Architecture of Brutalism for the Township of Pioneer

A Parliamentary Inquiry into TasWater –

an Architecture of Brutalism for the Township of Pioneer

A parliamentary inquiry into TasWater has begun in the Legislative Council.

Earlier last week, on Monday, 1 February, a public hearing was held in Launceston’s Henty House. The full transcript of the forty-five minute hearing about Pioneer is included below.

This parliamentary inquiry comes eight years after the alert for lead-contaminated drinking water in the town of Pioneer in the state’s north-east.

It is also eight years since TasWater formed to become Tasmania’s sole water authority, under the leadership of CEO Michael Brewster.

The most significant impetus for the parliamentary inquiry was a petition from the residents of Pioneer, tabled in the parliament in 2020 by Tania Rattray, MLC for Apsley.

Although the Legislative Council rejected the request for a dedicated inquiry into Pioneer, the Legislative Council approved a general state-wide inquiry, but only following repeated applications for action by Rattray.

In 2016 the House of Assembly rejected a motion by the Greens for a parliamentary inquiry into TasWater to investigate the handling of Pioneer in relation to heavy-metal contaminated drinking water. The ALP and the Liberal government rejected the proposal for an inquiry.

Presentations during Monday’s parliamentary inquiry in Launceston were from Tim Slade, with regard to Pioneer’s lead-contaminated drinking water, and the statewide monthly data portal; Malcolm Eastley, with regard to the need for variable pricing at TasWater, as per the Victorian model; Karl Mansfield, with regard to trade waste (grease traps), the inflated costs of sewerage and the impact upon small business and tourism; Mr James Collier, with regard to possible solutions for the Tamar River, with a view to ending a one-hundred year history of sewerage disposal into the river; and Paul Ekman, with regard to trade waste issues for his business.

The committee for the parliamentary inquiry into TasWater is Tania Rattray (Independent), as chairperson, Ivan Dean (Independent), Sarah Lovell (ALP) and Jo Palmer (LIB) [replacing outgoing Member, Robert Armstrong (Independent)]. Due to illness, Sarah Lovell was absent for Monday’s public hearing.

There were five written submission about Pioneer. These included: Dr Alison Bleaney OBE, a GP from the north-east; and Tim Slade, Lin Simpson, Eva Padgett and Jenny Bellinger, all of whom are residents of Pioneer.

Tim Slade, a resident since 2009, addressed the committee for forty-five minutes.

During Monday’s hearing, Tim Slade presented several key documents, including a letter of overrule by the Tasmanian Director of Public Health, Dr Veitch, 7 December 2018, against TasWater CEO Brewster, where three fundamental failures were listed in relation to TasWater’s unsatisfactory and long-held policies with regard to Pioneer.

These cited failures were: breach of agreement with Pioneer; failure to acknowledge ‘foreseeable risk’ in relation to lead-painted roofs; and failure to apply the national guideline document for the installation and use of rainwater tanks, a document created by the Australian Department of Health.

Following this letter of overrule by Dr Veitch, the inquiry’s hearing heard, it was five months before CEO Brewster wrote to the residents of Pioneer about the first ever whole-town testing program. It was several months later that this testing program began, almost one full year after Dr Veitch’s letter to CEO Brewster.

Tim Slade presented key documents, sourced via representation from the Tasmanian Ombudsman in 2018, showing that TasWater withheld 2014 test results from some residents of Pioneer, results showing high levels of lead in roof paint.

Other historic test results for some residents were then further withheld, even after representation directly to CEO Brewster by the Tasmanian Ombudsman and from residents.

Members noted that only a handful of tests were done by TasWater when they installed rainwater tanks for residents at Pioneer. The vast majority of homes were not tested.

The first whole-town testing program began in late 2019. This began nearly one full year following Dr Veitch’s letter of overrule to CEO Brewster. These tests in 2019 reveal that twelve homes, one-third of the township, were relying on heavy-metal contaminated drinking water from rainwater tanks installed by TasWater.

Other documents presented by Tim Slade include a letter from Will Hodgman, who was Premier at the time of the letter, 10 September 2018, Hodgman refuses assistance to Pioneer.

The significance of this letter is that Premier Hodgman wrote it just four days before the assent of new legislation approving new ownership of TasWater, whereby the state government gained a seat at the table of TasWater, and furthermore became part-owners in TasWater for the first time, sharing ownership with Tasmania’s 29 local councils.

Premier Hodgman was in full knowledge at the time of his letter that the new ownership model had been approved in the Legislative Council, and that in four days time it would receive formal assent.

Following assent of the legislation, Premier Hodgman never wrote to Pioneer again.

The committee was also presented with a letter by Minister Michael Ferguson, 23 May 2019, eight months following the Premier’s letter, where Minister Ferguson refuses assistance to Pioneer.

The significance of this letter is that Minister Ferguson’s reason for refusal was that the state government do not have a role in TasWater business. Ferguson then made reference to Premier Hodgman’s letter of 10 September 2018. Minister Ferguson’s denial of help to Pioneer as Health Minister in this letter was therefore on the basis of obsolete legislation. Minister Ferguson’s letter was knowingly untrue.

A further key document presented by Tim Slade to the parliamentary inquiry on Monday ~ a letter from Doug Chipman, 29 May 2018, who at this time was the president of the Local Government Association of Tasmania (LGAT), representing Tasmania’s 29 local councils.

In this letter Chipman refuses Pioneer’s request for help.

In a two-sentence text message, Chipman writes that TasWater should not have to test the rainwater tanks at Pioneer.

Chipman went on to become the president of the Owners Representatives Group, the legislated body of the 29 local councils, with primary oversight of TasWater.

For consideration in this parliamentary inquiry into TasWater, Tim Slade also spoke of the presently dysfunctional monthly data portal at TasWater, a database which is supposed to report all drinking water data on a monthly basis.

The committee heard that the portal does not provide Health Guideline Limit Values for any of the data, making the interpretation of data impossible. TasWater’s website menus do not include the portal, so access to the portal is not possible, unless the user has the website address for the page. The portal does not contain any data for pesticides. The portal is not reporting on a monthly basis as required, the most recent update occurring two months ago.

The inquiry heard that TasWater have not written to the residents of Pioneer for the best part of one year, following the approved proposal for a mini-treatment plant, announced by CEO Brewster in the GBE in December of 2019. Residents do not have any information about when or where the mini-treatment plant will be built. TasWater have ignored repeated representations by residents requesting a formal communication of the timeline.

Tim Slade asked Members of the parliamentary inquiry to write a letter of no-confidence in TasWater’s Board and CEO.

For the people of Pioneer, it will be no small irony that after eight years, the parliamentary inquiry into TasWater is held within an architecture of Brutalism, at Henty House, a government-owned, heritage-listed building of this style.

Residents at Pioneer may reflect that this style of architecture is exemplified by its position directly adjacent to TasWater’s city office.

TasWater did not have far to go…

Nevertheless, neither CEO Brewster nor Chairman Gumley attended the parliamentary inquiry’s hearing on Monday.

For the full transcript of Tim Slade’s speech to the parliamentary inquiry, which includes questions and answers, plus a discussion of further key issues and documents of evidence, please read below (under the gallery).

The parliamentary inquiry into TasWater continues…

TRANSCRIPT, 1 February 2021, 2:15pm

Mr TIM SLADE WAS CALLED, MADE THE STATUTORY DECLARATION AND WAS EXAMINED.

CHAIR – Welcome, Mr Slade. It is terrific of you to come in from Pioneer today. I would like to introduce you to the members of the committee: Ms Jo Palmer; myself, Tania Rattray; Ivan Dean; secretariat support Natasha Exel and Allison Waddington and James Reynolds at the back for Hansard. We have an apology from Sarah Lovell today, who was unable to travel north. I welcome you to the public hearings of the Legislative Council Select Committee on TasWater Operations.

Mr SLADE – Forgive me for reading straight off. It’s the best way to do it, but I am looking forward to answering questions too, later on, because that is a very useful way for you getting an understanding of what has actually happened.

Mr DEAN – Is what you are reading a summary of your submission? Would you provide a copy of what you are reading to the committee?

Mr SLADE – I have made a copy for everyone of what I am reading today. Do you want that now or after?

CHAIR – Now would be awesome. Thank you very much, Tim.

Mr SLADE – To introduce myself briefly, my name is Tim Slade, I am 44 years of age and have lived at Pioneer for 11 years. I hold a Bachelor of Education from the University of Tasmania. I have written freelance 25 published articles about Tasmania’s drinking water since 2013 with a focus on Pioneer’s heavy metal contaminated drinking water. I will continue to write these articles until this is all over – a time which will span at least one decade in all.

I also have an interest in poetry. My work has been published in the Weekend Australian and other major journals. My debut collection of poems, The Walnut Tree, has been accepted by a publisher of poetry and is due for release in March this year. I live with chronic health conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. These have determined that I rely on a Disability Support Pension. It is for this reason that I have had the time to volunteer more than 1000 hours over eight years for the people of Pioneer.

I thank the Legislative Council for approving this inquiry. Thank you for granting me this time to speak and to answer questions today.

The impetus for this parliamentary inquiry into TasWater comes primarily from the township of Pioneer. A petition for an inquiry was tabled in parliament last year by Ms Rattray.

I am here today because this is major health issue for you to consider. I refer you to the submission by Dr Alison Bleaney, a GP in the north-east who has stood by Pioneer for many years now. I might add that Dr Bleaney was awarded an Order of the British Empire for her bravery in the Falklands War. At Pioneer we’re eternally grateful to Dr Alison Bleaney.

My presentation today will relate primarily to term of reference point 6, the delivery and timeliness of water services to Tasmanian communities, but it may also touch upon terms of reference points 3, 7 and 9. I welcome questions from you and I have seven pages to read.

My goal is to communicate to members the overwhelming attitude of neglect by TasWater, the owner councils, the state Government and the DHHS. This would never have happened if it was simply a matter of one of those bodies not doing their job. Something like this which has occurred over eight years can only occur if multiple parties are not doing their job, if not every single one of them.

My conclusion will be that TasWater has failed Pioneer, who are customers of TasWater and have been since before the alert in 2012. TasWater has breached agreements, ignored foreseeable risk, misled regulators, ignored national guidelines, obfuscated the DHHS, and failed to act competently, openly and honestly, putting us at Pioneer at a persistent and significant risk over years; notwithstanding historical and new documents and facts known to the CEO and board of TasWater. Many of the major problems since 2012 have not been rectified.

I will also conclude that as per the term of reference 7, the state Government has failed to use its seat at the table and its new part-ownership rights at TasWater, at no time representing Pioneer, even when it was in full knowledge of the facts of risk there. The state Government has never been sincere about the health problems relating to drinking water at Pioneer, and I will provide documents to that effect.

I would first like to distribute among members a series of photographs of the lead-painted roofs at Pioneer. Each of these roofs remains as you see it in the photographs. Not one single roof at Pioneer has been repaired or replaced by TasWater.

CHAIR – Could you continue, please, because we have another witness at 3 pm.

Mr SLADE – Okay. I was just going to ask for a response if that was possible; even just a one- or two-word description of the general condition of the roofs.

CHAIR – I will give you some indication of how much it costs to replace a roof because I’ve just been inquiring. It’s possibly about $10 000 per roof.

Mr SLADE – What condition are the roofs?

CHAIR – I’d say quite rusty and in poor condition from my perspective.

Mr SLADE – And what about the paint? Is it flaking? And what does the paint look like? Is it very old paint?

Mr DEAN – It’s obviously been done a very long time ago, so it would be lead paint, I would think.

CHAIR – Thanks, Tim.

Mr SLADE – If I may, just for the record – and I hope you don’t mind me asking this but it is probably is a reasonable question – would members say if they would be willing to drink water on a daily basis from any of these roofs pictured here?

Ms PALMER – You would certainly have some concerns, wouldn’t you?

Mr DEAN – You’d think about it, Tim, that’s for sure.

CHAIR – Too difficult to answer, really, but please continue.

Mr SLADE – I see, so you’re not quite sure about that, Tania? So looking at those roofs would you or would you not be happy to drink off that every day?

CHAIR – I rather not commit to that.

Mr. SLADE – Okay. At Pioneer in 2019, one-third of the town was ultimately deemed to have heavy metal contaminated drink on their water set-ups. I repeat, one-third of Pioneer, at least 12 homes, with unsafe drinking water systems installed by TasWater. After eight years, several homes are still receiving bottled water: eight years and two months since the alert in November 2012. I ask members, if this was happening in Launceston or Hobart, would you be satisfied? What actions would you take? What sanctions would have been applied to the board and the CEO of TasWater if this was happening in Hobart or Launceston? What would have been the response of the Premier? If this was happening on Hobart or Launceston how quickly would the DHHS have intervened to ensure the safety of residents?

I will leave it as rhetorical question.

CHAIR – Thank you

Mr. SLADE – The first and most important document I would like to present to you and to table is the letter from the Tasmanian Director of Public Health, Dr Veitch, sent to the CEO, Mr Brewster, 7 December 2018, six years after the alert at Pioneer in 2012 began. Dr Veitch outlines three failures perpetrated by TasWater against the residents of Pioneer.

Dr Veitch’s letter clearly quotes documents to OTER, the Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator, wherein TasWater promises to replace roofs at Pioneer if they are unsafe, to replace and repair roofs at Pioneer if they are unsafe for the collection of drinking water.

TasWater writes to OTER, and I quote:

;… the provision of assistance to ensure roofing and guttering were adequate to supply water to the tank, and repair of roof gutters and down pipes, et cetera to standard suitable for collecting rainwater for drinking.’

Dr Veitch also in his letter to the CEO, Mr Brewster, writes that the Department of Justice also notes that this work should have been carried out by TasWater.

TasWater has lied about this promise. Even as recently as my last communication to them, TasWater stated that they have never made this promise to Pioneer. The result of this has been to have misled and confused members of the Government, the DHHS, the media and the residents of Pioneer. This has been a concerted and fundamental misrepresentation by the CEO and the board from 2012 and continuing until this day. Notwithstanding this letter from Dr Veitch of 7 December 2018, where he quotes documents which prove that this was indeed the promise of TasWater to Pioneer and to OTER and the Department of Justice. This misinformation is disseminated to new employees at TasWater and the turnover of employees dealing with Pioneer projects over eight years has been extreme.

My most recent conversation with the new project manager for Pioneer, she stated without equivocation that TasWater doesn’t have to fix or replace roofs, that TasWater never made this promise. I politely told her that she has been misinformed. Clearly, as Dr Veitch’s letter of overrule to the CEO, Mr Brewster, underlines TasWater most certainly made this promise to Pioneer and to TasWater’s regulators, including OTER and the Department of Justice.

So the question for you members is this: who is the person who constantly misinforms new employees at TasWater? Keeping in mind that this misinformed view will inform every interaction those employees have with the people of Pioneer. So who is responsible for this misinformation which has been perpetuated in-house and abroad, in the public realm and in the media? I put it to you that the answer of this question lies with the CEO of TasWater, Mr Brewster and his board. Who else could it be?

Dr Veitch’s letter to the CEO, Mr Brewster, also identifies failure to acknowledge ‘future foreseeable risk in relation to lead-painted roofs at Pioneer and the collection of rainwater for drinking’.

Dr Veitch also quotes a breach of agreement with the town of Pioneer.

Dr Veitch also identifies TasWater’s failure to apply the guidance of Use of Rainwater Tanks, a national guideline document for the installation and use of rainwater tanks created by the Australian Government Department of Health. This document states, and I quote:

‘Do not collect rainwater from roofs painted with products containing high lead concentrations, for example, pre-1970s paint.’

And even while TasWater ignored all guidelines, it took them five years to install 35 rainwater tanks – five years. In my own personal case I waited three full years to have a rainwater tank installed. Does this sound like smooth and responsible practice to you?

And you’ve seen the photographs of the roofs. So, you can see, members, that Pioneer was not some unfortunate, isolated incident.

It was a design process by TasWater of misinformation, failure to comply with regulations, failure to uphold the sanction, obfuscation and coverup, failure to analyse, failure to analyse failures and to take responsibility and a failure to manage its own board and CEO to a standard whereby the DHHS can be 100 per cent trusting 100 per cent of the time that the truth has been told in the interests of customers – in this case the people of Pioneer.

This letter overall from Dr Veitch occurred as a direct result from my original communications to the Department of Health. This followed every player over the years refusing to contact the DHHS for Pioneer. This includes refusals by the Premier, refusals by the owners’ representative group, refusals by LGAT, refusals by Dorset council and others.

Dr Veitch and his department head, Mr Hunt, and Mr Dalgleish, said to me that they were unaware of the issue of the painted roofs, notwithstanding the program beginning six years earlier from that conversation. I think that the evidence shows that this is beyond belief. It is inconceivable that the DHHS did not know and if, indeed, it is true that they did not know until advised by me in 2018, it must certainly be the case that they should have known. It was the DHHS’s responsibility to know.

Dr Veitch ends his letter to the CEO, Mr Brewster, without a volition or urgency, making no mention of sanction. Rather, Dr Veitch leaves it completely at the discretion of the CEO, Mr Brewster, when he writes: Please feel free to get in touch if you would like to discuss this in more detail with me and my department colleagues. That’s how Dr Veitch ended his letter where he overrules the CEO, Mr Brewster, on three counts six years after the alert began. Was this appropriate? Surely not.

Consistent with this soft approach by the DHHS, the CEO, Mr Brewster, took five months to write to residents from Dr Veitch’s letter, okay. He didn’t write to Pioneer for five months after he received that letter from Dr Veitch.

The whole town testing program – the first ever in seven years – did not begin until almost one full year after Dr Veitch’s letter to the CEO, Mr Brewster, on 7 December 2018. That is absolutely incredible, in my view.

The second document of major importance is a letter from the then premier, Mr Hodgman, to me. This is going to the state government’s involvement now.

The premier, Mr Hodgman, was privy to communications from me over the years – I sent him nearly everything as it was happening – writes to me for the first time, barring acknowledgements, on 10 September 2018, four days prior to the assent of legislation for the new ownership model for TasWater in the Legislative Council. I will repeat that for members: four days prior to the assent of legislation for the new ownership model of TasWater, the premier, Mr Hodgman, writes to me to advise me that he cannot help Pioneer because the state government plays no part in TasWater operations or oversight.

It was common public knowledge in the media everywhere that the Legislative Council had publicly stated that they would support the new legislation. Indeed, the legislation had already been approved and was simply awaiting assent in the parliament. Premier Hodgman was in full knowledge of this when he wrote to me, four days before the assent, which was to state that his Government will not help pioneer.

Following the Legislative Council’s decision, Premier Hodgman did not ever write to me again. And his Government refused at all times to represent Pioneer to TasWater. Mr Hodgman, if he was sincere, of course, could quite easily have written to me five days later and offered help to Pioneer.

Eight months after premier Hodgman’s letter, and the assent of the legislation, Mr Ferguson’s letter to Tania Rattray, 23 May 2019, where he refuses to assist Pioneer for obsolete reasons. Mainly, the State Government plays no part in TasWater operation. Eight months after the new ownership model for TasWater has reached assent, Mr Ferguson writes to Tania Rattray on behalf of me and Pioneer, referring to premier Hodgman’s obsolete letter, which was written before assent, saying that they cannot help.

It is inconceivable that the minister did not know what he was doing. Mr Ferguson did know this, of course.

The state government has never used their seat at the table of TasWater to seek help for Pioneer, notwithstanding years and years of documented evidence.

Note in Mr Ferguson’s letter, he makes no offer to assist via this method. This is politics at its most cynical and its most dangerous.

I will table both of these letters. Moving on to further key documents, I would like to table Doug Chipman’s letter to me, President at that time of Local Government of Tasmania, now the President of the Owner Representative Group, from 29 May 2018, when Mr Doug Chipman writes a two-sentence reply to me. Generally, he would just ignore correspondence, and in this case, it was a two-sentence reply when he opposes the testing.

‘Dear Tim,

Why should all tanks at Pioneer, be tested by TasWater, when quite a few were never even installed by TasWater. I am also aware that a number of Pioneer residents don’t want anything to do with TasWater.

Regards, Doug Chipman.’

That was the attitude of Mr Chipman throughout. It was also the attitude of David Downie throughout.

CHAIR – Tim, is there a chance that we could skip through this because we will have this now as part of our evidence.

Mr SLADE – Do you mind if I go just a little further?

CHAIR – Yes. I am just mindful that we do want to ask some questions.

Mr SLADE – TasWater were aware from their own tests, as we now know, in 2014, at least three roofs were lead painted above grid line levels. I provide two letters of evidence, in my submission. Only a handful were tested at the time.

Certainly, the whole town was not tested. Only a handful were tested and we now know, when we came back via the Ombudsman in 2018, we extracted these documents from TasWater, which show they knew from their own tests in 2014, that they were lead painted roofs above the limit. I will table those documents.

CHAIR – Thank you.

Mr SLADE – I would like to say, also, that the documents showed that requests by lead-affected residents for historic paint test results were ignored over years, notwithstanding repeated written requests directed to CEO Brewster, and via the Ombudsman.

This goes beyond the question of science of lead, or whatever. This goes to the fact of residents repeatedly, in writing, asking over the years and even through the Ombudsman, asking for their water results for their lead paint tests, and not receiving them. I will give you another excellent example of that a bit later on.

Chairman Gumley has failed to respond to my 23-page submission of 29 November 2019. This was a major submission from Pioneer. He replied to the first letter briefly, basically in dot points. So then I thought okay, I will do this properly and sent a 23-page letter, detailing email, dates, et cetera, where he had ignored correspondence from the worst-affected customers in the town, including a whole host of very important, critical issues.

I have never even received an acknowledgement from that letter from Chairman Gumley. He certainly has not replied, notwithstanding repeated requests by me.

Nobody at Pioneer wishes to fight in the courts and has probably the poorest community in Tasmania by now. It is not an option open to them under normal circumstances. However, one resident is receiving advice from EDO, the only law practice in Tasmania which is willing to offer time to the community on a pro bono basis. TasWater is aware of this.

TasWater’s lawyers spent more than six months writing the original contracts in 2013, contracts which did not enshrine our rights in accordance with the promise to provide safe roofs for the catchment drinking water. These same lawyers have been engaged with TasWater at every step over the past eight years to protect the interests of the water tank water. I wish to bring a remarkable and distressing case to you about Mr Johnston who does not wish to proceed through the courts. Like most of us, we do not wish to do that.

On 17 December 2018, 10 days after Dr Veitch wrote to overrule CEO Brewster on three counts, the CEO wrote to Mr Johnston, refusing assistance to replace his lead painted roof.

Mr Johnston had refused a tank years earlier because it is obviously a toxic roof and TasWater refused to repair or replace it. Since 2012, for seven years, Mr Johnston carted water by hand from the fire station’s rain water tank.

We now know that TasWater was aware in 2014 that Mr Johnston’s roof was lead painted.

So even after direct written advice from Dr Veitch to overrule CEO Brewster, his longheld position of neglect over years, even after this, from this chief medical doctor in Tasmania, CEO Brewster, 10 days later, wrote to Mr Johnston to tell him that he could not be assisted by TasWater under any circumstances.

If that was not impossible enough, in that letter, CEO Brewster did not provide the test of the paint result that Mr Johnston had been requesting for nearly six months or a year in writing. That is CEO Brewster. He does not listen to anybody. He does what he wants to do.

In terms of the future for Pioneer, following the announcement in December 2019 that a new mini-treatment plant would be at Pioneer, TasWater has not written to residents to inform them of the timing of it. We have not received any communication from TasWater for nearly an entire year. My representations to TasWater asking for a time line or at least a start date be communicated to residents as it is, I understand it, on the website, fell on deaf ears. We have received nothing from TasWater, whatsoever.

I would like to bring to the attention of members the monthly data report. Presently it is dysfunctional, notwithstanding my repeated emails to CEO Brewster, the body and the board, to advise of this policy, which the Legislative Council supported.

I am not sure if you realise but, from that report which Legislative Council agreed to in principle, Pioneer were to fight for a further two years before that policy was accepted. It meant nothing to TasWater that it had the support of Tasmanian Labor, Tasmanian Greens and the Upper House of the Tasmanian Parliament. That was not important.

It was not until I basically cornered TasWater into doing a cost-analysis for the policy, because I knew that was the key, because I had advice from senior engineers that the policy cost was ‘nothing’. In the end, it turned out to be $2000 per year, per council, for that policy.

It’s depressingly dysfunctional. The portal does not provide any health guideline values in the data, therefore customers cannot see what the health guideline value should be for each thing being tested. This makes the data impossible to read and interpret. It is beyond belief that TasWater refused to provide the health guideline value alongside the water data. Furthermore, the portal is not available to find in any of the menus on the main page of TasWater’s website. The portal is simply impossible to find, and I mean impossible, even if the customer is aware of the portal in the first place, which most are not. Further, TasWater is failing to report any data about pesticides. TasWater is not reporting on a monthly basis, as was the formal decision of the board. Looking at the portal yesterday I see that the last update of data was 30 November, two months ago. Furthermore, there is no data for towns like Herrick, Pioneer’s neighbour, where there is a mini treatment plant, and, of course, there is no data for Pioneer.

All these major deficiencies with the portal has been brought to the attention of CEO Brewster and the board repeatedly – although not for some time from me because I have basically given up – in writing and verbally and indeed this formed part of my major reply submission to the chair at my 29 November 2019 meeting.

There are countless other documents about Pioneer and other issues I could cite today if we had more time, but I will leave that to my submission.

In conclusion, I say clearly to you that the board of TasWater cannot be considered to be indispensable. The documents show a long-held pattern of negligence and dishonesty, acting in full knowledge over eight years, notwithstanding countless representations to councils.

This has left the client, the people of Pioneer, at risk of harm.

I ask members to seek sanctions against the board of TasWater. Tasmanians deserve an honest and competent board and we pay for one. Drinking water is a fundamental health issue.

The DHHS must be able to know that they can have 100 per cent confidence in the honesty of the board and its CEO 100 per cent of the time, not 99 per cent of the time. If it is not 100 per cent of the time, DHHS cannot say they have the confidence in the CEO and the board of TasWater. The documents represented today and in my submission show without a shadow of a doubt that Tasmania’s Government and the overseers of TasWater can no longer have 100 per cent confidence.

I would ask the Legislative Council, if it is within their powers, to invite the DHHS to write a letter of no confidence in the board of TasWater. If the DHHS will not do this the Legislative Council should write its letter of no confidence themselves if they are able, using the evidence provided.

The experience of Pioneer’s residents must be acknowledged. The historical facts must not be ignored. This must not happen again and Pioneer needs safe drinking water now.

If TasWater will not take responsibility for its actions then it is the role of this parliamentary inquiry to direct this challenge for them and all Tasmanians.

TasWater has been granted sufficient time.

Thank you for listening to me and I welcome your questions.

CHAIR – Thank you very much, Tim, for that very comprehensive document you have provided. It will be useful that it is in writing. With a fairly limited amount of time, let’s get straight into the questions. You said there hasn’t been any advice or contact from TasWater in regard to the new system that will be rolled out.

Mr SLADE – It must have been nearly a year since we received any written communications at all. I spoke to this person (pointing to a TasWater employee in the room) many months ago and she expressed her apologies. I have spoken to her before the meeting. However, after all this, they did not get back to me. I raised the issue that the chairman has never replied to the major submission and I mentioned the time line, that it was on the website but hadn’t been communicated to the community. Nothing. It was an hour-long conversation. How many more hour-long conversations should I have for free and have nothing, not even a reply, no action? It just disappeared. It is my understanding that this person is the head project manager for Pioneer at the moment, and there have been a countless number of them. Each time they change, they’re re-educated but they have no actual knowledge about what’s happened, what we all know in Pioneer. They just get this re-education, usually of disinformation, and then it all starts over again. That has been a massive part of the delay because there has been no continuity.

CHAIR – Once the new scheme is in place – and we don’t have a time frame attached to that at this point in time – will TasWater remove the tanks that have been provided so that then there’s no more contaminant? Do you have some understanding of that?

Mr SLADE – You would have to ask TasWater that question.

CHAIR – All right. Hasn’t there been a conversation with the community –

Mr SLADE – There has been zero conversation. My understanding is that that won’t occur and we will keep our tanks, but that’s basically just a guess.

CHAIR – Right. Because for those roofs that have lead contaminant, lead paint, on them, that won’t resolve the issue you are sharing with the committee today.

Mr SLADE – Yes. Well, it possibly opens up some risk if a person or 10 years down the track if a new person moves into a place and doesn’t understand what’s happening, that they can’t use the water off the roof or something like that, I don’t know.

CHAIR – So they can only use it for gardening?

Mr SLADE – I mean, some people –

CHAIR – Not even gardening.

Mr SLADE – No.

Ms PALMER – I wasn’t sure if you could use it for gardening or not.

Mr SLADE – Well, they’ve always said you can, but I wouldn’t personally. For instance, my roof is basically safe even though there’s still defective works on it but that photo that you saw with the gutter held up with bits of wire onto the bolts to pull up the gutter because the gutter was installed against gravity, years later that was then classified as defective works but I haven’t given authorisation for that work to be fixed on the basis that the board has not replied to Pioneer.

CHAIR – So that’s a separate side issue?

Mr SLADE – I don’t know if it is or not.

Mr DEAN – When did TasWater take over? 2002? 2003?

Mr SLADE – Well, it was Ben Lomond Water for –

CHAIR – For a short time.

Mr DEAN – No, we still had it in 2012 or something so about 2012.

Mr SLADE – Yes, something like that.

Mr DEAN – You’ve been there for, I think, 11 years.

Mr SLADE – Since 2009.

Mr DEAN – What was your water supply then?

Mr SLADE – Historically it was a reticulated supply which was untreated and that was brought to the town for the tin mining. Apparently in the summertime, when there would be less flow down, we had an allocation from the Frome Dam, a legislated allocation or something that used to get sent down in summertime and part of this – just before the alert occurred; I’m getting a big vague now – anyway, we were disconnected from that allocation, so the Tasmanian Irrigation scheme engineered us off that but didn’t tell the town, so the town didn’t find out about that until three years later and people were up in arms about that because it was a community water scheme.

Mr DEAN – Right.

Mr SLADE – The community used to look after that scheme. That was before my time.

CHAIR – Originally the tanks were installed as a way of addressing the fact that the town had to boil its water. It was to –

Mr SLADE – No, no. It was because of the lead.

CHAIR – Wasn’t it on a boil water alert?

Mr SLADE – No. Boiling water does not fix lead, so we had a lead alert and their rationale was they discounted the Macquarie University study into Pioneer which said that it came from the lead seams in the big pipes that used to come down. TasWater preferred to believe or to promulgate that it was possibly an environmental source of lead and, therefore, the only solution in the case that we don’t know where it comes from, is that we have rainwater tanks or something like that.

In the town meeting there were several options given to us but at that time mini-treatment plants didn’t exist in Tasmania; there was no offer of that. There was no offer of treating; it was just tanking water into the town or something and people at the meeting generally agreed for rainwater tanks at that time on the proviso that roofs would be replaced or repaired. That was the direct proviso and we just thought that rainwater tanks – well, how long did it take for rainwater tanks –

Mr DEAN – Is there anything in writing in relation to TasWater saying they’d replace these roofs? You’ve said that they have misled.

Mr SLADE – Yes, the letter from Dr Veitch quotes the documents. The letter from Dr Veitch to the CEO – CHAIR – To the CEO, Mr Brewster.

Mr SLADE – He’s gone away and found all these documents –

Mr DEAN – Have those documents been tabled? Mr SLADE -Yes, and it’s also in my submission.

Mr DEAN – Just so that I am clear on this: does Dr Veitch there refer to TasWater’s letter? Is that what you’re saying?

Mr SLADE – So this letter from Dr Veitch at the end of 2018 is after my representations to the Health department. Now, the Health department is saying we have never heard of this issue before. Then they must have gone away and investigated certain documents and then they have written to the CEO, Mr Brewster. Dr Veitch wrote to the CEO, Mr Brewster and overruled his position on three counts, not one only –

Mr DEAN – Tim, what I am trying to get is – I think you said and I need to be clear on this – that it was in writing, that TasWater had it in writing, that they would replace the roofs of the properties at Pioneer that needed replacing, I suspect.

Mr SLADE – It says – this is from Dr Veitch’s letter – TasWater’s submission in June 2017 to OTER for the service replacement of Pioneer and Mountain River explicitly stated on page 4, it says that:

‘… the service replacement option would involve the provision of assistance to ensure roofing and guttering were adequate to supply water to the tank.’

This submission also cited early discussions and agreement that:

‘service replacement would involve the repair of roof, gutters and downpipes, et cetera, to a standard suitable for the collection, or collecting, of rainwater for drinking.’

So that’s what that means. I mean it’s –

Mr DEAN – I am just trying to work out the clarity around that as to whether they were going to do it, or whether they talking about it. There are two specifically different things there so maybe we need to look at that original document.

Ms PALMER – Do we have that original document?

Mr SLADE – I am sure Dr Veitch has it because he’s quoted from it.

CHAIR – We will request that from Dr Veitch.

Mr SLADE – He refers to letters to the Department of Justice too. The Department of Justice has obviously offered Dr Veitch some advice too on the same thing and indeed in the first town meeting that was what they promised us but then it wasn’t actually properly enshrined in the contracts.

Our advice from when Ross Hart was the federal member for Bass, I got his legal opinion, and he said that independent of what a contract says, there’s just no question in his mind that given that the roof is part of the collection system, firstly it had to be tested – which it wasn’t – and that they needed to be fixed or repaired. There are documents –

CHAIR – There are a number of documents and, yes, you have provided those but we don’t have a copy of that document that Dr Veitch quoted from so the committee will source that.

Mr SLADE – That’s good.

Mr DEAN – Just so that I am absolutely 100 per cent clear, you’re saying that over a long period of time that TasWater is saying they never ever agreed or made any statement or any promise or whatever to replace the roofs or to bring them up to a standard where the water could be safely collected from them?

Mr SLADE – Yes, well that’s basically what they are saying. There’s another couple of documents I will table here which is from GBE and the Legislative Council, 4 December 2018, where Josh Willie is questioning Mr Brewster, saying there are two interesting quotes there from Mr Brewster where, well his sophistry around that issue.

Mr DEAN – How many properties are there at Pioneer all told, fitting into this category, that would need. Any idea?

Mr SLADE – I think there are between 35 and 40 houses, so 70 or 75 people, or something like that.

Mr DEAN – Thanks for that, Tim.

CHAIR – Anything else that you feel is important to leave with the committee, because we have expired our time and we have somebody else waiting.

Mr SLADE – I could just talk to you all day about it and I would say to you that I would openly invite you to contact me and I could speak to you for hours about it. If you are interested the invitation is there.

Mr DEAN – I am interested but –

Mr SLADE – It is just a matter of time but if you ever want me to come to your office, or anything, I am happy to do that.

CHAIR – Tim, your submission is exceptional in its content of the issues and the time line and the trail, and all members have read your submission.

Mr SLADE – It’s just a few questions, because sometimes you still have a question, I wish I knew what the answer to that was, whatever. Just please contact me.

CHAIR – We will and we will have some time to digest more of the information that was received.

Mr SLADE – Is there any indication or do you have any preliminary thoughts about what your actions might be, or what your assessment might be, or do you do that later?

CHAIR – No we don’t. We are hoping that we might have a bit of a conversation about where to next. We were to have TasWater come before the committee tomorrow, but there has been an illness in Mr Brewster’s family so he is not able to come and without having Mr Brewster as part of the hearing it is not going to proceed tomorrow but it will as soon as possible.

Mr SLADE – Oh it’s going to be postponed?

Mr DEAN – Not the whole hearings tomorrow?

CHAIR – No, just the TasWater.

Mr SLADE – As long as it is still going to –

CHAIR – It will still happen. We certainly wish Mr Brewster and his family all the best. Thank you very much, and we certainly appreciate you coming in today because it is quite a hike from Pioneer as we know, so thank you.

Mr DEAN – You can provide it now to our secretary and our assistant secretary.

CHAIR – We will suspend for a couple of minutes while we get the next witness organised, as it’s on teleconference. Tim will have an opportunity to provide those documents to our secretary.

THE WITNESS WITHDREW.