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

The Democrats, as people here would know, and I in particular as a Queensland senator, have been calling for a long time for a full public inquiry into the environmental impacts of the Traveston dam and I will also mention later on the Wyaralong dam. As Senator Ian Campbell, who is in the chamber, would know from his previous incarnation as Minister for the Environment and Heritage, we pushed quite hard and tabled many petitions in this place, containing thousands of names of people wanting a full public inquiry under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That did not happen, but I do not want to revisit that debate at the moment.

There is a bilateral agreement with the Queensland government. The position of the federal government is that the Queensland government has to conduct the assessment. I note that Deputy Premier Anna Bligh, probably at a time when she was Acting Premier, said the federal government could have done that if they wanted to and chose not to. I suspect that is just all part of the argy-bargy you get along the way. It does not really matter. The decision has been made. There is an environmental impact assessment conducted under the Queensland government’s control. As I am sure Senator Campbell would point out if he stood up to speak, the federal environment minister under the EPBC Act has the ability to require more information to be provided if he or she—he at the moment, obviously—is not satisfied with the adequacy of the assessment that has been done.

That process is underway and it is very important but it still does not enable adequate public examination of all the issues surrounding the dam. Indeed, the EPBC Act, strong as it is, only gives the federal minister the power to examine issues relating to matters of national environmental significance, particularly threatened species in the case of the Traveston dam. World heritage values, wetlands and, I think, migratory birds have all been triggered. But those are the only things you cannot look at. Of course, as Queenslanders would know, there is an enormous amount of concern about some of the yield figures being put forward by the state government and the economics of the whole issue.

The social impact is horrendous. Occasionally I feel guilty about emphasising the environmental impact, the only area where the federal government has direct control, because it sounds like I am ignoring the social impact. I certainly do not aim to do that because the social impact is horrendous. It really should be emphasised now whilst we are having this debate and considering the inquiry that the community in and around Traveston Crossing and all of the towns around there—Kandanga, Federal and the towns surrounding Gympie—are suffering enormously. The trauma is enormous. Communities are being divided; people are being traumatised and the damage has already been done.

Deputy Premier Anna Bligh has said she does not mind a Senate inquiry as long as it does not delay the project. It is a simple fact, it is on the record in this chamber, that the assessment process and the final decision by the federal environment minister as to whether or not the dam could go ahead will not occur until next year. So any suggestion that a Senate inquiry, whenever its reporting date—March, June or August—is going to delay the dam is simply a furphy. The Deputy Premier should be called on that whenever she says it. There is no way that this could delay the dam a day.

What we should be delaying is the continuing pressure from the state government on people locally to allow their land to be resumed. If people want to sell up and get out, that is fine. I understand that is an individual decision for them to make, but this continual pressure on them to get out and for the government to buy the land up is causing immense stress. It is going to mean that if the dam is stopped—I would argue that there are compelling environmental grounds for the dam to be stopped under the federal EPBC Act—then the community will have already suffered enormous, irreparable damage. The state government will own huge swags of land through the area whilst not being able to go ahead with the dam. It is no secret that I hope the dam does not go ahead. Before it is even clear whether the dam will be allowed there is social damage already being done and some of it is irreversible.

I would repeat my call now for the state government to halt their continuing pressure on people potentially affected by this to have their land resumed now. There will be plenty of time afterwards—if whoever the federal environment minister will be gives it the go-ahead—for land to be resumed. From the day the first sod is turned, or whatever it is that you do when you start making a dam, to when it is actually built will be a very long time. There will be plenty of time to resume people’s land after the dam is finally approved if that is what happens. They do not need to cause that social destruction now.

To turn specifically to the reference here, what we have heard from Senator Boswell is basically that the government members have decided they want an inquiry. They want to move it in the next sitting week in three weeks time. They are saying that everything in the motion that Senator Stewart has put forward is covered in the government members’ motion, so we do not need this one. In that case why not just vote on this today? It is all clear, it is all votable, so why not bring forward the coalition members’ referral today and get on with it? The concern is there; I see no reason to delay it. I do not really mind. I have to say I prefer the terms of reference put forward by Senator Boswell and his Queensland colleagues.

I cannot help but note that it is a bit rich for the coalition members to all decide amongst themselves in their party room that they want an inquiry into something where there is obviously a political opportunity for them to beat up on the Queensland Labor government. You have been busily knocking off every proposal we have put on this side of chamber on a whole range of different issues, many of which do not have that partisan political focus. I think it is a bit rich to say, ‘We’ve all decided amongst ourselves, we’ve come up with the terms of reference,’ which you did not consult us about. Even though I have made it clear that I am supportive of the general intent, we had no consultation about the details of what is in them.

I personally believe the terms of reference should specifically mention the Wyaralong dam. I will move an amendment to the terms of reference when that comes up. I think Wyaralong is covered in your terms of reference but I think it is appropriate to specifically name it alongside Traveston so that it does not get forgotten. There is no doubt Wyaralong is less destructive environmentally and socially but it certainly still has some environmental and social impact.

On top of that, let us not forget that we are talking about water policy, as the terms of reference of the coalition senators indicate. To me, even with the social and environmental damage, if it stacked up as a genuinely clever, necessary piece of infrastructure on water policy grounds and on economic grounds then at least there would some competing principles to wrestle over. But from everything I have seen—and this is why I think a Senate inquiry is important, because an environmental impact assessment does not look at these things—the economic case is ludicrous. In the case of the Traveston dam, it will cost $2 billion to build something where the water yield figures continually change, for starters. It will not only cost $2 billion to build it and for all the resumptions and the rebuilding of roads and powerlines, but added to that is the economic cost of taking out a lot of valuable agricultural land in that region. That land is also a key part of the character of that region, which is important if you want balance in a region so that it is not all just urban development and sprawl continuing to spread out from the development on the Sunshine Coast and the Gympie and Caloola areas. To take out that big part of the economy of the region and the very high-quality agricultural land also has a very significant economic cost that is not factored into that $2 billion either.

To produce a water storage piece of infrastructure that is not even guaranteed to fill is certainly a significant risk that relies on it raining sufficiently in the right area. Let us face it, south-east Queensland is full of dams, unfortunately the dams are not full. There are plenty of dams all around the place, it is just that a lot of them are not terribly full. The Wyaralong dam, which, as I said, comes under the terms of reference, should be emphasised because it is also being assessed under the EPBC Act. I have spoken in this chamber before about a very detailed analysis that has been done by a very qualified person in Dr Brad Witt from the University of Queensland that draws serious doubts over the water yield figures put forward by the Queensland government and points out that there is a dam basically just over the hill in the adjoining catchment that has been empty for years. Somehow if you build this other dam in the adjoining catchment it is supposed to fill up. The waste of money purely on the basis of trying to look like we are doing something—which is where this all generated from in the Queensland context—is a serious issue. Unfortunately, it is not being examined anywhere else.

I think a Senate committee is not absolutely ideal and I wish there were other processes that allowed these things to be examined in an open way. Obviously there are politics involved in a Senate committee and partisan motives which are going to colour the debate, and that is not ideal, but the fact is that there are no other mechanisms by which these issues can be examined. Without those mechanisms, the Senate committee plays a valuable role in allowing these issues into the public arena for the public to have a say, for the evidence to be tested and for much more openness and scrutiny. I am pleased that in doing so the committee would be required to look at the wider issues and alternatives. It would not just say, ‘We don’t like this dam, so there,’ but would be forced to accept that there is a need to ensure there is an adequate water supply for the region and to consider alternatives and weigh them up against those that are being put forward.

I also want to emphasise that the one aspect of a Senate committee—whether via the motion put forward by Senator Siewert’s or by Senator Boswell’s colleagues—that does concern me is the potential for it to raise false hope. I want to emphasise this for all sides but particularly for coalition senators. It is one thing to give people a Senate committee inquiry, and that is important, but that process should not give them a sense that the Senate committee has the power the stop the dam, as it obviously does not. I also remind coalition senators that if they win the next election it will be a coalition minister who will have the power to stop this dam through the EPBC Act. If you go on and on about how bad it is—as you should, because it is bad—and then are in a position to stop it and do not deliver, that will be raising a lot of hopes and then dashing them. I really warn against doing that.

I think the evidence with regard to the lungfish in particular as a threatened species is compelling. Any endangered species is a concern but the lungfish is an incredibly significant species. It has been suggested to me by lungfish experts that it is unfortunate that we discovered the lungfish ages ago and it has always been around. If we had just discovered it now it would be seen as a greater scientific miracle than when the Wollemi pine was discovered because it is such a significant species in its place in the evolutionary chain. To use a fish example, the coelacanth, the fish that was long believed to be extinct that was discovered in what then qualified as deep-sea fishing in the 1920s, is still known today because of the amazement at its ancient make-up and its place in the evolutionary chain. The lungfish is more significant than that fish. The Traveston dam will potentially—which is the key thing the investigation will need to determine—lead to the extinction in the wild of an incredibly significant species. That, to me, is more than sufficient reason to stop the dam. That power will be in the hands of the environment minister, whether it is Mr Turnbull, Mr Garrett from the Labor Party or someone else the Prime Minister after the election decides to appoint. That decision will sit in their lap.

We need to make sure that people’s hopes are not unduly raised, but we also need to make very clear that the power is there. It can be done and, in my view, it should be done. It should be stopped if the evidence stacks up. I am always open to being convinced to change my view if I am given more evidence that suggests that I am mistaken, but everything I have seen to date suggests that the impact on a range of threatened species, including the lungfish, will be absolutely critical and, in some cases, terminal. That is why we need to not forget that the power resides with the federal environment minister.

I will take the opportunity of emphasising to this chamber that the only reason the federal environment minister has that power is the actions of me and the Democrats back in 1999, passing the EPBC Act in the face of quite strident opposition—one of those ironies in life, I suppose. But we are dealing with the here and now, and the here and now is a proposal for a Senate committee inquiry. I think it is very valuable. Starting it off by having a spat about whose terms of reference to adopt is probably not terribly good.

I will finish by emphasising again that I am pleased that coalition senators are putting forward terms of reference. I am broadly happy with their terms of reference, apart from the comment I have already made. I do think that that needs to be contrasted with the attitude of government senators towards any number of Senate committee inquiries—I would say it is well into the twenties now—that have been blocked by the government. Just yesterday we voted on whether there should be an inquiry into the Qantas sale, obviously an issue of public significance and importance that would not otherwise be given public attention. That will now be dealt with in secret.

Contrast what is happening here, where coalition senators have basically decided amongst themselves that we are going to have a Senate inquiry, with their continual blocking of every other proposal for Senate inquiries into wide-ranging policy issues. We have had inquiries into the progress of mental health, which is clearly a cross-party issue of concern, blocked. The contrast is very stark. So whilst I am happy to support an inquiry it does frustrate me that it has only come about because of the political opportunity that has presented itself here. I do not think that is the best reason to be using for a Senate inquiry, but in the absence of alternatives I think it will be a valuable one. Frankly, I cannot see why we cannot get it started today, but it does not seem like we will be. We will get it started when we come back in late February.