HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-05-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

DESALINATION PLANT

The Hon. M. PARNELL (15:54): Today I want to speak about the economic irresponsibility of this state's accepting an additional $228 million for the doubling of the desalination plant at Port Stanvac. Members would be aware that this was one of the announcements in last night's federal budget. The $228 million from the federal government comes on top of the $100 million that has already been promised, and it comes with the condition that it be used to double the size of the Port Stanvac desalination plant from 50 gigalitres to 100 gigalitres.

The Greens say that this is economically irresponsible and reckless because it will leave future generations of South Australians with an incredible energy legacy that will have to be paid for into the future.

The question we must ask ourselves is: if there is not just the extra $228 million but the other $100 million, not to mention the $1.4 billion total price tag, and if that money is available for water security for Adelaide, is the desalination plant in its original form or in its double-sized form the best way of spending that money? Clearly, any analysis that looks at social, economic and environmental considerations comes back with the answer that this is not the best way of spending that money.

The difference, of course, between methods of achieving water security, such as desalination, when compared with methods such as stormwater recovery and aquifer storage and recovery methods, is that the desalination comes with a massive energy bill that must be met year in and year out. The desalination plant for Port Stanvac has had the support of both the major parties. What has been particularly disappointing is that we have not seen the rhetoric of the opposition in relation to an increased spending on stormwater harvesting consistently matched with a call to downgrade or even stop the desalination plant.

The research my office commissioned last year showed that, if we were to focus on stormwater recovery, if we were to focus on demand management and if we were to focus on effluent reuse, we could in fact achieve water security for Adelaide without a desalination plant and without relying on water from the River Murray. However, the most disappointing thing out of the recent announcement is that the Treasurer and the Premier are out in the media saying that this larger desalination plant will mean that we do not need water restrictions in Adelaide. That defies belief, because even at 100 gigalitres we know that in a dry year Adelaide still gets around 170 gigalitres from the River Murray. So, we are still 70 gigalitres short, even with that doubling of the plant.

The message that is being pedalled by the Premier and the Treasurer is that, as a community, we can take our foot off the brake and put it back on the accelerator, and water restrictions are a thing of the past. The Greens do believe that we can get rid of water restrictions but we believe that it should be done in a responsible manner which gives individual households more choice over how they use their water. Water restrictions are crude; they do not allow for flexibility. I think we need to get rid of them in their current form, but to suggest that by doubling the size of our bottled electricity plant (that is, the Port Stanvac desalination plant) will see the end of water restrictions, I think, is irresponsible in the extreme.

The Greens would urge all political parties to join with us in saying, 'Let's not double the size of the plant. Let's use that money instead for more socially and environmentally responsible options, such as stormwater harvesting.'

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