Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown today relating to the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, Queensland.

I would like to take note of Senator Wong’s answer because what is occurring in Queensland is analogous to what happened on the Franklin Dam in 1982-83, in that the state authorities are moving to carry out infrastructure even before the full assessment and the process, certainly between the Commonwealth and state, has been settled.

There cannot be two ways about this. The state government cannot be issuing eviction orders to farmers—even those who have negotiated some lease-back arrangement—to enable explosive testing to be done at the dam site and to have the removal of tens of thousands of cubic metres of overburden and rock but at the same time say that they are, in some way or another, assessing the impact of this scheme. At best, it has to be said that it is irresponsible of the state government to be allowing QWI—the water authority in Queensland that is looking at four dam proposals—to be proceeding to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money without the approval for the dam to proceed and without, indeed, the authority of the Commonwealth.

The question here—and it goes straight to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon. Peter Garrett—is: at what stage does the assessment by people in departments end and the minister take action? The minister should be making it clear to the Queensland authorities that the major works involved—certainly where they are so advanced that they are leading to the effective eviction of neighbours from the site—have gone beyond the simple assessment of the region for the purposes of the dam proposal. Indeed, the proposal, when it went the Queensland cabinet, and when it goes to the federal cabinet via the national minister for the environment, should at that stage cease further advancement. The proposal is in. The proposal for the Mary River Dam has been made. And it is quite irresponsible for these major works to be proceeding while further consideration is underway. This is effectively the pre-emption by the Queensland authorities of decisions to be made by elected representatives in both parliaments—certainly in the national parliament and by the federal minister for the environment, and that means the federal cabinet. It is arrogant, it is expensive, and it is very, very unfair to the hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers, tourism operators, environmentalists and people who are associated with the area to be destroyed by this dam were it to proceed.

What I say to the federal government is: this should not be allowed to be a process of attrition and caving in at the end. The minister needs to make a stand on this matter. The minister should be in contact with Premier Bligh and, if she is not in contact with QWI, put an end to these works at the site. I can tell you that the locals are very, very seriously disturbed. For them, it is a decision as to whether or not this is the start of the dam works. They ought not to be put in that position when they know that the federal minister has not got to first base, effectively, in making a decision on this matter.

There is a lot at stake here. I have moved, and this Senate has agreed, that there is a need for the Queensland authorities to be looking at all the prudent and feasible alternatives. That is what Premier Bligh should be doing, instead of allowing her bureaucrats to run her government and the decision-making process. She ought to be saying, ‘We are using this time to look at the prudent and feasible alternative for Brisbane and the south-east corner of Queensland in terms of using the water that is available much more wisely than it has been up to now. This dam is not necessary. It is an expensive alternative to prudent and feasible action by the Bligh government. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.