HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-06-17 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACT

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the 25th report of the committee, on the Upper South-East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act, be noted.

(Continued from 26 November 2008. Page 940.)

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (22:54): This report has been around for some time, although I understand that no-one has yet spoken to it. I think it should not pass without some form of recognition and comment, as I think it is an important report. I am a member of the Natural Resources Committee that prepared this report, but I was not a member at the time it was prepared.

The report concerns the ongoing debate on the construction of deep drains in the Upper South-East. My instinctive position is broadly that nature knows best and that, as far as possible, you work with nature and do not radically reshape landscapes and natural systems. Therefore, the view put by those who oppose the deep drains makes a lot of sense to me, that is, control salinity with deep-rooted planting instead of drains.

I know that many people do not share this view and that a number of the landowners support the deep drain project, so in my remarks I will deal with some of the objective facts as determined by the Natural Resources Committee in this report and some of its findings and look at the disturbing tendency in this debate and address what I think is a misconception around some of the division between the different sides of the debate.

In relation to what I think have been agreed by the Natural Resources Committee as some of the key facts, the deep drainage program was developed in the much wetter period of the 1990s when, after a series of very wet years, it was felt necessary to take action to address flooding of the landscape. To date, the committee report also finds that the digging of drains has had a negative effect on the local wetlands, with only .06 per cent of the pre-drains wetlands still remaining and at least one species (the Yarra pygmy perch) being made extinct by the deep drain project from a local habitat (Henry Creek).

So far, it appears that the drains have certainly had negative environmental effects. In terms of the findings of the committee's report, it found a bias towards deep drainage engineering works evident within the Upper South-East program, with little attention placed on considering alternative measures, such as revegetation and shallow surface drains solutions to salinity and flooding.

The committee found a lack of transparency in relation to the release of program documents, although it found that this had improved under the new chief executive. I will return later to the issue of the lack of transparency. The committee found that there is still some debate and conjecture surrounding the Bald Hill Drain being pursued by the Upper South-East program team as to whether it would result in damage to wetlands and extinction of threatened species; however, it did support the Reflows project proposed as part of the drainage project.

The committee found rigorous and detailed scientific evidence of the rapid decline and probable local extinction of two species of freshwater fish in Henry Creek and the Upper South-East as a direct consequence of the Upper South-East program drainage construction. It found disagreement about appropriate actions to best protect the remaining wetlands, with representatives of the two main government departments charged with overseeing their protection (the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation and the Department of Environment and Heritage) offering starkly contrasting views.

While the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation was effectively urging full steam ahead with drain digging, environment and heritage officers warned that the Reflows drains were unproved and that the last remaining drain to be dug (the Bald Hill Drain) was high risk and should be postponed.

The report's recommendations include that no further steps towards construction of the Bald Hill Drain or Reflows occur until there was a thorough independent assessment of all drainage options on the West Avenue watercourse and wetlands. This is in progress, with the minister considering two reports at the moment: one a community consultation and the other more in the nature of an environmental assessment.

It is important to note that there was also a dissenting report to the Natural Resources Committee report, the Upper South-East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act report, which was provided by my predecessor, the Hon. Sandra Kanck. In her dissenting report, she argued that the committee had been presented with evidence that no wetland in the Upper South-East scheme is in better condition than it was prior to the construction of the drains. The South-East, in general, was comparable to the Kakadu wetlands in the Northern Territory and had been largely destroyed by this program and that what remained should be preserved.

The dissenting report pointed out that the project managers have a poor environmental record. On their watch, the Yarra pygmy perch has become extinct at Henry Creek. These same people should not be trusted to build another drain, she argued. The honourable member thought it was pointless to wait for an environmental impact assessment because the evidence was already in about the impact of the earlier drains.

I want to return to a disturbing tendency that has emerged during this debate, that is, the attempt to suppress, censor and distort evidence by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

Mr Frank Burden, former commonwealth government senior scientist turned beef farmer, who owns and operates a property near Tintinara in the Upper South-East, alleged that the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation had attempted to silence various critics of the project and drew the committee's attention to a letter written by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation's former chief executive, Rob Freeman, in which he said, 'I would urge the Committee not to publish Mr Burdens submission.' This was a letter he wrote to a Senate committee investigating salinity.

The Natural Resources Committee found evidence supporting Mr Burden's claims of what they termed unhelpful departmental performance. Mr Frank Burden also gave a list of 31 reports associated with the Upper South-East program, allegedly suppressed by the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

CDs supplied by Mr Willis of the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation contained some of the allegedly suppressed reports; others were sourced from other places. The committee also was critical of what they saw as attempts to suppress information in this context. This tendency to suppress or distort information appears to have continued. On 30 April, I asked a question on this issue of the Minister for State/Local Government Relations, representing the Minister for Environment and Conservation. My briefing notes state:

In the last few years the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation has been accused of suppressing information by a number of parties including the Natural Resources Committee of parliament. In 2008 the Upper House in noting the report of the Natural Resources Committee into Deep Creek actually voted to condemn those officers who either misled the committee and therefore the parliament or who failed to provide requested information to the committee.

This experience was repeated in relation to the Upper South East Drainage Scheme where the NRC Committee report 'To Drain or Not to Drain', which was published in November 2008, found some lack of transparency in relation to release of program documents. This is a very polite way of describing attempts by program officers to prevent access to key documents by the committee and other parties.

It now emerges that officers of the DWLBC are claiming that water tables in the South-East are rising to justify the need to proceed with the construction of the Bald Hill drain. This is important because the Bald Hill drain, which potentially threatens the last wetlands (the Parrakie wetlands), which are the last major wetlands in the Upper South East is designed to draw excess water away from farmland. However, an analysis provided to me by a scientist shows a clear decline in water tables over 20 years in the Upper South East. He based this data on a government website: https://obswell.pir.sa.gov.au/page/water_level/start.html. So, either the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation officers are ignorant of this website, which is a government website, or they are being deliberately misleading.

Members should note that the Natural Resources Committee report also found a bias toward deep drain engineering work within the Upper South East program.

I then went on to pose of a number of questions, as follows. Will the minister inquire into whether the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation officers are either ignorant or deliberately misleading the community about the real state of watertables in the Upper South-East? What action will the minister take if it is determined that the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation officers have been deliberately misleading the community and possibly the minister himself? On 30 April, I asked the minister the following question: given that there are now a number of serious allegations about either the honesty or competency of this department, will the minister ensure that he obtains advice from a number of independent sources about the actual situation in the Upper South-East and the environmental impact of the Bald Hill Drain on the natural environment?

Finally, I want to correct an impression that has been created that this is somewhat of a battle between environmentalists and farmers and producers. In fact, that is far from the truth. The main opponents of the deep drain project are, in fact, long established, highly successful, prosperous and awarded farmers. Jack and Pip Rasenberg have received an IBIS award for sustainable farming. They have also won a meat industry award for their Wagyu beef cattle. James Darling, another outspoken and articulate opponent of the deep drains, is well recognised as a pioneer of salt land farming. He runs Angus, Simmental and Poll Hereford bloodlines, which he sells to the EU market, reaching the top category carcass weight, 300-327 kilograms. I have visited his farm, and it is obviously very well run; it looks very prosperous.

Patrick Ross is another large and successful landholder. So, in fact, this is not an argument between environmentalists and primary producers but two different approaches to primary production, between perhaps a more traditional approach and a group of innovative and pioneering farmers who are striking a new balance between sustainability and productivity in agriculture.

As I have said, the matter will ultimately be decided by the minister for environment and heritage, who is considering an environmental assessment and a community consultation report. I certainly hope the minister makes the right decision which, in my view, is not to go ahead with this drain. I think it is important that there has at least been some comment on this important report before we proceed to note it.

Motion carried.

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