Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

of the 246 submissions—Senator Hogg, as you know—that were received by the committee. The conclusions reflect that kind of serious consideration of the issues. The conclusions that have been reached by the committee are very critical of the proposals in relation to both the Traveston dam and the Wyaralong Dam. The criticisms point to the failure to consider the environmental consequences, which were largely ill-considered and unconsidered. The economic impact was grossly underestimated, and the social dislocation was largely ignored at the time the proposals were first put forward.

A further criticism is that the cost-effectiveness of the two projects, measured against the benefits to the community, was always highly dubious. We now know that the first stage of the Traveston dam, which will deliver something in the vicinity of 80 megs, will cost around $2.6 billion—that is before we even get to the second stage of the dam. Finally, on the technical and engineering aspects of the dam, the challenges in relation to silting, evaporation and leakage all compromise the effectiveness of this dam in terms of its long-term capacity as a water storage facility. In short, against every criterion that might be deployed to justify these two proposals, the Traveston dam and the Wyaralong Dam, as Senator Bartlett has pointed out, fail the test of good public policy. This reflects an absolute failure—a failure which deserves condemnation—of the Queensland government to plan for the water supply of the south-east corner of Queensland into the future.

These are not the conclusions of merely the coalition members of the committee. This is a unanimous report, including the Labor members of the committee. The judgements which are reached in the report, the concerns which are expressed in the report, are concerns of the Labor members of the committee, as they are of Senator Siewert and of the coalition members of the committee. It is deeply ironic that Labor supports many of the concerns expressed in this report. So much of this drama and so much of the concern expressed by the community could have been avoided if Mr Rudd, at the time he was in a position of influence in the Goss government in Queensland, had decided to proceed with the Wolffdene Dam rather than to cancel that project. So it is a great irony that here we have a decision many years later, a judicious report by a committee, with conclusions supported not only by the members from the coalition government but also by Labor members who, as I said, are condemning the conclusions which were reached all those years ago by the Goss government.

There is enough evidence in this report to raise very serious concerns about the logic, the good sense, of building both the Traveston Crossing Dam and the Wyaralong Dam. I would urge Mr Beattie to rethink his proposals and to consider the alternatives that are discussed in the report and that have been alluded to by Senator Siewert and all the other contributors to this debate this morning. Failing that, I would encourage the federal Minister for the Environment and Water Resources to pay very close attention to, in particular, the environmental concerns that are raised within this report when he considers the exercise of his power under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Let us not forget that the Wyaralong proposal, as Senator Bartlett has remarked, is at least as bad and ill conceived and impacts as profoundly on the local communities as the Traveston dam. Neither one of them should proceed. I hope that will be the judgement the Queensland government will reach before too long.