Senate debates

Monday, 27 November 2006

Adjournment

Queensland Dams

10:09 pm

Photo of Andrew BartlettAndrew 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)

10:19 pm

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

Like my colleague from Queensland Senator Bartlett, I too want to mention the matter of dams this evening and draw the attention of the Senate to the thoroughly ill-conceived proposal of the Queensland Beattie government to build a dam on the Mary River just outside the southern Queensland town of Gympie, north of the Sunshine Coast. The proposal for the dam is not only another reflection of the abject failure of the Beattie government to plan for the development of public infrastructure in Queensland; it is a case study in how not to plan and undertake public works. The Queensland government contends that the dam is required to address the future water supply needs of Queensland’s south-east. But not only is there strong evidence that it will fail to meet this need; the dam’s construction will have disastrous environmental, social and economic consequences for the region and for the people who live there.

The dam is currently estimated to cost $1.7 billion of Queensland taxpayers’ money, yet a wide array of experts has already condemned the proposal. No-one, it seems, supports the dam but the Queensland government. First there are the elemental problems related to the dam’s site and construction. The Mary River is a low-flowing river, with periodic years of moderate flood flows and occasional spectacular floods. By every account it is an entirely inappropriate river for damming. The dam wall is proposed to be built on soft alluvial soil without a satisfactory solid rock base, necessitating complex and expensive engineering works that will include the need for a 30-metre deep foundation. When filled, the dam will have an average depth of only six to eight metres, so shallow as to lead to very high evaporation and making the dam prone to the build-up of algal blooms and other water contaminants. One expert predicts that the evaporation could be as high as the expected yield of the dam—150,000 megalitres a year.

Not only are there very profound problems with construction of the dam but it will have a disastrous impact on the environment. As a consequence of the dam’s construction, the downstream flow of the Mary River will be substantially reduced. As Senator Bartlett has noted, the quality of the water will be seriously affected. What is already a low-flowing river will suffer a further devastating impact with predictable consequences. Internationally protected RAMSAR wetlands will be affected as well as World Heritage areas, Commonwealth marine and heritage areas and, perhaps most significantly, the habitat of migratory and endangered species. The Queensland government’s own plans acknowledge that the dam will impact on the habitat of 17 threatened species, including two endangered, seven vulnerable and eight rare species. Most critically, the habitat of three endangered aquatic species, the Mary River cod, the Australian lungfish and the Mary River turtle, will be severely threatened.

The proposal will also have a disastrous impact on the economy and economic livelihood of many people in the Mary River Valley. The region is well known as being among Queensland’s most productive areas in dairying, as an agricultural region and as a region with an extensive range of productive small businesses. If built, the dam will also have a massive impact on existing local infrastructure. Parts of towns will have to be relocated and nine kilometres of the Bruce Highway will need to be rerouted, as well as up to 75 kilometres of local and arterial roads. A section of the electricity grid will need to be rebuilt, tourism facilities will need to be relocated and, most distressing for many local residents, provision will have to be made for the resiting of graves as a result of the flooding of a 100-year-old cemetery.

Then there are the community costs of the proposal. These are widespread and cause deep seated distress and anxiety to the residents. At one time, it was anticipated that 900 properties would be affected by the dam’s construction. The costs would be borne by every community in the Mary River Valley region. Although the dam has yet to proceed through the many stages required for approval, land acquisitions have already begun—in some cases, as it has turned out, unnecessarily, since the Queensland government has now changed its plans and has decided that the properties affected are no longer needed. In the course of resumption, there have been reports of intimidation and strong arm tactics by Queensland government officials.

Photo of Nigel ScullionNigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Shame, shame, shame.

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

Thank you, Senator Scullion. I agree completely with that intervention. I can personally testify to the stress and anxiety that the proposal has caused to this small community. At a public meeting I attended in the area last Monday, several residents were in tears as they explained the impact of the proposal on their families, their lives and their businesses. The residents of the Mary River Valley are fully aware of the serious challenges that south-east Queensland faces over its future water requirements. They acknowledge that communities need to make sacrifices for the wider common good. But they are mystified as to why their community is being asked to bear the burden of this particular proposal. When the proposed site of the dam is so manifestly inappropriate and when there are better alternative not far away which would cost less and which would have lower social, economic and environmental impacts, they are rightly wondering whether their community has been made a victim of the long-term serial failure on the part of the Beattie government to address the state’s water needs.

The simple fact is that the Beattie government has forfeited any confidence that the residents might have had in the approval process as a result of the way it has proceeded with the proposal. It was presented in haste without inadequate consultation, the plans dishonestly conveyed the government’s intentions, comprehensive information has been consistently withheld and the process has lacked transparency. All in all, it has generated immense pain and anxiety within the local community. And the community has not been assisted by the arrogant declaration by the Premier, Mr Beattie, that ‘this dam will be built whether it is feasible or not’.

The proposal to build the Traveston has now been referred to the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Campbell, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The minister is required to make a declaration that the proposal requires approval under the Commonwealth legislation. There seems little doubt that the Commonwealth has an important role in this matter and the minister should make this declaration. The Queensland state government will then be required to proceed with the assessment. This should be done through a transparent process by way of a public inquiry, as provided for in the relevant legislation. Failure to take this course will underscore to all those connected with this proposal that the Queensland government does not have the confidence that the Traveston proposal will stand up to close public scrutiny. On the other hand, undertaking the public inquiry will perhaps go some way to arresting some of the concerns and anxieties of the Mary River community. But in the end the only correct course is for the Queensland government to abandon the proposal as thoroughly ill-conceived and to spare the community any further pain in relation to it.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the commitment and determination of the residents of the Mary River Valley in their efforts to draw the impact of the dam proposal to the attention of the wider community and to the attention of families, businesses and other interests around the valley. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the commitment of 1,464 people such as Mr Kevin Ingersole, Mr David Ross and the local members of parliament, state and federal, including my colleagues in the other place Warren Truss and Alex Somlyay and especially the new member for Gympie in the state parliament, Mr David Gibson. They have acted in true community spirit on this very difficult issue in trying to alert the community to what is potentially a disaster and something that needs to be terminated forthwith.