HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-04-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER RESTRICTIONS

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. M.C. Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes—

(a) the increasing frustration of South Australians with the inequity of household water restrictions that limit outside use, whilst allowing unlimited use within the home;

(b) the significant potential for abuse of water restriction rules and the reliance of householders dobbing in their neighbours as an enforcement strategy;

(c) the increasing need to reduce water demand in the face of the declining health of the River Murray which supplies up to 90 per cent of Adelaide's potable water during dry years; and

(d) that those with access to the quaternary aquifer that underlies the Adelaide Plains are able to extract unlimited amounts of water for domestic use; and

2. Calls on the government to—

(a) replace the water restriction regime with a household allocation based on occupancy and quarterly meter readings to allow citizens to choose where and how they use their water;

(b) prescribe the quaternary aquifer beneath Adelaide and include domestic bore extraction within the household allocation, whilst continuing to exclude water sourced from rainwater tanks to encourage the uptake of domestic rainwater collection systems; and

(c) change the water pricing structure by increasing the volumetric costs and reducing other charges to provide more incentive for water users to reduce their demand.

(Continued from 8 April 2009. Page 1940.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:24): I rise to indicate that the government will not be supporting the Hon. Mr Parnell's motion on water restrictions. That would come as no surprise to the Hon. Mr Parnell. I was advised a few seconds ago by the honourable member that we may be facing an amendment to his motion. As I have not yet seen the amendment, I will proceed with the comments I was about to make.

As usual, I believe the Hon. Mr Parnell's intentions in this motion are laudable, but the very high costs of metering, monitoring and the creation of allocations for domestic bores and residential supplies provided by SA Water greatly exceed the relatively small benefit which may be achieved by that process. The Hon. Mr Parnell has not addressed the key financial implications of the proposal, which would require new activities by a government at a time when we are needing to apply expenditure restraint.

Times are still tough. Notwithstanding the excellent recent rainfall, we have had water restrictions since 2003 and the Murray-Darling Basin has been in drought since 2006. We have had to impose tougher water restrictions so that we can manage the reduced water supply. In 2002, Adelaide used more than 195 billion litres of water, and last year we consumed less than 137 billion litres.

Our community understands the need for water restrictions, and members should not underestimate the will of the community to pitch in when our state is in trouble. The government has also introduced other strategies that are having significant success. The $24 million three-year home rebate scheme has reached 83,000 approvals since it was announced in November 2007. There are now $15.8 million worth of water-saving devices in homes and gardens, thanks to that scheme.

Rainwater tanks make a real contribution to supplementing our water supply, and the government has mandated the installation of rainwater tanks or connections to a recycled water scheme in new homes or where major extensions are taking place. We are also leading the nation in the use of recycled water and are implementing projects to ensure that this continues. We are also building a $1.3 billion desalination project that will deliver a reliable supply of water for our future—a supply that does not force us to rely on rainfall.

The Hon. Mr Parnell's motion would result in significant additional costs to customers, while not yielding any significant improvements in water security or, importantly, the diversity of supply. First, it is proposed that the current water restrictions regime be replaced with a household allocation, based on occupancy and quarterly metre readings in order to allow citizens to choose where and how they use their water.

In moving the motion the honourable member cited examples of the Victorian and Queensland systems, but neither of the initiatives to which he referred in those states replace water restrictions. Neither state has established base per property water allocations, and in both cases the targets are just that—simply targets.

Furthermore, the proposal would require an elaborate and administratively complex and costly system for minimising domestic water use. The honourable member's proposal would require the creation of separate new water allocations for both domestic bores and for water supplied by SA Water for domestic purposes. The allocations would then be merged to form a base allocation per property—and already I do not understand the proposal.

While the honourable member's motion refers specifically to the Adelaide Plains, I think in the name of equity one would argue that such a system—if it were to be introduced—would need to be introduced statewide, and not just for those living in metropolitan Adelaide. That means up to 620,000 domestic properties currently supplied by SA Water would be affected.

The changes that the honourable member has suggested would be incredibly costly to implement and would require major upfront changes to the billing system. Of course, these costs would need to be recovered from SA Water customers—another expense for the community, with very little demonstrable additional value and minimal, if any, water savings.

The Hon. Mr Parnell also seeks to prescribe the quaternary aquifer beneath Adelaide. The aquifers, including the quaternary aquifer under the central Adelaide area, were prescribed in June 2007, and a water allocation plan for that area is being prepared by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM board. However, stock and domestic wells are not covered by the prescription.

Various management options, including permanent water conservation measures for some non-mains water resources, have been investigated and some targeted consultation has been undertaken. As a consequence of the drought and other factors, on 7 December 2007 the then minister for the environment and conservation declared a temporary moratorium on the issuing of new well permits in the majority of the central Adelaide groundwater area in order to assist the management of the groundwater resources of that area. During the period of the temporary moratorium, no further permits will be issued, other than for limited exceptional circumstances.

Finally, the honourable member calls on the government to change the water pricing structure in such a way as to provide more incentives to water users to cut down on their usage. The government is already doing that. In December 2007, the government announced changes to pricing for 2008-09 and 2009-10.

The government considers that the levels and scope of water restrictions currently in place minimise unnecessary and inappropriate water use. Restrictions form one part of the government's response to the current unprecedented drought, and the actions I have outlined here today are designed to ensure the delivery of ongoing water security for South Australians. The government opposes the motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:29): I rise to speak to the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion and indicate that I will be moving an amendment. Water security involves balancing supply and demand elements. Supply is a matter of finding, treating and distributing water, and the supply of water in South Australia is facing some of its greatest challenges, particularly as a result of the significant drought being experienced not only in our local area but also in the River Murray, a major source of water for this state.

At a time when the River Murray is under stress, we ask ourselves what has happened under the Rann government. When the Rann government was elected in 2001-02, 40 per cent of water provided was sourced from the River Murray. In 2007-08, the most recent year for which figures are available, that reliance has increased to 85 per cent. In spite of the Premier's assertions that he wants to reduce reliance on the River Murray, we are facing a real crisis in terms of the stress that is being placed on the river.

Secondly, water security involves managing demand for water. The Hon. Mark Parnell referred to the cost effectiveness of demand management in promoting security, which was identified in research he commissioned. It is worth noting in this context that some water industry regulators, such as IPART in New South Wales, set specific demand management obligations on water utilities. In this context, in spite of its obligations under the national competition policy, the South Australian government does not have independent economic regulation of its water utilities.

What has happened to water demand management under the Rann government? Water restrictions were introduced in 2002-03. In that year Adelaide metro use was 178 gigalitres. In the years since then there has been an average of 155 gigalitres of water use—a reduction of about 13 per cent. So, we have had an increase in the draw from the River Murray from 40 per cent to 85 per cent, and a reduction in demand by about 13 per cent.

The question arising is: how sustainable is that decrease? It was reported earlier this year that, from the beginning of this year to the end of March, 45.2 gigalitres of water has been used in Adelaide compared with 44.2 gigalitres in the same period last year. There seems to be a kick-up in the demand within the Adelaide market.

The Hon. Mark Parnell's motion focuses very much on the way the government's approach to water is impacting on South Australians in their daily lives. Water restrictions have caused a huge amount of frustration within the community. In time management terms, people have had to run their lives around the arbitrary regime put in place by the government. People are needing to come home mid-weekend to do the watering if they are in an even numbered house and people are needing to change regular commitments because they interfere with the 7am to 10am or 4pm to 7pm time slots. There is frustration in relation to the inconsistencies. For example, people with swimming pools are given more leniency and it encourages people to water just in case.

The Hon. Mark Parnell made the point, which is very valid, that people are going out and watering even when it is raining: they would not do so without water restrictions. People are so stressed by the fact that they just do not know what the next three or four days will bring that they need to take the water when it is available to them rather than having the flexibility to respond to need. The Hon. Mark Parnell also highlighted avoidance mechanisms. He highlighted one in relation to people running empty washing machines purely for the purpose of obtaining grey water.

The motion also highlights the lack of equity between indoor and outdoor use. The whole principle behind the government's water restrictions program and the fact that it excludes in-house use is that people's recreational choices are being given a moral quota by the government. For example, if you like long showers, jacuzzis and fish tanks, the government says, 'Go for your life: you can use as much water as you like.' In relation to gardens, however, the government has imposed a very rigid, blunt water restriction regime.

In public comments and discussions I have been part of, people have felt that there is almost a geographical bias. If you drive through the western suburbs often they are looking significantly more stressed in terms of their gardens and lawns than are those in the eastern suburbs. In terms of this frustration, we are seeing it coming through with the lack of compliance. At the end of March the Adelaidenow site reported that new research shows that support for the water restrictions is fading. That is not surprising. People are feeling frustrated with an inflexible regime that unreasonably impacts on their lifestyle choices, so they will non-comply. It highlighted the fact that water usage was up and went on to report results from an SA Water market research, which showed that 76 per cent of respondents had reduced water usage in the home or garden in the previous year, compared with 90 per cent when the first survey was conducted in February 2007. That is a very telling result. After years of frustration under the current government's inflexible regime—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: This is about customer compliance: if you like to read a brief and listen to a debate, that is fine, but try to keep track of where the argument is going. That figure shows that, if 90 per cent reduced their water use in the previous year and only 76 per cent this year, people are taking less responsibility for their water use because the frustration is becoming so high. There are a number of reasons for that: frustration is an element, but there is a tendency within water restrictions to say that what we need to do with water demand is put in these restrictions. People think that is their contribution, rather than households being provided with more flexibility, more incentives and more encouragement to make choices consistent with their household structure and their lifestyle choices, with people taking responsibility for managing down their water demand.

Adelaidenow also ran an online poll in the context of that story. In that poll, people were asked: are you breaking water restrictions? Only 30 per cent of people said that they were complying with the water restrictions. Fifty-five per cent said, 'Technically, but I don't carelessly waste water.' These are not necessarily people who are being reckless with water. They say that they are being careful, and I have no reason to think they are not being careful. However, it does show that the community is saying, 'We don't have confidence in this government's water restrictions regime as a tool to manage demand in a crisis.'

I am sure that the public does not deny the reality of the crisis. In fact, I think the history of South Australia would show that the South Australian public is a much earlier learner in terms of the emerging water crisis than the parliament and the government. That poll also showed that 15 per cent said that, yes, they break the restrictions because they think they are a joke.

I think there is a real risk with the current water regime structure because it is blunt and it encourages noncompliance, and it gives people a false sense of assurance that they are doing their bit to manage water demand. In a very crude sense, the poll also showed that 84 per cent of respondents supported water restrictions; in 2007, it was 86 per cent. So, it is a small decline in an overall sense, but in terms of compliance there has been a significant level of noncompliance.

The Hon. Mark Parnell's motion also refers to householders dobbing in their neighbours. It reminds me of the case of the then minister, the Hon. Mr Wright. It was highlighted that he did not have confidence in the government's water restrictions: he was watering all night. This week, we have had another example of Labor government hypocrisy in relation to ministerial responsibilities in the case of minister Koutsantonis. That is indicative of this government's arrogance and laziness in terms of the challenges that South Australia faces. That laziness has been very clear in terms of investment in water infrastructure. The Hon. Ian Hunter highlighted the fact that the drought has been with us for some years—I think he quoted since 2006. To me, that sounded a bit late; I suspect it was earlier. Certainly, water restrictions on Eyre Peninsula pre-date that significantly.

So, what has the state government's response been? During seven of the best years the state has ever had, the Rann government has plummeted to be one of the worst performing—

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. S.G. WADE: No; this is 2008 Engineering Australia. A new independent report has outlined that the Rann government has plummeted to be one of the worst performing state governments in the country in terms of the development of water infrastructure.

A report released today by Engineers Australia (the Engineering Construction South Australia 2009 report) highlights the fact that, while investment has increased by 200 per cent across Australia since 2005-06, over the same period South Australia has not had a clear increase. The Rann government has failed to respond to the 2005 assessment by Engineers Australia that points to the 'below the status' performance of South Australia compared to other states and territories, with a 'D' for stormwater infrastructure. The report findings are a damning indictment of the Rann government's inaction and lack of investment in water infrastructure. Since the Rann government was elected, South Australia has consistently been the lowest performing state in terms of investment in water infrastructure.

During 2006-07, other Australian states were investing in the construction of water and sewerage facilities, but the report states that South Australia's investment 'was much more muted'. The 2007-08 Australian Bureau of Statistics data supports the Engineering Construction SA report findings showing that South Australia had the lowest per capita investment in water storage, supply, sewerage and drainage in the country.

In the Liberal Party's view, it is time the Rann government conceded that, like the desalination plant, our $400 million plan to capture stormwater, which we announced earlier this year, is a project that needs to be invested in.

The Hon. Mark Parnell's motion also refers to the need to replace the water restriction regime with a household allocation based on occupancy and quarterly meter readings to allow citizens to choose where and when they use their water. This is an idea the opposition believes is worthy of consideration. The opposition spokesman at the time, Mitch Williams, issued a press release on 25 October entitled 'Let households decide on water use'. The press release states:

Shadow Water Security Minister Mitch Williams said that, if the Rann government had any vision and was serious about responsible water use, it would monitor household water use via water meter readings and modify behaviour through a modern and well designed pricing system.

Rather than continuing with its archaic system of dictating when people can water their gardens, householders should be trusted to use water responsibly...Eight months ago, the opposition suggested a meter based system for water restrictions, giving households a choice as to how much they consumed a limited amount of water, but the public was told that it was too complicated.

As indicated by Mr Williams' comments, the opposition is open to new ideas. We put forward desalination. The government was dismissive initially but became more supportive over time. We have gone out on stormwater, and we expect that, in due course, the government will see the wisdom of that proposal, just as it has been embraced by the South Australian community.

In relation to demand management initiatives, such as household-based allocations, we believe there is a need to do a lot more work and a lot more thinking. I think the member for MacKillop's comments reflect an openness by the opposition to look at all aspects of the chain, not just to use water restrictions as a blunt instrument to suppress demand but taking a multifaceted approach to demand management.

Over the next 12 months as shadow minister for water security I will have responsibility for bringing together the Liberal Party's policy on water security. Certainly, I will be seeking to continue the work of Mitch Williams and looking at a range of options, including water pricing and other demand management measures.

The Hon. Mark Parnell's motion also referred to aquifers in a couple of instances. The Hon. Mark Parnell indeed does the council a service by highlighting the need to manage the aquifers. The Liberal Party has a particular interest in the aquifers in the sense that we believe that one of the great opportunities to increase water supply into the Adelaide region is through stormwater management. Currently we pump about 80 gigalitres of water from the River Murray to supply Adelaide, while 160 gigalitres of stormwater flows out to the sea every year.

If we could utilise at least some of that stormwater, we could significantly offset our take from the River Murray. In fact, the Liberal Party has a plan to harvest stormwater from 13 catchment sites across metropolitan Adelaide from the Gawler River to the Willunga Basin, and we estimate that those sites could potentially yield 89 gigalitres of stormwater. The cost would be of the order of $350 million to $400 million. The Leader of the Opposition recently announced that the first step of a Liberal government will be to establish a water capture and reuse commission to fast-track and implement the Liberal stormwater plan.

To bring together my comments, the Liberal opposition believes that a number of issues are raised in the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion that deserve consideration. They need to be part of a comprehensive plan, and they need further investigation. The opposition considers that these options could get appropriate consideration or, if you like, the next step in consideration of these matters would be for them to be referred to the SA Water select committee, so accordingly I move:

Paragraph 2—Leave out the words 'Calls on the government to' and insert—

'Refers the following matters to the Select Committee on SA Water for inquiry and report—'

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (17:47): I will make a contribution to the debate to address some of the issues that the Hon. Mr Wade has just raised, because it seems to be part of this new Liberal mythology that has been created around water that somehow or other they have some virtue on it. The reality is that, from the Liberal Party's perspective, it has been fortunate enough to be in opposition at a time when this state has been faced with by far the worst recorded drought in its history. Essentially, the only thing it has achieved in the past seven years is to actually be there in opposition while we have had this long running drought.

Of course people are frustrated at present with the water restrictions, because until we had the very welcome rain at the weekend we had a particularly dry period, and of course people hate to see gardens and trees dying all around the metropolitan area because of these very severe drought conditions. Nevertheless, under this government, these incredibly dry conditions have been managed in a way where, notwithstanding the fact that it is the worst drought that any state in this commonwealth has faced, this state has been able to get through that period with lighter water restrictions than have been seen in many parts of the country such as Queensland, for example, which have been much better endowed with water resources. I believe that is a tribute to this government and the minister.

It is interesting that from members opposite we have had no positive suggestions at all in relation to this subject. Yes; of course people are frustrated, and if one is introducing restrictions there are always practical difficulties in relation to that. It is always easy in theory to come up with a solution that would be fairer, but the question is whether it is possible or practicable to manage the changed system. Obviously, it is a bit like the taxation system: the more equitable one makes the system, the more complicated it inevitably becomes to achieve equity. It is just one of the facts of life and, just like taxation equity, with water restrictions the same principle really applies.

The Hon. Mr Wade just mentioned as one of his justifications for these issues the Adelaidenow poll. I find it rather extraordinary that anyone would use the Adelaidenow poll as some genuine indicator of public opinion. I think one consistently sees a huge divergence between that poll and reality and what people really think. One of the reasons for that might be that, as we know in recent times, some Liberal shadow ministers have been instructing their staff to ring up and use this poll to get an outcome. That was exposed on ABC Radio some time back. That is fine; we have these polls and I have no problem with them, but I do not think anyone in this council should seriously use the Adelaidenow poll as an indicator of anything whatsoever.

The Hon. Mr Wade also talked about the best years of the economy in the context of this water debate. Whatever the years might be in relation to the economy—and I would suggest that under this government there has been a golden economic period, particularly in areas such as the growth of the mining industry and defence and the like—this state's economy has been greatly diversified but, as I indicated in question time today, one of the negative impacts over the past seven years has been the rural economy. Why would it not be a drain on our economy when over the past few years we have not been able to adequately irrigate our crops because of the unprecedentedly low levels of water in the Murray-Darling Basin? In fact, rather than the best years in terms of water, these have been the worst years the state has ever faced.

The honourable member talked about investment in the water industry and accused this government of stormwater inaction. When this government came to office, I well recall that one of the very first things we did in the first budget was double (from $2 million to $4 million) the expenditure on stormwater because it had been so badly neglected under the previous government. So, to say that we have been in active on this issue is nonsense.

The Hon. Mr Wade talked about this brilliant stormwater harvesting plan released by the Liberal Party. I have never seen a more plagiarised document in my life—even all the graphs are government documents. All the references and all the information in this Liberal report have been taken from the state government's Water Proofing Adelaide Strategy 2005-2025. All the Liberal Party has done is simply plagiarise all the work that has been carried out by this government over many years and put it into its policy. How extraordinary!

Using these government figures straight out of the government's report, the Liberal Party has compiled a list of stormwater run-off discharge to Gulf St Vincent and identified the 89 gigalitres of water that could be potentially harvested; one it looks at is the Salisbury system, where the potential is—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: No; it is the Liberal Party. Read your own document! On page 10, it states, 'Here is a plan for action on stormwater,' and, 'The potential yield from the above sites is approximately 89 gigalitres. Catchment site 2, City of Salisbury and City of Playford, potential yield 18 gigalitres.' There it is—the 20 gigalitres the Salisbury council has set out to achieve by 2010 is part of the Liberal document. Who is taking credit for it? It is not the government; it is actually the Liberal Party.

What else is in here? Here is another interesting one, the potential yield from their catchment site No. 4, the Cheltenham racecourse site, 'potential yield 1.5 gigalitres'. Of course, this government is investing significant amounts of money into that site. We can go on. If we go down south, the Willunga basin potential yield is 2.2 gigalitres. If that is not bad enough, not only is the Liberal Party claiming things that have already been done by this government and by local government, not only is it a fraud in relation to that, but the other day the Leader of the Opposition said, 'Yes; altogether this will cost $400 million, and it will be pretty expensive.' Who will pay for it? The federal government. It was saying that the federal government would pay for it anyway.

What sort of fraud are members of the opposition trying to perpetrate on the people of South Australia by plagiarising this government's Water Proofing Adelaide Strategy and taking credit for what has already been done or, in a number of cases, is in the process of being done by this government and by local government? They come in here and say, 'In any case, whatever we do, the federal government will pay for it anyway,' and try to claim credit for it.

In relation to this motion, I support the position put by my colleague the Hon. Mr Hunter—that we do not support it. Of course people are frustrated with the current drought situation and by the fact that they face water restrictions. If the opposition were as opposed to them as it appears to be, would it not have made a single solitary suggestion about how it could deal with the situation? Of course, it will not because it knows that, whatever it does, it comes back to what I said before about the taxation system: to make it more equitable, it becomes more complicated and you start to get problems. The opposition knows that, as soon as it makes some tangible suggestions, there will be problems and it will not be quite so popular. It is much easier just to stand back, whinge and criticise.

The government does not support this motion, and whether or not this resolution is referred to a select committee is probably irrelevant, so we will not be dividing on it. I support the position of my colleague the Hon. Mr Hunter that this motion should not be supported.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:58): I will quickly wrap up the debate and commence by thanking honourable members who have made a contribution, namely, the Hon. Stephen Wade, the Hon. Ian Hunter and minister Holloway. At the outset, I say that the amendment proposed by the Hon. Stephen Wade in a very real way takes the pressure off the government right now because, as I moved it, the motion called on the government to move in this direction. Nevertheless, I think that he makes some very good points; that is, these are complex issues and would benefit from further investigation.

In its wisdom, the Legislative Council has set up a select committee to look into SA Water, so the effect of the honourable member's amendment, which I will be supporting, is that the select committee will take on the task of looking at whether water restrictions can be replaced by some other method of allocation and whether the aquifers beneath Adelaide require more regulation. For the Hon. Ian Hunter's benefit, I draw his attention to the difference between the quaternary aquifer and the tertiary aquifer because it was clear from his contribution that he did not understand the difference.

The Hon. Ian Hunter pointed out that many of the things called for in this motion are already being done by the government; for example, he mentioned reforms to pricing. There are two points to make: first, the government has not reformed pricing in the way this motion calls for, that is, for the fixed charges to make way for increased variable charges. The government made some changes in relation to water pricing and got it terribly wrong, and we saw people having refunds because their bills were not accurate.

I also want to respond very quickly to something that minister Holloway said about The Advertiser opinion poll. I accept that that is not the best evidence; however, what the minister might have failed to realise is that the opinion poll occurred after the article appeared in The Advertiser. The first couple of sentences state:

New SA Water research shows support for water restrictions in the state is fading as consumption rises. Water usage this year is one gigalitre or one billion litres more than during the same time last year. Research commissioned by SA Water shows a fall in the number of people who support, abide by or are aware of water restrictions…

I agree with the minister that the subsequent opinion poll is a self-selecting poll and probably not the best evidence. It was SA Water's own report that showed that water restriction support was fading. I appreciate the minister's comment that they will not be dividing on this. The motion before the council now is not whether we are calling on the government to adopt these measures: the motion is now quite simply to send these ideas away to the existing select committee (which is already looking at some of these issues) for a more comprehensive report.

If any people were thinking that maybe they would not support the motion because they were not ready to call on the government to do these things now, the motion is now quite simple: we are referring these matters to the select committee and when that committee reports back (hopefully, in the not too distant future) then these issues may come back either in this form or in a different form. Most likely they will be part of a more comprehensive set of recommendations. I would have thought there would be very little reason for anyone to oppose this motion now. It is simply calling for further investigation into these matters.

Amendment carried; motion as amended carried.


[Sitting suspended from 18:03 to 19:45]


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