HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-12-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WATER ACTION COALITION

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

That this council—

1. Notes the formation in South Australia of a Water Action Coalition of community groups and individuals calling for ecologically sustainable water management in this state;

2. Notes the proclamation issued by the Water Action Coalition in a rally on the steps of this parliament on 10 October 2009; and

3. Agrees with the request made in the proclamation for an urgent public inquiry into water management in South Australia and calls on the government to implement this inquiry without delay.

(Continued from 28 October 2009. Page 3741.)

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (16:12): This motion has three separate parts. The first two parts we support, but we cannot agree with the third part of the motion. The motion notes the formation of the Water Action Coalition and its proclamation in a rally on the steps of parliament on 10 October this year and, thirdly, seeks to have an urgent public inquiry into water management. We support the first two parts and our water spokesman, Mitch Williams, the member for MacKillop, spoke at that meeting, as did a number of other members of parliament. I also attended the rally to demonstrate some support for the organisations that attended, and there were a great number of them, including people from the Lower Lakes and along various parts of the Murray River, the Save Our Gulf Coalition and a number of other groups, which have a good history in terms of making representations on water management.

The Water Action Coalition itself was launched by Mr John Caldecott on 19 July 2009, and the mission of the WAC is to ensure a sustainable future for South Australia. There are a number of water and conservation organisations, experts and others involved, so it represents a significant cross-section of the community and is a very credible organisation with the number of people who offer their expertise to its cause.

As I stated, the Liberal Party does not necessarily support all the motion, and the coalition has stated that it has been calling for an inquiry with the powers of a royal commission, although it would be interested to have such an inquiry to see whether we can get to the truth of many matters. The person whose comments I am paraphrasing here states:

I think the people of South Australia are being misinformed at best, or misled at worst.

The Liberal Party does not agree with that item because we believe that the actions which need to be taken on water management in this state are very clear and that an inquiry will not assist in advancing that matter; in fact, it may slow things down.

We have had a significant drought in South Australia and across the south-eastern part of Australia, most notably in the Murray-Darling Basin, for several years now, which has restricted flows from the Murray-Darling Basin into South Australia. A number of organisations have also published documents, many from academics, and I note that the organisation Business SA has just recently released its publication entitled 'A Greenprint for the Future—Creating a Sustainable South Australia'. The first aspect to that is water, including a number of policy positions that it has in relation to the River Murray, SA Water (including third party access), and references to the commonwealth government taking over the Murray-Darling Basin, which is something we all believe in. We would like to see a genuine takeover rather than this mickey mouse nonsense that all the Labor states and the federal government have adopted.

Indeed, the Liberal Party has been very much on the front foot in terms of water policy. As early as August 2007, with Mitch Williams as our spokesperson, we released a 19-point plan for waterproofing South Australia. We have documents that are available on our website.

The Hon. P. Holloway interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: John Howard, I think, had a genuine plan and you guys have just welshed on it.

The Hon. S.G. Wade interjecting:

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Absolutely! It has more guts than Kevin Rudd will ever have.

The Hon. P. Holloway: So, no—the answer is no.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: No, the answer is not no. That is what we had planned. We had $10 billion on the table and your Premier played politics so that the agreement would not be signed. What a cynical thing to do!

The PRESIDENT: Order! Let's just move on.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I am sorry, Mr President. It is out of order for me to respond to interjections but when the government provokes me I just cannot help myself. So, a document is available on our website which has been out for well over two years now, and it is entitled 'Waterproofing South Australia—A Framework for Action'. I think that those actions are well known. As I have said, we support the first two aspects of the motion but not the third and we commend the work of the Water Action Coalition and will continue to support it and its efforts into the future.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (16:18): I rise briefly—and the government will not divide on the motion—to indicate that we are opposed to the motion in that it is calling for an inquiry. I do not doubt personally the sincerity and motivation of a lot of the people involved in the Water Action Coalition. I am sure they are people who have a sincere concern for water security in South Australia but, as we know, the reality is that we have been investigating and considering this matter for a long period of time. Having gatherings on the steps of Parliament House, frankly, is not going to add much to whether or not we are able to provide water security into the future.

The government has launched, as everyone knows, the Water for Good plan, which is very much about providing for our future water security. We have participated in the national Murray-Darling Basin agreement and the legislation that has flowed from that. Of course, we are investing in a major desalination plant at Port Stanvac, so the government very much has a plan to address our water security. We are implementing that plan and we do not consider that another inquiry will add to the security of water for the people of this state.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:19): I will be brief because there is still a lot of work to do in our chamber, unlike the situation in the other house. Family First has had a comprehensive water policy now in a public document for over 12 months. We understand the reasons why the Water Action Coalition got together: it did so because this government has failed to have a comprehensive water plan for the state.

In fact, whichever way you look at it, it is unfortunate but true that all we have seen is ad hoc water planning management from the government or knee-jerk reaction water planning from the government. Desalination was a no-no. It was all going to be recycled water, stormwater harvesting and that type of thing. All of a sudden, we then saw a massive backflip into desalination. Now it is all about desalination. We very much saw a lack of commitment to stormwater harvesting and, whilst I acknowledge that there has been more commitment made particularly by the federal government in recent weeks (thanks to Senator Wong), the fact of the matter is that we are still way behind where we should be as a state when it comes to stormwater harvesting.

In my opinion, we should have embraced Colin Pitman as the Commissioner for Water and not Robyn McLeod, who comes from Victoria. It should have been our own South Australian, Colin Pitman.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I do not care whether Colin Pitman is a former ALP candidate or—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I take that back. What the honourable member said was that Robyn McLeod was an ALP candidate. Well, jobs for the boys and girls, I guess.

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: A conflict of interest requiring a royal commission.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I gather that the Hon. Mr Finnigan thinks there should be a royal commission into the conflict. We could also have a royal commission on water. To be serious—

The Hon. B.V. Finnigan: And climate change.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: And climate change. He may be the minister for that one day and we will put him to the test. He has the capacity to do some of that work. To be serious about this, we support the intent of the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion. John Caldicott, and other people who have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say we need a Water Action Coalition, at least could see that we had to get a sustainable situation for water.

If you go back 15 years, all the hard work was done with recycled water in the Virginia Green Triangle from Bolivar. All the work was done in 1997, 1998 and 1999 for the Willunga Basin, thanks to the late Vic Zerella in particular. I was saddened to see that he passed away recently. I spent a lot of time with Vic Zerella working with minister Armitage on how that recycled water project could occur.

I have seen the government try to claim credit for those projects. Even though it is desperate, It cannot claim credit for them because it did not have a proper water allocation and sustainability plan for South Australia. Whilst there have been some improvements in some areas, when I was invited to stand on the steps of Parliament House on behalf of Family First and other colleagues with the Water Allocation Coalition, one of the things I said was that we need a bipartisan, totally focused and dedicated supportive plan of action for a permanent, sustainable water supply for this state.

At the moment, we do not have a permanent sustainable water supply for this state. We do not have the satellite desalination plants around Eyre Peninsula and the Upper Spencer Gulf that were promised. Instead, we have a massive 100 gigalitre desalination plant at Port Stanvac. People in the south, where I live, are concerned about what that will do to the environment. They also wonder where the energy will come from. With 150,000 more people moving down to Victor Harbor, and more in the Onkaparinga area, they are going to be pumping a lot of energy into that desal plant.

We need to commend community initiatives that stand up. We need to do something permanent about ecologically sustainable water management. Unfortunately, we have seen the demise of the Riverland due to the government's slowness to act on the River Murray and to give a proper handover. Personally, I do not have a problem with supporting initiatives that say to the government of the day, 'Let's get committed to sustainable water.' I will finish on this point because—

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Hear, hear!

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Mr Lucas grabbed a fair bit of time when he spoke. Twelve months ago I wrote to the Premier to say that there was nothing more important in this state than water. I said, 'How about setting up a dedicated action committee of the parliament, chaired by you, as Premier, and co-chaired in a bipartisan way by the Leader of the Opposition with cross-bench members involved, and let's fast track initiatives and stop the nonsense so that we can get something happening about sustainable water?' I am still waiting for an answer.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (16:25): I rise to support the motion and commend the Water Action Coalition for taking on this issue. It is very important that we have active community involvement in issues like these, and it is particularly important when the governments and authorities of the day are failing so badly. I do not mean that in a partisan sense, as governments of all stripes have completely failed to come to grips with this issue.

Despite Water for Good, and various historic Murray-Darling agreements, we seem to be no closer to a solution, and it really does not matter which front you look at. In terms of irrigation, allocations have increased to around 46 per cent, and that is good for the time being, but in January they were 15 per cent.

Although we have had good rain in the Hills, the storages in the Murray-Darling Basin are at about the same levels they were at this time last year, yet allocations are much higher. That causes people to ask: what is the plan? Will allocations be just run down again after the election? We do not see a long-term solution, and we do not see a plan.

Below Lock 1, irrigators cannot get funds for infrastructure. Irrigators who depend on the backwaters say that the river level has dropped, but they cannot get funds for infrastructure to reach where the river is now, so they are stuck in an inequitable situation. In terms of environmental issues, the weir has been roundly condemned by a range of experts and local people, and there is visible proven success of low impact strategies, such as bioremediation, yet the government has built one weir and is still considering proceeding with another.

The environmental cost has been made apparent by a whole range of South Australian, Australian and international experts, but it is not just the environmental cost; it is the very question of securing Adelaide's drinking water. Associate Professor Keith Walker warns that Pomanda Weir would lead to lower quality water for Adelaide and a greater likelihood of algal blooms as a stagnant ponds built up behind the weir.

A sign of this was the algal outbreak on the Victoria and New South Wales side of the Murray in March and April this year, when there were 800 kilometre long algal blooms in the Murray. Professor Mike Young said that we nearly lost the Murray, so that shows how critical the situation is and how far we are from really facing up to the threat.

We have a series of mini Murrays. We have overallocation of rivers such as the Finniss and the Bremer, and locals in those areas can tell you how the those systems have degraded and declined over the recent years. On the Fleurieu Peninsula, the pine plantation virtually ruined Deep Creek and, in the South-East, blue gum forest stopped water coming up through Mosquito Creek and was said to be responsible for the almost permanent drying out of Bool Lagoon, which has apparently been dry for years.

Desalination was put forward as an option, but that has implications for the coastal environment. Even in the narrow terms of whether it is a solution to our drinking water problem, the desalination plant was doubled, but the government is pushing ahead with plans to increase population without first working out where the water will come from, thus almost pushing us back to square one in terms of the extent to which desalination will be an answer to the water problem.

There are reports about the declining levels of the Great Artesian Basin, which is, effectively, a finite resource upon which we are drawing more and more. Companies such as BHP Billiton draw on this water for free, and that is another fairly fundamental problem with water management in this state.

As I said, it is certainly not just this government, as governments of all stripes have failed to come to grips with the water problem over generations. The chickens are now all coming home to roost, and whichever front you look on you see huge problems mounting and current problems not being resolved, and it is hard to see a plan for how they will be resolved in the future, so we do have a fundamental problem with water management in this state.

As I have said on previous occasions, if you cannot manage water, you cannot manage South Australia. The question for this government, or any intending government, is whether or not it can manage water, whether it has plan for how to get through the current crisis and whether it has long-term plans to address some of these issues.

I congratulate the Water Action Coalition on its efforts to push for a public inquiry and place this issue at the forefront of the coming election because there is no more a critical issue in the driest state in the driest continent.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (16:30): The government opposes this motion. As all members of this place are well aware, water is our most valuable resource. It is fundamental to our health, our way of life, our economy and our environment. In March this year South Australia's Economic Development Board issued a statement indicating that water is the most important environmental issue facing the state. It also indicated that population growth is critical to enable economic prosperity and that agriculture and mining will play important roles in the future economic prosperity of the state.

South Australia's population is expected to reach 2 million by 2027, 23 years earlier than the South Australian Strategic Plan target. Thus, water underpins whether population and our economic growth targets are achieved as well as the protection of our environment. Like most of the south of our continent, South Australia is experiencing unprecedented dry weather patterns; drier than at any other time in our recorded history. These patterns have significantly impacted two of South Australia's and certainly Adelaide's major water supply sources: the River Murray and the Mount Lofty Ranges.

Future climate projections are for the Murray-Darling Basin to become warmer and drier, bringing more extreme events such as bushfires and droughts. Inflows and water levels are likely to become more variable, with less water available likely to become available. The government is dealing with these unprecedented circumstances quickly and with foresight, seeking and achieving reform at a national level and putting in place a range of immediate actions within the state. In addition, the government has implemented the comprehensive reforms outlined in Water for Good.

On 29 June 2009 the state government released Water for Good, a plan to ensure our water future to 2050. Water for Good details policies and actions to secure sustainable water supplies for South Australia, taking into consideration population growth and the impacts of climate change. These policies and actions were influenced by investigations into a variety of water supply options. Strategies include diversification of water supplies through capture and use of our stormwater, rainwater and waste water, and desalination to provide a secure water supply and reduce our reliance on the River Murray.

Water for Good also included various measures to improve the way our communities and businesses use water, building on current initiatives such as permanent water conservation measures, the business water saver program and building regulations and rebates for water efficient devices. Further information on Water for Good, if members have not already looked at it, is available at waterforgood.sa.gov.au.

As mentioned previously, Water for Good clearly articulates that stormwater harvesting and reuse will play a crucial role in providing a secure water supply, along with other measures. The most detailed investigation of urban stormwater harvesting opportunities on a metropolitan scale in any Australian city was undertaken during the development of Water for Good. The urban stormwater harvesting options study identified that up to 60 billion litres per annum could be harvested in large scale stormwater harvesting schemes, which is more than 50 per cent of the total median catchment runoff.

As a result of this study, Water for Good includes a target to harvest 50 billion litres per annum of stormwater by 2050 in the Greater Adelaide area. A number of projects are already under way to progress this action. In addition, the state government will partner with the Australian government and local government to construct seven stormwater harvesting and reuse projects at a cost of approximately $150 million. Through current and planned stormwater projects, South Australia will capture and store approximately 20 billion litres of stormwater by 2014. The study estimates it would cost $600 million to $700 million to capture and store the additional stormwater required to reach our target of 60 billion litres per annum.

In addition, the state government is committed to providing the community with a secure water supply, and desalination is an important, non-climate dependent water source, which is being constructed to add an additional 100 billion litres per annum to Adelaide's water supply. The state government and SA Water are committed to the highest possible environmental standards for the Adelaide desalinisation plant. Critical environmental studies have been undertaken, and we have environmental performance measures for every step of the project, including managing and mitigating any risks to the marine environment. In addition, the state government is committed to using renewable energy to power the Adelaide desal plant.

Current problems in the Murray-Darling Basin, including the Lower Lakes, are due to ongoing unprecedented dry conditions combined with over-allocation. As a result, less water is reaching the Lower Lakes area, and there is concern that this will expose the acid sulphate soils in that area. If these soils are exposed to air they can acidify and potentially release toxic heavy metals from the soil. The Goolwa Channel, Currency Creek and Finniss River are part of nationally important RAMSAR wetlands and support valued plants, animals and ecosystem. Failure to protect at least some of these wetlands could result in important plant and animal species becoming locally extinct and would severely limit the potential for these freshwater communities to re-colonise a region when conditions improve.

To rehabilitate this important area, the South Australian government has identified that urgent works are required to help acidification and the irreversible ecological collapse of the Goolwa channel and wetlands near Currency Creek and the Finniss River. After extensive investigations and community consultation on a number of options, the most feasible solution identified is to construct a temporary environmental flow regulator in the Goolwa channel in the vicinity of Clayton and at the end of the Finniss River and Currency Creek.

The flow regulator at Clayton was completed on 13 August 2009, and the pumping of 27 billion litres of water from Lake Alexandrina was completed on 9 November 2009. Construction of the temporary environmental flow regulator across Currency Creek has also recently been completed. It has been designed in such a manner to allow for easy removal should suitable and sustainable inflows be returned to Lake Alexandrina from the River Murray prior to May 2011. While the regulator is in place, intensive monitoring and investigations will be conducted to determine its ongoing need.

In South Australia, rights to access water are granted administratively under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, and it is only these rights that are tradeable. Since 1994, the Council of Australian Governments has promoted water trading as a fundamental element of the National Water Reform Agenda. While recognising the substantial social and economic gains that can be achieved through more open and efficient markets, COAG also recognises the need for robust safeguards to protect the environment, the resource base and features of special indigenous and cultural significance.

Trade restrictions are permitted where they are used to manage potentially adverse impacts on the environment, water quality, hydrology and assets of indigenous cultural heritage or spiritual significance. Water trading allows the water received pursuant to a water right to move to its highest value use. This, in turn, enables the economic benefits derived from the use of the limited resources to be maximised, underpinning communities and regional economies.

South Australia, as a signatory to the National Water Initiative intergovernmental agreement of COAG in 2004, continues to advocate for the benefits that can be derived from water trading. Indeed, just this week the South Australian government issued proceedings in the High Court to force the Victorian government to lift its restrictive 4 per cent cap water trade barrier along the Murray River system. The High Court challenge forms part of the South Australian government's campaign to return healthy flows to the River Murray and to help save the Murray, the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. It is also a trade barrier that severely hinders the ability of governments to purchase water for the environment and critical human needs.

The South Australian government has a comprehensive plan in place to provide water security for the state, and that plan is predicated on the sustainable management of our natural resources. The way forward includes continued engagement with the Australian government and other states to develop and agree a basin plan to ensure a healthy, working River Murray that will continue to provide critical human water needs for greater Adelaide and regional South Australia, irrigation requirements and water for the environment.

It is clear that the South Australian government has in place a comprehensive strategy to ensure South Australia's water security. The government therefore opposes the motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (16:38): I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I am disappointed, but not surprised, that government members oppose a public inquiry into water. They believe they are doing enough and they believe they have a plan. The Water Action Coalition certainly does not agree, and neither do I.

I understand that the Liberals are sympathetic but, again, they are not supporting a public inquiry. I do not accept that such an inquiry will slow down the progress of reform. I think that for genuine reform to succeed it must engage the community, hence the call for a public inquiry.

I thank the Hon. David Winderlich and the Hon. Rob Brokenshire for their support for the motion. All members would have received from the Water Action Coalition its suggested terms of reference for this inquiry. That is how seriously this group is taking it. I am not going to read the seven pages of the terms of reference, but the draft terms set out the purpose of the inquiry, as follows:

…to determine the systemic causes of the environmental, social and economic damage and of other problems resulting from current water policies and management processes in South Australia and to determine the changes that need to be made by all levels of government, including by their departments and corporations, to safeguard the public's interest in water as the common property of all Australians, and the utility and amenity of all waterways (freshwater and marine) under the 'public trust doctrine'.

I think we owe a debt of gratitude to the Water Action Coalition. In moving the motion, I named the various groups and individuals who were involved. I will not do that again, but I want to thank them for the way they have pursued this call. They have not just put up an idea and then walked away; they have gone to a great deal of trouble to draft terms of reference that are sensible. Their terms of reference cover governance arrangements; the issue of water privatisation; the ecological health of our waterways (fresh and salt); the way we use water; the implications of climate change and population growth on our water resources; water conservation measures; and a range of other important initiatives, some of which may have been dealt with in the SA Water select committee, but only a very small number of them. The vast majority of these matters need further inquiry.

I am appreciative of the dedication of the Water Action Coalition members who, as members would have noted, were in the gallery most of yesterday waiting for this matter to come to a vote. Representatives are here today; that is how seriously the community takes this issue.

The government has indicated that it will not divide on this motion, given that this is the last sitting day of the year. I suspect that this motion may pass on the voices but, if it does not, I will certainly be dividing, because I think the people of South Australia have a right to know where their elected representatives stand on this most important issue.

The council divided on the motion:

AYES (6)
Bressington, A. Brokenshire, R.L. Darley, J.A.
Hood, D.G.E. Parnell, M. (teller) Winderlich, D.N.
NOES (12)
Dawkins, J.S.L. Finnigan, B.V. Holloway, P.
Hunter, I.K. (teller) Lawson, R.D. Lensink, J.M.A.
Lucas, R.I. Ridgway, D.W. Schaefer, C.V.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P. Zollo, C.

Majority of 6 for the noes.

Motion thus negatived.

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