colleague the member for Heysen attended the Hahndorf meeting, which had a similar number of people in attendance, and I believe the member for Finniss may have attended the meeting held at Victor Harbor. There were two other meetings held in Yankalilla and McLaren Vale.

The meeting I attended was chaired by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board chairperson, Ms Anita Aspinall (a well-known and respected Adelaide Hills person) who did a good job of chairing the meeting and, to the board's credit, they did commit to holding a follow-up meeting to answer the large amount of questions which remained unanswered; however, that meeting is yet to be held. Most people who attended those meetings left with more questions than answers.

The local community is seeking a transparent process where questions are answered and all available information is presented. There is a feeling amongst some that limited information is being given; something that has been the case since the first day this process commenced. My office has received many phone calls and I have met with many people who have been concerned about this water prescription process since day one, and their concerns still remain extremely real today.

From the outset, this process has alarmed people: it has left them confused and worried about their future; and about their children's future. This highlights to me how important clear communication is but, sadly, the government has failed to communicate clearly with the community on this matter. This fact is true, and it is evidenced by the level of concern remaining in the community today.

I want to give some feedback on information regarding local landowners. Landowners and farmers are concerned about the approach of government bureaucrats. They fear these bureaucrats will take a 'one size fits all' approach, with a belief that the water resources in one region are the same as in another. We all know that this is nonsense. Do the officers know that what applies to the water basin in the South-East or Willunga does not apply to the fractured rock aquifers in the Adelaide Hills?

One landowner was visited by an employee of the department who made comparisons between the two regions. It must be clearly understood by the government and its officers that the Adelaide Hills is a unique area in many aspects, including the manner in which its ground water system is formed and actually functions. Fractured rock aquifers operate vastly differently from large basins of underground water. For example, one farmer in Kenton Valley could have very different water quality and quantity from a neighbour in, say, the Torrens valley, a few kilometres away; and similarly you might pump 90,000 litres an hour from a bore on Pfeiffer Road, Woodside and two kilometres away you may only pump 5,000 litres an hour. Quality and salinity levels can also vary greatly between the bores.

The fact that water trading is being considered by the government in the Adelaide Hills is causing great concern amongst many of my constituents, who do not understand how water from one underground aquifer can be traded to a property in a separate aquifer. How is this actually possible? I would be interested to hear the minister's view on this because it defies logic and if allowed could be the ruin of the Adelaide Hills as we know it. It could leave properties literally high and dry.

Information from the department has also been gained. I understand that many people working on this important task are well qualified and diligent in their work. In fact, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the members of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board and the officers of the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation for their work; however, an enormous amount of work will need to continue to be undertaken and completed before it can be regarded as finished.

I wish to stress also how vital their work is. It is absolutely crucial they gather sufficient information on this region's water resources before final decisions are made. The future of this region depends on it and the future livelihood of many farming families relies on the accuracy and quality of their work.

The concern is so widespread that a district group has been formed to gather as much information as possible on the water resources of this region, independent from the work the government is doing. The Mount Lofty Ranges Rural Industry Water Users Group has called on landowners to register with it and provide information on water use to help it accurately gauge extraction levels with watertable recovery periods across the region. There was a recent article appearing in the local Courier newspaper, on 13 February this year, outlining the proposals of the users group and calling for landowners to provide that information.

I could go on and talk about the economic benefit that the Adelaide Hills provides to the state in its agriculturally diverse and horticultural nature; but in conclusion I want to send, on behalf of the Adelaide Hills community, a very strong message, a very strong warning on the catastrophic outcomes for the Adelaide Hills region if the government fails in its assessment and deprives farmers of satisfactory volumes of water for them to continue their farming operation.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:25): I just want to make a brief contribution. I understand the member for Kavel's concern, but the bottom line with all of these issues relating to water is that we are increasingly aware that it is not an unlimited resource, certainly in the short term. We know nature replenishes over time, with a cycle of replenishment and, hopefully, we will be replenished here shortly. But the bottom line is that you cannot keep taking out more water, whether it is from the aquifer or a river, or whatever, without giving heed to the amount of water that is available. The days of doing what you like when you like how you like with water, those days are gone, and this applies to the Mount Lofty Ranges as much as anywhere else.

I think what primary producers and other water users want to know, and what they want, is certainty and some confidence. You can never guarantee water supplies in an absolute sense. But we found with the River Murray that people are taking out more water than that available, certainly in dry years. It is the very problem we have with the Victorian government at the moment. They want business as usual. They want their irrigators to keep taking out what they have been doing in the past. Well, you cannot do it, if you have been over-allocating water, and the same thing in areas of the Mount Lofty Ranges. People have been building dams. A lot of the creeks that used to run, even the whole year round, when I was a kid, have dried up.

We know that there is a drought and that has not helped; it does not help at all. But we have people with bores sucking out water, with very limited controls on what they take out. We have water being extracted without proper metering, without proper controls. As I said at the start, I can understand where the member for Kavel is coming from, but the days of endless water, unlimited water, without control in terms of extraction, those days are over. The reality is that we are going to have to manage water better, more effectively, more efficiently, and make sure everyone gets a fair allocation, a fair access, but that will ultimately depend on what water is available.

So, I do not support a sweeping condemnation of the government in relation to trying to control water usage. I think it is a prudent thing to do, and I would ask the question whether or not the government has gone far enough in terms of controlling water usage throughout the whole state. I make one other point, that the sooner—and this is no reflection on either of the two ministers, but I think it would be sensible to have one minister responsible for all water issues in South Australia, from under ground to above ground. I hope that when the Premier reshuffles his cabinet later this year he listens to that message, and has one minister for water—so important, whether it is under ground or above ground.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:28): I rise to speak to this motion, because in the Mallee I have seen what can happen when you obviously get prescription wrong, and I speak about the Roby, Peake and Sherlock Wells area, which was an unprescribed resource. There was some irrigation opened up in the area. There are about four irrigators operating in the area at the moment. Previous to that the local area had extremely good levels of groundwater for extraction.

I am referring to what has happened under the prescription process—and I applaud the process, as I think prescription is the right way to go, but I think it should have happened a long time ago. But the issue with prescription is you have to get it right. It is obvious with what has gone on that it has not gone right. For a start, there has been a court case, where the government was beaten in court by an operator, and it has come out with a whole heap of other arrangements. So I have seen what has happened locally in Hammond when they get it wrong, and with two ministers this is where it does turn into a dog's breakfast, because, in relation to the groundwater in the Murray-Darling Basin, different parts of the allocation process come under each minister, the Minister for the River Murray and the Minister for the Environment. As I have seen in this place many times before, they just handball it if they cannot or will not answer the question in question time or estimates by saying, 'It's not my responsibility; it's the other minister's.'

Prescription—yes, you have to take into account former and present use and have an idea of where it is going in the future. However, it needs to be much better managed so that we have the right outcomes for everyone—whether stock or domestic users or irrigators—and I call on the government to get it absolutely right in the western Mount Lofty catchment; otherwise it will end up in court again, costing the government hundreds of thousands of dollars, destroying the catchment and also the resource, and causing major unrest in the community. I commend the motion.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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