Legislative Council
The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Transport and Urban Planning a question about the Patawalonga harbor.
Leave granted. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There has been some ongoing concern about the depth of the Patawalonga harbor, the ongoing cost of dredging and whether major work will have to be undertaken to deepen the harbor. In November 1998 the project adviser, Dean Lambert, prepared a draft report on the Patawalonga harbor depth which stated that it would cost about $4 million to take it to a depth of, I think, 3.3 metres, subject to detailed studies in respect of deepening the harbor.507 The draft report says that already about $600 000 was spent as of November last year in a little over 12 months by Transport SA and the Department for Administrative and Information Services to remove seagrass. Although the harbor had been dredged to provide a minimum depth of 3.3 metres, the document says that, with allowances for sediment, sand and seagrass build-up, Transport SA could guarantee a depth of only 1.8 metres, the amount available at lowest tide. The Holdfast Shores Consortium was seeking an effective depth of 3 metres at lowest tide.
The document says that Holdfast Shores Consortium was advised that a depth of 3 metres or 3.5 metres would be available for marine usage and that purchasers of land in the development had been advised that this would be the case. The document also said that the consortium claimed that not to maintain a depth commensurate with harbor use was a serious breach of the Holdfast Shores Development Agreement. I quote from the document, as follows: No-one from within Government is aware of any specific undertaking to the consortium of providing 3 metres of water at low tide. The agreement does not specify a depth. The document continues: The consortium has sought unequivocal guarantees that Transport SA will meet the requirements of the agreement. Transport SA should respond as soon as possible to the letter after seeking legal advice restating its position, but in the context of the agreement. Deepening the harbor has severe limitations, according to the draft report. Not only would any increase be confined to a centre channel because of the risk of undermining breakwaters and the sheet piling but also the breakwaters would probably have to be extended. It might also require blasting, which would be expensive. Within the report— The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: The draft report. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Okay, within the draft report—you can tell me which bits you dispute afterwards. The report says, in talking about seagrass build-up: A report, report No.4, dated 3 October 1996, to the Urban Projects Authority prepared by John Chappell Engineers contains a critique of a 1995 Baulderstone report, with particular reference to sand and seagrass management. The report identified that the possible effects of seagrass accumulation in the sand trap or the harbor had not been discussed. The report also noticed a recent accumulation of seagrass against the then existing sheet piling and ventured, `This area was totally clogged and in our view conditions resulting in this accumulation are not being changed significantly with this new development.' The report continues: No-one has been able to give to me an explanation of why no apparent notice was taken of Chappell's report. The report also notes that issues in terms of who will have long-term responsibility for costs of maintenance of various parts of the harbor is still somewhat unresolved. There was still some dispute there. The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: That is comment. The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That is what it says in the draft report. The questions I ask of the Minister are: 1. Can the Government guarantee that a minimum harbor depth of 3 metres or 3.5 metres would be available for marine usage? 2. Did the Government give the consortium an undertaking about the minimum depth of the harbor, with land and mooring purchasers buying properties based on that commitment? 3. Is the Government concerned about the potential for a class action by Holdfast Shores Consortium if it is unable to guarantee the consortium's preferred depth? 4. Why does the Chappell report appear to have been ignored? 5. What have the maintenance costs for dredging been to this point, and what further expenses are likely in terms of further dredging in the future and/or expansion of the length of the breakwaters and/or further dredging work to increase the overall depth of the harbor, and does the failure to address issues raised in the Chappell report underline the weaknesses in the EIS process, where these sort of issues should be aired publicly and fully resolved before an EIS is completed?The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: There was a lot of comment and speculation in both the explanation and the questions. I highlight to the honourable member, who has always stood up in this place and claimed to be a teacher and would therefore, I expect, understand what `draft report' means (namely, a working document but not one that has been signed and sealed) he quoted it in this place as `the report'.
The Hon. M.J. Elliott interjecting:
The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I am merely saying that you said `the report' and I interjected to say that it was a draft report. Once you corrected yourself and on other occasions you chose not to do so. I wanted to ensure that, in terms of your integrity in asking this question and in my pursuing this matter, we are talking about a draft report. The Land Management Corporation, Major Projects and others were involved in the early work, as this draft report confirms, and I will have to receive advice from the responsible Minister, the Minister for Government Enterprises. It is true that Transport SA from September last year took responsibility for the harbor and the dredging arrangements, and I will have to seek some further advice—
The Hon. M.J. Elliott: Are you still dredging? The Hon. DIANA LAIDLAW: I do not know whether we dredged today. Because I suspect that some of the questions have legal overtones, it may be better that I get considered answers for the honourable member in order to address the matters that he has raised.Read the Government's reply: 28 September 1999
Mike Elliott's follow-up question: 16 November 1999