HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-02-06 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACT REPORT 2011-12

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:03): I move:

That the 75th report of the committee, entitled Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 Annual Report 2011-12, be noted.

Following the visit to the Upper South-East in November 2011, the Natural Resources Committee tabled its annual report on the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act on 1 December 2011. The report included recommendations relating to further investigations by the department for water, now part of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

Members thought that the 2010-11 annual report would be the final report of the Natural Resources Committee on the act, which was due to expire at the end of 2012. However, a motion to extend the operation of the act is, as you would know, sir, currently before the lower house.

In our last annual report, we also stated the committee's intention to keep a watching brief on the Upper South-East program. Whilst the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources and the Upper South East Drainage Board remain strong supporters of the program, they admit that they are still learning the best way in which to manage an extremely large and complex system intended to provide environmental and agricultural benefits within the highly-modified landscape. The program repeatedly emphasises its adaptive management approach, with the management decisions based on ongoing monitoring and the quality and quantity of the water available.

Opponents of the program will continue to follow up and refer perceived program failures to the government and this committee for as long as they continue. These issues mainly relate to the failure of the program to provide water to high-value wetlands, both in terms of water quality and quantity. Since tabling this report last year, the committee has heard evidence from the department detailing measures intended to address these problems, including in particular the removal of an embankment on privately held land upstream of affected wetlands.

Members also noticed there have been no major rainfall events since the committee made its visit to the Upper South-East in November 2011. As a result, it would be unfair to judge the performance of the drainage network in delivering the flows to wetlands until the major rains had occurred. The committee also heard that the department is proposing to construct another South-East flows restoration program, using commonwealth funds, to contribute additional surface water from the South-East to the Coorong. This new drainage alignment is intended to partially mimic the natural pre-drainage surface water flows.

Committee members have formed the view that it is too early to make a judgement as to whether the program has been a success or not, particularly in relation to the impact of the Bald Hill/Wimpinmerit Drain on the West Avenue wetlands. Consequently, we offer this report and it is our intention to look further into the matter in 2013. As I said in my opening comments, I note the South East Drainage System Operation and Management Bill that was introduced into this house on 31 October by the former minister Paul Caica.

I would like to commend the members of the committee—Mr Geoff Brock MP, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars MLC—for their contributions. Finally, I would like to thank our parliamentary staff for their excellent assistance and, in addition, the many departmental staff who have also supported us, not only with our trips and study tours to the Upper South-East but also in trying to look at this very complex issue.

The SPEAKER: The member for Hammond.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:07): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate you on your ascension to the very eminent post of Speaker. In rising to make some comments re the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 report, drainage in the South-East is something that has happened over the last century or so and has actually realised many gains for properties, especially with the McCourt property down near Beachport and other properties through the region, around the Lucindale/Callendale region and other areas in the South-East. I note this report is dealing with land from south of Tintinara and Salt Creek.

Drainage management is a complex issue as I am sure the committee found out in their erstwhile endeavours. There are very many debates from differing landholders on the benefits or not of these drains and there are certainly concerns on how some of these especially latter-day drains have been implemented.

The REFLOWS project is a project working on getting more water into the Coorong. Certainly, as a member of the Select Committee on Sustainable Farming we have had some interesting people speak to us for and against this project. There are also concerns in the South-East about people looking for shale gas reserves and the amount of drainage of water that would have to be taken out of the area. Certainly some people in that area have had negative impacts from drains and have had areas flooded because drains have gone in and have made land unusable.

As the member who represents the seat at the mouth of the River Murray, we are always keen to get more water into the river and lakes and certainly to get the Coorong somewhere back to what it used to be before the drought that had such a high impact. The rise in salinity was massive. There certainly needs to be a lot more work done as the REFLOWS project happens. I also note the work that has happened in the past with pastoralists like Tom Brinkworth and his own drainage system that he put in place for his extensive raft of properties.

I note that in the conclusions of the committee there is talk about it being relatively dry. It has been relatively dry in the South-East for many years. All the drainage network that is already in place has not had to be utilised to its full potential and it is still not known whether there will be enough water to get that wetlands back to where they want, the Parrakie wetlands and other wetlands that people want to see restored to their former glory. Part of the conclusions in the report states:

While the program seems to be working well in terms of reducing dryland salinity, for many landholders reducing flooding and returning flows to the Coorong, it remains to be seen whether it will enable the restoration of high-value remnant wetlands.

Some landholder-constructed banks have been removed on the West Avenue watercourse, and these are working in to get more flows through because of the reduced flows that are happening now. As I noted earlier, there is certainly reduced winter rainfall and there are some deep drainage systems nearby.

I note that the committee reserves its judgement on the third REFLOWS drain, the South-East flows restoration program proposed by the department. I also note that the committee mentioned in the conclusions that on the face of it this project seems to be a good idea in that it will further restore original surface water flows to the Coorong and that it will mostly utilise existing drains. I think so long as existing drains can be used in the main, it will be a very positive matter, but as I indicated earlier in my contribution, drainage works are a very emotive subject when brought up amongst landholders. Some can see the positive benefits, but some can see a negative as well.

As I indicated, some farmers have had negative impacts because there has not been the appropriate consultation and next thing they have had parts of their land flooded out and they have not had the opportunity to use that land for their farming operations as they have in the past. If there can be more investigation done to make the REFLOWS project absolutely work for the area and bring the wetlands and the Coorong back to better health, I applaud that, but we have to take the community with us.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:14): Mr Speaker, first of all, I welcome you and congratulate you on rising to your position. The drainage in the South-East first started about 150 or 160 years ago and it is only through that drainage that the South-East is so productive today. In recent times I think some major stuff-ups have happened with where they are trying to put water, and how they are trying to put that water, and how they have dug some of these drains too deep so that they have ended up mixing very low quality water with very good water that could have gone into some of those wetlands.

There have been major problems but I must say that they certainly have improved a lot of land that was suffering from dryland salinity. There have been many positives and many negatives, but I believe that, before any further drainage work is done in the South-East, there should be a full and proper inquiry into exactly how these systems work, exactly what the threats are, identifying where the mistakes have been made, and trying to work out how we can fix some of those mistakes.

I certainly would never support taking water from the Lower South-East up through the Upper South-East and into the Coorong when that water would be at the expense of some of our ephemeral lakes along the coast such as Lake George. That is where those waters should be going and, also, those good waters should be used for recharging our aquifers rather than going out to sea. I think a lot more work has to be done over the next few years before we make any more mistakes and, of course, once you make those mistakes, they take a lot of money to rectify and they will do a hell of a lot of damage to the South-East. I think we should tread very carefully and have a decent look at how the whole system works.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:16): As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, I can certainly say that the opposition endorses the report. It is important, I think, that this house understands—and certainly the chair of the committee does, and makes it clear, but it is probably worth repeating—that since 2006, the Natural Resources Committee has been responsible for oversight of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002, and it is in that vein that this report is done.

It is not something that was necessarily recommended to us or pursued by the committee but it is something that the committee takes very seriously and has a very strong interest in. We are lucky to have heard from the member for Hammond today who understands these issues very well, and I know that the member for MacKillop also has some very strong views on this issue. Strong views seem to be the theme of just about anything to do with water around the place at the moment and this is no different. In our travels we have met with people who are exceptionally passionate. The passion is the common theme but the beliefs are not always common in these areas.

Again, to have the member for Mount Gambier on our committee is a fantastic opportunity for us because he has good knowledge and insight and, essentially, most of the water that travels through this whole enormous scheme throughout the South-East starts near Mount Gambier, so he is very knowledgeable and makes a good contribution. One thing I would like to highlight before I sit down is the conclusion to reserve our judgement on the third REFLOWS drain. It is important to say that that is genuinely exactly what it is—reserving our judgement. It is not that the committee is saying that we oppose it, and it is not that the committee is saying it should proceed. There are some serious questions that can be answered with more information and I think that this is the most important conclusion to come out of this report. As always, I thank my colleagues on the committee and I thank the staff members who work very hard on our committee too.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (11:19): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I take the opportunity to congratulate you on your elevation to that most august office.

The SPEAKER: Thank you.

Mr WILLIAMS: I came into this place about 15 years ago having previously served on the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board for a period of time, and was motivated to stand at the election in 1997 because of matters pertaining to water in the South-East. Very few people who reside in this state have a full understanding of the complexity of the South-East. It is quite different from the rest of South Australia, and two things make it quite different; one is the landscape. It is relatively flat with a series of extinct coastlines which have formed a series of sand dunes which are, by and large, parallel to the existing coastline. These have prevented, historically, the free flow of water from the other distinct feature of the South-East, the abundant rainfall that occurs in that part of the state, and prevented the natural flow of that rainfall to the sea.

Prior to white settlement, much of the South-East was basically an extensive wetland and, as I have told the house many times before, the surveyor-general, George Woodroffe Goyder, stated in 1864 that, in his opinion, about half the land between Salt Creek and the Victorian border became inundated between one and six feet deep every winter and some of it never dried out. So, it is a unique landscape.

We have changed it dramatically by doing two things, and one is that we drained it extensively. We started draining it in about 1863, and we got serious about draining the region as a state in the late 1860s. We continued that work right up until the last couple of years with the completion of the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Program. We have almost continuously been digging drains across that landscape, and that has changed it dramatically. The other thing we did was denude most of the landscape of the natural vegetation and, again, that has had a significant impact on the water balance of the region; indeed, that was what caused the Upper South-East to be drained over the last 10 or 15 years.

The story, as it goes, is that, following the clearing of the Upper South-East of its natural vegetation, the farmers of the area planted lucerne. The lucerne species was attacked severely by a couple of predator insects, particularly in the late 1970s, which wiped out most of the lucerne stands across that landscape and, without any deep-rooted perennial plants in that landscape of the Upper South-East, the rainfall percolated through the soil profile and created a scenario where the watertable was rising and bringing saline water to the surface, creating the typical dryland salinity impact. That is what caused, first of all, a significant inquiry, an environmental impact study and then, finally, the construction of the drainage system.

In the latter years, as this scheme has progressed, we have had the other water issue which has bedevilled this nation, and particularly South Australia, that is, the management of the Murray-Darling system. Some, including myself, believe that it is the right thing to return some of the flows from the South-East of the state which would have, historically, entered the Coorong and that environment around the mouth of the River Murray. It is my personal belief that the flows of water from the South-East into the Coorong were quite significant.

In fact, the southern base of the Coorong's demise in recent years has been more caused by what we have done in the South-East of the state than what has been done in the River Murray. The jury is still out on that, obviously, but we do have government agencies helping, not just restoring some of the flows back towards the Coorong but, in my opinion, attempting to poach as much water as they can from the South-East of the state and returning it to the Coorong, thereby offsetting South Australia's requirements or obligations under the Murray-Darling plan.

Obviously, my constituents in the South-East, and particularly in the Mid and Lower South-East are very concerned about this. They are concerned that moves to fix one man-made problem by another man-made engineering solution may just shift the problem, and may indeed extend the problem, and they may well be the losers in that particular exercise. That is one reason.

I note in the conclusion that the committee noted that the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2002 was before the parliament and the then minister was seeking a further extension of that act. I do not need to remind the house that that bill to extend that came to rest in the other place with the help of the minor parties and Independents supporting the Liberal Party's opposition to the extension of that.

I am delighted as the member for the South-East, my electorate being the area of the state where all of the works under that act had been undertaken, that that act is now no longer on the statute books of this state. I argued vehemently against it on the last day of sitting in 2002, and I have argued against that act and some of the works under that act that have been undertaken in a manner in which the local landowners have been overridden on many occasions.

We do have a scheme which, by and large, is of benefit. It is arguable whether it could have been better, but the work has now been done and the scheme has now been completed. I think I heard the member for Mount Gambier saying, as I came into the chamber, that we need to be very cautious before we take the next move. That is one of the reasons why I argued in our party room—and obviously the message was successfully argued in the other place—not to extend the act, because I believe and we believe that the agencies administering that act were riding roughshod over the local communities.

Local communities deserve to have a significant say in the future of their region and the environment and landscape in that area. So, I am delighted that there will be a bit of hesitation now, and I hope a lot more work is done and a lot more soul searching and thought is put into the way forward from here with regard to shifting water out of the South-East into the Coorong.

As I said a moment ago, in principle I support that idea. I think what we need to do is work out how much water we should be moving out of one landscape into another. I accept that every litre that we can put into the southern basin in the Coorong will be beneficial to that particular environment, but we need to fully understand the impacts that is going to have on the environment from which we are taking that water—that is, further down into the South-East of the state. I do not accept that that work has been thoroughly done.

There are a lot of other projects I believe should be undertaken with regard to the draining system in the South-East, particularly so we can control the flows. The South-East, like the rest of south-eastern Australia, has suffered a particularly dry period over the last 10 to 15 years and I can attest, from my observations, that the landscape that I live in and have worked most of my life in has changed dramatically in the last 20 to 30 years. We have different rainfall patterns and the landscape is considerably drier than what it was 30 years ago.

I think we should, as a state, be very wary about any further moves, because it may well exacerbate that situation. The South-East is one of the most agriculturally productive parts of the state, and it would be an absolute disaster for us to undermine the ability of that region to continue to do what it has done historically, and that is be a major producer of food and fibre for the people of this state. I commend the report. I thank the members of the committee for the work that they have done. It only helps to broaden the understanding of issues in this unique part of the state.

Motion carried.

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