UPPER SOUTH-EAST DRAINAGE SCHEME

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (15:03): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Environment and Conservation a question about the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme.

Leave granted.

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Over the past few weeks I have had occasion to meet with a number of people affected by the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme, both in public and private forums. It is fair to say that no-one is happy with the progress or outcomes of the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme as it is now being adapted by this government. The one constant these people have is that they all seek an independent environmental audit.

On numerous occasions these people have written to the minister seeking such an audit and seeking a halt to proceedings with the drains until such an audit is conducted. On some occasions they receive a reply but certainly not always. On some occasions they receive a reply which indicates that the 'best science' is being used and that the drain will not only proceed but proceed in its current dimensions and direction. My questions are as follows:

1. Will the minister tell us what science is being used, and will she make this information available to me and to the public?

2. When did she last visit the region to speak with stakeholders?

3. Will she commit to an independent environmental audit?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for Mental Health and Substance Abuse, Minister Assisting the Minister for Health) (15:05): I thank the honourable member for her question. Indeed, I have spoken on the USE scheme in this chamber on a number of occasions, so I am on the record in terms of a number of assessments, scientific analyses and reports that have been done to provide the information and science we need to underpin the development of this drainage network.

Again, this should be put in context. We have had drains in the South-East for 80-odd years: they are not a new phenomenon. It is a very vexed issue. We changed the land management practices of that area, and those changes affected the watertable, which rose, and the salinity levels, which had a significant adverse environmental effect not just on productivity but also on environmental values in that area.

Drains are not a new thing, neither is the fact that they continue to be a contentious issue. There is not a 100 per cent agreement about support for these drains. Nevertheless, we have applied our best minds and our best science to this very difficult issue, and I am happy to supply the details, bring them back to the chamber and make them available. A number are already on record, but I am happy to do it again.

I have visited the region on a number of occasions, and I have also visited a wide range of different stakeholders, including landholders who are opposed to the drain and who have raised concerns about it, as well as those who are supportive of it.

The Hon. C.V. Schaefer: When was that?

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I am just trying to recall the last time I visited; it would have been a number of months ago. Not only have I visited the region but I have also met with various stakeholders here in Adelaide. My door is always open and, whenever I possibly can, I meet with those people who ask to see me. It is not always possible, but whenever I can I attempt to meet with them, whether they be large organisations, individual landholders or simply individuals in their own right; if I cannot, either one of my officers or an agency member meets with them.

In terms of the latest progress on our Reflows project, I think that it is a very positive element to the drainage scheme. It is directly linked with improving environmental flows and, as Minister for the Environment, I think it is part of the project that has particular value. As we know, the USE program is a multicomponent management initiative involving drainage, salt land, agronomy, revegetation, and wetland management. In February 2006, the former Minister for Environment and Conservation endorsed the design principles for the Bald Hill drainage works, contingent on the partial restoration of historic fresh surface water flows from the Lower South-East to improve the health of stressed wetlands and watercourses in the Upper South-East (the Reflows project).

The project comprises the construction of two large interconnecting floodways between the Lower and Upper South-East to provide a vital link between internationally recognised Ramsar-listed Bool Lagoon and the Coorong wetlands.

I am pleased to report that the project feasibility stage is under way and includes the assessment of the environmental impacts. An important component of the environmental assessment is the evaluation of the impacts on Lake George. A final decision on proceeding with the project will be contingent on the outcomes of that feasibility study.

Today I happened to see in the Naracoorte Herald of 28 February an article titled 'Water reflow to lakes', talking about the chairman, Roger Wicks, who argued that the Reflows project was very commendable and one which deserved a fair hearing. This is what has been reported in The Herald:

There is an opportunity to return historic water flows to the north and help restore and rehabilitate some of these important wetlands.

The project is proposed to improve historic waterways to deliver water.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Given that there has been an interjection, I will read it. This is from the Naracoorte Herald:

The Reflows project is proposed to improve historic waterways to deliver water from Mosquito Creek catchment to the Marcollat watercourse and Bakers Range catchment south of Drain M to the northern Bakers Range and West Avenue watercourses.

This is a quote from Roger Wicks:

The Reflows project will target key wetland systems in the Marcollat watercourse, the southern and central and northern portions of the Bakers Range watercourse and the West Avenue watercourse. In very high flow periods, the southern lagoon of the Coorong, a Ramsar-listed wetland of international importance, will also receive flows.

Professor Gary Jones, CEO of eWater CRC in Canberra—again, this is reported in The Herald—said that this was carried out by an independent review and believes it has 'a very significant scientific'—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: Well, we were asked for the scientific reports.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: This is an independent scientific—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: They ask for the science that goes in behind these decisions and, when I give them the information, they do not want to listen. I will just repeat that he is the CEO of eWater CRC in Canberra. He has carried out an independent review and he believes—and this is his quote—that it has:

...very significant scientific merit and is worth pursuing as a program with major national and international ecological benefits.

The authors of the background papers are Maunsell's Lissa van Camp and the South-East Water Conservation and Drainage Board's Michael Talanskas, and they again suggest that the Reflows project will have only positive effects on the Bool Lagoon and other sites of significance, and they go into details about those specifics.

I will conclude by saying that the drains have been there for many decades. It continues to be a contentious issue, and successive governments—including Liberal governments—have invested considerable amounts of money in this drainage system. I find it quite laudable that the Hon. Caroline Schaefer asks questions of this nature when the Liberal government invested considerable amounts of money in the development of this project. This drainage system has been developed over decades, and it continues to be contentious. We continue to try to deliver the best outcomes in terms of both productivity and also environmental values.