 |
Legislative
Council |
|
 |
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
|
Legislative
Council |
|
|
||
| Mike Elliott Leader Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council |
Parliament Index |
|
WATER RESOURCES (WATER ALLOCATION PLANS) AMENDMENT BILL
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: On behalf of the Democrats I support the second reading of the Bill. First, I declare a family interest in so far as my sister and brother-in- law are landowners in the Glencoe area, although I suspect that all the water in that area might have been allocated and this may not affect them at all. In case it is a possibility, I should at least declare that there is a close familial link to the area and there is some possibility that close relatives might be affected by the legislation.
The previous two speakers and I all hail from the South-East. We heard one speaker from Millicent and one from Kalangadoo. Originally I came from Port MacDonnell and more latterly I grew up in Mount Gambier. One is somewhat water conscious being from the South-East, if for no other reason than having lived near the Blue Lake and over years hearing reports about the level going up and down. There would be speculation about why that was happening.
The Hon. T. Crothers: It's not blue any more.
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The blueness relates to calcium bicarbonate, if I recall correctly, and depends upon water temperature. If it is not blue, it probably relates to the relative mixing of the upper and lower aquifers and water temperature, but that is all a guess. In the 13 years I have been in this Parliament I have been a regular visitor to Mount Gambier and, in discussions with groups there and with the media, for a long time I have said that the South-East has a very rosy future, because I believe that horticulture and dairying have a big future. Certainly, we have seen quite a dramatic growth in horticulture over recent years and dairying was just starting to show some signs although, as I understand from discussions, given some of the uncertainty about water allocation, it appeared to stall for a while. I hope that, now that people know in what direction things are heading, the huge economic potential of the South-East may be fulfilled, and I look forward to that.
Whilst I stressed that in those discussions, I also expressed concern that it should be done in a climate where we had very good knowledge of the size and quality of the resource and what impacted upon that as well. It is pretty sad to say that even to this day our knowledge is imperfect. We are probably getting a slightly better handle on the quantity question than we are on quality and what the actual determinants are on that quality. I did note an interjection from the Hon. Angus Redford on the nitrate issue. I am not sure whether he said it was a beat up, but he pooh-poohed it.
My own sister had her bore water sampled. The original reason quite simply was that in the washing process it was staining clothes. As I recall, it turned out to be caused by iron in the water. However, when they returned with the results of the water test, they also said, `By the way, we suggest that, if you are pregnant, you do not drink the water', and that was on the basis of high nitrate levels. I do not think that, because of the iron staining, the water was too attractive to drink, anyway. However, I find it interesting that people are using bore water which is at risk and no warnings are given whatsoever. It was only the fact that the water was tested for another reason that that problem was identified. It is probably true that most people living outside the towns in the South-East are reliant upon rainwater for drinking, but I do think some very clear warnings need to be given about the use of the unconfined aquifer in some areas because of the nitrate levels. That, however, is somewhat aside from this Bill.
The Bill reacts to only a very small part of the overall report, but it is urgent in so far as the select committee recommended that the system of allocation change. Whenever a system changes we receive a flood of applications. The system is changing from a water licence being granted on the basis of an application being made to a system whereby water is allocated to properties according to area. Obviously, a lot of people very quickly would have lodged an application, and that would have undermined the alternative system that was being proposed. It was important that, if the system was to change, the legislation passed through Parliament quickly.
I express one level of concern. I guess that members of the Liberal Party, members of the Labor Party and Independents in the Lower House having been represented on the select committee had a good idea about what was proposed. However, speaking on behalf of the Democrats, the first we knew of it was when the legislation was introduced-and I imagine the Independent members of this place had the same problem. I acknowledge the need for the speed, but I am disappointed about the level of pre warning and consultation. I am supporting the Bill, but I think that the consultation process might have been a little better.
I have had a chance to read through the select committee report and, on the whole, I think a lot of the recommendations are very sensible. There is one area on which I would like to focus in particular; that is, people who are growing tree crops. As I understand the system that is proposed, water will be allocated according to hundreds and a calculation will be made in respect of what the recharge is within the hundred, although 10 per cent will be set aside for environmental reasons and, theoretically, also to allow for some error that might occur. However, I wonder whether 10 per cent is quite enough.
We have just had three dry winters in a row and, although we have been in this country for 150 years, climate patterns can vary over time and, if a dry cycle lasted for a couple of decades, we could find that the 10 per cent cushion is not enough. If the water is allocated and largely being used, that might prove to be a bit of a difficulty. That is just an aside. I return to the main theme that 10 per cent is set aside; the rest will be allocated. Clearly that will mean that there will not be enough water allocated for the whole of an area to be irrigated. Let us say hypothetically that enough water is allocated to plant up 20 per cent of the total hundred under irrigation. The danger I see is that other industries are a possibility in that area, and one industry that has been talked about a lot is growing blue gums. What happens if the water is all allocated in a hundred, 30 per cent of the area can and is being irrigated and then another 20 per cent goes under blue gums?
The blue gums will be using the water and, in fact, will diminish the recharge. It seems to me that, sensibly, forests should require a water allocation. I would argue that you would have to determine what the likely impact on recharge will be of a pine forest, blue gum forest, and so on, and that they should be required to have a water licence also. If that does not happen you will have the very problem about which I am talking: that you allocate the water and then you have other broad acre planting of pine or blue gums drawing up water. The hundred has then actually gone into a negative account.
It is also important to send good economic messages about best use of water. It is a bit of a nonsense if forests get their water without needing an allocation and everyone else must fight for an allocation. It seems sensible that a decision must be made whether it is best to have a hectare of pine forests or might that same water give a higher level of production if it were applied to a smaller area of grapes, apples, or whatever else. There needs to be a way of sending economic messages about the use of water and we are going to do it with every use of water except for trees, and probably for lucerne, which is fairly deep rooted and probably also has a profound effect upon recharge.
The select committee has touched on that matter in only one way, in that it did suggest that if a person had their property under trees their pro rata allocation would diminish. The example it used was that if a person were entitled to irrigate 10 per cent of their property, but they had 50 per cent of their property under trees, they would get only a 5 per cent allocation. If you stop and think about that, they have actually half their property with trees, which are significantly diminishing the recharge and probably using a lot more water than the 5 per cent allocation to which they would have otherwise been entitled. I would suspect then that there is still a problem there.
This Bill, as I said, is really seeking to address one particular issue, that is, the immediate problem of the need to change the allocation. I believe that we have to make sure that this recharge issue in relation to forests is tackled. I would hope that that will be tackled during this next two months. I am sure that the Government will be sitting down and looking at the rest of these select committee recommendations. I would ask it to take on board that issue also, because otherwise it has the capacity to mess up severely the whole idea of water allocation.
You could actually have a negative draw down as a result of forest on areas that have not had water allocated. I also suggest that we should be granting a water licence of some sort to existing pine forests. It might not be on the same pro rata basis as you would have it for orchards, and so on, but at least you would then be encouraging people to make a decision about whether or not they will continue to grow pine forests or whether, when that particular crop is removed, they might apply that water to other crops.
There is no question that the forestry industry has given good returns to the South-East but a lot of the economics of the timber industry has been false. The timber industry has worked on the principle of waiting for the cyclic downturns in land prices. They buy up land at very low value and that makes the economics of forestry work but, in terms of maximising the overall benefit of what the land can return, it might not be the best practice, so I urge the Government to look at that. The Democrats support the second reading of the Bill.
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW (Minister for Transport and Urban Planning): I thank all members for their contribution to the debate.
Bill read a second time and taken through its remaining stages.
