HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE: WELLINGTON WEIR

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:09): It is with a great deal of interest that I have followed this whole Murray River debacle, much of it perpetrated by a lack of action, particularly in the South Australian sector, by the Rann Labor government. What is happening down there is an absolute outrage and a disgrace. If I am told again that rain will fix it, I will scream. However, the fact of the matter is that nothing has occurred since 2002. We have no more water coming down.

I have suggested to the members of the Labor Party that it would do the world of good to jump in an aeroplane and fly over the lakes and the southern reaches of the Murray and have a look at the disaster that has been perpetrated upon the residents and the environment of the Lower Lakes. It is an absolute outrage and, quite frankly, it is something about which they should hang their collective heads in shame.

The reality is that the $14 million that is to be spent on this project will just be a drop in the ocean. I note that the member for Hammond put out a press release in the last day or so in which he pointed out the futility of trying to put in these roads and what will happen down there.

I visited the site a couple of years ago, and there was still the odd drop of water left in the lakes. For the life of me, I do not know how anyone is going to construct these roads to Pomander Island and elsewhere just to accommodate the building of a temporary weir, which we oppose. We have opposed that from day one and, as sure as night follows day, the strong indications are that when this weir is built sea water will be let back in and we will have this saline solution. The Premier has said it, but he has also said at other times that they are not going to build a weir, that it is the last thing they want to do. Indeed, the member for Norwood a few minutes ago said that they do not want to build the weir, so it is the blind leading the blind here, I think.

We have these grandiose announcements on desalination—and this is the latest grandiose announcement: doubling the size of it—but we need to remember that it was the Liberal Party that put forward the proposal for a desalination plant in the first instance. Then the Rann government came along and picked up the idea and now 'Rudd the dud' is going to double the size of it.

Interestingly, we are being told that the desalination plant will be powered by sustainable energy. I am not quite sure where this sustainable energy is going to come from. Also, I do not think enough wind power is being generated in South Australia to fill the enormous demands that will be required by this desalination plant at Port Stanvac when it is up and running.

Some of us visited the desalination plant at Kwinana in Western Australia, and one of the issues that was brought to our attention was the enormous power needs. The fact is that they are powering that largely from wind turbines from the nearby wind power turbine farm. Starfish Hill at Cape Jervis is currently powering about 26,000 homes, I think, but there is no way known that it can actually support the powering of the new desalination plant. So, I do not know where the sustainable power will come from.

In relation to this weir, there is an overwhelming feeling from the lakes residents that the weir is in the long-term worst interests—

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: If you want to have a go, member for Mawson, you can get up in a minute. You can stand up when I am finished and go your hardest.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: Well, it is your outfit that has let the state run out of water. Away you go. You are the ones who have left no water, and I dare say that your constituents down there will know all about it.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: You are babbling away like a chook in a chook cage. The government will be held to account on this water issue, big time. I was at a function last night with the Italian community, and they were talking to me about the water issue—it was water, water, water.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: And what was the occasion?

Mr PENGILLY: Here comes the Attorney, chiming in: parrot, parrot, parrot. The reality is that the Rann Labor government has failed dismally on supplying water in this state.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You can't even remember what last night was.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your protection. The inane interjections from the Attorney-General do not particularly worry me too much.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So, what were you celebrating last night?

Mr PENGILLY: It was Italian National Day.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Were you just having a drink? You can't remember what it was about.

The SPEAKER: Order, the Attorney!

Mr PENGILLY: I actually have to drive my car, Attorney, so you can draw your own conclusions from that. The fact is that water is the number one issue for South Australians at the moment, and the lack of action by the Rann Labor government in securing water for this state is a disgrace and an outrage—and here we are going down the track where we will spend, supposedly, $14 million on building a road and weir that no-one wants. We have no more water and we do not look like getting any more water—the indications for this winter are extremely grim—and we should be looking at long-term planning for water rather than short-term solutions. In my view this weir is a disastrous step for the future of the Lower Lakes region.

I look forward to hearing what my colleague the member for Hammond has to say shortly, but I await with interest the comments now from the Attorney-General and the member for Mawson on where they view the state of water in South Australia.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:16): I rise to respond to this motion in regard to the Public Works Committee hearing on access roads for the Wellington weir. Never before have I seen such a path of futility as these roads. We keep on being told that there is a 'no regrets' policy, that they will build these roads with no regrets, causing significant upheaval to the landholders—both the Withers family on Nalpa and the McFarlane family at Wellington Lodge. Both landholders are heavily opposed to the construction of the weir and were involved in major negotiations over an extended period of time, and I believe in the end it was a little bit of push and shove by the government to finally get the approvals through. So, reluctantly in the end, I believe both parties signed approval for access.

Is interesting to note that on the eastern, Wellington Lodge side of the weir, where you can presently get right to the edge of the water in a two-wheel drive vehicle, they are actually using some matting to offset the black mud base and give some stability for the road-making. However, I believe the road would have to be something like a metre deep on that side alone to give the stability needed for the B-double trucks carting the rocks to the proposed weir site at Pomanda Island.

Just last week I ventured out on Nalpa station on the western side of the weir, and I urge all members of parliament to take the opportunity to do so as well. I would be more than happy to organise a meeting with the Withers family and take members out on the site to see the insanity of the whole project. There are 12 to 14 kilometres of road being built on that side, and I think they have got to about a kilometre or two of the island, but massive cracking has opened up where they want to build the roadway. In fact, one crack is about two-thirds of a metre across and a metre deep; a calf had fallen in it and died, because it could not get out. There is significant cracking all the way along, especially in the final stages. This is, essentially, swampy country, but the government now expects B-double trucks to traverse it every three minutes.

I believe there will be some major issues in finalising this road. As I said earlier, it has caused significant distress to the landholders. Currently all the gates are ripped out on Nalpa Station where this roadway goes through. I note that eventually grids will go in (I saw the grids sitting there myself) that will stop stock access but will allow the owners and other people travelling through access to the property, but these have not yet been installed. Essentially the place has been left to run as one big paddock, and that is not very good for running and breeding cattle or keeping bulls out of cow paddocks, etc.

I refer to issues that I raised in my comments to the committee back in November. The committee states in its report:

It was suggested to the Committee that salt being carried downstream in the River Murray will separate from the water and be deposited at the Wellington Weir if that structure is built and have adverse consequences for water offtakes at that point. However, the water coming down the river has salinity which is uniformly mixed—

this was in the answer from SA Water—

and such water does not separate naturally and SA Water does not anticipate any salinity problems as a result of a weir being built at Wellington.

That is a very interesting comment because the weir is supposedly to safeguard Adelaide's water. I would like to know whether this government can guarantee that it will get the water, not only to fill the void between Blanchetown and the Pomanda Island weir, if it is built, which is roughly 70 gigalitres of water, but also whether it can guarantee the 350 gigalitres of water which will be absolutely necessary annually to give the adequate dilution flow to keep water at potable standard.

I say this because I know that plans are on the table to desalinate water at the Tailem Bend-Keith pipeline offtake at Tailem Bend if need be—a $75 million proposal. When I asked Ross Carter from SA Water, within earshot of the minister, what they were going to do with the salt, he said, 'That's a good question.' The simple fact is that, in normal flow years, two million tonnes of salt flow down that river.

It was mentioned earlier that there is no problem behind the other locks with salinity. That is because the locks are not at the end of the stream or getting towards the end of the stream. Where the proposed weir is to be built is where all the flushing of the river takes place between the lake side and the river side. I do not think anyone in the government has understood the changes in the amount of water depending on whether you have a northerly blow or a southerly blow. You can take water from the main stream, and it comes into the lakes, or it can come out from the lakes and put all the boats on their base—that is those that are not already on the base now.

I think there are significant issues, especially with salinity and the amount of water that is needed to make sure that there is enough water to get that dilution flow. As I said, the answer that SA Water gave about there being no evidence of water quality issues on any other locks and weirs on the River Murray was that there is no reason why a weir at Wellington should be different. Why then has the spillway, which will be set at 0.1 AHD, gone from being 300 metres wide to 1,200 metres wide in a sinking structure? Then we are told that they are trying to design pipes in the base of this structure, so I think it is all about managing salinity.

We were informed early on, back in 2007, that the structure would sink a metre every 12 or 18 months. Last week, at a meeting in Murray Bridge, Ross Carter from SA Water indicated that it would sink only half a metre in the three year proposed lifespan of the weir. Either the silt has got a lot heavier at Wellington or the rocks have got a lot lighter. I would like to know the answer, because I cannot see how the engineering has changed that much that it will not sink the same amount.

In the little bit of time I have left, I make the point that the government says that, to get past the winter in 2010, up to 200 gigalitres of water is needed. That is essentially correct. It is only 220 gigalitres of water, essentially—that is the number that is being floated about—and that includes the 50 gigalitres that Peter Garrett, the federal minister, insisted should be made available for the trade-off for the Goolwa-Clayton bund. I note that that water will not be delivered until January next year.

The government has been saying in the house, and the minister has been very keen to tell me, that I have no idea, that I am delusional in regard to water purchases because there is no water to purchase. This came straight from a government DWLBC staffer the other night: the government has purchased 218 gigalitres of water this water year. That is not too bad for a government that says there is no water to purchase.

Even though the government went out to the community and said that the weir will not equal sea water, Premier Mike Rann made some comments on 891 radio last Monday. When he was asked, 'If night follows day, does sea water follow the weir?' he said 'It would have to.' So, make up your own minds about that.

It is interesting to note—not that I have agreed with everything that has come from Allan Holmes—that he indicated that bioremediation, which has been a belated attempt by the government to catch up with the community, is a far better option for the Lower Lakes. What has happened in the Lower Lakes is a disaster. It has been exacerbated by the lack of action by this government, which has belatedly taken on our policy of desalination and done very little in the way of aquifer storage and recovery plans for stormwater. I condemn the whole proposal.

Time expired.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:26): Everyone is aware that South Australia is experiencing the worst drought in history, and it is continuing. Even though, in the eastern states, they are having rains and we are having rains in certain parts of South Australia, we are not getting the rains in the catchment area of the river, and that is a crying shame. There is a great need now to ensure that there is adequate water for critical human needs.

Our party position, with regard to the building of a temporary weir at Wellington, is clear and always has been, so I will not go on about that, other than to congratulate the member for Hammond on being very steadfast in his resolve in relation to this issue. He has not flinched and he has not wavered, and I admire him for that. There has been many a debate held on this matter, and I commend him for his strength and resolve in representing his constituency.

This report, to which I now refer, states that in dry years water inflows into the Mount Lofty Ranges can be very low, with Adelaide sourcing up to 90 per cent of its requirements from the River Murray. The report states:

It is estimated that 85 per cent of the state's population is dependent on water sourced from the River Murray downstream from Lock 1.

I know that the Barossa Valley's supply is dependent on that source. I think these two statements are extremely important. They reiterate the notion that we have been pushing for on this side of the house for a very long time: that Adelaide must be weaned from the Murray. I think it was then minister Brindal, back in 1998-99, who wrote an article on waterproofing Adelaide. He was the first to discuss how we must wean Adelaide off the Murray. If the desal plant had been fast tracked and more stormwater recycling infrastructure had been put in place, from that point in time we may not have been in the position we are now in where this report is even necessary.

I was interested to read in the report that the committee is aware that much of the area around the location of the proposed Wellington weir is too soft to support a significant structure without it sinking. I would think that even a temporary weir would be a very significant structure and, if it is not, I would like to know why it is not considered a significant structure. The report states:

The committee has been assured by SA Water that no decision has been reached to construct a temporary weir at Wellington. The state's preferred option is not to build a weir. This preference, however, relies upon sufficient inflows to avoid the worst case scenario which underpins the project.

I understand that there is a need to minimise salinity in any water supply that is to be used as a potable supply. However, I reiterate that had a desalination plant been constructed (and up and running by now), and had the state Rann Labor government taken a leaf out of Salisbury council's book and begun a program of stormwater harvesting, a weir at Wellington may not have needed to be considered as we would not be drawing so much water from the river for our critical human needs.

Yes, we are in a dire situation and, yes, the report is noted. However, after six years, I am very concerned that the Rann Labor government has done nothing about constructing anything to save water. There has been a lot of talk, a lot of rhetoric and reports—including this one—but, if we do not get water in the catchment area now or towards the end of this year, we will be in a dire situation.

You have to consider what Adelaide's options will be in the worst possible scenario. Really, you do not want to think too deeply about it, but I think we have to. There have to be plans put in place and, even if they are not made public, the plans have to be in place to say what we will do to guarantee Adelaide's minimal critical human needs. That is what we need to do.

Nothing much has been said about Adelaide's own groundwaters. It ought to have been brought up and discussed by now so that the public has an expectation that, if it gets any worse, they will lose the right to draw from Adelaide's water table, because we cannot just let people suck water out of the ground willy-nilly and put it on their gardens when, in a few weeks or months down the track, that may be needed to be cleaned up for Adelaide's critical human needs.

I do appreciate the work that the committees do in this house; there ought to be more of it. I note the report, but let us hope that it rains in the meantime and we do not need to build this weir.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:31): I will just make a short contribution on this, because I have some personal experience with this particular area of the River Murray and the lakes. My wife and I used to own 650 acres of land—everything south of Wellington on the Adelaide side—and we used to run some steers down there. We had this tongue of property that went down the last three kilometres of the river and hooked around through reed beds and wetlands back to part of the lakes.

Both sides of the southern part of the property were protected by quite substantial levee banks. The issue that I have with building a weir down there is that, based on the things I used to see down there with wind and water flows, it is going to be a real engineering challenge for anybody who wants to put in a structure there.

I took my father's fishing boat out on the river that used to go past the property with the depth sounder on and, as you are going down past Wellington towards the lakes, the river is up to 60 or 70 feet deep in the old imperial measurements. It does obviously come up as you get into the lakes, but there is a huge volume of water there that moves back and forward with the wind.

The levee banks that we had on our property were, on the river side, about 2½ metres above the river and about the same on the lake side. It would take probably a couple of hours when the wind changed and came in from the south for that water to go from that level below the levee banks to, in some cases, nearly the top of the levee banks. I have seen water on the windward side of our levee banks on the lakes there almost lapping over the tops of those levee banks, nearly two metres above where it had been a couple of hours before because of the huge area of open water there.

I think Lake Alexandrina is the only inland area in Australia where you can actually sail offshore. It is a huge area of water, and the wind that goes across it pushes that water up so that it will come up very quickly to that height. It is a huge height difference and a huge weight difference. The weight of water that must be there behind that push from the wind is incredible.

I was also told by people who lived next to us and over the river from us that the biggest issue that they had in maintaining their particular waterfront was the fact that anything they put there sank into the silt. The silt was estimated to be about 60 feet deep, and they were putting logs and everything in there. It is historical; they have been doing it for years and years just to maintain their banks and protect their properties.

It is going to be an amazing engineering feat to see this not only constructed but then maintained, because the forces of nature that are down there and the geographical situation there are an absolute challenge for any engineer. I wish them luck with their construction, because they are going to need every bit of it, and I look forward to seeing it not be a waste of taxpayers' money from an ecological, hydrological and engineering point of view.

It is a real concern for me having been there and having watched what happens. I am still waiting to be convinced that the solution that has been put up will solve not only the water problems but also the problems for the lakes.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:34): I will say just a few words. I suppose we are in this situation with water in South Australia because of a lack of action by this government. It is interesting that this government's election slogan is, 'Action now for the future', even though it has been in government for more than seven years. There has been no action, but it has obviously been planning for action; it just so happens that it seems to coincide with the election cycle. Water is a classic example of where there has been no action.

I was very interested to hear on the ABC Radio news this morning that the Hon. Stephen Wade from another place, our water spokesman, had done some research on the water infrastructure spend in other states and compared it with that of South Australia. Through his research, he came to the conclusion that in the last five years other states had increased their spending on water infrastructure by 50 per cent, yet South Australia—the driest state in the driest continent—had increased its expenditure by only 10 per cent. That is an appalling record.

Of course, we know the priorities of this government, and we also know how it simply does not understand the importance of water. I remember when the Liberal Party announced the need for a desalination plant in early 2007 how the water minister at the time even ridiculed the proposition, saying that it was not necessary, it was too expensive and it would never happen. It took the government six or seven months finally to agree with the Liberal Party policy of having an additional source of water in South Australia and go ahead with the desalination plant—but not without cost, I must say.

Of course, the first cost is the delay in starting the project, and the second one is the extra $79 million the Public Works Committee revealed had been added to the price of the desalination plant to 'speed it up'. So, the Rann government spent seven months ridiculing the Liberal Party's proposal for a desalination plant, rather than getting on with the job. We are now seeing the South Australian taxpayer paying the price at a time when we simply do not have that sort of money to spare and hear the Treasurer warning us about losing our AAA credit rating. We have heard him warn us about a shortfall of billions of dollars in the forward estimates, and we have heard other examples across Australia of how difficult it is for governments to maintain revenue.

We know that one of the biggest problems with budgets we have in South Australia is controlling spending, and we have seen evidence of that over the last seven years. We have also heard the outcomes of the Budget and Finance Committee, chaired by the Hon. Rob Lucas from the other place, which has time and again exposed examples of budget overruns that have been bailed out by windfall gains in budget revenue; however, that is a story for another day.

Today, we are talking about the Wellington Weir. I was a member of the committee during that hearing, and it was obvious to me that the weir was a desperate measure after years of delay in dealing with South Australia's water supply. I want to return to the point I made earlier—that we know what the priorities of this government are and that they have not been water.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr PISONI: The member for Finniss says that it has a very high priority for itself, and I agree with that. It is all about what is shiny, loud and sparkling. We would like an endless flow of sparkling water but, unfortunately, we do not get that.

In October 2003 there were two significant factors in the South Australian political calendar: first, the Premier announced that there would be a tram down the middle of King William Street; and, secondly, the water minister at the time announced water restrictions for South Australia. Well, we have a tram—and we will see an extension of the tram—but we do not have a solution to water shortages in South Australia. We are still on very strict water restrictions, which have been jacked up several times since they were first announced nearly six years ago.

A number of small projects on which the government has hung its hat have been rolled out in order for it to say that it has actually achieved something while in office. We have seen the tram extension and renovations to the Entertainment Centre. We have heard an announcement about a new hospital at Glenside. That has since been delayed, but there has been no delay in moving in the film hub at a cost of $45 million.

Members will recall that there is not enough money to build a hospital, even though they are selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of public open space, with the money going back into Treasury, but we have seen a priority for the film hub moving from its accommodation at Hendon. It is not as though it is a new industry coming to South Australia which is creating more jobs for people but, rather, new and comfortable accommodation for the film industry, moving into buildings at Glenside. There is no delay there, but of course there has been a delay in our most needed hospital facility.

We heard about the Wellington weir several months ago. I know the member for Hammond is extremely passionate about the Lower Lakes and the River Murray. I congratulate him on his broad knowledge, understanding and passion for ensuring the survival of the Lower Lakes district around Wellington, Goolwa and Clayton. I thank him for the work he has been doing on behalf of not only his constituents but also all South Australians.

Ms CICCARELLO (Norwood) (11:43): At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I remind members of the opposition that when they were in government they pooh-poohed the whole idea that there was a problem with the River Murray. As I have said many times in this place, it was the Minister for Health (Hon. John Hill) who proposed that we set up a select committee for the River Murray to look at the crisis that we were experiencing in South Australia. Again, it was with the support of the former member for Hammond, who was very passionate about the river, that we did manage to get the select committee approved and up and running and produce a report.

I would like to debunk some of what has been said in regard to the whole issue of water—that the priorities of this government have not been with water—and I will mention a few of the projects which have been approved. I will not go back to when we formed government, but they include:

Goolwa Channel Water Level Management Project;

Southern Urban Reuse Project;

Wellington Weir Preliminary Work;

Lower Lakes Irrigation Pipeline—Jervois to Langhorne Creek;

Glenelg Wastewater Treatment Plant Power Supply;

Lower Lakes Pipelines;

Christies Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant;

Murtho Salt Interception Scheme;

Glenelg to Adelaide Parklands Recycled Water Project;

Moorook Country Lands Water Quality Improvement;

Waikerie Lock 2 Salt Interception Scheme;

Adelaide Desalination Plant—Pilot Scheme;

Little Para Dam Safety Upgrade;

Morgan-Whyalla Pipeline Pumping Stations;

Extension of the Virginia Reclaimed Water Pipeline;

Country Water Quality Improvement Program;

Torrens Aqueduct System;

Middle River Water Treatment Plant;

Millbrook Reservoir Safety Upgrade;

River Murray Locks and Weirs Nos 1 to 6;

Eyre Peninsula Water Supply Upgrade;

Modifications to Lock and Weir No. 9;

Mawson Lakes Reclaimed Water Scheme;

Whyalla Wastewater Treatment Plant;

Upper South-East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management;

Bookpurnong Loxton Salt Interception Scheme;

Clare Valley Water Supply Scheme;

Happy Valley Reservoir Rehabilitation;

Streaky Bay Water Supply Augmentation;

Victor Harbor Wastewater Treatment Plant (which, I think, the member for Finniss thought was a great thing);

Port Pirie Wastewater Treatment Plant;

Heathfield Wastewater Treatment Pant;

Old Noarlunga Sewerage Scheme;

Barossa Valley Water Supply; and

Filtered water to the Central Northern Adelaide Hills.

I could go on and on.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Ms CICCARELLO: Thank you very much.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CICCARELLO: A recently tabled report entitled 'Water Resource Management in the Murray-Darling Basin' states:

The present plight of the Murray-Darling Basin is the product of two quite separate catastrophes. The first of these is perhaps a natural event—and, even for those climate change sceptics, it is one of the worst droughts in recorded Australian history. The second catastrophe is unequivocally manmade. It is an unfortunate fact that one product of Australia's constitutional arrangement has been to scatter the jurisdiction and responsibility for the health and survival of the River Murray Basin between four states.

It has been a long, ongoing problem. We have done a lot to redress this issue, and we continue to do so.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT