Hansard 2008-11-11 Water Commonwealth Powers Bill

BACKGROUND:
The government introduced the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Bill to hand over control of the Victorian part of the Murray-Darling River system to the Federal Commonwealth Government.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:


HANSARD:
Title: WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 November 2008
Page: 4865

WATER (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL
Second reading

...

Page 4878

...

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I have only a few words to say about this bill.

Of course the Murray-Darling system represents the most precious asset we have in this country; indeed it is the most valuable resource we have on our continent. It is an asset and a resource that, of course, crosses state boundaries, and that is a situation fraught with some difficulties. We all know that with any water resource like this those downstream can easily be held hostage by those upstream and by whatever actions they take in removing water. The fact of the matter is that basically Victoria is downstream in the system, so it seems to me that Victoria has quite a lot to win from a situation where power over the river is transferred to an independent superstate authority -- in this case, of course, it is the commonwealth of Australia. It seems quite appropriate that a national government should have control over a national resource, particularly one that crosses borders between different states.

Hansard 2008-06-12 Auditor General Report - Pipelines

BACKGROUND:
On 12 June 2008, Mr Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria commented on the Auditor-General Report on the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe.
Mr Kavanagh expressed concern that other superior alternatives to supplying water to Bendigo and Ballarat were not pursued by the government and detailed some of the adverse affects on the property of the farmers located on the pipeline route.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:


HANSARD:
Title: Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Statements on Reports
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 12 June 2008
Page: 2270


Auditor-General: Piping the System -- Incorporating the Wimmera-Mallee Pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- The goldfields super-pipe was constructed to avert the prospect of Bendigo and Ballarat running out of drinking water. It seems to me that there were superior alternatives available, which included the construction of dams or at least a weir in the Otways with a view to using some of the 93 per cent of the most reliable water supply in Victoria that now flows into the sea. These options and others were rejected -- largely, it seems to me, because of a misplaced ideological opposition by the government to new dams.

Although it has been alleged in public that the Democratic Labor Party was trying to stop the construction of the super-pipe, this was never the case. The truth is that I put a lot of effort into getting the best deal possible for affected farmers.

These efforts met with some success and the pipe was laid deeper than was originally intended. This is important to allow

Page 2271

farmers to use heavy equipment over the pipe with confidence. Finally a much better insurance deal than was originally intended was offered to the farmers. I think it is fair to say that, as a result of vigilance and frequent complaints and requests for action to ministers, more care was expended to meet farmers' concerns than would otherwise have been the case.

The Auditor-General's report Piping the System concluded that the goldfields super-pipe has been well managed. While this may be the case in general, there were a considerable number of instances of mismanagement in the installation of the pipeline by contractors. In at least one case, to gain access to a farm contractors simply cut the electric fences, allowing cattle to escape and wander the district. This caused great distress and worry to the farmer concerned and necessitated the loss of days of work time in rounding up his cattle.

In spite of repeated, explicit demands by farmers that construction equipment not be taken between properties without it being thoroughly washed down, this was not always done. Some farms were needlessly exposed to the spread of weeds and other contaminants onto their properties. In a similar way, soil profiles were not always restored as they should have been. Farmers demanded the restoration of soil profiles and in a majority of cases this was done. In some cases, however, it was not done and some farmland has thus been degraded through the replacement of topsoil with subsoil.

There was at least one oil spill on farmland. Installation of the pipe also caused damage to pre-existing old pipes, causing flooding of crops on at least one farm and in another case cutting the supply of water essential to crops. This happened when temperatures were over 40 degrees and the crops were at real risk of being ruined. In both cases, repairs to pipes were not begun until more than 10 hours after the damage was first reported.

There are reasons to suspect that the amount of compensation being offered to each farmer depends more on the amount of noise that he makes rather than on the real cost to the landowner. Whilst the temptation is understandable, it is obviously bad policy.

Australia comprises many things -- its spirit and its people. Undoubtedly Australia is also the land on which we stand. We have the responsibility to preserve and protect our country, and this must surely include the land that is beneath our feet. The world is experiencing a sharp rise in food prices due to a shortfall in crop production. I do not believe this will prove to be a long-term crisis, but it emphasises the need to conserve farmland. The land adversely affected in the laying of the goldfields super-pipe included some of the best farmland in Victoria.

I express the hope that in implementing future projects, including the north-south pipe, the government will ensure that contractors act with more respect for the land and for landowners than was shown in some instances by those who installed the goldfields super-pipe.

Hansard 2008-06-11 Water: Plug the Pipe Protest

BACKGROUND:
On 11 June 2008, Ms Wendy Lovell MLC for Northern Victoria moved the following motion in the Legislative Council:
“That the Legislative Council expresses its disappointment at the Premier's intemperate response towards the Plug the Pipe organisation and their peaceful protest which was held on the steps of Parliament on Tuesday, 3 June 2008”.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:


HANSARD:
Title: WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 11 June 2008
Page: 2238

WATER: PLUG THE PIPE PROTEST

Page 2238
…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- It seems to me that the origin of the dispute that has led to an unfortunate remark by the Premier was in the government's misguided hostility towards dams and weirs. For centuries dams and weirs have been used to protect countries and cities against drought, and they have proven their worth. It has previously been argued by me in this house that the government should seriously consider, for example, the scheme that Mr Vogels referred to: a weir in the Otways. At present 93 per cent of the water runs into Bass Strait, and I do not see the advantage in that at all.

So the government is now left with proposing running pipes that will crisscross throughout Victoria to bring water from one area which may not have an abundance of it to other areas which have even less water, plus constructing an extremely expensive desalination plant.

Many in northern Victoria resent water being taken from their area, and indeed they have expressed that anger on the steps of this building. The Premier's response was a very uncharacteristic failure of intelligence by someone who undoubtedly is an extremely intelligent man. The Japanese refer to an uncharacteristic failure with the expression 'Even monkeys fall out of trees'. We all make mistakes, and this is probably one by the Premier. We have all done things that we regret, and I suspect that the Premier will regret this momentary failure of his intelligence. The response by the Premier was disappointing, so I feel I have no alternative but to vote for the motion.
…

House divided on motion:
Ayes, 21
…
Kavanagh, Mr
…
Noes, 19
…

Motion agreed to.

Hansard 2008-04-09 Hepburn Springs Bathhouse

BACKGROUND:
Peter Kavanagh MLC for Western Victoria said that the government was responsible for unnecessarily withholding information about the Hepburn Mineral Bath House.
Mr Kavanagh’s comments in Parliament on Hansard are below:


HANSARD:
Title: HEPBURN MINERAL SPRINGS BATHHOUSE: REDEVELOPMENT
House: COUNCIL
Activity:
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 9 April 2008
Page: 925

Page 925
…

Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I rise to make some comments on the motion, which concerns a major development in my electorate. The motion has two limbs. The second limb acknowledges the Hepburn Mineral Springs Bathhouse as an icon of Victoria's regional tourism industry and, in particular, acknowledges the importance of the redevelopment to the business community in the Daylesford-Hepburn region. There is nothing controversial about that, and it is obviously true. Further comment is not required beyond that except to emphasise that many businesses in Daylesford and the Hepburn Springs area depend on the bathhouse and its redevelopment.

I have recently discussed the progress of redevelopment with Cr Bill McClenaghan, who is a ward councillor and chair of the Hepburn Shire Council's Bathhouse Business and Community Liaison Group. I have got to know him over the last year or so. In my opinion he is fair-minded; he is a straight talker, a man of sound judgement and worthy of respect.

Cr McClenaghan informs me that the bathhouse has taken a lot longer to complete than was expected. He also informs me that the reasons for this are that the builder has been determined to do an excellent job, meeting unexpected challenges in the innovative design of the building, which has required the sourcing of specialised materials, some of which need to be specifically manufactured for the project; and this was referred to by Mr Theophanous yesterday and by Ms Tierney a little earlier today. The result is very beautiful. The fastidiousness of the builder has paid off in what is obviously a high-quality building that is innovative and extremely attractive.

There is widespread concern about the detrimental effects that the delays have had on businesses in the Daylesford-Hepburn Springs area. Cr McClenaghan, as chairman of the bathhouse business and community liaison group, does not blame the government for the length of time the development has taken. He is very concerned, however, about the way information about the project has been withheld by Major Projects Victoria. He alleges that up until February-March

Page 926

Major Projects Victoria was extremely reticent about releasing information on the project, and that reticence has needlessly exacerbated the harm done to businesses dependent on the bathhouse in the Hepburn Springs-Daylesford area.

The motion refers to mismanagement. If this refers to the delays in building, then in my opinion, from the information I have, that is a false premise. However, on the understanding I have that Major Projects Victoria has quite needlessly withheld information from the community to the wanton detriment of local businesses, I will support the motion.

I understand the lessee has not yet been announced. The government needs to do this as quickly as possible, because other businesses are dependent on knowing when the bathhouse will be up and running in order to take bookings for their own businesses, for example. The bathhouse will be beautiful.

More importantly it and ancillary businesses will generate and contribute to the prosperity of this beautiful part of Victoria.

Media 2007-11-22 Fluoridation Bill

PRESS RELEASE: DLP Fluoride Bill Passes Upper House
Thursday 22 November 2007

The DLP initiated Health (Fluoridation) Amendment Bill 2007 was passed by the Victorian Legislative Council late last night. This is the first DLP Bill ever to pass either House of the Victorian Parliament. The Bill requires the government to obtain the approval of affected citizens at a plebiscite before it may add fluoride to any previously unfluoridated part of Victoria.

The Victorian government' s plans to fluoridate new areas is highly controversial in parts of the state.

The debate became quite emotional with the government resorting to name calling in the end. When the government saw that it was going to lose the debate, its main speaker called the case against fluoride "voodoo". In fact the case that was presented against fluoride was based on research by Harvard University and by scientists published in the British Medical Journal and by the 2000 Nobel Prize winner for Medicine, Dr Arvid Carlsson. Mr Kavanagh, Member for Western Victoria, responded," if these people are practitioners of "voodoo' then who in the world is not?".

"There is scientific evidence that drinking fluoridated water is of only marginal benefit to teeth and that it may be harmful to other aspects of health", Mr Kavanagh said.

In addition to the DLP, the Bill was supported by the Greens and Nationals and the Liberal Party. ALP members have alleged to journalists that there was a deal done between the DLP and the Liberal Party to exchange votes. "These allegations are not true", Mr Peter Kavanagh, DLP Member for Western Victoria and sponsor of the Bill, said, "I do not engage in such deals because it would mean that I would be voting for things that I do not believe in".

"The Bill will also need to be passed by the Lower House to become law. That is unlikely to happen because the ALP is so opposed to this Bill, Its passage by the Upper House last night is likely, however, to force the government to reconsider and perhaps modify its policy of fluoridating new parts of Victoria, regardless of the opinions of affected citizens" Mr Kavanagh said.

"This is a win for democracy and for local people deciding local issues- an ideal central to the DLP's values", Mr Kavanagh said.

For further comment, please call Peter Kavanagh on (03) 5222 1503.

Hansard 2007-11-21 Fluoridation Bill

Title: HEALTH (FLUORIDATION) AMENDMENT BILL
House: COUNCIL
Activity: Second Reading
Members: KAVANAGH
Date: 21 November 2007
Page: 3568


Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I would like to explain in some detail why I believe it is wrong, regardless of the opinions of affected people, to fluoridate new areas of Victoria and therefore why all members should vote for the Health Fluoridation (Amendment) Bill. I will argue that the efficacy of fluoridating water supplies to prevent tooth decay is actually dubious, that it is very possibly harmful and that the democratic principles to which we all aspire demand that this mass medication should not proceed against the wishes of affected people.

There is very strong opposition to fluoridation throughout western Victoria, and not just by a small vocal minority. I have attended some very large meetings throughout western Victoria, including one with 800 people about six weeks or so ago in Warrnambool -- the largest public meeting ever held in Warrnambool.

Yesterday I tabled in this house a petition signed by 2543 people from western Victoria urging all members to support this bill. On Friday I was sent a letter, which was described by Mr Vogels, which was signed by 21 medical practitioners, including specialists, in Warrnambool. They were all opposed to fluoridation. Their opposition to fluoridation is expressed on the basis of scientific evidence suggesting that fluoridation may be harmful. I am not a scientific expert, but I will attempt to outline some of the scientific concerns over the possible effects of fluoridation.

It is often assumed that proponents of fluoride represent modern scientific thinking, that fluoride is the norm in advanced countries and that its use is growing around the world. None of that is true. Fluoridation is common in North America, Australia and New Zealand; however, less than 6 per cent of the world's population drinks deliberately fluoridated water.

Several advanced countries have stopped adding fluoride to their water supplies, including Germany, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden -- not Alabama, Mr Pakula. I have a reference from the British Medical Journal of last month. Parts of Canada have also recently decided to stop fluoridating their water supplies.

Fluoride, or more accurately fluorosilicic acid, also known as hydrosilicofluoric acid, which is actually the fluoride compound added to Victoria's water supplies, is toxic even in very small doses. Indeed fluoride is a prescribed poison under the national drugs and poisons schedule, and I have the Australian government internet site reference for that schedule. The fact that something is very toxic does not necessarily mean that it can never be consumed by people under any circumstances. Sometimes even poisons can be beneficial in their effects -- for example, radiation treatment.

Inherent toxicity surely does demand, however, that any benefits must be demonstrated before it is used on human beings, particularly when it is proposed to be used on people who are not sick, when it is intended to be distributed to tens of thousands of people whether they want it or not and will continue to be given to them for the rest of their lives.

It seems to me very clear that the onus of proving that a poison is beneficial and not otherwise harmful is on the proponents of the practice -- those who want to add fluoride to our drinking water -- and not on those who would oppose it. In that context Ms Pulford quoted something which she assumed supported her argument -- that there is insufficient evidence to draw

Page 3569

conclusions about other possible negative consequences of fluoridation. She said it is impossible to prove that fluoridation is harmful and that therefore is an argument for adding it to the water supply. I think the onus should be the other way around. The onus should be on those who are wanting to add this poison to the water supply to show that it is not harmful.

Not very long ago my main interest in requiring referendums as a prerequisite to fluoridation was based on democratic principle. I thought that fluoridation was probably quite beneficial to teeth and otherwise harmless but that people should have a say in whether their water supplies would be fluoridated. I have been surprised to learn that the benefits of fluoridating water supplies are actually very to extremely limited, that mildly adverse effects are common and that severely harmful consequences are, on the basis of the scientific evidence, entirely possible. I found that the opponents of fluoridation are not a lunatic fringe; they include some of the world's finest scientific minds.

The average standard of dental health of children varies greatly within fluoridated areas such as Melbourne.

The average standard is much higher in, say, Brighton than in, say, Sunshine. This difference in standards between different parts of fluoridated areas would not negate the case for fluoridation if it could be shown that fluoride significantly increases average standards and that it is clearly not harmful to other aspects of health. There are reasons to seriously doubt both of these propositions.

What do the proponents of fluoridation argue? David Davis quoted rather old figures for fluoridation -- 48 per cent and 36 per cent. In fact the Victorian government no longer claims even that fairly modest improvement in dental health.

According to the most recent documents it claims a 36 per cent reduction in caries for children who are six years old and a 22 per cent reduction in caries for children who are -- --

Mr D. Davis -- It was a 2006 document I quoted from.

Mr KAVANAGH -- This refers to the figures Mr Davis gave and says they are basically obsolete. They are from Dental Health Services Victoria's school dental service for 2002. The better figures, it says, are 36 and 22 per cent respectively. For 12-year-olds -- a more important sample group because it includes children who have been six years old and includes a study of permanent teeth, not baby teeth -- it claims that fluoridation reduces caries by 22 per cent. These claims are much lower than the claims made in the recent past, including those of 60 per cent put around not very long ago by the Victorian government. It is a big decrease from 60 to 22 per cent.

Even these modified claims, however, are at the higher end of estimates.

According to an article in the British Medical Journal, or BMJ, of October 2007, 3200 studies of the effects of fluoridation claim on average that the proportion of children in fluoridated areas with no caries is 15 per cent higher than the proportion of children in non-fluoridated areas. Even this modest claim is doubted by the authors, because in the studies reviewed 'potential confounders were poorly adjusted for', and I have an academic reference for that. In this context the confounders they refer to are factors besides fluoridation that contribute to the average dental standards in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. This claim is undoubtedly true. It is often claimed that the prevalence of caries in Victoria is higher in unfluoridated areas -- that is, there is more decay in unfluoridated areas. That is undoubtedly true. It is also true that confounding factors may well explain this.

These confounding factors include higher average incomes in areas that have long been fluoridated, principally Melbourne, which has a higher average standard of living than areas that have not yet been fluoridated. Along with income disparity of course come differences in nutrition and different abilities to pay for dental services. Furthermore, it is also obvious that dental services are less widely available and accessible in many parts of Victoria outside Melbourne -- that is, those areas that are largely, though not entirely, unfluoridated. If, for example, fluoridated areas tend to be wealthier areas of a country, state or province, then this claim of 15 per cent is very dubious indeed. It is reasonable to believe that the 15 per cent so-called improvement is even more dubious if dental services are more plentiful and if nutrition tends to be better in fluoridated areas. In the case of Victoria all of these factors are true.

It is relatively easy to compare average standards of health in any two populations. It is much more difficult to account for these confounding factors. The BMJ refers to reviews of the effectiveness of fluoridation by the Medical Research Council and the Scottish intercollegiate guidelines, which were based on the York study to which David Davis also referred. It says of those findings that along with many other supporters of fluoridation, it used the York review's findings selectively to give an overoptimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation. Studies concluded that the efficacy of fluoride in preventing dental decay in preschool children could not be determined because

Page 3570

of factors such as the use of fluoride toothpaste, socioeconomic status and sugar consumption.

The BMJ authors added:

We know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty.

In Warrnambool it takes at best two weeks to see a dentist if you are in pain. If you are not in pain and you go to a private dental practice, it takes about six to nine months. The situation in Ballarat is not much better and David Davis referred to many areas in Victoria where the wait for public dental services is not of the order of weeks or months but years.

Regardless of fluoridation, would it be any wonder if the standards of dental health were found to be lower in Warrnambool and Ballarat than they are in Melbourne? It would not be, would it? If you have to wait nine months to see a dentist, even if you are paying, and five years if you are not in a position to pay, it would not be surprising if dental standards were not very high!

Dental health has improved dramatically in fluoridated areas in recent decades. Dental health has also improved dramatically in unfluoridated areas. Some studies have shown that in every fluoridated capital city of Australia the incidence of caries among children has declined to a fraction of what it was decades ago. In Brisbane the incidence of caries in children declined by around 65 per cent between 1977 and 1987, an improvement of the same order as the improvement in every other large Australian city. Brisbane's water has never been fluoridated, yet in one 10-year period dental cavities decreased by 65 per cent.

Even this field study on a mass scale is superseded by studies in the United States. Comparisons in American states, some of which are fluoridated and some of which are not, showed no discernible difference in the rates of improvement in dental health. The same is true of the European Union. The dental health of children in European Union countries has increased very sharply over the last 30 years. These improvements have occurred in countries that are or have been largely fluoridated, such as Germany, and those which are not fluoridated, such as Sweden. I have academic references for that proposition.

Fluoride can be beneficial to teeth, but its effect, it now seems quite clear, is topical -- that is, its benefits are achieved like an antiseptic, by contact with affected body parts, in this case teeth. Fluoride in toothpaste is extremely effective at avoiding or preventing dental caries.

Little benefit is achieved from drinking it, however, because the prevalence of fluorides in saliva is only about one-sixtieth to one-hundredth of the ratio that is in the water that is consumed. As Mr Vogels said, you would not drink iodine or something like that, but that is what is happening with fluoride. The benefits are topical, achieved by contact, but the method of dispensing it is by drinking it.

The proponents of fluoride claim there is no proven case of fluoride doing harm. This depends on what is meant by proof. It is true that even in pro-fluoride publications, the government admits to dental fluorosis, a very common condition of discoloration of the teeth, staining of the teeth, and in severe cases pitting and mottling of teeth.

General practitioners and patients in western Victoria have told me of people who react very badly to fluoride, even at very low levels.

They break out in rashes and asthma can follow. Indeed some people moved to Geelong from Melbourne decades ago to avoid fluoridation in Melbourne's water. They tell me that if they ever come to Melbourne they bring their own water with them so that if they want a cup of tea they can have one without breaking out in an adverse reaction.

In some parts of the world, particularly China and India, high levels of fluoride occur naturally in water, not by addition but because rocks have fluoride in them. Those levels are admittedly much higher than the levels the Victorian government intends to fluoridate our water. In those places skeletal fluorosis, which is a deforming condition something like arthritis throughout the body, is common, and not just dental fluorosis which occurs at lower levels.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I advise Mr Kavanagh that he has a right of reply and is able to sum up the points raised in the second-reading debate.

I refer to a passage from the House of Representatives Practice on speaking in reply, and I want Mr Kavanagh to think about it:

The mover of a substantive motion of the second or third reading of a bill may speak on a second occasion in reply, but must confine any remarks to matters raised during the debate.

I have to say to Mr Kavanagh that I think he has gone beyond that on numerous occasions in extrapolating points that he has made, to the extent that in my opinion it is another crack at his initial contribution to the debate. I want Mr Kavanagh to think about that. His summary has been going for 17 minutes, which I have to say by any stretch is a long time.

Mr KAVANAGH -- Many comments were made that fluoride was not harmful. Therefore, I thought it was relevant to respond to those comments. Some of the contributions were much longer than I have been going so far.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! Mr Kavanagh's contribution is a summary.

Mr KAVANAGH -- I refer to a study by the American National Research Council where some of the greatest minds in the United States reviewed the evidence last year.

The PRESIDENT -- Order! As an example, I am not able to remember that study being raised during the debate by any member who made a contribution to the debate. That is my point exactly.

Mr KAVANAGH -- What if someone had mentioned that there was no evidence of fluoride harming people's mental capacity?

Page 3571

The PRESIDENT -- Order! I remind Mr Kavanagh that during his contribution he had the opportunity to make reference to those very remarks that he wishes to make now. If they were not raised by anyone during their contribution, he really is on thin ice in trying to get them in now. I am reminded that he cannot introduce new material in his summary.

Mr KAVANAGH -- Thank you, President. To summarise, there is considerable evidence of a decrease in IQ in fluoridated areas and, among other things, a sharp increase in osteosarcoma among young males in areas that have been fluoridated.

To refer only to the points that have been made specifically, I will say that while Mr Davis suggested there is no proven link of bone cancer resulting from fluoridation, in fact evidence of that has been printed recently in 2006 or 2007.

It was pointed out that standards of dental care are very poor in Victoria and should be improved. The point of those who do not support fluoridation is that there are better and safer ways to achieve that.

To just finish on one point, there have been a lot of comments made that the bill does not provide for compulsory voting. In fact there has been no reason given for that by speakers who have reached that conclusion. It is not a conclusion that I would reach on the basis of the bill. In summary, there is good evidence that fluoride is harmful to people's health, and that it is of minimal help in avoiding or preventing tooth decay. The bill seeks to invoke our democratic principle of people deciding for themselves whether substances which are of dubious benefit should be added to their water supply.

The PRESIDENT -- Order!

On a further point, the last three points Mr Kavanagh raised were well within the bounds of his ability to summarise the debate which has just taken place, because he referred to contributions that people had made. The concern was that he was introducing new material. As I say, that is for future reference.

House divided on motion:

Ayes, 21
...
Kavanagh, Mr (Teller)
...

Noes, 19
...

Motion agreed to.

Media 2007-03-14 Goldfields Superpipe

PRESS RELEASE

14 March 2007. Wednesday.

Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC for Western Victoria, has urged the State government to seriously negotiate with farmers and respect the properties they are affecting when constructing water infrastructure projects. Mr Kavanagh has also argued in Parliament that Victorian governments have been negligent over a long period in failing to adequately plan for droughts and future water needs.

Peter Kavanagh's comments in Hansard follows.

For further comment please call Peter Kavanagh on 03 5222 1503.


Mr KAVANAGH (Western Victoria) -- I will briefly explain why I intend to support the amendment of the bill. Last week I met with quite a lot of farmers in the Ballarat area through whose properties the super-pipe will pass. Those farmers are angry; they feel that the government is not listening to them. They are

Page 535

worried about a lot of things associated with the super-pipe, including the possibility of weeds being spread while the super-pipe is being laid. They have been given conflicting information about the depth of the pipe, but they demand that the top of the pipe be at least 1 metre from ground level to allow for the use of large agricultural machinery in the future. They want to know what will happen to the soil that is displaced by the super-pipe. They claim that in the past when pipes have been laid quite often the topsoil has been put straight on top of the pipe and then buried under clay and rocks, ruining part of their land. They want assurances about the future -- for example, they want a guarantee that, if the pipe breaks, it will be repaired without damage to their properties.

According to many experts there are superior alternatives to the super-pipe.

Two former ministers -- Glyndwr Jenkins, who was Minister of Water Supply under Lindsay Thompson, and Rod Mackenzie, who was Minister for Conservation, Forests and Lands under John Cain, Jr -- have been promoting a Barwon Water recommendation of 2003 for a weir on the Gellibrand River capturing some of its water, together with a pipe to the West Barwon Dam. At present only 7 per cent of Gellibrand River water is used, while 93 per cent flows into the sea. This option, which would be of low environmental impact, would be economical and would take the pressure off the water supply that is presently shared between Ballarat and Geelong.

Last year this house debated a motion to condemn the government for its handling of water. I voted against that motion because I did not want the first Democratic Labor Party vote in this house in almost 50 years to be condemning anybody. I also do not know if the Kennett government had a much better record on water than the present government does.

However, it seems to me that over a period of decades successive Victorian governments have shown a lack of leadership and have even shown neglect on the water issue. I urge the government to seriously address the concerns of landowners who will be affected by the super-pipe and to cast aside any ideological prejudices it may have against environmentally responsible dams in seeking long-term solutions to the water challenges facing Victoria.

Media 2007-03-07 Goldfields Superpipe

PRESS RELEASE

7 March 2007. Wednesday, 11:00am.

Peter Kavanagh DLP MLC today begins a three day tour of Western Victoria . Mr Kavanagh will visit a farm outside Ballarat and then be briefed on the local water situation at Central Highlands Water.

At 2.30 pm Mr Kavanagh will attend the Newlyn Sporting Complex, on the Midlands Highway at Newlyn to meet local people who say that they have a message they want given to the Victorian government. Many framers in the area are expressing frustration that the government is not listening to them.

A Bill that will facilitate the construction of the "superpipe" will be introduced into the Legislative Council very soon. Mr Kavanagh has previously promised to listen to Western Victorians before making decisions on water.

For further comment please call 03 5222 1503.

Media 2007-03-06 Goldfields Superpipe

PRESS RELEASE

6 March 2007. Tuesday, 11:30pm.

Peter Kavanagh, DLP MLC, will begin a tour of Western Victoria tomorrow, Wednesday 8 March. Mr Kavanagh will visit a farm outside Ballarat and then be briefed on the local water situation at Central Highlands Water.

At 2.30 pm Mr Kavanagh will attend the Newlyn Sporting Complex, on the Midlands Highway at Newlyn to meet local people who say that they have a message they want given to the Victorian government. Many framers in the area are expressing frustration that the government is not listening to them.

A Bill that will facilitate the construction of the "superpipe" will be introduced into the Legislataive Council very soon. Mr Kavanagh has previously promised to listen to Western Victorians before making decisions on water.

For further comment please call 03 5222 1503.