HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2)
2008-02-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

LAKE EYRE BASIN (INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT) (RATIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 November 2007. Page 1390.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:48): I rise to indicate Liberal Party support for this bill, which amends the Lake Eyre Basin (Intergovernmental Agreement) Act 2001 to include parts of the Lake Eyre Basin that have the closest connection with the Northern Territory, which includes Finke and Hamilton/Alberta/Macumba rivers and catchments; Witjira National Park; Simpson Desert Conservation Park and Simpson Desert Regional Reserve; and the Neales, Umbum, Sunny and Douglas rivers and catchments.

This is not a particularly complicated measure (some two clauses, I think). The aim of the inter-government agreement is to provide for the development and implementation of policies and strategies concerning water and related natural resources in the Lake Eyre Basin and to eliminate, as far as possible, adverse cross-border impacts.

My understanding is that in 2004 the Northern Territory became a party to the Lake Eyre Intergovernmental Agreement, which resulted in a review of the boundaries of the agreed area. We have before us an extension of the southern boundary, which effectively enlarges the catchments. I thank the minister and her departmental staff for providing me with a briefing.

The one question I have relates to whether this bill will have any impact on the pastoralists or mining leaseholders in that particular region and, if so, what that impact would be.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:50): I rise to support the second reading of this bill, which extends the boundary and, therefore, the area that is covered by the agreement. My reason for speaking to the bill is to put on the record the contribution a number of conservationists have made—and continue to make—in relation to the Lake Eyre Basin. A person who is casually reading this legislation might be of the opinion that it was only in 2000 and 2001 that people first had this notion that, maybe, when catchments and river systems crossed state boundaries people should try to cooperate and talk to each other about the management of the catchment and the management of those river systems. However, nothing could be further from the truth; prominent conservationists have been talking about a better way of managing the Lake Eyre Basin since the 1980s.

The Lake Eyre Basin itself, as members would be aware, is in fact larger than the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin has been front and centre on the news for some little while over exactly this issue; that is, how do the states and territories work together to better manage that catchment and river system? The answer, in terms of the Murray-Darling, has been: we have done very badly.

The answer in relation to the Lake Eyre Basin is that we could have done it earlier and we could have done it better, but the consequences have been less severe because it is proportionately a much less economically developed part of Australia. The South Australian portion of the Lake Eyre Basin is of particular significance, and I will refer in a little while to the work that was done to identify the natural and cultural values of that area, particularly as they relate to its potential as a world heritage site.

In terms of those who are calling for better management of this area, fairly high up on the list comes former senator John Coulter, who in 1984, when he was the president of the Conservation Council, proposed this area for world heritage listing, and he did that in conjunction with the then federal minister for the environment, Barry Cohen. The campaign then took the course of lobbying the international community. The fate of the Lake Eyre Basin and its proper management and protection were put on the agenda of the World Conservation Union or, to give it its correct title, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, which body happened to be meeting in Perth in 1990.

I was fortunate enough to be selected as a delegate to go, as were Jim Puckeridge and Marcus Beresford from the Conservation Council. We went to Perth armed with a slideshow showing the importance of this area and urging the environmental delegates from government, industry and community from around the world to support our call for proper studies into the values of the Lake Eyre Basin and, in particular, a proper study into its world heritage values.

The reason that we wanted to try to get world heritage listing was that as a nation and as states we had failed abysmally in managing the area. The best tool that was then available, when the states could not work together, was to seek to have an area brought under federal control. The best way to bring it under federal control, ever since the Franklin Dam case, was to get something world heritage listed, which then gave the federal government the ability to legislate for that area.

At the World Conservation Union meeting, I can recall various delegates haranguing Australia, saying, 'Why can't you people get your domestic act together? Why do you have to take your conservation disputes to the international stage to resolve them?' It was a very reasonable complaint. The answer lies in the imperfections of our national constitution and the fact that the states were left with the overriding responsibility for the environment on Federation. Nevertheless, it was not just that practical management reason for seeking world heritage: there was also the reason that we strongly believed that the area deserved it for its own sake.

I particularly acknowledge the role played by Jim Puckeridge in this campaign. Jim, for those who do not know him, is an aquatic ecologist, now a resident of Kangaroo Island. He was a very gentle and passionate man and he had to deal with very hostile vested interests in the mining and pastoral industries in his campaign to try to have the ecological values of this area recognised. One of the things that he said to me which stuck in my mind about the importance of the wetlands and, in particular, the waterways of the Lake Eyre Basin was that they were different from anything else in the world, and that was particularly so in relation to their variability.

Anyone who has been up to the north-east of our state would know that those rivers–the Diamantina River, the Georgina River and Cooper Creek–are either flowing or they are not. It seems they are either in flood or they are dry. That variability makes them unique in the world. When the Cooper Creek is flowing, for example, the volume of water that flows down this South Australian river at Innamincka rivals the flow of the Nile River at Khartoum. That is one of the things which Jim Puckeridge's research showed and which stuck in my mind. When it is flowing it is an absolutely mighty river; when it is dry you could step across it in many places. There are some permanent wetlands; most of them are ephemeral.

As a consequence of the World Conservation Union passing the resolution urging Australia to do more work in the Lake Eyre Basin region, a federal government sponsored committee was formed, which I was very pleased to sit on with representatives of the mining industry, the oil and gas industry and also Aboriginal interests. That group examined all the evidence and in particular the evidence that was prepared by the CSIRO, which body was tasked with the job of investigating the values of the area and lining them up against world heritage criteria.

You only need to meet one world heritage criterion for it to be potentially successful at UNESCO. What we found is that the wetlands of the Lake Eyre Basin–the South Australian wetlands–met three of the four criteria. Overwhelmingly, these wetlands were regarded by the CSIRO as being of world heritage quality. I should also acknowledge Julian Reid as a scientist who was instrumental in that report.

It is also probably worth mentioning in relation to the management of this area that it is also a good case study of missed opportunities for government. I can remember talking to a former director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Mr Bruce Lever (no longer in South Australia), and he talked about the task that he was given to acquire some of the pastoral properties in the north-east of the state for the National Parks estate. He was particularly asked to acquire the Innamincka pastoral lease, and yet he was given no money to fulfil that task. So, it is not surprising that the agreement that was eventually struck with the pastoralists, to convert their pastoral lease to a regional reserve under the National Parks and Wildlife Act, was done so on very generous conditions—a 50-year lease instead of the normal 42 years under a pastoral lease.

I acknowledge that we are slowly making up some ground. The declaration of the Coongie Lakes National Park certainly gives better recognition to some of the core of that area. I still think that it is an historical tragedy for South Australia that we could have purchased for very little money the whole of that area for a fully protected rather than a multiple use reserve. We missed that opportunity, and it is always more expensive to acquire it later on.

As well as Jim Puckeridge, another person I acknowledge is Marcus Beresford from the Conservation Council. He was very much a driving force for many years in his role as the CEO of that organisation. I also acknowledge the contribution of the Friends of the Earth and Mr Steve Baker, in particular. I want to put those names and events on the record just so that we can balance the historical record, which otherwise might show that no real efforts were made to achieve a cooperative management arrangement until this legislation came through in 2000.

I conclude by quoting an honourable member who was in this place when this bill was first debated. We are now seeking to amend the bill but, when it was first debated in March 2001, the Hon. Mike Elliott, who also had a role in some of these earlier campaigns, was very unimpressed with the legislation. In fact, he said:

...it is a disgrace that the parliament should even be asked to spend time to pass a bill that provides that after five years of talking we will agree to keep on talking and does absolutely nothing else.

I understand what he is saying: the bill is largely about talking. I think that we have been lucky that we have not been tested with some serious economic proposals in the Lake Eyre Basin that would challenge what has been a fairly cooperative arrangement until now. Members may recall that there were proposals for cotton growing in the Queensland part of the basin, in the upper reaches of Cooper Creek. The pastoralists in South Australia were very concerned that their clean green image and their desire to grow organic beef could be compromised by chemicals flowing downstream from this chemical-intensive activity in Queensland.

I think it was only when that proposal was put on the table that the penny dropped in some of those pastoral circles and they could see why conservationists had been saying for years that world heritage was the way to go because it would invoke commonwealth powers. Their plaintive cry all those years ago was, 'Can't the South Australian government do anything to protect us from this disastrous proposal from Queensland?' The answer was: no, it could not.

Certainly, this bill provides a mechanism for negotiation and agreement. I still think that world heritage would be the way to go, but this is the system we have. I am very pleased today that we are at least extending the scope of the agreement and the area it covers.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (17:03): The Lake Eyre Basin covers much of the north and north-east of South Australia, the south-east of the Northern Territory, the south-west of Queensland, and a small portion of the north-east of New South Wales. That there should be an agreement between these different jurisdictions on matters concerning the difference appears to make good sense.

While appreciating that the essential purpose of this legislation is to make the Northern Territory a full partner to this agreement, I believe that several matters need to be raised at this time. As the Hon. Mark Parnell stated, the basin is sparsely populated and is largely pastoral country. It contains South Australia's major known reserves of natural gas. Recent exploration suggests that it has considerable potential mineral deposits and may be a source of energy from hot rocks. It is also an area with expanding tourism. There are proposals that this may be an area chosen for carbon sequestration. In short, it is an area of vital economic importance to this state, with the prospect of becoming much more so.

My concern is that South Australia needs a broad strategic plan, but this does not seem to be apparent in some of the legislation that is passed through this place at times. It is apparent to me that the basin should be the subject of broad community discussion on the best policy for this state to follow.

My inquiries of sources in the area reveal that many residents of the basin are not even aware that this legislation is before parliament. We simply cannot make good legislation if our people are not involved from an early stage via the public consultation process. Due to the lack of such discussion, I am uncertain at this moment about the best way to manage this very large and important part of our state to the best advantage for our people. I notice that, although the area of South Australia covered by the agreement is to be expanded, the entire southern part of the basin is not. Lake Eyre South is excluded in its entirety.

As water flow is key to this system, I have two observations. Small, non-perennial creeks in the Northern Territory are included in the expanded area, although they lose their waters into the sands of the Simpson Desert, and it is doubtful whether any water from them ever reaches the lakes. Yet, here in South Australia, the highest rainfall in the basin falls on the northern Flinders Ranges. None of this area is covered by the agreement.

This area seems to provide the only catchments that feed directly into Lake Eyre South. One suspects that the inclusion of this more economically active area at this time may have been the stimulus for more debate than was desired by the ministers and bureaucrats who put this agreement together in the first place.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (17:06): I stand in support of the Lake Eyre Basin (Intergovernmental Agreement) (Ratification of Amendments) Amendment Bill. My colleague the Minister for Environment and Conservation spoke very eloquently in her second reading contribution late last year about the interaction between the exquisitely fragile Lake Eyre Basin environment, the cultural and community imperatives and the numerous economic interests that are so important to our state.

An extraordinary and varied ecosystem, the Lake Eyre Basin covers more than 1 million square kilometres of semi arid to arid land in Central Australia. Its area equates to nearly 20 per cent of the continent. The basin, essentially, is one of the world's biggest natural internal drainage models and, while its flows are unpredictable (to say the least), it is also acknowledged as one of the few remaining unregulated river systems on the planet.

Despite its variable, often non-existent water levels, Lake Eyre is the world's fifth largest terminal lake and Australia's lowest point at 15 metres below sea level, and to it flows an ever decreasing volume of water via a massive and highly complex system of waterholes, marshlands, channels and flood plains which support varied and often rare flora and fauna, sites significant to Aboriginal nations, communities and townships, and sheep and cattle concerns, as well as a burgeoning tourism industry.

The original custodians of this land knew and implemented sustainable land management techniques for thousands of years. Their links to the land, and their dreaming and cultural practices, were all integral to balancing the requirements of the earth and the water. It is those who came later who compromised and, on occasion, destroyed this delicate balance. Now people of goodwill are working together to alleviate the mistakes made earlier and to turn around the damage sustained.

The original Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement represents the result of several years of consultation between and advocacy by communities that live within or impact in various ways on the basin. Those involved in the broad partnership that developed over the years included representatives of the pastoral industry, the governments of South Australia and Queensland, mining, oil and gas interests, Landcare, conservation groups, Aboriginal organisations and local government. By 1998 a coordinating group had evolved from previous entities to deal with natural resource management and catchment issues. The efforts of these many concerned people culminated in the historic agreement which was signed at the Birdsville Community Hall in 2000.

This unique compact represented an agreement to make state borders a secondary issue to one of paramount importance of the region—the management of its water resources across the South Australia-Queensland sectors of the Georgina, Diamantina and Cooper Creek catchments. Signatories were the then South Australian and Queensland ministers with responsibility for water and natural resources (both of whom were present at the event) and the then federal minister for the environment. The then South Australian minister for water resources called the agreement 'the best of what Australia is all about'. He said, 'It is a federation of levels of government and of the people working together, not just for this area, but in the national interest.'

The agreement continues to be integral to the protection of traditional links with the land, biodiversity conservation, and water quality and flow from the north into South Australia. Indeed, in what I see as a measure of its importance, the Northern Territory became a party to the agreement in 2004. It is for this reason that South Australia, in consultation with our cross-jurisdictional counterparts, then carried out a review of those areas of the basin that relate to both South Australia and Northern Territory. This process was expanded later by an additional review of catchments to the west of Lake Eyre.

The results of both reviews have been incorporated in the terms of the bill before us today. The amended agreement represents an increased commitment on the part of our state, and our sister state and territory, to continue cooperative strategies in managing this unique environment. This is an inspiring story of grassroots activism and community partnerships with conservationists, business and governments in order to achieve a shared aim in the local, regional and national interest. I wholeheartedly endorse the bill.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (17:10): I thank members for their contributions on this fairly straightforward but, nevertheless, important piece of legislation. The bill demonstrates the commitment of South Australia to the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement and provides opportunities for cooperation and collaboration in managing catchments across state boundaries. Community consultation on the bill was extensive. I thank community members from across the northern part of the state for the manner in which they embraced the boundary changes. The view was expressed that the opportunities for cooperation and collaboration arising from the inclusion of additional areas to the agreement was a positive move for cross-border issues in the basin.

The acceptance of the bill continues and improves upon the good work already achieved in managing one of Australia's unique environments, and it supports the management of significant economic activities as well as the protection and management of a rich and varied cultural heritage. This bill contributes to the government's priorities identified in the South Australian Strategic Plan of ensuring sustainable use of its water and other natural resources and in halting biodiversity decline by ensuring the coordinated delivery of initiatives across the Lake Eyre Basin.

I thank all members who support this important initiative. I also thank Bernice Cohen for facilitating the community consultation; Stevie Austin, Ania Karzek, Fran Stropin and Andrew Johnson from the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation; and Richard Ewart from the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for assisting in the preparation and passage of this bill. A question was asked by the Hon. Michelle Lensink which I will answer in the committee stage. I look forward to this bill being dealt with expeditiously through the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I will answer a question asked during the second reading stage by the Hon. Michelle Lensink about the possible impact on pastoralists and miners. I have been advised that this bill ensures that there is a mechanism for cross border discussion of possible issues of common concern such as improved water management, coordinated weed and feral animal control programs and improved engagement of Aboriginal people.

Pastoralists and mining interests were extensively consulted on the proposed boundary changes and have been strongly supported in this initiative. In addition, pastoral and mining interests are represented on the community advisory committee to the ministerial forum, which ensures each jurisdiction is aware of emerging issues. At the regional level, close cooperation has been developed between the regional bodies in each jurisdiction, particularly the South Australia Arid Lands NRM Board and the Queensland Desert Channels Regional Body.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I note that the world heritage unit of the commonwealth department of environment back in the mid 1990s concluded:

The South Australian section of the Lake Eyre Basin contains natural values of international significance and a nomination to the world heritage committee would probably be successful.

Given that report, and given that those values are still largely intact, what is the government's current position on seeking international recognition for this important area and the tourism benefits that might flow from that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Currently the South Australian government is not seeking world heritage status because of concerns raised by pastoralists and mining industry concerns, which include implications for pastoralists and mining and those other issues addressed by the Hon. Ann Bressington in her second reading speech, such as the exploration of geothermal energy, gas and other natural resources.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 4) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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