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

I should correct the record with regard to previous comments about Democrat staff, as well, and contextualise it, but I shall not do that, because, as you say, this is about the Traveston dam, so I might do it another time. Suffice to say that it is a very misleading comparison.

This is an important report and I congratulate the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport as a whole, particularly the secretariat, for pulling together all the information. They have pulled together what is in some way fairly close to at least a foundation of a unanimous report, as far as it goes, given how politicised the inquiry was. That was evidenced right at the start. Senator Boswell took credit for initiating this inquiry, which in one sense he did because he moved the motion, but he refused to talk with anybody else about how the inquiry would be put up, and he refused to consider any proposed amendment. He rejected an amendment from the Democrats to specify that it examine the Wyaralong Dam on an equal footing to the Traveston dam, and he basically set it up to make it as politicised as possible right from the start, rather than trying to have it as cross-party and as constructive as possible right from the start. I appreciate that the political reality was that this was always going to be politicised, but at least trying to get some sort of common ground right from the start, rather than turning it into a political campaigning vehicle, would have been helpful for the people that we say we are all doing this for, I might say, which is the people of south-east Queensland, particularly those affected by the two dams. Nonetheless, I think the committee as a whole, given that framework, did pretty well at keeping all the politics within control, with a few little outbreaks here and there, and sticking to the evidence.

I would also say that, as much as I think the Queensland government are 110 per cent on the wrong track here, they did cooperate pretty comprehensively with the inquiry. It should be pointed out that, whilst state governments always should do that, they often do not. I have been part of many Senate inquiries where state governments have just said, ‘Get lost; we’re not interested, and we’re not going to cooperate.’ On this inquiry, where so much of it was about targeting the Queensland government, one could understand why they might have taken that attitude and just said, ‘This is a politically motivated inquiry; get lost,’ but they did not do that. They provided a lot of information and they deserve credit for that. That has helped the people affected, because they have been able to get access to information they had difficulty getting access to, as the Senate inquiry committee report details, and that should be acknowledged. It is not just about what we all come up with, what we all put in the report and what we recommend that is important; it is about what gets on the public record—the information that people get access to. And they were having difficulty getting access to it. They still are, in some respects, I should hasten to add. So it has been a valuable exercise from that point of view alone, and the Queensland government, despite the fact that they are totally wrong, nonetheless did cooperate—broadly speaking; it was not 100 per cent but it was a pretty good effort compared with many in other circumstances.

Having put that little bouquet up there, I should once again emphasise that I think the vast amount of evidence, including plenty of that provided by the Queensland government, reinforced the fact that the Wyaralong and Traveston dams have both been poorly thought through. It was basically policy on the run. We see plenty of that at the federal level, so it is no surprise to see state governments doing it as well. They have got a big political problem in south-east Queensland, and the need to be seen to be doing something about it became stronger than the need to be doing the right thing. They have been picking options that are ‘big bang’ options, like dams. There is a long history in Queensland of parties of all persuasions proposing big dams as big solutions to big problems. The fact that the evidence shows that almost all of them have been big disasters does not seem to stop us going down the same track. There is no better example than the Paradise Dam, just up the road, if you like—or up the next catchment—from where the Mary River dam is going to go in. That was the dam that all scientific evidence showed was going to be ridiculously overpriced, totally unsuccessful and unworkable in terms of value for money, but both the major parties almost climbed over each other promising it at state level. We got it and, lo and behold, surprise, surprise, it is a disaster. It has not delivered the water, it has not delivered value for money and it has caused immense environmental destruction. We are going down that same path again here.

I want to make some other points. There was a lot of valuable evidence, particularly from the Institute of Sustainable Futures and Professor Stuart White, which I think should be drawn on for future reference, particularly by the Queensland government and people interested in water policy. There are clearly other alternatives. There is a substantial body of evidence that we do not need another dam at all. If you live in south-east Queensland, as I have my whole life, you are surrounded by empty dams. The evidence provided to the inquiry and subsequently by the state governments, which I have seen, is that if the Wyaralong Dam, in conjunction with the Cedar Grove Weir, had been built prior to this recent drought it would not be delivering any water. So the idea that these things are an insurance against drought is just ludicrous. There is plenty of evidence, some of it disputed, that demonstrates that the same would apply with the Traveston dam if it were built and we had the same drought conditions in the future; that, particularly with population growth, it would not deliver the water. This project involves billions of dollars and it is massively destructive environmentally and socially, so why the hell are we doing it? Because of the need of governments to be seen to be doing something—the big, grand solution.

The body of the report, the general statements and those additional comments from coalition senators make the case pretty clear that this is pretty dodgy, but they still do not go that clear extra step. You can make all the general statements you like about this being dodgy and all the statements about how the government should seriously consider this and that, but neither of the major parties has made the categorical statement that, if the evidence demonstrates there will be negative consequences on matters of national environmental significance, they will use their power under the EPBC Act to stop the dam. And that is what is needed: a commitment from both major parties before the election. It is not good enough to just go around talking about how bad it is with this unspoken implication that you will stop it. You need to actually give the commitment and say, ‘Yes, if we are in government after the election and the evidence shows’—as I think it undoubtedly will, particularly in relation to Traveston—‘that this will harm matters of national environmental significance such as threatened species like the Queensland lungfish, the World Heritage values of the Great Sandy Strait and the Ramsar wetlands downstream, we will use the power.’

We all know you have the power. The EPBC Act clearly provides the power—and I am duty bound to note that it was because of the Democrats that the EPBC Act is there. If it were not for the Democrats, who copped all sorts of flak from Labor and the Greens at the time for passing it in a strengthened form, the act would not be there and this inquiry would not have happened because there would be no federal role whatsoever. If it were not for the Democrats and the EPBC Act, there would be no hope for people who want to stop this dam.

But there is no dispute that the power is there under the EPBC Act. What is at dispute is whether or not the minister will use that power if there are reasonable grounds for doing so. I cannot believe that any credible environmental impact statement will do anything other than show that there are credible grounds—very strong reasons and evidence—that building the Traveston dam will have very negative effects on matters of national environmental significance that cannot be mitigated by fish ladders and the like. But you have to give a commitment that, if that is what the evidence shows, you will use the power, because it is not used very often.

It is a big step for a federal minister to use that power to stop a dam; it does not happen very often and people need that commitment that that power will be used, that the political will is there to use it. It is just not good enough to run around saying, ‘This is bad,’ if you are not going to take the follow-up step by saying, ‘We will act to stop it.’ Both the major parties have that power. The coalition parties that are clearly and rightly campaigning about the problems with this dam need to give that clear commitment. They cannot say now, ‘Yes, we’ll stop it,’ because obviously the due process of law has to be followed; they have to see the evidence through the EIS. But when they get it and if it shows anything like the totality of evidence presented to the committee, they will have more than ample reason for the minister to make that decision and they should be able to make that clear statement that they will use those powers, that there will be that political will there. Unless they do that, there is a real risk that they will be stringing along the people of the Mary Valley indefinitely, and that is just cruel.

Finally, I emphasise the situation with the Wyaralong Dam. It is often forgotten. But the evidence, particularly from Dr Brad Witt and his colleagues, showed that, if anything, this is even more ludicrous, purely on a policy basis. It will not have the same environmental and social impacts, although it will certainly have some. But, purely as a water policy issue, it is just plain stupid. There are better alternatives, and the Queensland government should adopt them.