HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Local Government (Stormwater Management Agreement) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 9 March 2015.)

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (17:04): I rise on behalf of the opposition to speak on the Local Government (Stormwater Management Agreement) Amendment Bill 2015.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: As lead speaker?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes I am. The bill implements the state and local government Stormwater Management Agreement of 2013. The Local Government Association originally entered into a memorandum of agreement on stormwater management in 2006.

The agreement set out the first responsibilities for stormwater management in the state, addressing the responsibilities for stormwater management and providing the basis for a joint collaboration by both levels of government to deal with the threat of flooding and to better manage the use of stormwater as a resource. As part of the agreement, the state government provides $4 million per annum indexed over 30 years. The Local Government Act 1999 was amended in 2007 to represent this.

In 2011, the government released the Stormwater Strategy—The Future of Stormwater Management. One of the key recommendations arising from the strategy was to establish a new operational model for the authority by giving it a more strategic outlook. This agreement required the authority to develop a 10-year strategic plan, with business plans then prepared every three years.

The Local Government (Stormwater Management Agreement) Amendment Bill represents the legislative changes of the 2013 agreement. The Stormwater Management Authority was established on 1 July 2007 under the Local Government (Stormwater Management) Amendment Act 2007 to implement the Stormwater Management Agreement and to operate as the planning, prioritising and funding body in accordance with the agreement.

The most recent agreement was signed on 30 August 2013 but it is now, once again, under review. The proposed changes that are part of this bill include an emphasis on members' skills as a primary consideration while retaining an equal number of local government-nominated and state government-nominated members.

This change also means that members nominated by local government no longer need to be representative of a particular geographic area and, according to the government, this change will ease pressure, as many areas struggle to nominate a suitable member. However, this change could potentially result in no regional representation on the authority and the opposition has already filed amendments to the bill in consultation with the LGA, and this was accepted through the Legislative Council.

We want to ensure that at least one local government representative is on the authority and that that person will be nominated by the LGA and have qualifications or experience to represent the interests of a region of local government. So I clarify that this appointment would be based on qualifications and experience and not on the employment status. The appropriateness of those qualifications and experience would be determined by the LGA and be made publicly available.

It makes sense to have at least one person from the LGA nominated by the LGA to sit on that authority, and it just does not make any sense at all, given the local floodwater and stormwater management agreement between local government and state government, that there is potential for nobody from regional local government to be on there. As the bill stands, it is written in legislation that regional interests be represented.

I am glad to see that common sense has prevailed in the Legislative Council and the Minister for Water accepted these important amendments. In another place, the Minister for Water said of the opposition's amendments that changes around board membership was driven by the Local Government Association to ensure that the Stormwater Management Authority has skills-based membership and not be constrained by geographic representation.

This may be the case but, after the LGA supported our amendments as a way to ensure that regional interests remain on the board and as the Minister for Water pointed out, of the nine high priority catchments identified in this legislation, three are in regional South Australia, these being Clare, Renmark and Port Augusta, so I believe it is key to have regional interests in the legislation so that the views of people concerning stormwater outside of metropolitan Adelaide are continually raised. What we do not want to see is a board of metropolitan members providing advice on regional stormwater.

What this means is that we need to have eyes and ears on the ground where we are seeing, potentially, a high percentage of pressure put on those towns that are often inundated with stormwater. In a lot of cases, they are areas of flooding where the water cannot run away, and that is where I think a lot of the action needs to be implemented. Surely there is no issue in finding one regional representative from across South Australia with the skills in stormwater management. The board could even hold further meetings in regional South Australia.

The members of the board have been appointed until 30 June 2017, and they are: Stephen Hains, the presiding member; Dr Helen MacDonald, regional councils, from Mount Gambier, representing regional interests; Mayor Rosenberg from the southern metropolitan councils; Mr Wally Iasiello, northern metropolitan councils; Ms Julia Grant, executive director from DEWNR; Ms Katharine Ward, project officer from DEWNR; and Mr Andrew Grear, manager of statutory planning from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.

During the briefing for this bill we were told that, through this agreement, a list of stormwater plans will be actively pursued, which will allow mechanisms for the authority to assist with stormwater activities on an ongoing basis. A number of concerns have been raised with me about the state government's stormwater approach. This amendment bill highlights that in many areas this state is well behind when it comes to stormwater initiatives. The bill does put the importance of stormwater as a resource for harvesting and reuse at the forefront, where it should be. As has been pointed out, a contemporary and integrated approach is warranted if we are to both manage the risks and harness the benefits of stormwater.

Most water that we deal with is stormwater, because in one way or another it runs off. Yes, the desal plant cleans, treats, desalinates and puts water back into a catchment or into a system. Seawater really is a reticulated catchment of the majority of stormwater, but it is a huge resource. As I have said many times in this house, all potable water was initially stormwater at some stage. Whether that water is in a rainwater tank, a dam, a river, a reservoir—wherever it may be, it is stormwater that in one way, shape or another has been captured. Whether stormwater is reused or let run into adjacent waterways—rivers, dams, reservoirs or out to sea—that is something that is just a natural phenomenon.

I would like to think that South Australia would adopt a much stronger policy for stormwater capture and reuse. We know that much stormwater that finds its way into metropolitan Adelaide hits the roads, the gutters, the stormwater system and, in the majority of cases, flows out to sea. In many of the recreational fishing meetings that we are dealing with at the moment, there is no mention in that review of urban run-off, which is having a huge impact on our gulf, our breeding grounds and our seagrasses. That is a real concern to me as well.

The state government's Water for Good policy highlights the importance of stormwater recycling and diversifying the state's water supplies. It has targets such as: a harvest of 35 gigalitres of water per annum by 2025, and by 2050 the capacity to provide up to 60 gigalitres of recycled stormwater per annum in Greater Adelaide.

If we had a proactive minister—and his department, and a government for that matter—we would be harvesting a lot more stormwater. We notice that the minister is doing a cost-benefit analysis on the desal plant as we speak. Why have we got the desal plant? We are now doing a cost-benefit analysis as to whether they are going to help out irrigators or not.

I think it is outrageous that the state government has invested almost $2.3 billion in a desalination plant and a pipe interconnection network from the south to the north, and yet we are now doing a cost-benefit analysis as to whether we should be starting that desal plant up, whether we should continue to support jobs and food production, underpinning an economy in South Australia. We are going around and around in circles.

I just find it outrageous that the minister will use turning on the desal plant as a mechanism to raise the cost of water in South Australia. It is outrageous to think that that desal plant has been ramped up and down since its initiation, through a warranty process. We saw the price of water go up, but we have not seen the price of water go down now that that desal plant has been reduced back down to three gigalitres to keep the membranes in operational mode.

I think it is just outrageous that the minister continues to play his little game of threatening the people of South Australia that he will have to raise the price of water if he turns on the desal plant. Every time there is a little bit of pressure put on the minister about why he is increasing the NRM levy—apparently we are going to have to raise the price of water if we are going to pay compensation for broken pipes.

It is outrageous that we once again get sucked in by this government's spin when it comes to dealing with the real issues and not dealing with the solution. The price of water has gone up 243 per cent over the life of this government, and yet we are continually threatened by the minister that he is going to raise the price of water if we start the desal, or if we pay compensation for stormwater breaks, or if there is any form of backlash over cost shifting when it comes to NRM.

I think it is time that the minister got serious about underpinning the state's economy with water. We are going to see a water shortage coming into the state's entitlement this year, as reported by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. It is time that the government, led by the Minister for Water, got real and stopped playing games, and actually supported an economy that is vital to South Australia's bottom line.

If we talk about targets for stormwater, we talk about capturing stormwater and we talk about the Water for Good stormwater strategy. Even the then minister said, 'We must do more if we are to achieve our goal.' I really do think that the government of today has hit a brick wall when it comes to the reuse of our stormwater and treated wastewater. They are just happy to let that water spill out into the gulf, threaten our environment, threaten seagrass, and threaten fish stock breeding grounds. It is something that is not being dealt with, and yet this state is held to ransom by the threat of having our water prices increased. That concerns me, because we continually hear the threat from the minister.

As I said, we must do more to achieve our goals for capturing stormwater, storing that stormwater and then being able to reuse it. We must be adept in capturing the stormwater and storing it for later use. Importantly, we must design our urban centres to provide water security for future generations.

If we are going to have resistance to turn on desal plants—there does not even appear to be trigger points on what activates this desal plant. Do we let the river run dry? Do we let the catchments dry before we turn it on? What actually is the mechanism for that green button to be pushed so that we can have the desal plant in operation and actually use that $2.3 billion investment that every taxpayer in South Australia has been burdened with? It really does beg the question.

Of course, I think it is important to design our urban centres to provide water security for future generations with stormwater. I commend Colin Pitman, who is now a water consultant. He is a world-renowned expert in stormwater capture and storage. I think Colin Pitman has probably been one of the unsung heroes, particularly with this government, because they continue to ignore how important stormwater capture and storage is in South Australia.

There are great examples of world-leading technology out at Salisbury, Green Fields and Parafield Airport. These are examples of how stormwater could be used, and yet we adapt a small part of it and are just happy to let the stormwater run out to sea.

As I understand it, a number of councils do not actually have a solid stormwater plan. In an age of lower water storages and availability, I think every council needs to have a strong, concise strategy as to how it will tackle stormwater management and re-use of the water. Under this bill, a stormwater management authority will keep a 10-year strategic plan, and three-yearly business plans on stormwater.

Under this bill, the authority will also continue to outline a more proactive approach in looking at different funding streams for stormwater projects. At the moment, the work has not been undertaken on what expenditure is required for specific projects and long-term strategies. The argument is that not enough money is available for stormwater infrastructure and this is a view shared by many councils.

Many of the current council plans are aimed primarily at flooding rather than being proactive with stormwater capture, diversion and, potentially, storage. I note that one area which will be interesting to watch is that if council fails to prepare the stormwater management plans as per the bill, the Stormwater Management Authority can prepare the plan through ministerial approval, and then act on it. Overall, we support the establishment of the Stormwater Management Agreement, and I am pleased our amendments have been supported in the Legislative Council, and regional interests will remain on the board in this legislation.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Treloar.

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