HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WASTE WATER MANAGEMENT

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for State/Local Government Relations a question about the community waste water management scheme of the District Council of the Copper Coast.

Leave granted.

The Hon. DAVID WINDERLICH: The community waste water management scheme of the District Council of the Copper Coast is proposed for the Moonta, Moonta Bay and Port Hughes areas, and it is designed to replace a sewer system based on septic tanks with a modern reticulated waste water system. The estimated cost of constructing the scheme is about $46 million to $50 million.

Community members have raised three major concerns about the scheme. The first of these is its financial viability; this is a major scheme for a small council. The second concern is the cost to ratepayers. Costs for the scheme are as follows: up to $30,000 for on-site plumber's work to connect septic tanks to the main pipes and connection fees ranging from $2,500 for connection within the first 12 months to $5,000 if connection is delayed for four years.

The third concern is the impact on heritage buildings. The construction of the gravity-based community waste water management scheme involves breaking up hard rock that covers this area. This, in turn, creates vibrations that could destroy or damage the many 19th-century Cornish buildings. These were built without mortar and often on very small or no foundations. A wall of the Druids Hall on Ryan Street in Moonta recently collapsed for no apparent reason. This highlights the fragility of many of these buildings.

Council has responded to concerns about costs by deciding that people on the pension or in financial hardship will be able to defer payment. However, as around 30 per cent of the population of the whole area is over 65—and, therefore, of pension age—or unemployed, this policy of the council demands that the financial viability of the project be re-examined. My questions are:

1. Is the minister aware of the potential impact on the financial viability of this project of deferring payment for such a high proportion of the population of Moonta, Moonta Bay and Port Hughes?

2. Is the minister aware of the potential risk to heritage buildings of the drilling and rock sawing involved in trenching for the community waste water management system?

3. Is the minister aware of the possible damage to private property posed by the drilling and rock sawing involved in this project?

4. Given that, recently, this council only narrowly escaped the use of the minister's power under section 272 due to poor processes, and given the risks to viability, heritage and property, will the minister write to the District Council of the Copper Coast seeking assurances that those risks are being managed appropriately?

5. Given that the council only narrowly escaped the use of the minister's power under section 272, will the minister undertake to demand a copy of the prudential report that the council is required to prepare under section 48 of the Local Government Act for projects of this nature?

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) (15:05): Indeed, the Community Waste Water Management System is very important to many of our rural and regional communities that do not have access to the SA Water waste system. It is a tremendous system, and I believe that it is unique to South Australia. It is a way of collectively using a septic system that allows for very efficient waste water treatment. It also has a very good environmental impact in terms of strategies for water reuse, and suchlike. It is certainly a system that is well worth while investing in, and it is something that South Australia should be very proud of.

However, the downside of this is that, although the system has been developing here in South Australia for many years, unfortunately a review a number of years ago showed that, in fact, we were not investing in the infrastructure in a way that enables us to maintain it to appropriate standards and that enables us—once it is worn out—to actually replace that system. The review found that, in fact, councils were very much underpricing the rates they were collecting for the installation and maintenance of that system.

The government provides a subsidy equaliser that contributes to that scheme as well. I think the commonwealth government also recently contributed about $20 million to the development of some of these schemes, so a great deal of resources have been put in. In terms of the installation and ongoing management of the systems, the LGA manages those systems and has spent a great deal of time and energy informing communities and trying to educate them about the importance of the systems and the fact that councils need to charge rates to enable the ongoing management sustainability of these systems.

We have seen fairly significant increases in the rates charged for these schemes across a number of council areas, and that is something that really is about the long-term future of these schemes. We have seen what happens when we do not put adequate resources in. We see systems that are not well maintained, and we see them leaching into the soils and into watertables, creating all sorts of significant health and environmental problems. It is extremely expensive to then go along and clean up, so it is most important that we install these systems to a high standard and maintain them throughout their lifetime.

These are very difficult issues for local council areas. Every community and household has to deal with its waste in some form. There are only three alternatives. One is to put in a private septic tank and pick up all the costs of the installation, and then empty and clean off that system. The second alternative is this community waste water management system, which is managed through the LGA and subsidised through the state and commonwealth government. The third is to have access to mains water and sewerage services, and pay through that. So, it is the cost that users have to pick up, if you like. I am not familiar with the actual details of the Copper Coast project, but I am certainly happy to take on notice the questions that need further detail and to bring back a response.

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