Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Flood Mitigation FLOOD MITIGATION The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council FLOOD MITIGATION The Hon. R.D. LAWSON (14:47): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question on the subject of flood mitigation. Leave granted. The Hon. R.D. LAWSON Legislative Council The Hon. R.D. LAWSON: Last week, a public meeting was held in Mitcham to hear information about the proposed Brownhill and Keswick creeks flood mitigation plan. It was a very well attended meeting, at which many concerned citizens were present. The Hon. Mark Parnell was present, as were a number of members of the other place and myself. The meeting heard ongoing concerns about the Brownhill and Keswick creeks flood mitigation plan, one element of which is a mammoth concrete flood control dam to catch a one in a hundred year flood. This dam was proposed by Hydro Tasmania. That organisation's CV includes such triumphs as the flooding of Lake Pedder, the proposed Gordon-below-Franklin dam and other celebrated forestry solutions. In July this year, a cost benefit analysis of the Hydro Tasmania solution was published, showing that that solution is not a cost effective proposal, and it has been pointed out by others that the Hydro Tasmania proposal, whilst it might be effective in a one in a hundred year flood, offers no proposal to retain water in the other 99 years. I have previously asked the minister about what the government is doing, and her responses indicated, at that stage, nothing. At the meeting to which I have referred, Mayor John Trainer of the City of West Torrens and other persons with downstream interests were calling for urgent solutions to the problem. The regional subsidiary, proposed between the five local government councils concerned, is currently the subject of mediation, which we were assured would be resolved. My question is: what steps has the minister taken to use her officers to bring together the parties to bring about a rapid solution to this ongoing impasse, which might have catastrophic effects at any stage, bearing in mind that we saw in England only this week a one in 1,000 year flood which caused extensive damage and injury? The Hon. G.E. GAGO Legislative Council Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister Assisting the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Energy) (14:51): Unfortunately, this has been a vexed issue for some time, with five councils working for several years towards joint implementation of a stormwater management and flood mitigation plan for the Brownhill/Keswick Creek catchment and the proposed formation of a joint council authority to manage that project. My understanding is that a memorandum of understanding was reached between the five councils back in 2007 to underpin the work that needed developing and to agree on that joint approach to the catchment. As we know, in July 2008 Mitcham council withdrew from that agreement. It cited a number of concerns, including aspects of the design costs and proposed work and environmental concerns. I understand that a revised MOU was drafted for the five councils, and certainly at all stages we encouraged the councils to work in a cooperative way to resolve these issues. A number of agencies across government have been involved from time to time and have offered encouragement and urged these councils to reach agreement. That MOU was endorsed by four of the councils late last year but, as we know, Mitcham council was not prepared to sign it, and that then provided problems for the other four councils. I understand that in January this year Mitcham council then resolved to withdraw from the Brownhill Creek project, including ceasing to provide any financial contribution to that particular project. In July 2007 the government established the Stormwater Management Authority—the first of its kind in the state—whereby state and local government sectors would work together in a cooperative arrangement in order to maximise outcomes from funds invested in their stormwater management. So, the government was certainly responsible for assisting in the establishment of that task force. The legislation promotes catchment-wide, multi-objective stormwater planning and management for the purposes of flood risk mitigation, environmental outcomes and use. The legislation also enables funds to be used to carry out works and prepare stormwater management plans, and a high priority will be given to the Brownhill Creek and Keswick Creek catchment project to optimise opportunities for stormwater catchment and reuse. The state government has provided funding to the Stormwater Management Authority of $4 million per year, indexed over 30 years. Local government is a third level of government in its own right and has certain powers under a range of legislation. This is a matter for local councils to resolve. It is something that clearly has significant interest for the public, and the state government has worked at a number of levels to assist and encourage these councils to resolve this issue. We are not able to impose these things on local government because it is a matter for them and they have authority under particular legislation. Nevertheless, it is important that this matter is resolved and that the councils concerned are able to move forward.