Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to speak tonight, as I have a few times in the past, about the two major dams proposed in south-east Queensland by the Beattie Labor government. A lot of attention, quite understandably, has been focused on the Traverston Crossing Dam, just near Gympie on the Mary River, not least because of its potential impact on the endangered lungfish, an incredibly significant species of quite enormous biological importance—and of course the impact on the surrounding communities and the local economy. When one talks about the impact of dams on the environment, it is not just the impact on the section of the river that is dammed, where the water banks up and the area is flooded. There is of course a significant impact downstream and there are water quality issues as well as water flow issues, flowing right through to the coast. In this case, the Mary River flows into the World Heritage area of Fraser Island and the Fraser Island marine environment. As Senator Scullion would know, with his background in fishing, water quality flowing into these estuaries and into coastal environments can have a huge impact on the fish breeding potential and the entire ecosystems in the downstream section as well. So I do think those points need to be emphasised. I am sure that, when this matter is assessed for its environmental impact, the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage will take into account the full potential consequences.

But I wanted to speak tonight about the often forgotten second dam, the Wyaralong Dam, which is a smaller one. It is to the south of Brisbane, near the area of Boonah, which, by coincidence—and it is completely irrelevant to my topic, but I will mention it anyway—is the birthplace of former Queensland Democrats senator John Cherry. The area that the Wyaralong Dam will inundate, and the area that is to be resumed, is significantly smaller than the Traverston Crossing Dam. There is no doubt that it will not have the same devastating social impact. Indeed, it does not have as much in relation to threatened species, such as the lungfish in particular. But I think there is a broader issue, and a question that really needs to be debated more fully with both of these dams, including the Wyaralong one, which is the fairness of the process, the accuracy of the process, the accuracy of the data and the accuracy of the arguments that are being put forward by the Queensland government to justify this very expensive infrastructure.

I am not one of those people who say that we should never have any dams anywhere, ever, and that they are always bad 100 per cent of the time. In an ideal world it would always be good not to have such infrastructure, which will always have a significant impact on surrounding ecosystems. But I do recognise that there are times when such infrastructure is necessary as part of a broader range of measures. I reinforce the point, as I take every opportunity to do so, about how bizarre it is that the Queensland government is going ahead with such incredibly expensive and always uncertain projects. You can never be sure how much water you are going to get out of a dam—you have to rely on the right amount of rain, in the right place at the right time. That we have such a huge wastage in water and a failure to adopt full recycling of water is a travesty and an absurdity. It is a political reality nonetheless, and one that occurs not just because of the lack of backbone from the state Labor government but in part because of the continuing opposition from at least part of the coalition parties—certainly from the National Party in Queensland. I think that is a real shame.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that, if it is done properly, water recycling for indirect potable reuse is safe. It is clearly reliable, because the water is already there. It is less expensive. It does consume some energy, that is for sure, but less than desalination does. Yet the Beattie government is going ahead with all of these other options except full water recycling. It is insisting on a plebiscite before it will go ahead with that. I think that is a bizarre approach, I must say. However, that is what is being done. We cannot force the state government to do something, but we can certainly try to ensure that laws are applied that prevent unwise or irresponsible projects from going ahead. I do think there are issues with the Wyaralong Dam that also need to be examined, one of which is the way the facts are being presented.

Earlier this year the state government was told that its development of the Cedar Grove Weir, which is a weir further down the Logan River, was not a controlled action under the federal EPBC Act. In its referral documentation where it was required to include any other relevant or interdependent developments, the state government indicated only that the Wyaralong Dam may be considered in around 2060. At that stage, there was no mention of the proposed Tilley’s Bridge Dam at Rathdowney, which was where the second dam was to go ahead. The state made it clear that that weir was a stand-alone project. On the basis of that information the federal Department of the Environment and Heritage decided that the weir did not trigger any issues under the federal environment laws. A continuing difficulty with the federal environment protection act, I might say, is the need to ensure that the full consequences of any interrelated developments—the cumulative effects of a range of different developments—are properly considered. It is hard to get that right—to assess the cumulative impact of a number of separate developments. You cannot always tell that one will flow on from the other but, in this case, they are still required. Applicants, including the Queensland government, are still required to indicate any other relevant and interdependent development. The Queensland government stated on record that the Cedar Grove Weir was a stand-alone project. Now the state has submitted a referral for the dam on Teviot Brook, which leads into the Logan River at Wyaralong.

I have mentioned before in this place data and a report put together by Dr Brad Witt, who is an environmental scientist with quite a degree of expertise in water issues. He has assessed all the issues to do with water yield and has produced quite a comprehensive report about the issues relating to Wyaralong Dam and, I might say, alternatives. I think it is very laudable that he is not just complaining about a particular project and pointing to all the problems but also pointing out alternatives. He points out that for a fraction of the cost you could harvest water from further upstream, the Teviot Brook, and pump it across to the Moogerah Dam, which is in the adjoining catchment and has been basically empty for years and remains empty. That would obviously be a suitable water storage site for the water. It has been at consistently low storage levels for about the past 20 years. If you have a failed dam right in the adjoining catchment, you could easily harvest water at times of high flow and pump it at much less cost into the adjoining dam which has been at very low levels for decades now—well before the current drought.

So Dr Witt has put forward an alternative that I think needs to be properly considered. I would like to take the opportunity to table both his report and a supplementary report on the century scale performance—the historical rainfall data and performance of the dam storage area over the past 120 years. It is very thorough, as it would suggest, but what we need is more solid, thorough data, unless you have one-off lines and good sentences to get you out of the current media interview you are doing at a particular point in time. I seek leave to table the two documents entitled Wyaralong Dam: century scale performance and Wyaralong Dam: issues and alternatives.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. In conclusion I emphasise that the Queensland government is now stating that the Wyaralong Dam is a stand-alone proposal and not dependent on any other water infrastructure proposals in the area. That is despite the fact that, on their own data now, they are saying in their own public statements that they will not get the yield they previously said they would out of the Wyaralong Dam. They will need to rely on that in combination with the Cedar Grove Weir, for which they already have separate approval. It is this sort of dissembling that is consistently coming to light in the approach the Queensland government is taking to both these dams. It raises the very valid suspicions and cynicism of people in the community that they are basically just being given a snow job all the way along when that snow job potentially extends to the documentation provided to the federal government for approvals under the EPBC Act. I think we need to be very wary, and I repeat my calls for the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage to ensure that these matters are looked at independently. (Time expired)