EXCERPT FROM SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENT HANSARD, Thursday 5 December 2002

OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT from Thursday 5 December 2002.

UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 December. Page 2134.)

Mr BRINDAL (Unley): I hope the house does not detain itself too long over this matter. With the concurrence of my leader, while I will be spearheading the debate, the member for MacKillop, being the local member and the person with the most to contribute, will take the opposition's position as lead speaker on this issue, so his time will be unlimited. Therefore, I ask that the clock be turned on so that I be given just the normal 20 minutes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable member does not have to have 20 minutes!

Mr BRINDAL: I will be as brief as I can.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member for Unley the lead speaker or just being generous?

Mr BRINDAL: I will be leading the bill but, with the concurrence of my leader, the member for MacKillop will be taking the role of lead speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In that case, the member for Unley has a limited time.

Mr BRINDAL: The decision of the Liberal Party, as the minister knows (because the minister himself has some reservations about the development of this bill and bringing it to the place), to support this bill has not been reached without major reservations. As was said by my colleague in another place, it does not fit easily with me, her or our colleagues to allow any minister to have the unfettered powers that the minister will enjoy under this bill. As was said in the other place, I am sure that, from time to time, we all have been forced with reluctance to take decisions for the greater good. In the view of the shadow minister who leads this in my party, and in the view of my party, this may well be one of those times.

As I was minister for a time and was partly responsible for this matter - along with my leader - there was an understanding on this side of the house that the scheme needs to be urgently completed and that as an opposition we would be irresponsible if we did not try to facilitate the speedy completion of this scheme, which has gone on for too long and, as the member for MacKillop I am sure will say, which is coming at an ever greater cost, partly in consequence of the time lags that have occurred.

My having said that, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer in another place (and I acknowledge the help of government in this) has allowed to be inserted into the bill a number of amendments, all of which dilute the opposition's fears and lead us to consider that the bill at least in a form worth supporting. The area affected by this bill is 476 kilometres of drains, with 100 metres on either side, equalling approximately 9 530 hectares of land, which is approximately 2 per cent of the salt-affected land that needs to be restored urgently.

The Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Program was initiated with four main elements, those being: drainage; vegetation protection enhancement; salt land agronomy; and wetland enhancement and management. The funding proportion has been 37 per cent from the commonwealth government; 37 per cent from the state government; and 26 per cent collected by a levy system from landholders, many of whom have already been paying the levy for four years but all of whom are continuing to watch their land increasingly affected by rising salinity. In some areas, following the advent of lucerne thrips-

Mr Williams: Flea.

Mr BRINDAL: After the advent of lucerne flea (and this is why I have to rely on my rural colleagues), vast areas of pasture were lost. At the time it was not readily identified that lucerne, being a deep-rooted crop which is very water hungry, was keeping the groundwater levels under control after the clearing of the native vegetation. That deep rooted crop being lost, there occurred relatively quickly a build up of the saline groundwater tables and a breaking through to the surface so that there are increasing amounts of salt affected areas in the South East. That area is increasing, if not daily, certainly on a yearly basis; hence the urgent need for this scheme.

The commonwealth component of the legislation is dependent upon an offset of the environmental asset such as revegetation. The minister would have been aware of some difficulties experienced by the last government when he was shadow minister, and some disagreement with the then federal minister (Hon. Robert Hill) in respect of two issues, one being the clearance of native vegetation, even though the then state government moved for at least a restoration program, plus more native vegetation. The other concern of the commonwealth, which the member for MacKillop will remember well, was that, even though the Coorong traditionally had been a natural sump for drainage from the South East into the bottom blocks of the Coorong, that had been interfered with by the construction of the earlier drains, notably the one that goes to the sea at Kingston in the South East. Nevertheless our proposal, which would put some water back into the Coorong that one would have naturally expected to go there in earlier times, was vigorously opposed on the grounds that Environment Australia argued that having modified the environment of the Coorong it became a habitat, especially for some wading birds from Siberia, and it would be dangerous for us to only partially restore it.

While they acknowledged that the environmental aim of total restoration of the Coorong was probably a laudable one, they seemed to think that partial restoration was not so wise, and there was some argy bargy about that. That has caused numerous delays. At one stage - the member for MacKillop may well touch on this - the commonwealth government was refusing to make any payment and work virtually ground to a halt. The causes for delay did not involve just the commonwealth government: they have been numerous. Some land-holders have been at fault where they have been less than cooperative. There seems to have been some failure on the part of certain government officers to negotiate speedily or efficiently. Certainly the board, when I was minister, several times complained to me that they thought things could have been handled more efficiently and expeditiously. For whatever reason, only 25 per cent of the total area to be drained has been completed and there have been inordinate delays, so they have cost dearly the environment, the land-holder and the taxpayers of South Australia.

The acquisition of a number of alignments has already been negotiated with existing land-holders, but under this legislation the minister will have the power to compulsorily acquire the remaining alignments and must identify them in plans lodged with the Surveyor-General. The powers vested in the minister also provide for no compensation. That was the provision, although I believe that is amended, and I acknowledge that as it comes into this house.

This bill does not sit easily with the Liberal Party. The member for MacKillop, exercising his right as a Liberal to speak freely on this matter, since it is in his electorate and part of his constituency, does not favour the majority position taken by our party. He is an influential voice in our party and is listened to, and it is with some reluctance that we move in a slightly differing direction from him, if that is the way he is minded to speak. Having said that, we do so only because, while we fear some of the provisions of this bill, we accept that it is brought in here in good faith to a laudable end, that being that this significant work must be completed for the good of existing land-holders, for future generations in the South East and for the better utilisation and productivity of the land. That will not come at a cost to the environment but rather with environmental enhancement through improvement in wetlands, vegetation and a better understanding between land-holders, government officers, the drainage board and all players in what constitutes better management of the environment and the productive capacity of the Upper South East.

That said, there remains one thing for me to say. I believe the Hon. Caroline Schaefer in another place asked of the minister who handled the bill a question which was to be answered by the minister here. As the minister knows, the land on either side of what will be the channel is to be compulsorily acquired by the minister. The minister will then gift back, as appropriate to the land-holder, the land he has compulsorily acquired, so there will be a net loss of land to most land-holders of only the width of the channel. However, the interesting proposition the Hon. Caroline Schaefer raised in another place was that, because most of the land dates back prior to the date on which capital gains tax was payable, because the minister will now acquire the land and gift it back, clearly a transfer of land has taken place at a date at or about now; it may be early or late next year.

In that circumstance, the transfer being affected, will capital gains in future be applied to that corridor of land simply because a new arrangement has been made? Between the houses has the minister found any way to get out of what would almost certainly be an inadvertent problem that we have discovered in debate? I will ask the house to note that I have taken only 11 minutes. I will not detain the house longer and hope the minister will clarify that issue in closing the second reading debate. If he does so, I will see no reason to move into committee.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop): I express my thanks to the shadow minister for giving me the opportunity to possibly speak for more than 20 minutes on this matter. I am not sure how long I will go on for, but I want to canvass a large number of issues. I want to put a lot of facts on the record and bring to the house some understanding of the situation in the South East as it has been since white man first arrived in this part of the world, and an understanding of some of the things that have happened in the meantime. Unfortunately, I suspect that the shadow minister, the minister and I will probably be the only three members who will contribute to this debate. Notwithstanding that this is the last day of the session, I am somewhat disappointed that an issue as important as this attracts the attention of only three members of the house.

One of the issues I have had to contend with many times in this chamber is the fact that the South East of the state is quite different geographically, hydro-geologically and in many other ways from the rest of the state. It is also quite distant from the major population centre of Adelaide, and consequently a lot of people in South Australia, including members of this chamber, have a limited understanding of some of the issues that occur in that part of the world. That does not delight me and makes my job representing those fine folk of the South East even more difficult- a challenge that I readily accept.

The landscape of the South East is basically a series of ranges parallel to the distinct coastline. In between these series of ranges there are flats. Before we started any drainage works in the South East, the water - and that part of the world enjoys a significant rainfall - would accumulate behind these ranges and flow in a north-westerly direction. Occasionally, natural gorges had developed in the ranges and eventually most of the water find its way, either through soakage under the ranges or by flowing through the natural gorges, into the Coorong and out to the sea through the Murray Mouth.

Between Kingston and Naracoorte there are seven distinct series of ranges and eight flats between them. I refer to the time when the white man came to South Australia and started to develop away from central Adelaide. We must realise that the Henty brothers travelled from Tasmania and set up an establishment at Portland just across the Victorian border and, indeed, were probably at Mount Gambier at about the same time that Adelaide was established in 1836.

Mount Gambier, which was very fertile and enjoyed good rainfall, was a part of the state that attracted farmers and graziers in those early days. A problem that the people of Mount Gambier found was that, although they were part of South Australia, the communications between them and the capital in Adelaide, as well as the rest of the colony, was very difficult, principally because of the nature of the landscape, as well as the water which lay across the landscape and made travel, in those days on horseback, very difficult.

I understand that it took at least several days to get the mail through from Melbourne to Mount Gambier, whereas it took almost twice that time to get it there from Adelaide. The first push to open drains to enable water to drain directly westward to the sea came not because of the desire to open up more agricultural land but, indeed, because of the desire to construct decent roadways to aid the passage of goods, mail and people to and from that part of the state. I think it is fair to say that initially most of the South East was, at least in winter, just an inland sea. George Goyder once wrote in one of his papers:

My opinion is that from Salt Creek southward the area of the South East is equal to 7 600 square miles, and in every wet season half of that is under water. The depth of the water varies from one to six feet, and some of it is never dry. Some swamps extend from four to six miles.

You can image, Mr Acting Speaker, as I am describing, travellers traversing the land, going into a swamp with their horse and not coming out the other side for four or six miles. Obviously, that made travel very difficult. I particularly want to mention Goyder here and, even though I think his name is well known in South Australia, I think he deserves much greater recognition than he has achieved here in South Australia. As a schoolboy, I was taught about Goyder's line: Goyder delineated an area of the state which he thought would be suitable for agricultural pursuits from that which he thought would not be- and I think Goyder's line is still appropriate. Indeed, I think he got it very right.

Mr Brindal interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I was a very good one - and a very well behaved one, too. It was Goyder who had a vision that the South East could not only be drained to allow access, but that it could also provide much wealth to the state through the drainage and development of agricultural land. For the benefit of members, I will quote from a book called 'Down the Drain: The Story of Events and Personalities Associated with 125 Years of Drainage in the South East of South Australia' by Malcolm Turner and Derek Carter. Goyder is quoted as saying:

The subject [of drainage] is of great importance to the residents in the South East, and to the colony at large - as a successful prosecution of the work would not only double the area at present available to the stockholder and place at the disposal of the Crown a large extent of rich agricultural land, but it would also materially aid the general traffic of the country, and enable good roads to be formed at much less cost than must necessarily be expected if the country continues to be liable to inundations from inefficient means to carry off the ordinary winter's rains.

That was in the 1860s. I have one other connection with the drainage system in the South East. Not only am I the local member representing the area but, in 1867, two of my great uncles arrived in a group of 100 men in the South East to start digging drains in the Millicent area. My great grand-father - the brother of those two gentlemen - joined them shortly thereafter and our family became established in that region, and turned to farming after a turn at digging drains.

Mr Brindal interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: This is the Williamses, yes. I have enjoyed a very keen interest in the drainage system of the South East all my life and, indeed, before coming into this place I spent a little over 12 months as an elected land-holder representative on the South East Water Conservation and Drainage Board, which administers the drainage legislation in the area. I bring that to the attention of the house, because one of the difficulties I have in understanding what the minister is trying to achieve with this act is why the minister, whose portfolio area includes oversight of the management of the South East Water Conservation and Drainage Board and that act, has not chosen to put any additional powers that he might need into that act.

I do not believe that the minister needs any of the additional powers that he is seeking from the house in this bill. As the shadow minister quipped a moment ago, I was a schoolboy. One thing I learnt when I was a schoolboy was to count, and I understand that, much to my disappointment, the minister has the numbers to get this piece of legislation through. I say that because I think it is bad legislation, and as the current Attorney once said: hard cases make for bad law.

This is a hard case in the South East; there is no doubt about that. I do not think there will be any doubt that, when history has had a chance to look at what we are doing here this evening, this will be seen to be bad law. It was nowhere near as bad a law when it came to us from the other place as it was when it entered that place, and I would like to congratulate my colleague in the other place, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, for the work that she did in significantly amending this piece of legislation and, as the shadow minister has said, making it considerably more palatable to the Liberal Party.

Nevertheless, I still have grave difficulties with it, as I do not believe that the minister needs any of the powers that this piece of legislation gives him, and I will explain why I have that belief as I continue my remarks. But, once again, I thank and congratulate the Hon. Caroline Schaefer in another place for the work that she did. I should offer my thanks to the minister for accepting most of those amendments moved by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, because I think that the minister is doing this in good faith. He has taken advice that this is what is necessary to proceed the upper South East project, but I certainly disagree with the advice that he has been given.

I spoke earlier about the state of inundation in the whole of the South East. What happened over a period of 100 years, starting in the 1860s up to about 1970, was a series of drains which crisscrossed the Lower South East and channelled that water westward to the ocean through a number of cuts. The shadow minister talked about the outlet at Kingston via Maria Creek and later the Blackford Drain. There are openings south of Millicent into Lake Bonney, which is then drained into the sea. The cuts that run into the sea at Robe, Beachport and Southend are the most significant of the man-made drains in the area. They drain the whole area as far north and east as Bool Lagoon, which collects water out of Mosquito Creek and the Naracoorte Creek, the headwaters of which are in Victoria, and that water ends up in the Southern Ocean adjacent to Robe, Beachport and Southend. The water that traditionally travelled in a north-westerly direction up between these dunal systems and ended up largely going into the Coorong through various outlets, one through Henry Creek and then up the Tilley Swamp watercourse or eventually at Salt Creek itself, has not had the opportunity to travel north for probably in excess of 50 years. It is probably much longer than that since significant amounts of water have travelled north, and that land has dried out significantly.

Having dried out, the land was then opened up to farming or grazing pursuits, and most of the land has been cleared of its natural vegetation. This is where we have the problem of dryland salinisation. We have cleared the land, the natural rainfall is not being used, so it accumulates below the surface soils forming a water table, and that water table is rising, bringing with it the salts that it mobilises out of the soils. This did not occur initially with the clearing because, as the land was cleared, it was sown with lucerne. The lucerne plant is a very deep-rooted perennial that has a similar effect on the recharge of the aquifers underlying the surface as would a forest or native tree-type vegetation, with its deep roots and ability to extract large amounts of water from a reasonable depth under the surface.

As the shadow minister said, in the late 1970s (about 1978 or 1979), with the introduction into the area (by accident, of course) of two insect pests, the lucerne flea and the spotted alfalfa aphid, the lucerne stands across huge tracts of the Mid and Upper South East died right out. All of a sudden, as early as about 1983, some land-holders in the area started to talk about the salinisation of their land, the increase in size of salt scalds in some of the lower areas, and started to talk about what was going to happen to the South East. A few of them started to talk about ways in which they might be able to overcome the rising water table and the attendant salt problem. So, it has been a long time coming. For almost 20 years discussions have been taking place about an engineering solution to the problem we have in the Upper South East.

The government of the day got serious about this a bit over 10 years ago. In the early 1990s a series of reports was written and environmental impact statements were commissioned, and the plan that we see before us now was largely established in the early 1990s. There was a lot of negotiation, because the powers to undertake the works were largely available to the government of the day through other pieces of legislation. Interestingly, the South East Drainage Act gave the South East Water Conservation and Drainage Board the power to levy land-holders. Those powers were used to raise levies across much of the South East to contribute to the funding of this drainage scheme. The drainage scheme originally was planned as a $24 million scheme, and the funding package was one where the commonwealth contributed $9 million, the state was to contribute $9 million and the land-holders across the region contributed some $6 million.

The $6 million levy raised from the land-holders happened through a huge amount of negotiation. Nobody likes paying levies, but eventually a negotiated settlement was reached whereby the region to be levied was split into four divisions. Zone A was those areas where a land-holder could expect to get a direct benefit from a drain, and a particular levy was set in zone A. Zone B was those areas where the land-holder might not get an absolute direct benefit; he would be a little more removed from the drains, but the expectation was that he or she would receive a substantial benefit, and they were levied at a different level. Zones C and D were further removed. Zone C goes right across to the Victorian border, so you have people to the east of Naracoorte, a long way away from the nearest drain, who were never going to be subject to salinisation: that was their belief, and no-one suggested they would be.

They were being levied at a lower rate again, because it was argued that, having cleared their land and turned it into grazing land, they had contributed to the rising water tables to the west, where the ground waters, which had been created by their clearing their land, were flowing under the surface and also contributing to the rising water tables in the west. The people who actually carried those arguments through did a terrific job. I was not in one of those areas but I have had plenty of representations from constituents who were, and they have put very sound arguments as to why they should not have been levied. Since that levy came into being we have had the Water Resources Act 1997, whereby some of those same people who are paying levies because they ostensibly have created or added to this problem of rising water tables in the west are paying a water levy to the South East Water Catchment Management Board because there is not enough water and they need to get a water licence if they want to use the water.

So, the same land-holders are paying one levy to a catchment board because they need to protect the water resource, and paying another levy to another board because they need to dig drains to get rid of the water. There are some obvious inequities there. One of the things that this bill seeks to do is transfer those powers of raising levies from the South East Drainage Board to the minister, and I hope that the minister is very careful if he tries to instigate a new levy and levy those people who would in no way receive a direct benefit from either the drains that have already been constructed or those that need to be constructed. One of the powers that the minister is seeking from this legislation is that of levying. That power is already available to the minister. That is one of the reasons why I say that we do not need this bill.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Minister for Environment and Conservation): I move:

That the time for moving the adjournment of the house be extended beyond 5 p.m.

Motion carried.

Mr WILLIAMS: The Upper South East scheme, as I have said, has been operational for a number of years. The first drain, the Fairview Drain, was completed probably five or six years ago, some time around 1997. We have three parts to the landscape: the northern, the central and the southern basins. The proponents of the scheme always wanted to start at the north, because that is where they thought the biggest problem was and most of the water would naturally run to the north and, if they started at the north and then worked southwards, that made very good sense. It would have been the natural way to undertake the scheme. Unfortunately, if you started at the north and were generating water and sending it up drains to the north, you had to have some way of getting rid of the water when it got to the north. This is where the biggest stumbling block to this scheme has been.

Originally, the proponents suggested that the best place to get water out of the northern part of the scheme through the last of the sand ridges and into the Coorong at Salt Creek would be to construct the drains through the Messent Conservation Park. Straightaway, the proponents came into great difficulty because the environmental movement would not wear the drain going through Messent Conservation Park. They said that it was sacrosanct and the drainage scheme had to stay out of there. I still believe that the best route for the northern outlet would have been through the Messent Conservation Park, and I lament that the proponents did not pursue that option. I believe that, in the future, the Messent Conservation Park will still suffer from salinity because the drainage scheme will not go quite that far north.

The next option was to come just south of the Messent Conservation Park and build the outlet there through a property known as Currawong. The alignment of the drain was planned, and Currawong is a fairly long, narrow block of land running from a south-west to north-east direction. The route of the drain would have gone pretty well straight up the centre of this property and divided it into almost equal parts. The owner of the property objected and continued objecting to that proposal for a number of years. His objections were so strong that the proponents then said, 'We've been collecting this money. We've got to keep faith with the land-holders who have been paying it,' and they started digging drains in the south. The Fairview drain was constructed and its outfall is into the Blackford drain, which runs to the sea at Kingston. So, they did not have a problem with finding an outfall for the water generated out of the drain.

Meanwhile, the largest land-holder in the area - Tom Brinkworth - and I know the minister does not want to admit that this bill is largely to do with Tom Brinkworth; I will save him from having not to admit that: this bill is largely to do with Tom Brinkworth, and I think that is a great pity - had accumulated large tracts of land in the Upper South East and had been constructing quite minor drains for many years going back probably into the 1980s.

In the mid 1990s, he started to get very serious about digging drains. He dug a drain from the Marcollat area - the drain known as the Didicoolum drain - to run water basically westward. He went on to dig what he called the Water Valley drain, which delivered water to a point on the Petherick Road to what I think is called Log Crossing. Water has been running to that point for a number of years now, and a series of drains have been constructed via the scheme - mainly the Wongawilly drain, the Ballater East drain and a connection up the Old Bakers Range watercourse into the Water Valley drain.

A lot of water being generated out of that drainage system arrives at this crossing on Petherick Road. From there it is runs up the natural watercourse into a large area known as the Mandina Marshes. A few years ago, Tom Brinkworth contacted the drainage board and the proponents of the scheme and said, 'The Mandina Marshes have been inundated for a number of years. We've got to get rid of some of this water. We've got to allow this area to dry out, and we should be able to run water back down through the natural outlet at Henry Creek and then up the Tilley Swamp watercourse, through the Morella Basin and out through Salt Creek.' I think that was a fairly sensible thing to do. Indeed, when I was on the drainage board in 1976, we discussed that particular issue. However, that is about as far as it got.

After arguing this for a fair while - and the minister is probably totally unaware of this - I understand that the reason water was not allowed to go out through Henry Creek was that the argument was always made that this water is reasonably saline - up to about 7 000 parts per million - and the Native Vegetation people and the environmentalists in the Department for Environment were worried about causing damage by putting saline water out through Henry Creek. So, this water continued to flow into the Mandina Marshes.

More recently, Tom Brinkworth purchased another property called South Flagstaff and dug another drain to divert this water around the Mandina Marshes and to drop back into wetlands much further north. Once again, he got into trouble with the Native Vegetation Council by digging that drain. In my opinion-

The Hon. J.D. Hill interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: The minister says that he broke the law. The minister is administering the law. If he believes Tom Brinkworth has broken the law he should be prosecuted. He is not the first minister to whom I have given that advice. Plenty of people keep saying that Tom Brinkworth has broken the law, but no-one responsible will actually prosecute the man. Tom Brinkworth saved the Mandina Marshes and, through the drains that he has dug in that central basin, he has saved many tens of thousands of hectares of land from dryland salinity. That is my opinion, and I think that anyone who studies the drainage system and the landscape could not help but agree.

Unfortunately - and I take no joy from this - this is a fairly long story. I will move along quite rapidly now. The southern and central parts of the scheme have largely been constructed. It is the northern part of the scheme that is still relying on getting an outlet. The central part of the scheme also had a problem with getting rid of this water which was still flowing into the Mandina Marshes or around the new drain constructed by Tom Brinkworth. It was slowly and inexorably moving further north and, at some stage, was going to create a problem when it reached that bottleneck in the north.

Indeed, recognising that something had to be done, Tom Brinkworth came to the proponents of the scheme and, through the environmental trust he set up, offered to negotiate with the trustees of Wetlands and Wildlife, the owners of the next property south of Carrawong to construct a drainage outlet through that property. At the end of the day, those negotiations were successful. Tom Brinkworth again got into a bit of trouble with the Native Vegetation people over the construction of that drain but, nevertheless, someone at some stage somehow had to construct that drain. The whole system relied on the construction of that drain to allow the water to run out of the catchments and into the Coorong. That drain was completed probably about 14 months ago in the winter of 2001 - at the end of autumn. Now we have the final key to the completion of the drainage system.

It is interesting that Tom Brinkworth has been painted as being the ogre here, the person who has held up the scheme, the person who has frustrated the proponents of this scheme. I have two maps: one was given to me when I was a member of the Public Works Committee of this parliament and it is dated June 2000; the other was given to me just recently, dated 15 November 2002. Both maps depict basically the same thing: the Upper South East and the proposed alignments of the drains for the scheme. Both maps have a series of colours and in dark blue they show the alignments of the proposed drains.

When I study these maps, I try to see which drains that were proposed in June 2002 have actually been constructed by 15 November 200 2- that is almost 2 1/2 years - and the only drains that I can see having actually been constructed in that time are the northern outlet, which was constructed by Tom Brinkworth, and another seven kilometres of drain on a property called Taunta, which adjoins the north-eastern end of that northern outlet. So, from June 2000 to 15 November 2002, the only actual work done on this project has been done by Tom Brinkworth, yet the minister says that he needs these powers so that he can overcome the frustrations that Tom Brinkworth is causing. I would argue that it is not Tom Brinkworth who is causing frustration to this scheme, it is the mismanagement of the scheme over a very long time. I am not suggesting that the management of this scheme has been easy. It has been trying to get that balance between the various agencies here at the state level and, more particularly (and this has been more difficult), with the agencies in Canberra. There have been incredible hold-ups there. I would argue that the minister should, indeed, have come to the parliament seeking to inert some extra powers, if he thought he needed them, into the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act and handed the management of this whole project over to the South East Water Conservation and Drainage Board. That board has a very proud history of this sort of work, which stretches back well over 100 years, and it has never got itself into the mess that this project has got itself into in the last five or six years.

I fail to see why the minister needs these powers. He came in here originally wanting the power to acquire land without any compensation and, again, my colleague in the other place has softened that up a little. To be quite honest, in some ways I am sad that she has done that, because I think the minister was heading for very serious trouble. I believe that, without the amendments (and even with them he may still have problems), he would never have been able to negotiate funds out of the commonwealth government. We know that section 51C, I think it is, of the Constitution of Australia does not allow the commonwealth government to be involved in appropriating people's property without due compensation, and that is what this bill originally intended to do. I am not too sure that it is a hell of a lot better now, but it is somewhat better. I think the minister should thank the Liberal Party for getting him over that hurdle (if he does get over that hurdle), because I do not believe that his original bill would have given him the ability to progress this project at all.

I also point out to the minister that, when I was a member of the South East Water Conservation Drainage Board, we had a situation much further south, in the Lower South East, where a landowner was frustrating the drainage board in some actions that it wanted to take to give relief to a land-holder upstream. Eventually, we used the powers that we already had under the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Act and the Land Acquisition Act, and compulsorily acquired land to construct a drain. So, the power is there.

The minister comes in here and argues that he needs these powers, but I do not think the minister could cite to the house an instance where he has tried to exercise the powers that he already has and has been frustrated because he does not have strong enough powers. I think that is the crux of this bill, and it is one of the reasons why I do not believe that the minister needs this bill at all - because he has not been frustrated to the point where, using the existing powers, he has not been able to progress.

There are many other points that I would like to raise. I have given an undertaking to the minister that I will not talk for too long, and I have probably used almost as much time as I indicated I would be speaking for. However, there are a couple of things that I want to point out. I understand that there are probably three places where the project is being frustrated by land-holders. I want to briefly mention these three areas and point out why it is being frustrated - and I do not think anyone should take the blame for this apart from the proponents. With respect to the most northerly of the drains that is proposed (and I think that drain would be called the Mount Charles Drain), I understand that a land-holder there objects to the drain passing through his property. My understanding is that he objects not to the drain per se but to the alignment of the drain, it having been put straight through his laser levelled irrigation paddock. He is not objecting to the drain or the principle, or probably even giving up some land. It is the route- where it is to go- that will cause severe inconvenience to his operation. I think that is merely a matter of negotiation with the land-holder.

Another land-holder certainly has been holding up the project in the Marcollat area, where the proponents wish to extend the Didicoolum Drain in a South Easterly direction adjacent to the Marcollat water course, so that it can pick up highly saline water in that area to the west of Padthaway. My advice is that it is essential that that drain be dug, but the land-holder at the northern end of that proposed drain has grave concerns, because the ground water under his property, which he uses for stock water, is very sweet, and he is very concerned about digging a drain through his property and delivering salt water onto and through his property. He is very concerned about the impact that might have on his property.

That is one of the reasons why the Liberal Party has insisted that, at the end of this project, these people can, indeed, have a look to see whether their property has been devalued. That property, I believe, probably would be devalued by the drainage system; the land-holder would receive no direct benefit. All the benefit would accrue to upstream land-holders, and this person could suffer a substantial loss. This land-holder certainly has not been convinced that he is not in line for suffering a substantial loss.

The only other place where I think there has been an argument with a land-holder (and, again, this is with Tom Brinkworth) is in the area known as Kercoonda, where, as I said earlier, the native vegetation people would not allow water to be run down through Henry Creek. The proponents wish to put a separate cutting through to deliver water across into the Tilley Swamp watercourse. Tom Brinkworth argues that, now that he has put the diversion drain around the Mandina marshes, that is unnecessary. To be quite honest, it will not be necessary for a number of years; there is plenty of pondage area to the north of the Mandina marshes. If the minister insists on putting that cut through at Kercoonda (and I believe that it will be necessary in the longer term), if he instituted action under the Acquisition of Land Act, even if it took a couple of years, he would be able to achieve his ends. Again, I do not understand why the minister would want to bring into this place what I regard as heavy-handed and poor legislation when he already has the ability to achieve his ends through other means.

As I said, looking at these two maps, in the last 2 1/2 years virtually no drainage works have been carried out by the proponents of the scheme. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no reason why the extension of the Tilley Swamp drain down into the Taratap area has not been completed. The minister has said on radio in the South East, and to anyone else whom he would want to talk to, that he went to the South East, he talked to land-holders, and they said, 'Get on with the scheme.' Indeed, they have. I am absolutely certain that the land-holders he talked to are those in the Taratap area. They have been tearing their hair out for a number of years. I have not been given any information as to why that drain has not been constructed. I do not believe any land-holder has been frustrating the construction of that drain. And it is the same story with respect to the Winpinmerit Drain and the Bald Hill Drain. There are similar people in that area to those in the north-east of Kingston. I do not understand why those drains have not been constructed.

With respect to the drains in the Mount Charles/Bunbury area and the Taunta area, as I said earlier, the northern outlet was completed some 13 months ago. No work has been done to construct those drains, yet the minister says that he has been frustrated. In fact, the minister has been helped significantly by Tom Brinkworth, and this project would never be able to progress without his help.

I want to talk for a few minutes about the provisions of the bill. The shadow minister indicated that he did not think it was necessary to go into the third reading, and I am quite happy for us to go straight to the adoption of the bill, through all its stages, as long as I can put on the record several matters that I would like the minister, in his winding up of the second reading, to address. I have very significant problems with the idea of the minister's instituting a levy and then offering exemptions to the levy in return for land-holders signing management agreements, because I believe that some land-holders will be forced, by dint of this legislation, to do something that they do not want to do. During the last couple of weeks I have spoken to a number of land-holders about this matter, and I did not come across one land-holder who said that they would accept the exemption. They have all said, 'I will pay the damn levy,' because they do not want to sign heritage agreements. That is one issue.

The minister would also have powers, under clause 15(2)(c), to prohibit or restrict specified activities, or activities of a specified kind on the land. To my mind this is aimed fairly and squarely at Tom Brinkworth. We all know that one of the things that Tom Brinkworth sponsors in the region is hunting. He is a very keen hunter and there are a lot of keen hunters in the area. He holds several duck shoots on a lot of the wetlands on his properties during the year. I would like to know from the minister whether this is a backdoor way of forcing Tom Brinkworth into signing a management plan to restrict him from holding duck shooting or other forms of hunting on his land. I can see no other reason for having that clause in the bill.

By way of example of the sort of problems I have with giving the minister these powers, as luck would have it, another constituent contacted me late last week and I met with her on Monday of this week, when she raised an issue about which I am very concerned. Her property (and this will identify it, although I will not use her name) is section 40 in the hundred of Peacock. Some years ago she was approached when the proponents of the scheme said they wanted to clean out the channel of the old Bakers Range watercourse from what is known as the G cutting on the Kingston-Willalooka road so that, instead of all the freshwater generated in the Fairview drainage area running out to sea in the winter time, we can push that up through the G cutting, through the old Bakers Range watercourse and into the wetlands further into the Upper South East. They came to her and said that the drainage route would go through her property, and indeed the drain meets her property and runs down adjacent to the fence line on her property for a distance of probably a kilometre. Since that time she has wanted the proponents- the diggers of the drain- to fence off the drain so that her stock will not fall into it, and if somebody comes onto her property they would have no claim if they were injured by falling or driving into the drain.

The problem is that the minister's department has been arguing with her for a number of years that she should sign a heritage agreement with the department to hand over some 237 hectares of land. This land includes some pristine grazing area and some very pretty country of high heritage value, and I do not resile from that. I might say that 237 hectares would be approximately half her property, just looking at the plan that she has shown me.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Tom Brinkworth did suggest that it is similar to what President Mugabe is doing.

The Hon. G.M. Gunn: Comrade Mugabe!

Mr WILLIAMS: Comrade Mugabe. It is not just her; I have not spoken to her neighbours at this stage. However, at least four neighbours were then pressured to sign away some 384 hectares of land. I think the house should be well aware that some years ago when this drain was proposed to be pushed through it came up against a large block of native scrub in an area known as the Hanson Tiver Scrub, on two properties belonging to Messrs Hanson and Tiver. It is my understanding that the proponents of the scheme have said to Environment Australia and your department, 'We will get some heritage agreements to offset the permission to go through the Hanson Tiver Scrub so we can divert this water up the old Bakers Range watercourse.' These land-holders in sections 40, 59, 58, 96 and 34 of the Hundred of Peacock have been pressured into signing away 384 hectares of land under a heritage agreement. It is my understanding that none of them wants to do that. That is why I have difficulty in giving you the power you wish to have under this act.

Another thing I am particularly concerned about is the minister's requirement to have the land either side of the proposed centre line of the drain to a distance of 100 metres. It is my understanding that everywhere else where these drains have been dug up the amount of land has been given up freely. These land-holders are more than happy to give up the land; they do not have a problem with that, but it has generally been about 40 metres, whereas under this bill you are asking for 200 metres. I do not know why you want 200 metres. Not having a devious mind, I am sure there are very good reasons for it, but I have not been able to ascertain them and I cannot understand why you want it. Section 16 of the bill gives you power to gain access. If you wanted to put down a 1 metre drain and you only had 1 metre, you could get unfettered access to it through clause 16 of this bill. So, I really think the minister has gone over the top in seeking 200 metres.

I know that in the briefing the minister gave to me and some of my colleagues it was argued that the absolutely final alignment of these drains was not quite known, and you might need to dodge out and around some native vegetation. I have already pointed out that the northern part of this scheme has been sitting there waiting for the northern outlet for three or four years. The people behind this scheme have had three or four years to work out exactly where they want these drains to go, and after all this time they still cannot work out within a couple of hundred metres where they want the drains to go. That is a problem for the minister's department: I do not think it is a problem for this house, and that is why I question why the minister is asking for a 200 metre strip through all this farm land. In my opinion that is just a way on his department's recommendation for the minister to overcome the management problems it has encountered. When I talk about management problems, I am talking about its own incompetence to get on top of scheduling these works and having a decent program of going out and determining exactly where the alignments would be. It is not as though it has not had time; it has had a number of years - at least two, and probably three, four or five - and this work has not been done.

I also want to know from the minister how he can guarantee to the house that he will deliver this project, even given these powers, because he now has to go off and argue with Environment Australia and the commonwealth government to get the money out of them. I have already alluded to the problem with appropriating land. I understand that Environment Australia has said that a comprehensively documented, overarching management plan acceptable to Environment Australia must be put in place prior to the provision of any commonwealth financial assistance for the stage 3 construction work. Where are we with that? Do we have that plan and those sign-offs, or will that take us another two or three years? If it will take us another two or three years- which I suspect it might- the minister does not need these powers; he has plenty of time under the existing powers. I come back once again to the argument that the department is having with Tom Brinkworth down at Kercoonda. I know they want to run water through this cutting at Kercoonda to put water up the Tilley Swamp drain and into the Tilley Swamp area. Has a risk analysis been done of what effect this might have on Tilley Swamp? I know that Environment Australia is insisting that that be done. Has it been done? If it has not been done, when can we expect it to be done and when can we expect a sign-off?

There are a whole heap of things behind the scenes which might well hold up this project, if they have not already been responsible for holding it up, and which are quite foreign to and removed from the arguments the minister's department has had with two or three land-holders. I want an assurance that those things have all been put away and that the only problems the minister has are in getting access to this land. This is a very draconian piece of legislation. I know the minister has agreed to insert a sunset clause, but I guarantee that, once this piece of legislation passes this house and appears on the statute books of South Australia, this will not be the last time we see it. The sunset will happen in three or four years, and then there will be some other reason. A bureaucrat will have a fantastic idea about a project somewhere in the state and go knocking on the minister's door and say, 'The precedent was set in the South East; we went out there and appropriated people's land without compensation. The precedent has been set; this is the only way you will ever get this project through.'

I am afraid that this may become common practice in South Australia. As I have said to people in the South East, it would certainly solve the problem of getting the traffic from the Southern Expressway to South Terrace. If these sorts of powers were used in the city of Adelaide, we could build a freeway from South Terrace to the Southern Expressway at no cost to the taxpayers. I do not think the minister or any of his colleagues would ever contemplate doing that sort of thing in metropolitan Adelaide. Why is it okay to do it in the South East? I do not accept the argument that the common good should allow us to accept these very draconian powers. I do not think that stands up. I have grave concerns about setting that sort of precedent.

I have spoken longer than I originally intended. I hope I have been able to make a cogent argument that, first, it is not Tom Brinkworth, or he and several other land-holders, who are frustrating this project. As I have said many times publicly, I think history will show that Tom Brinkworth is a bit like George Goyder and one of the heroes in relation to drainage of the Upper South East. Without his work we would not have anything like what we have now. I do not think the minister needs the powers. I doubt whether given these powers the minister will progress this scheme very quickly. I am absolutely certain that he still needs to work through and get signed off many other issues. If the minister ran the acquisition he believes he might need parallel with the appropriate sign-offs, at the end of the day he would get what he needed just as quickly. I am concerned about instituting another levy on the land-holders in this area and then using that as a big stick to belt them into submission over management plans. They are my three main concerns.

I will be exercising my right and will not be supporting this bill. In all conscience I cannot support the bill. I have had representations from many people in the South East, some of whom have been urging me to support it and others of whom have been urging me not to do so. My own conscience will not let me support the bill because I think that putting these powers on the statute book is a wonderful example of what the Attorney-General once said, that is, 'Hard cases make for bad law.' I freely admit that it is a hard case, but I think it will be bad law.

No-one I know in the South East wants to frustrate this scheme. Everyone wants to see this scheme come to a successful conclusion sooner rather than later. It has been my opinion for a number of years that we have been saved by the run of dry seasons in the South East and, if we had experienced several exceedingly wet seasons in the past few years, we would now be witnessing an environmental disaster in that part of the state. I say to the minister that he should complete the works; and that he will get the powers but not with my blessing.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart): I do not intend to delay the house, but there are fundamental principles upon which this democracy is founded. One of those is that we protect people's property rights. From the moment this legislation passes the parliament, this parliament and the minister will have abrogated their power to a group of public servants, who are not answerable to this place and who are not compelled to answer questions, unless we take steps to cross-examine the minister in this house. No matter the reasons or circumstances, it is my view that it is unwise and unnecessary to set a precedent to compulsorily acquire people's property without compensation.

We have seen what has happened in other parts of the world. There are two questions which I believe the minister needs to answer. First, does he realise that, once this bill is proclaimed, court action will be taken against him and it will slow down the process? Will he try to stop people from taking court action? If he does, that will be a Mugabe act. Secondly, why is it necessary to take this unprincipled action to endeavour to force any land-holder to sign a heritage agreement? That in itself is an outrageous suggestion. People should be made aware that they do not have to sign anything, even if some aggressive bureaucrat tries to coerce them.

Unfortunately, within the ranks of the Department for Environment and Heritage there are those who believe that people's rights should be circumvented. There are nasty little characters at Quorn, for example, who want one law for themselves and one for everyone else. Fortunately, the local council dealt with one of those people - and I will deal with him on another occasion; I have a lot to say about him. Let us look at the process. At the end of the day we had an ambit claim. A draft bill which contained the most horrendous powers was presented. Those who proposed the bill said to the minister, 'Minister, this is where we will start and we will end up here. We will make people feel warm and fuzzy by backing off on the issue.' That is not good legislation. If you have a good proposal, you should come up with it at the beginning, not the end. I will not be voting for the bill. I support the project. But it concerns me that this bill is aimed at Mr Brinkworth. I know Mr Brinkworth has been difficult to manage and that he has engaged in some rather unique exercises, but he has been allowed to get away with it. That is the fundamental point.

My neighbour on Eyre Peninsula, who served this country as a soldier in Vietnam, is now suffering. He has a child suffering with a health condition. He was accosted and intimidated by one of these nasty little apparatchiks from the department but, because Mr Brinkworth has the power and prestige, they never touched him. That is one of the things that upsets me. Even worse than that, it is alleged that one of the heinous crimes this poor fellow committed is that he put in a decent firebreak. New South Wales is on fire and the greenies have nearly burnt out Sydney. My poor, long-suffering neighbour tried to protect the public. Do you know why? There is a monument outside his house to recognise that the last time it caught fire, a hard-working person lost his life and a former chairman of the council nearly lost his life putting out the fire.

However, there are two sets of rules. Let me say that we will pursue these bureaucrats in this place because we have no other alternative. We would be failing in our obligation to the people of South Australia if we did not stand up and exercise some degree of care and caution. The member for MacKillop is right: officers from another department will trot along to a minister with some harebrained scheme to seize people's property.

Mr Acting Speaker, if they went to your electorate and tried to grab three or four houses without paying compensation, I wonder what would happen. I bet it would not happen in a marginal seat. If it was in the electorates of Hammond, Mount Gambier or Chaffey we would have a negotiated settlement and arrangement. However, because it is in a blue ribbon Liberal seat, and because Mr Brinkworth has had the audacity to stand up to these little operators, they have not liked it. Democracy is about treating people fairly and justly. I do not have a problem with the minister's being firm with this matter and completing the project quickly and efficiently. I do not have a problem with that because that is in the long-term interests of the people of South Australia. I have a problem when the minister tries to create a precedent. I do not want to delay the house, because everyone has had enough. I support the member for MacKillop.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Minister for Environment and Conservation): I thank those members who have contributed to this debate. It is an important debate, and it is appropriate that we hear the views of members opposite, in all their passion and with all the argument put forward. I understand from the shadow minister that we are not going into committee, so I will spend a few minutes attempting to answer the questions asked by members and try to explain, if I can, the reasons for my introducing this legislation. As both the member for MacKillop and I have mentioned, some six to eight weeks ago I travelled to the South East to talk to people who were hopefully being affected by this scheme. I spent a reasonable amount of time there, I visited a number of properties and spoke with a range of people - people from the board, ordinary members of the community, farmers, people from council, and so on - and the clear message I got was one of frustration that the scheme had been on the cards for a very long period and had not been completed. They urged me to complete, and they said, 'We really want this to be finished.' So I said that I would do what I could.

As part of that process I met with Mr Brinkworth. It was not my intention to name any individuals in this debate, but his name has now been raised. So, I really want to put into the debate my interactions with Mr Brinkworth. It had been put to me that Mr Brinkworth's actions were frustrating the scheme. So I went to meet with Mr Brinkworth. I sat in the cabin of his vehicle at the top of one of the drains he had constructed, which was then paid for by the former government, and I spoke to him about the scheme. I might say that, when I was sitting in the cabin, he had a weapon of some sort - a shotgun or a rifle - on the bench behind me. There was another one in the passenger seat, with the barrel facing to the ground between my legs. However, I did not feel intimidated by the presence of these two weapons in the cabin of the vehicle, as he drove me along the edge of this very steep precipice, and I talked to him about this scheme. I said, 'Tom, we want to get this scheme completed.' He argued that he agreed with that general proposition. I said to him, 'We can have only one scheme though. We can't have two schemes- our scheme and your scheme; we must have one scheme. We want cooperation with you. We either have cooperation with you or we will have a showdown.' He said to me, 'I look forward to that' - referring to the showdown. I said, 'Right. Okay. That's it. I understand your position; you understand mine.' I got out of the vehicle and repeated the conversation to my officers who were present. I said to them, 'We need to introduce some legislation to allow us to continue with the scheme, because I'm certain from the conversation I had with Mr Brinkworth we won't get cooperation to complete the scheme.' As a result of that, this bill was introduced.

I am the first to admit to this house and to the public that this bill contains very strong measures. However, they are measures necessary to achieve the outcomes of the scheme. This scheme will be valued at up to about $60 million. It has been in the planning for many years, and it has been under construction for a number of years. The commonwealth, the state and the community have all made significant contributions to it. If we cannot get it completed, those contributions will be wasted, and the benefits to that local community in terms of reduction in salinity will not be achieved. So, this is an important scheme, and that is why we have the legislation.

I would like to say how grateful I am for the support of the majority of the opposition. When I contemplated this scheme, I asked my officers to brief thoroughly the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister responsible for primary industries (the Hon. Caroline Schaefer), because I knew that both of them had been dealing with this matter when they were in government, and I wanted to make sure that we had their understanding and, if we could, their support. I am very grateful to them for providing their support- with some qualifications.

After having them initially briefed, I sat down with them and the members for Unley and MacKillop and spent three hours going through the original draft bill. In that session I made a number of significant amendments based on the objections that were provided to me by those members in their initial briefing. I said, 'Take the bill away and have another look at it. If you have other concerns, I'm happy to address them.' Subsequent to that, I sat down with any members of the Liberal backbench and frontbench who wished to meet with me and one of the officers of the department to go through the bill and explain to them why we believed that we needed that legislation. As a result of that, a number of other amendments were created.

The opposition in the other place has moved a number of amendments, and I indicate to this house that the government will support all those amendments. Those amendments do four or five things. They make sure that this legislation is limited in time, as well as in place. These measures - which have been called draconian - are limited only to the Upper South East Drainage Scheme. They cannot be used in any other part of the state, no matter what others may say. As a result of an amendment by the opposition they can only be used until 3 1/2 or four years' time when the sunset clause will cause the bill-

Mr Brindal interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: That's right: they are temporal as well as spatial in their impact. In addition, the opposition has moved - and I must say that it was on my suggestion - that there should be a scrutiny by a parliamentary committee so that the minister would be required on a regular basis to report to the committee to have this bill analysed. That is in the bill as well. Further, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer moved a couple of amendments, one of which was to do with compensation. I will not go through the scheme but it is a narrow notion of compensation, and I was comfortable with that. She also introduced a measure to provide some limited appeal rights, and I was comfortable with those matters as well.

Central to the scheme are the powers given to me as minister to take land for the purposes of the drainage scheme compulsorily, without compensation and without review. We believe that all those measures are required. However, I just say in relation to the issue of compensation that, while there is no direct financial or monetary compensation to landowners whose land has been taken away (and only about 2.5 per cent of the total land is being confiscated and most of that only for a short time), there is no direct compensation in terms of a cash payment. However, there is very much compensation in terms of added value to the land because, if we did not have this scheme in place, the salinity would continue to increase and the value of the land would decline. I have been told that, as a result of this scheme, the productivity of the land will double. There will be 100 per cent increase in the productivity of land. That is very strong compensation - in an indirect form perhaps - to those landowners. By and large, the majority of that money which is providing this direct benefit to those landowners is coming from the commonwealth and state funds, that is, the taxpayers of South Australia and the commonwealth are funding this scheme, and there is direct benefit to those individuals. So, to say there is no compensation is a simplistic argument.

The member for Unley raised the issue of capital gains tax which may apply to small parcels of land that have been confiscated and returned to the owner. I agree that this is an issue, and it is certainly one that the government wants to address. I have had a preliminary conversation with the state Treasurer, who is also now the Minister for Federal/State Relations, and I will write to him formally and ask him to take up with the commonwealth Treasurer whether or not the commonwealth will waive any capital gains in this instance. It would seem to me a reasonable thing for it to do that, because this is a scheme which is designed and paid for by commonwealth, as well as state funds. It is not a scheme to cheat the taxation system. In fact, it would be a windfall gain to the tax man if he were to institute a capital gains tax in this instance. We will certainly raise those matters.

I will briefly go through the questions raised by the members for MacKillop and Stuart. The member for MacKillop referred to the levy and was concerned about it continuing. This is a joint scheme, funded by the commonwealth, the state and the landowners. That has always been the basis of the funding package. In order for us to get commonwealth funding, we have to demonstrate some sort of local commitment.

Already some money has been collected by a levy and it may well be that some in future may be, but it is the desire of the government and my department to limit the amount of levy that will need to be collected. That is why we are attempting through negotiations with land owners to develop land management plans to protect native vegetation and wetlands on their properties. Part of the reason the commonwealth is funding the scheme is not just for economic benefits to landowners but to protect the environment. This was under the NHT scheme initially: it was a Natural Heritage Trust scheme to start off with and is now an NAP scheme and part of the purpose of it is to protect the environment. If we can come to arrangements with the landowners that achieve that as a substitute for a levy, we will certainly try to do that.

The member for MacKillop asked me whether one of the measures was a contrivance to allow me to ban Tom Brinkworth from hunting ducks on his property. That is not what I intend to do. I assure all members that we are not trying to stop Tom shooting ducks on his property. The member for MacKillop gave an example of a property involving fencing an area and my office is not completely sure which property the honourable member refers to. They think it is a property where the fencing off is required is a wetland and the owner of the property wants to drain that wetland for other purposes. It may not be that property.

Mr Williams: They in fact want to flood it.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I am not sure of the detail, but if the honourable member can give it to me I will follow it up. The honourable member also asked why we need a 200 metre strip. It is a bit arbitrary: I would be the first to concede that, but we cannot just say that we want a one metre or five metre strip because, once you get on the terrain and work out where the drain will need to be, obviously the person building it will have to take into account the local terrain, the native vegetation, the hardness of rock and so on, so a figure of 100 metres either side, a 200 metre width, is considered to be a reasonable amount in order to allow this drain to go through. I give the assurance to the member and landowners in the South East that we will return that land to them.

The member for McKillop raised a question about Environment Australia, which I understand is happy with the project. The management planning arrangements have been agreed to and are supported by the commonwealth. I can provide him a briefing on that in due course. He also raised the issue of a precedent and the fact that this measure will be used as a precedent by future governments. How do I answer that? It will always be up to the parliament. The point I make in relation to this measure is that, although the member for MacKillop is not supporting it, he should draw comfort from the fact that both the government and the opposition are supporting this. There is a large measure of bipartisan support for what are, I agree, are fairly strong measures.

The member for Stuart asked me about court action in relation to this measure. The government has had legal advice in relation to this package. We believe we are secure in relation to court action, but there is nothing we can do to stop an individual taking action in the court and it would be up the courts, all the way to the High Court, to do that. The member for Stuart also raised the issue of heritage agreements. There is no intention to force heritage agreements on to landowners. He may be confusing that with the land management agreements that we have in mind.

The Hon. P.F. CONLON (Minister for Government Enterprises): I move:

That the time for moving the adjournment of the house be extended beyond 6 p.m.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will not take much longer. I wanted to address the issue the member for Stuart raised about the activities of Mr Brinkworth and the relationship between Mr Brinkworth and government officers. This is not just about Mr Brinkworth: it is not a 'get Tom Brinkworth' piece of legislation, despite the way it has been characterised in the media. A minority of landholders have made it difficult to progress this legislation, which is to try to achieve an outcome, which the majority of landowners desperately want and have pleaded with the government to get on with and achieve. The phone calls to my office have been very much in support of this legislation from landholders.

Mr Brinkworth's name has been raised. It is important the house understands some of the concerns we have with Mr Brinkworth and his activities.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are not going to say something bad about my mate Tom?

The Hon. J.D. HILL: I will give some facts. In relation to drain construction, Mr Brinkworth's Mandina Bypass drain was constructed without authorisation. It severed a wildlife corridor linking areas of vegetation held under heritage agreement. When Mr Brinkworth constructed the Taunta Hut drain, the Native Vegetation Council and the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board went out of their way to design a system for him and had it approved in principle. He then refused to lodge an application, ignored the design and cut through native vegetation. His drain construction activities have created major problems with some of the major roads.

Mr Brinkworth has constructed drains on proposed drainage alignments across his properties, forcing the government to negotiate outside the competitive tendering process. This occurred in relation to the Holt Park drain, the northern outlet drain and the Water Valley drain. Mr Brinkworth has shown disregard for environmental outcomes in his construction activities. For example, he has not stockpiled topsoil for reuse when he constructed the northern outlet drain. He cleared 100 hectares of land along the northern outlet drain alignment before a native vegetation management plan could be agreed. Mr Brinkworth has made strategic land purchases at the junctions of all proposed government drains, thus preventing or pre-empting drain construction and denying benefit to upstream neighbours. Some of Mr Brinkworth's privately constructed drains have discharged on to other people's properties, causing nuisance.

In response to the member for Stuart, there are eight native vegetation breaches by Mr Brinkworth that are presently under review and prosecutions are being launched. Mr Brinkworth has sought to circumvent prosecutions under the Native Vegetation Act by offering the government access to land to build drains if the government would drop investigation into his breaches of the act. If we were to follow that, we would be acting contrary to our own laws. Mr Brinkworth has been prosecuted in the past for assaulting an authorised officer under the Native Vegetation Act. Mr Brinkworth also has a past criminal conviction against his name for unauthorised native vegetation clearance. I would not have read out those statements, except for the fact that members opposite raised Mr Brinkworth's name and, in particular, said he had been protected by officers who were not prepared to take him on. My officers are prepared to take on Mr Brinkworth or anyone in this state who breaches the legislation.

This bill is about trying to get this drain sorted out, to try to get an important piece of infrastructure in the South East constructed so that the landowners in that area get the benefits that they so desperately want, and so that the local environment is protected. I thank all members for their contribution to the debate.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The advice I have had is that the commonwealth is satisfied with the arrangements that we have in place, but it is always up to them to change their mind. I hope they are. It would be tragic if they were not satisfied, because the reality is that if we do not get the powers to get ahead with this drain I believe the scheme will collapse, and that will be in no-one's interest.

Having said those words, I thank the opposition very much. I particularly want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support. I think he has shown true leadership. It would have been easy for him to have said, 'Look, this is draconian legislation. The Minister for the Environment is a Robert Mugabi,' and he could have gone up and down the countryside having a go at us. It would have meant that the collapse of the scheme, but he could have made some political points. However, he did not do that. He had the guts to go into his own party room and support this. I am very grateful to him and to the Hon. Caroline Schaefer for their support, and also the member for Unley, who is the shadow minister for water resources.

The Hon. D.C. Brown interjecting:

The Hon. J.D. HILL: The member for MacKillop is not supporting the legislation, Deputy Leader. But I must say that his contribution was measured, and the honourable member is obviously well informed about the facts of the case. So, I am not critical of him for having a different position because I know he is arguing the case as he genuinely believes it.

In conclusion, I thank the officers of my department, particularly Mr Roger Wickes, who developed the legislation, and parliamentary counsel for constructing it in a relatively short period of time.

Bill read a second time.

Mr BRINDAL: The opposition indicates that it will have no questions to ask in the committee stage.

The SPEAKER: Before the house proceeds to the third reading, can I say that from my position I hope that it does not defer the drainage works in the South East which would have - should it be so that they are deferred - disastrous consequences in no small measure for an ever-increasing area of land that becomes salinised in consequence of the drains not being constructed.

The land settlement of the South East is an egg that has been scrambled and cannot be unscrambled, other than by the application of this technology. What happens in the Lower South East is different to what happens farther north. The minister has taken the advice available to him. The opposition has made its position on the question clear. There is no member voicing their dissent on the matter.

I am apprehensive about the constitutionality of the measure. Though more than the wish for expedition for the drainage system to be completed, it is not appropriate for me to comment, because I do not have sufficient knowledge of either the law or of the science that might be relevant in this context. All parties need to remember that it is the public interest they should seek to serve, not their own political agendas.

The opposition having indicated that it has no wish to take the bill into committee, I invite any other member of the house to indicate their wish for the bill to go into committee. Should it be their wish to do so, it is their right for that to happen. There being no member intending to do so, I call on the minister, who may choose to move that the bill now be read a third time.

The Hon. J.D. HILL (Minister for Environment and Conservation): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop): I would very briefly like to speak to the third reading.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, and I guarantee that I will not be any longer than last time. Mr Speaker, you just said that nobody voiced disapproval. I just want to put on the record that in fact I did say no to the vote at the second reading, as did the member for Stuart. May I just say that the way this bill is at this point, notwithstanding the fact that the opposition in the other place did put in some measures to water down the vesting of the land in the minister with no compensation, I have very severe reservations. The commonwealth will be unable, even if it was willing, to be a party to this particular project if the minister uses those powers that the house is about to give him.

I believe that the commonwealth will be unable to be a funding partner. I have sought advice on that matter, and I do not have the definitive advice to hand at this stage. But, that is my belief. My preliminary advice was along those lines, and I really lament that this measure that this power that the house is about to give the minister may indeed frustrate this project even more than the minister believes it has been frustrated already.

I hope that that is not the case, but I have severe concerns that that may well be the case and, as I said in the second reading, I am sure the minister and his advisers should go back and read section 51C of the Constitution.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: I think it is 51C. In any event, I am sure that the Attorney will be able to find the area in the federal Constitution which provides-

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes- 'just and due terms'. The Attorney know what I am talking about. As I have indicated, I certainly want this project to proceed to its end, and I believe there are a number of ways in which that can be achieved without this legislation. I hope the minister takes some very sound advice on that point.

Bill read a third time and passed.

OFFICIAL HANSARD REPORT from Thursday 5 December 2002.