Compo shock as Queensland pulls back on responsibility for Wivenhoe Dam disaster

The Queensland government is denying responsibility for all but 1 per cent of damage caused in the 2011 Wivenhoe Dam floods.

Mary and Bill Proud at their Yeronga home damaged by the 2011 floods. Picture: Glenn Hunt

Victims of the 2011 Wivenhoe Dam floods are furious that the Queensland government is ­denying responsibility for all but 1 per cent of damage caused in the disaster.

Nearly 7000 class-action claimants won a landmark legal case in late November when the NSW Supreme Court ruled the operation of the state-owned Wivenhoe Dam was negligent in the lead-up to the deluge.

The Queensland government said it would not appeal against the verdict, but the dam operators, Seqwater and SunWater, have appealed.

In a letter to clients, Maurice Blackburn lawyers revealed Queensland had made the “surprising” decision to argue it was responsible for “less than 1 per cent of the damage arising from the flood” in the state’s southeast.

“The basis for the state’s position is a claim that the flood ­engineer employed by the state was not as responsible as the other engineers,” lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan writes.

“The state’s position is surprising in light of its announcement in December 2019 that it would not seek to appeal the judgment.

“An announcement that it accepted responsibility for 1 per cent of damage caused to flood victims, and therefore 1 per cent of their compensation, would have been poorly received.”

Compensation is estimated at about $1bn.

The State of Queensland ­employed one of the dam engineers, Seqwater owns Wivenhoe and employed two of the four ­engineers, and SunWater employed one engineer. It is understood the state suggests its engineer was on duty for only a short time during the relevant ­period and was less senior than the other engineers, therefore less responsible.

Seqwater and Maurice Blackburn have suggested the three defendants share responsibility equally. SunWater wants Seq­water to be liable for half, and the other two defendants each liable for a quarter.

The Yeronga home of claimant Bill Proud was inundated in 2011, causing about $100,000 worth of damage, and his insurer, RACQ, refused to pay out.

Mr Proud said it was “reprehensible” that the state was willing to accept only such a tiny fraction of blame, especially after claiming the moral high ground by not appealing.

“Everybody was delighted when we won (in court) and when the state said it would not appeal,” Mr Proud said. “It was all finally going to come to a close. But this, it’s just reprehensible what the government are doing to people.

“The state is trying to say it’s not their responsibility, but the two other bodies are incorporated under the state government.”

The state Attorney-General, Yvette D’Ath, said Queensland’s submissions regarding the apportionment of liability was based on the judge’s findings in November. “The government accepts the court’s ruling and has not ­appealed its decision,” she said.

“The quantum of damages is still to be determined by the court and as required under the court’s judgment, the government will be making a submission as to apportionment of liability between the parties. The submissions that the state has made regarding the ­apportionment are based on the findings that the judge has made regarding liability.”

A hearing date is expected to be set for November.