HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER SECURITY

The Hon. S.G. WADE (14:30): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Leader of the Government a question about water security.

Leave granted

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yesterday, in answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the Government said:

The Hon. Mr Wade clearly has an ability that the rest of us do not have, and he can predict droughts. He knows when a drought is coming.

Good government planning for water security is not a matter of predicting droughts; it is a matter of planning for them. In 2003, Premier Rann launched the Water Proofing Adelaide initiative which, coincidentally, was called 'Beyond the Drought'. Since that initiative was launched in 2003, National Water Commission data show that per capita spending in water and wastewater infrastructure in South Australia has fallen.

In 2003-04, per capita spending, according to the National Water Commission, was $100, but by 2007-08, it had fallen to $73. In the years in between, there was an average of $80; whereas, in other jurisdictions the average was $103 in 2003-04, and by 2007-08 it had actually risen to $208. Capital expenditure by the main metropolitan water utilities more than doubled from $1.1 billion in 2002-03 to $2.8 billion in 2007-08, a 130 per cent increase. Why has the government reduced per capita funding for water and sewerage supplies since Water Proofing Adelaide, while nationally governments have more than doubled their investment?

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (14:31): Very shortly, the Treasurer will be bringing down his budget, and I am sure that, in relation to expenditure on water and, indeed, all other areas of infrastructure, what this government is doing will compare very favourably indeed with what was done during the term of the previous government. Indeed, in relation to transport, I think it is something like five or six times higher investment in this budget than happened under the previous government. The difference is massive. The increase in expenditure under this government is massive.

Members opposite ask, 'Why hasn't your government spent more on infrastructure', when we are spending five times more than they spent. What did they spend their money on? They ran up a debt. They added $2 billion. The Liberal Party in its eight years in government added $2 billion of unsourced debt through the budget. It flogged off ETSA, which was the only way it could reduce it. When this government came to office, we had to make very significant cuts to expenditure, and we had the sort of fiddles of the Hon. Rob Lucas—and it is a pity that he is not here. He and the then health minister, Dean Brown, were not talking to each other in the last year of government, so what happened in the health system is that the individual health units ran up deficits.

Consequently, when this government came to office, there was tens of millions of dollars, not in the health commission, but all parcelled off to each of the individual health units. It was a fiddle. It was like Christopher Skase and Alan Bond accounting. Of course, what Mr Lucas did as treasurer was put a little note on there saying, 'They will all have to pay back next year.' Of course, when we came to government, the Under Treasurer, Jim Wright, blew the whistle on Mr Lucas. Of course, Rob Lucas has spent the past seven years in this place trying to reinvent history to justify himself.

I invite any of the newer members, particularly the crossbenchers, to look at those early debates (after this government came to office in 2002) about what that previous government did to try to rort the books to disguise the debt that was hidden within its budget. What sickens me is when you have people such as Bevan and Abraham on morning radio treating Rob Lucas as if he is some sort of economic guru. They were around at the time. If I can remember it, why can't they and some of the other journalists in this state remember what really happened?

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I will tell you about the State Bank. I will be happy to tell you about the State Bank. The story of the State Bank began in the Legislative Council. When the Bannon government was in office—

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Mr Stephens clearly interjected, 'You're a crook' across the chamber. He should withdraw.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Stephens will also resist pointing his finger and throwing around his arms in the chamber. The word 'crook' directed at the minister is unparliamentary and he should withdraw it.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am happy to withdraw, Sir. I apologise for any offence I might have caused the minister when I was questioning his morality with regard to their efforts with the State Bank.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I take no offence at what the Hon. Terry Stephens ever says in this place. It is nice to see some animation today. The Hon. Terry Stephens assists this place at times with entertainment, and I appreciate that. If I can remember the question, I will come to it.

The Hon. Mr Wade asked about water policy. As he quite correctly pointed out, this government had its strategy. If one goes to the Liberal website and looks at its water policy, it is littered with references to the government's Waterproofing Adelaide Strategy. It is one of the greatest acts of plagiarism I have ever seen. Importantly, the budget is delivered today, so the honourable member should wait before asking questions about how much money we spend on water.

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

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: In relation to foresight, I will conclude on this note—

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Please don't.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Maybe I will go on, if the honourable member wishes—I am happy to do that. In relation to water policy, there will be more details in the budget this afternoon. If one has foresight in relation to that and could predict doubts, as the Hon. Mr Wade is predicting, what about floods? This state could have a one in 100-year flood soon.

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: That would be a good thing.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It probably would be a good thing if it was in the right places. Whether in relation to water security, flooding or whatever, one has to make a risk-based assessment. The point I was making in relation to water was that one designs water security on a reasonable risk base, which is determined by history and one's knowledge of that. If for some reason, as we have seen in recent years, that historical assessment of risk is turned on its head because we have unprecedented events, we have to go back and reassess all our policy, and the same would apply in relation to flood. If we get a flood, will the honourable member ask why this government did not do more in terms of flood mitigation?

In relation to stormwater and other issues, I was referring earlier to what happened in the first budget of this government. One of the first things we did in the second budget was to double from $2 million to $4 million, if I recall correctly, the amount of money this government spends in relation to stormwater issues. It was a very significant increase.

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