The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I rise briefly to associate myself with the remarks of the Chair of this committee and to commend this report to the council and to the government. I echo her thanks to our researcher, Dr Merry Brown, and to our expert secretarial support, Ms Leslie Guy.

Indeed, the members of this committee worked quite collaboratively, quite constructively and very quickly, I believe, to produce this report. It is a pity that the government could not wait just a few hours more to see what this committee had to say, rather than make their announcement without waiting for that document this week.

We know that water supply on Eyre Peninsula has been an issue for a very long time. Indeed, in the evidence to the committee, we saw reflections of the Eyre Peninsula Water Summit of some 22 years ago, identifying the very same issues that we still see today, namely that:

• Eyre Peninsula has a serious water problem that needs early intervention;
• in the long term, the solution does not lie in further exploitation of their underground basins;
• lack of adequate water is and will continue to be a problem for business, for industry, for the environment, for the community and for developmental and environmental management; and
• large-scale desalination does seem to be something that does have not only social licence but less controversy, in this case, than it would otherwise.

I note that the findings of the committee were agreed to by all members of the committee; that is, Labor, the Liberals, the Greens and SA-Best. That is quite a feat in itself, but it probably echoed the majority of the community of Eyre Peninsula as well. Finding No. 10, in particular, is that the committee found that there is no social licence for SA Water to locate a desalination plant at Billy Lights Point—no social licence, for a number of reasons.

Certainly, the Greens were probably more convinced on certain parts of that and probably gave greater weight to certain parts of that than perhaps did the Liberals, SA-Best or even Labor. The case of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation was, I think, evidence of a very poor consultation, very poor cooperation between SA Water and the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation. I found it quite concerning to be given one story from SA Water but to hear a very different story from the Barngarla people and their legal representatives.

I note that the SA Water board has, for the 2022-23 year, allocated an amount of $330 million for the total project budget for this. That, of course, is an allocation that only in this case will suit Billy Lights Point, because it is the cheaper of the options when compared by SA Water to Sleaford West. Their real costs in documents they presented to us for Billy Lights Point were $330 million (or nominal $330 million), surprisingly coming in at the budget they had set for Billy Lights Point, but far more expensive for Sleaford West—$489 million being the supposed real cost and $511 million being the nominal cost. I note that they have written Seaford West in that document, not Sleaford West, so there we go. I think that pretty much sums it up actually.

The Greens came into this inquiry with an open mind. We were happy to listen to the evidence, we certainly found it compelling that there were 40 submissions, dozens of witnesses and deep, deep distrust in the community of SA Water and increasingly of the government. Successive governments have let down the people of Eyre Peninsula on this matter. The environment, industrial and Aboriginal issues may be given whichever weight you like to give them in whichever matrix you wish to use, but the reality here is that SA Water has gone for a cheap option for them, with the threat of increased water prices for South Australia, with little reference to ESCOSA or their social licence to operate.

Not only did the Greens contend that Billy Lights Point does not have a social licence in this case, we question SA Water's role in this debacle. We think the government should have been asking them harder questions, pushing them harder, pushing back harder, and I hope the government reads this report. I would note that the potential court costs have not been factored into the SA Water budget, yet we knew by the end of the committee that SA Water knows there is a legal challenge ahead, and it is not just going to come from the Barngarla people.

I would not be surprised if we saw some form of green bans on Eyre Peninsula with regard to this very controversial proposal. They have chosen the cheapest option and not the option the community supported, which was well researched and recommended. This is incredibly disappointing. We know time is of the essence, but really the choices here from SA Water have been constructed on very flimsy premises. With that, I commend the report.