Bill Heffernan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To be part of this committee was a privilege in many ways, and I think the committee did a very good job in terms of giving people an opportunity to come forward and give information to their Senate. However, as the committee report has pointed out, and as I want to put on record again today, I had some deep concerns about expectations of members of the public that our committee could make complete decisions about this project. It came up consistently from all sides of the argument but, in particular, from people who were concerned about the impact of a dam on their community, on their land. Some felt that by coming to this inquiry they would be able to have our committee direct government on decisions about the dam. I found that very disappointing and very saddening. We had to make the process clear so that everybody involved in the process understood what was happening.

We asked questions at each hearing about the understanding and awareness people had of the environmental protection act process. People who had the issues in front of them had genuine concerns, as would any community. It is important to understand that, wherever there is a proposal to put major infrastructure into a community, that will have an impact—and there is no question that there will be an impact—and people will be upset. They wanted to have their voices heard, but it is most important, at all levels of government, that there is clarity about responsibility and accountability. Consistently, our committee was in the position of having to inform people about how the committee process operates and, in particular, how any assessment would be made in the future about decisions to build or not to build dams not just in Queensland but across our community.

We worked through with people about the operation of the environmental protection act and where any final decision would lie with regard to any environmental impact on the community. And they understood that: these are intelligent, aware and mainly informed people, but I think some unnecessary hope had been put into the process that this committee was going to direct action. What we did, quite rightly, was to listen, to seek answers and to seek information. In some cases we were able to get information about some difficulties in getting clarity up until that time. At the end of our process, after considerable discussion within the committee, we were able to come up with an agreed position.

As you well know, Madam Acting Deputy President, the process of committees has a long history. A committee meets, hears evidence and then comes up with recommendations. The full committee came up with two recommendations, to which we all agreed after much discussion. The first recommendation, very straightforwardly, is that the information given to the minister under the EPBC Act would include the evidence received on any potential environmental impact of the Traveston dam on the Mary River and the species of that river. It is something we think is self-evident: any decision must take into account the evidence and the views provided and make full use of the whole process of seeking information and making decisions.

The second agreed recommendation goes to a full range of strategies for the Queensland government to implement ways to best utilise water in our state. It is very straightforward. Our committee agreed that the Queensland government should continue, not begin, to instigate strategies that will inform, engage and consult with members of affected communities—there is no argument about that—ensure that businesses affected by the proposed dams are adequately compensated and offered appropriate assistance—again, an agreed recommendation—and, where possible, facilitate the timely release of copies of reports and information to members of the community to achieve a transparent and open process—something, I think, through our committee, we were able to agree on and point out.

I think the committee did serve a purpose as our chair, Senator Heffernan, has pointed out. It gave people the opportunity to engage, hear and debate. In particular, I want to put on record my appreciation and thanks to the wide range of people representing the Queensland government who came forward to give evidence under somewhat difficult and sometimes confronting arrangements. The committee chose—and I think quite rightly—to have public hearings in at least one of the communities that was immediately impacted, and that was around the Gympie community.

I want to acknowledge the involvement of the people of Gympie and the welcome they gave us. It was most warm, as I would expect of that wonderful part of Queensland. Although they were deeply affected by what was going on, we were welcomed and overwhelmed with offers of assistance to be engaged in the process. The people of Gympie and around the Traveston should be commended for their involvement in this process. I want to put on record the efforts of the Save the Mary group, who have been working for a long time to make sure that people not only in the local area but across Queensland—and, through this committee process, across the country—know what is going on. I think that is an important aspect.

The people from the Queensland state government and associated bodies were tireless in providing information and communicating with our committee. I think we had evidence from those groups at most hearings. They consistently came back and gave information—as we know they should, because that is an appropriate relationship between state governments and Senate inquiries. There should be an open exchange and agreement that we are working together to come up with a response that will value the whole community and our country, so I want to put that on record.

I particularly want to consider the evidence given about the environmental impact on the lungfish in that area. It is a fish that I have heard about over many years in Queensland. I want to pay particular credit to Professor Jean Joss, an internationally renowned expert in this area, who came forward at one of our committee hearings in Canberra and talked about her role over many years of looking at this wonderful species. She raised, in a very reasonable way, her concerns about the future of this particular fish.

Also, we heard in Gympie from Dr Eve Fesl, an amazing woman who has been involved in community activities in that area and across our country for many years. She is an elder of the Gubbi Gubbi people, and I think she gave the whole community a special insight into the relationship between those people and their fish, the lungfish. We hope that this information will be effectively taken into account through the EPBC Act, and the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport wants all that evidence put forward when the decision is made. It is not our role to make the decision; it is certainly our role to ensure that the debate is wide and transparent.

I also want to thank the secretariat of the committee, who worked so well to ensure that all of the people who wanted to be part of this process could be part of it and were effectively engaged and able to have their voices heard. The secretariat were most helpful in ensuring that members and participating members of this committee were able to get information quickly and be most aware of what was going on. In a quite difficult time they were able to work with the committee to present a reasonable and balanced report which puts forward the issues and ensures that the next appropriate step of the process will be taken with calm, scientific and compassionate awareness of the range of issues that should be taken into account in any government decision.

I am concerned that there may well have been some breach of our well-known practice about the way that evidence to a committee must be kept absolutely private until a committee report is tabled. That breach does not help anyone, and there are strong rules and processes within this Senate to make sure that everybody knows how these processes should be conducted. We look forward to ensuring that future processes will continue with honesty, transparency and clarity.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens have made additional comments to this report by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. While we do not disagree with the majority report—in fact, we agree with it—we do not believe that the recommendations go far enough. Based on the environmental, social and economic evidence presented to the committee it is quite clear that the Traveston dam is a white elephant, that it should not go ahead and that it is a giant waste of money. There is not a single doubt about that in my mind. On top of that, the dam is not going to work; it is going to leak like a sieve, as the chair said. There are serious evaporation issues. When the maximum depth at stage 1 is five metres, it is quite clear that there will be tremendous losses from evaporation, and it will leak. It is not going to work.

It is an expensive option. It is not the cheapest option to supply water and it has had a harrowing impact on the local community. The first they found out about it was when there was an announcement made that the dam would go ahead. We were told story after story about the negative impact that it was having on the community. The Queensland government have acted to address the social impact issues, but far too late. Some of the damage is already happening and it is ongoing.

Access to information for the community has been extremely difficult. In fact, during the committee process we asked the Queensland government a number of times to table information. In the end they did table most of that information. The first time the community had access to that information was through the Senate committee. So if the committee has done nothing else—and I think it has achieved a lot more—at least it has provided an avenue for community members to get access to information and for them to be able to air their stories and tell people what impact this is having on their lives.

We absolutely agree with the evidence that the committee received that there have been serious negative implications for people’s psychological health, their general health, their social capacity and their economic prosperity. The evidence that we received overwhelmingly brings us to that conclusion. Based on the social impacts alone, the Greens believe that the Traveston dam is unacceptable. It is certainly having unacceptable social impacts. When you have a look at the triple bottom lines for sustainability—which are the economic, social and environmental impacts—it clearly meets none of them. It is not the cheapest option for supplying water into Queensland. Stuart White was one of the principal authors of a report for the mayors of the region. That report quite plainly points out that there are better options for water supply in Queensland, including water efficiency, water conservation and other non-rainfall-dependent water supplies, because one of the other clear bits of evidence that came out during this inquiry was that climate change had not adequately been taken into account.

The Queensland government has based a lot of its assumptions, and its conclusion for further dams, on the Paradise Dam. In the opinion of the Greens, the Paradise Dam should never have been built. It has no water in it. Wouldn’t the fact that this dam has no water in it start ringing alarm bells for the Queensland government? The Queensland government has based a lot of its assumptions on that dam—for instance, how it will protect the lungfish. The dam has no water in it so it is not protecting any lungfish! The so-called fish-ladder for the lungfish is being used as the model for the Traveston Crossing dam. The government has not proved that this model has worked, and it has not been audited. Another key issue that has come out of the inquiry is that the federal government will now audit the conditions put on the Paradise Dam.

The Queensland government has been using the Paradise Dam as an example of how successful the Traveston dam will be, but the Paradise Dam is not working and its environmental conditions have not been audited. Fortunately, the department has now said that it will undertake an audit of the Paradise Dam. When you move onto the environmental impacts of this dam, the evidence is absolutely overwhelming: the area has three highly vulnerable endangered species. There is the Australian lungfish, which the Queensland government has put under immense pressure through its building of the dam. We have just heard Senator Moore talk about that evidence. There is also the Mary River cod and the Mary River turtle. All three species are directly threatened by the dam. There are also issues concerning the impact on aquatic weeds from building the dam. Again, the evidence was overwhelming that this would have unacceptable, adverse impacts on the Mary River system. Then there are all the issues around water resource planning and the flawed water resource plan for that area. The overwhelming evidence was that this had been a flawed process and that water from the river was overallocated.

During this process, as people may remember, the federal government announced the release of a review of the rivers in northern New South Wales. This was an attempt, I believe, to intervene in the south-east Queensland water supply crisis. Another flawed report, which was released by the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, indicated that water could be taken out of some of the rivers. Five rivers in northern New South Wales were identified, although the report was much more wide ranging than that. Again, this threw a red herring into the debate. It upset the northern New South Wales community, and there had been no community consultation. And guess what? The people who had done the report had forgotten to factor in the impact of climate change. So the report is saying, ‘You can come and get some water from New South Wales,’ without anyone actually talking to people in New South Wales about it. One of the overwhelming influences on water supply is climate change and reduced rainfall. This was not taken into account in the report. This information started coming in, but the federal government seemed to indicate that it thought this was a good option. We then heard and took evidence from people in northern New South Wales and, as one would expect, we had an overwhelmingly negative response from this community to their rivers being identified as possible water resources. The Greens have touched on that in our additional comments and said that it is also unacceptable.

It is quite clear that the Queensland government needs to plan better for alternative water sources. Stuart White from the Institute of Sustainable Futures said in his report that the government has the beginnings of a really good plan there but that it needs to implement the plan and be much more clearly focused on non-rainfall-dependent alternative sources. It is also quite clear that the government needs to have a better focus on planning in south-east Queensland. Before the government goes ahead and plans for more people in that area, it needs to be able to identify how it can provide a sustainable water supply for people moving into the area. This is a serious planning exercise.

One of the points made in the report to the mayors was that building new developments is actually a good opportunity to introduce water efficiency. The point was made that you can reduce water inefficiency by 70 per cent in new subdivisions if you plan them properly. So it is critical that those proper planning decisions are made. The overwhelming conclusion from the overwhelming evidence is that this dam is a white elephant: it should not go ahead. Queensland needs to plan very carefully for its future water supply, but the Traveston dam will not meet the needs of the people of south-east Queensland.

Also, the key element that the Queensland government is trying to put across to the community there is that this dam is part of its urgent response to the water supply crisis. But the dam is not going to come on line until the year 2014 or 2015. It will not meet the immediate water needs of the Queensland community. This is a politically driven exercise. A stop should be put to it so that people in the region can get on with their lives.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The arrogance of the Queensland government in relation to the Traveston Crossing dam is only exceeded by their arrogance in relation to the forced amalgamations of councils in Queensland. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is taking action to give Queenslanders a say about council amalgamations. I wish there were some way that we could require the Queensland government to abide by the wishes of the people in the Mary Valley in relation to the Traveston Crossing dam. From the evidence, the dam is quite clearly a waste of money. It is a political response to a serious problem—a problem that has been building for the last 10 years. It is a problem that Mr Beattie should have done something about in that period of time, but he has done absolutely nothing.

The evidence clearly shows how the Queensland government has made a political decision and then ex post facto has asked its public servants to try and justify it. I have the greatest admiration and a lot of sympathy for the public servants who appeared before the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, because they were clearly quite uncomfortable in having to attempt to justify the unjustifiable. They did a very professional job, but at times I did feel great sympathy for them.

Clearly, on the evidence, the dam will be a waste of money. It will not achieve its goals. It will have dangerous if not fatal impacts on the unique fauna in the Mary River Valley. I have known about the lungfish all my life but I had not realised just how fragile its future was and how important it is to humankind that it survives. Clearly, if this dam goes ahead its future is in real doubt. I urge Mr Turnbull, when considering this, to take into account—as evidence given to us says he must—the social and economic implications of this dam.

He should also take into account the actions of the Queensland government in the past in its response to conditions imposed upon the Queensland government under the EPBC Act. We received quite a deal of very persuasive evidence that suggested to us that in relation to the Paradise Dam the Commonwealth government did impose conditions under the EPBC Act, but the Queensland government has not bothered to comply with those conditions. That would make us think that any conditions that might be imposed on the Traveston dam would be treated with the same contempt as they were apparently with the Paradise Dam.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not so.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear an interjection from the Labor Party saying that that is not true, but the evidence given to us clearly indicated that they had not complied with the conditions on the Paradise Dam. In fact the Queensland government could not really point to any substantial evidence—and they were given the opportunity—that they had indeed followed the conditions imposed by the Commonwealth government.

Further comments which coalition senators have added to the report—and of course we very strongly support the committee’s recommendations—indicated to the Queensland government that they should not proceed until further work was done on the already initiated water-saving measures, which we were praiseworthy of. There should be further work on increasing the capacity of existing dams. There really needs to be a more serious assessment of additional desalination projects, and the Queensland government does have to take a lead in relation to water recycling and the increasing use of grey water for non-potable purposes. I would like to speak further on this report but time is brief and I know a number of my colleagues want to make a contribution also to this debate. So I will stop there and defer to my coalition colleagues so they can make a comment on this report as well.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I initiated the Senate inquiry into the Traveston dam because I believe—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of your nine staff!

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I do not have nine staff. Be very careful what you say, particularly outside. I initiated the inquiry and I am very proud to have done so with my colleague Barnaby Joyce. I saw a crossing on the Traveston as a travesty of justice for the people in the Mary Valley and, after I spent a number of days at Senate inquiries, I found my worst fears were justified. I cannot believe that there could be a worse place to construct a dam. After listening to five, six, seven or eight days of the Senate inquiry, I noted the evidence became stronger that this was the last place that we should put a dam.

There are parallels between this dam and the amalgamations of councils: find a National Party seat and then just dump on it. That is what happened with this proposal to put the dam forward. I was given some hope after seeing a report put out by Anna Bligh, the Deputy Premier, in which she said that they will have another look at it—that maybe there should be further inquiries and even an option of no dam at all—but when I went on the media she said, no, they were going to bulldoze ahead with it.

There are a number of reasons why this dam should not go ahead. Firstly, it will be a shallow mud hole. It will have evaporation and seepage problems. It is built on an alluvial floodplain. Whether there is an adequate catchment is another thing. Once the Mary River used to be able to take warships up to Maryborough but, already, where the Mary River flows into the Great Sandy Strait it is now about a metre deep at the mouth. Putting a dam across it will exacerbate the shallowness further.

The dam is just not feasible and is just stupid. When answering questions, the public servants said they had built the dam on a GHD report that had 35 pages in it, 15 of which were maps and six were blanks. There were no engineering studies or feasibility studies. There were no economic statements. They were just going to build a dam there. The reasoning seemed to be: ‘We have a water problem and people are getting worried about it. Let’s do something about it,’ and they thought they would find somewhere to do it. The embarrassment of the public servants was overwhelming. When I asked them: ‘Do you normally go in Queensland and build a $1.7 billion structure on a 35-page report, which is about 15 to 20 pages of fact done on a desk top?’ they were very embarrassed. They were put in an unbelievably embarrassing position.

My colleagues—Senators Russell Trood, Barnaby Joyce and Ian Macdonald—and I have added some comments. We believe that no work should be undertaken on the construction of the Traveston Crossing Dam without alternatives being properly and fully investigated. We said that you should investigate increasing the capacity of the Borumba Dam and have additional desalination plants, and I believe that is the future for Queensland’s water, yet the desalination report was hidden and required the Courier-Mail, under freedom of information, to bring it out. Now, of course, we are reaching the stage where, in Queensland, the state government is stealing water from the North Coast, putting pressure on the aquifers on Stradbroke Island. Everyone will be interconnected to feed the needs of Brisbane. This should never have happened. When Mr Rudd was responsible for the state government, he was responsible for closing down a dam around Beenleigh that would have provided adequate water supplies to Queensland. This he removed when he was the coordinator-general.

A dam should not go in at Traveston. It is a fill-gap position and should not be there. It has caused tremendous inconvenience and worry to the people in the Mary Valley. I hope that, after seeing this report, which is supported by the Labor Party, and our additional comments, Anna Bligh will have a change of heart for the people of the Mary Valley. I hope she will show some sympathy to those people.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, on a point of order: during the course of the debate, in response to an interjection from me, Senator Boswell indicated that he does not have nine staff. My recollection is that that is contrary to the evidence given at estimates. I suggest that Senator Boswell be given the opportunity to ensure that his indication to the Senate about that is in fact correct.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to that inquiry, I am allocated nine staff. The Democrats were allocated 15. I have an additional four staff as Leader of the National Party, which I use. I have a responsibility as a party leader. We have a one-stop shop. People come in on all issues—on rural and primary industry—and those staff are needed in the interests of my constituency. The answer is: four staff.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. We are taking note of a report, so let us move on to that.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to 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.

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

The Queensland government’s plan to solve south-east Queensland’s water problems, in part by building the Traveston and Wyaralong dams, was deeply flawed from the very beginning. Of the many shortcomings in the proposals, three stand out in relation to the matter—the abject failure to properly assess alternatives, the contemptuous treatment of the people whose lives are being devastated and will be affected by these two proposals, and the lack of attention to detailed planning for the projects.

These failures are now fully exposed in the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. This is not a polemical document. This is a sober, sane, sensible, methodical and systematic assessment of the evidence that came before the committee—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hogg interjecting—

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to move a motion to extend the debate on committee reports this morning.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No; that has not been raised with the opposition.

Leave not granted.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there is a time limit set, because of other pressing business in this chamber, for this debate to conclude at 11.30. I only want a couple of minutes to say that, whilst I was a member of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, right from the outset I believed that this committee process should not have proceeded. It was nothing more—as was identified by Senator Bartlett—than a political stunt by the National Party and certain elements of the Liberal Party in south-east Queensland because they are bereft of support and are clinging to any issue they can, and so it was not going to the merits of the issue that was before the committee. This was purely and simply a beat-up. I know, and everyone knows, that there was real concern within the conservative parties’ caucus room as to whether or not this inquiry should go ahead. Why? Because they knew it was an inquiry into a state government matter and that it was ultimately a decision of the state government. If this had been an inquiry into the EPBC Act and its application by the minister, then that would have been a proper matter for the committee.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Joyce interjecting—

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All you have done, Senator Joyce, is go out and beat up the issue because you do not have positive policies to put before the people in south-east Queensland. That is what this inquiry was about, and that is where the weakness is from your side. Some of the things that people over on your side have attributed to and said about people like me today are completely wrong. There were two recommendations out of this inquiry, Senator Joyce, and maybe you should learn how to read before you go out verballing me in the public arena. If you read this report properly you would see that anything that you have said about me and my attitude towards this is completely wrong. There are two recommendations, and only two, and they do not reflect the comments that have been made more latterly by Senator Trood and by Senator Joyce when he was out there doing what he does best—getting on the radio and trying to drum up some business and some votes to keep the National Party alive in south-east Queensland and in Queensland in general. That is what this inquiry was all about. The sooner that is recognised the better.

As for Senator Trood going back and trying to blame Mr Rudd for the Wolffdene Dam, Senator Trood knows that that is nonsense as well. We have had no sincerity from the government in this debate at all. It has been purely fabricated by them to try and draw some support for their candidates, for a failing party in south-east Queensland, a party that cannot get on in the state government arena. I will terminate my remarks there.

Question agreed to.