Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Options for additional water supplies for South East Queensland, together with a Hansard record of the proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report is the result of an inquiry which relates to a search for additional water supplies to meet the growing demand for water in south-east Queensland. Water is an extremely valuable resource and every state and territory in Australia is facing a tough challenge to secure a reliable and continued water supply. However, south-east Queensland is doing it tougher than most, given its booming population and declining rainfall and the prospect of an extra 1.5 million people moving over the next 25 years into an area that is deemed to be a great place to live. That has to be looked at in the context of climate change and declining rainfall. The Queensland government has responded to this challenge with a diverse range of demand management and supply source initiatives. However, the majority of evidence we received in this inquiry concerned the Queensland government’s decision to build the Traveston Crossing Dam on the Mary River.

This committee is clearly aware that its ability to effect change in this area is limited. The management of water resources in Australia is a state responsibility. However, this inquiry has been important. It has given a voice to members of affected communities, and they have told us that they feel stressed, anxious and frustrated with how their state government has handled the dam process to date. The Traveston Crossing Dam is a huge project, split into two stages. Stage 1 is due for completion in 2011 and is expected to deliver an additional 70,000 megalitres of water a year. Stage 2 will be completed, if built, in 2035 and will deliver an additional 40,000 megalitres to 80,000 megalitres a year.

People have told us that since the announcement of the dam in April 2006 their lives have been on hold while they have wrestled with its impact. Do they sell up, move on and make a new start? There has been a lot of uncertainty, and local businesses and communities have suffered. Perhaps all this social upheaval would be a bit easier for them to bear if they could have confidence that the dam is going to achieve its aim. But I have to say that I am not totally convinced that it is the case. I am particularly concerned by the evidence we received from civil engineers questioning the ability of the dam to hold and supply the stated yield. Strong concerns were expressed that the alluvial floor of the dam would result in high levels of seepage. Other potential problems were also raised, including high evaporation levels, adequacy of the catchment and the existence of fault lines under the dam. The Queensland government have said that they are satisfied that the site is suitable, but I am still concerned, given the evidence we received to the contrary.

We received 249 submissions, held four public hearings and inspected the proposed site for the dam. I would like to thank the Queensland government for its cooperation during this inquiry. Its representatives have attended public hearings, organised site inspections and provided volumes of information throughout the inquiry process. It is clearly evident that high levels of uncertainty and angst remain in the affected communities and I hope that evidence presented to this inquiry is of practical assistance to the Queensland government as it considers the options for bulk water supply in south-east Queensland.

There are some challenges here. There is a lot of angst. As a practical person more than being the chair of the committee, the evidence that I have received from engineers was in their words, ‘This dam will leak like a sieve.’ It might not necessarily be political imperative that has caused this decision—it was probably taken some years ago—but the cancellation of the Wolfdene Dam was probably seen as a political imperative at the time. Nevertheless, that decision on the Wolfdene Dam has resulted in poor planning, political expediency and catch-up science—and it is struggling to catch up.

The committee did itself proud in this inquiry. We presented ourselves as fair and unbiased, as far as I am concerned. We gave everyone a fair shot at it. But a picture paints a thousand words. Bear in mind that I have a very strong view that if such a large number of people want to live in south-east Queensland then maybe some of the decisions taken way back in the days of the white-shoe brigade were wrong in that there was not enough money put into future planning for water. They probably put it in the bank or spent it at the casino instead. To paint the picture of the angst involved in this, taking water from traditional farming uses like sugarcane and putting it into toilet flushes is a difficult political decision.

Then there is the option of the Traveston dam, which I would like to put into context for people. The Traveston dam at stage 1 will have a yield of 70,000 megs and hold 153,000 megs—that is, 70 gigs and 153 gigs. It will cover a surface area of 3,000 hectares, so it will have a capacity of holding a gig every 20 hectares. Stage 2 is more efficient: it is 12½ hectares to the gig and covers an area of 7,135 hectares. To put that into perspective of what is a good site, the best example I can come up with—and there is an endless list of them—is Talbingo reservoir in the Snowy scheme. It has a 2.04 hectares per gigalitre storage. It has a much more efficient—in fact, 10 times as efficient—storage capacity compared to the surface area, which gives an indication for people who do not understand evaporation as to the absolute encroachment that evaporation will have in terms of the yield of the dam.

There are some practical considerations. We were a bit appalled—and I am pleased the Queensland government is addressing this—by the treatment of the people at Kandanga. I am still not sure what was proposed for the people who lived up all the blind valleys where the head of the valleys were going to be cut off by water. I do not if they were going to be helicoptered in or whatever. In any event, I am pleased and privileged to have chaired this inquiry and I think it is fair to say I have tried to give everyone a fair go. Thank you very much.