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

I move:

That:

(a)

the Senate notes the likely impacts on agriculture, the community and the environment of the proposed dam on the Mary River at Traveston Crossing in Queensland; and

(b)

the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2007:

(i)

the impact on the Mary River, its dependent species and environs of the proposed dam,

(ii)

the implications for communities living along the Mary River of the proposed dam to their livelihood and lifestyle, and

(iii)

the balance of other options available to meet the regions water resource needs.

I think the issue of the proposed dam on the Mary River is of national importance and relates very intimately to the water debate that is currently going on around Australia. I am deeply concerned about the impacts this dam is going to have on the environment and on the people of Queensland and I do not believe that it is the best option for the water future for the south-east region of Queensland. It is 20th-century thinking in the 21st century. It will displace people and destroy ecosystems.

The Mary River is the home of the endemic Murray River cod, which I think most people know is endangered, and the endemic and vulnerable Murray River tortoise. It is also home to several other endangered, threatened and vulnerable species, including the Australian lungfish—which many people often refer to as the ‘missing link’ between humans and fish—the Richmond birdwing butterfly, three species of frogs and the Coxen’s fig parrot, to name but a few.

The dam is designed to create a mega storage to take water from the Mary to the Greater Brisbane and Gold Coast region. A 1994 report by the Department of Primary Industries titled An appraisal study of water supply sources for the Sunshine Coast and Mary River Valley advised that the Traveston dam was unsuitable because of the high capital cost, inundation of prime agricultural land and displacement of rural population. The Noosa Shire Council engineer says that the dam’s capital cost per megalitre is $24,300. I would suggest that is a very expensive option, five times greater than was claimed when the announcement was originally made.

The proposal would see a 600,000 megalitre dam covering 7,600 hectares at Traveston Crossing. In terms of storage capacity, the dam would be, if it ever went ahead, the fifth largest in Queensland and the second largest serving the state’s south-east. The first stage is to be completed at the end of 2011. It would cost up to $1.7 billion and involve the construction of a 180,000-megalitre dam delivering up to 700 megalitres per annum. As you can see, this is a very big project. Then there are the second and third stages. All of these will cost a large amount of money and will have, I believe, an unacceptable impact on the environment and on the community.

Only stage 1 at this stage is proposed for environmental assessment. That is only the first part of the proposal and really you need to be considering the whole proposal as one. The incremental approach to environmental degradation also hides the overall environmental and community impacts of what is a mega proposal. As I said, it is 20th-century thinking in the 21st century. Rarely mentioned, the proposed water grid has enormous energy costs as well in moving water around the state, and it is all powered at this stage by solar fuel.

The dam is proposed to displace 900 landowners, inundating prime agricultural land, flooding the Bruce Highway and forcing the proposed upgrade to go through. This will displace other residents and, of course, impact on other prime agricultural land. Negative environmental and economic impacts on the Mary River catchment and downstream receiving waters include those impacts on the Great Sandy World Heritage area.

Permanent reduction in fisheries production, I believe, will result from this as well and will have serious implications for the fishing industry and on the tourism industry in the Great Sandy region, which as I think everybody in Australia knows is a large tourism area. Tourism related industries are a very important part of the regional economy there, with over 200,000 visitors to Fraser Island, and a vast amount of money is also pumped into the local economy by those tourists.

As you can see, this proposal will have unacceptable environmental, community and economic impacts. There has not been, I believe, an open and thorough analysis of the water in that region. We have not been able to analyse Queensland’s water figures to see just what alternatives there are. There are alternatives, we believe, that are much more appropriate, such as recycling. Water efficiency and conservation are also issues that should be fully considered. This is a stop-gap mega-engineering approach to the water crisis. I was hoping that we had got over this approach, but obviously we have not in this country yet. We need to look at a much more sustainable water future because this proposal is in no way sustainable, given its unacceptable environmental, community, economic and social impacts.

We believe this proposal needs to be referred immediately to the committee to look at because there will be decisions to be made in the very near future. If we are truly committed to a sustainable water future we should be looking at alternatives. The Queensland government is obviously trying to rush this decision through without adequate consideration of the social, environmental and economic impacts. Just by limiting the environmental assessment process to stage 1, the full extent of this proposal will never be considered, and that is of course a flawed environmental process.

This issue is pressing. It is very clear that there is strong community opposition to this proposal. The local community certainly do not support it, judging by the number of emails, phone calls and letters I have received on this issue. I am sure every other senator in this place has also received letters and knows those issues of concern.

I presented the notice of motion yesterday with the aim of bringing the matter on today and sending it off to a committee immediately because, as I said, we think this is urgent. I know that there are meetings coming up that will be discussing the future of this dam. We tried to keep this reference very simple, clear and focused on the impacts on the environment and the community and to ensure it looked at alternatives with the full knowledge of the water estimates for that region. I believe that they need thorough investigation. This is a very important issue. Given the focus of the whole country at the moment on the water crisis, those estimates go to the very heart of that issue and what we in this country believe is sustainable water management and its impacts on the community. We can no longer make decisions on water that have unacceptable impacts on the community, the economy and, very importantly, the environment. This will lead to the loss of a number of endemic and endangered species and in the 21st century we should no longer be making those sorts of decisions.

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

I happen to agree with much of what Senator Siewert says but we will not be supporting her motion because yesterday Senators Trood, Joyce and I gave notice of a motion to refer the issue of the south-east Queensland water supply, including the Traveston Crossing dam, to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. We gave notice yesterday of our intention to move that motion on the next day of sitting when we came back. What we have done, Senator Siewert, is give notice of a motion that your leader, Senator Brown, in a press release yesterday said that he agreed with and supported. You came in here yesterday and after we had given notice of a motion you gave notice of one. The notice of motion that we made had been through our party room and had the support of the coalition. So, one would think, the motion will get up on the 26th.

That notice of motion was welcomed by everyone in the Mary Valley—from the locals to the Greens. People have rung me and faxed me and said they are very pleased that that motion will be coming up. Today we see the Greens coming in and bringing on a debate to change the terms of reference. I deliberately made the terms of reference so wide that any of those issues that you have brought up can be covered by the terms of reference that the National and Liberal parties have put down. I have looked at the matters that they wish to refer under their notice of motion and there is nothing in them that is not already covered by the terms of reference in the motion of coalition Senators Joyce and Trood and me.

I reiterate the original proposed terms of reference:

The examination of all reasonable options, including increased dam capacity, for additional water supplies for South East Queensland, including:

(a)

the merits of all options, including the Queensland Government’s proposed Traveston Crossing Dam as well as raising the Borumba Dam; and

(b)

the social, environmental, economic and engineering impacts of the various proposals.

These are very broad terms of reference that certainly encompass the matters that the Greens are concerned about. The Greens point (i) is basically about the environmental impact, and that is covered in my referral at point (b). The Greens point (ii) about the implications for communities is also covered in my notice of motion at (b). The Greens point (iii) concerning other options for water supply is ably covered in the very first words of my proposed motion, the ‘examination of all ... options’. The Greens are trying to get in on something that has already been proposed we investigate under a committee.

Senator Brown supported my notice of motion yesterday, and I do not believe there is any need to change any terms that are in our notice of motion. We have made it so deliberately wide that the people of the Mary Valley and adjoining shires will be able to get their day in court, will be able to put their arguments forward and will be able to request information that they have never been able to obtain.

I see that the Deputy Premier in Queensland has said that she has nothing to fear from this inquiry. If she has nothing to fear from the inquiry then I suspect the Greens and the Democrats will be on board and I presume the Labor Party will support this inquiry. She has put an overrider on it: she hopes the commencement of the dam operation will not be held up. I would think that this inquiry would be well and truly over before any start on the dam.

I say to the Greens: come on board with us, the Democrats and the Liberals and Nationals. You do not have to change any terms of reference because our terms of reference are a catch-all, or at least as much of a catch-all as we can make them. Let us go unanimously with one notice of motion, one resolution, and get behind it. I cannot speak on behalf of Senator Ian Campbell, but no doubt he will say that the government will not be supporting the Greens resolution because we have one of our own over here that has the support of the coalition.

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

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

I think we are all in screaming agreement that the proposed Traveston dam is the wrong dam for a whole range of reasons. From our side, that is not a statement that we are against dams; it is a statement that if you are going to build a dam you are best to build one in the right area. I will give you a couple of examples. This dam would cost about $1.7 billion of the Australian taxpayers’ money for about 150,000 megalitres of water. Its average depth would be about five metres, just the right depth for Cabomba weed to infest it. It is in a siltation area and it will be a siltation trap. There is about 90 feet of silt where they are building it at the moment, so it is a predominant alluvial floodplain.

It is not the case that these people are just saying, ‘We don’t want this dam.’ They have even suggested an alternative dam in their backyard, an alternative dam that is proximate to where the state government is talking about putting it, and that is Borumba. Let us look at the difference. For Borumba you have a 200-metre wall. You will get one million megalitres of water stored. And this is in the same area, with the same people. It would have an average depth of 90 metres, and the land is already owned by the state government. It seems so obvious. People say, ‘It would never fill.’ That is not correct. In fact, the last time it would have filled would have been in the 1990s. It would have been 90 per cent full. There are times on the Borumba Dam at the moment where three Sydney harbours spill over it in a day. That would suggest that there is potential for an increased capacity.

It is also believed that the costing of this dam could spill out to around $3 billion for construction and $1 billion for reticulation and piping: a $4 billion investment. That is why we have to start asking questions, because, ultimately, it is the taxpayers’ money that is doing it—especially when you could build a desalination plant for about $450 million to $500 million which would provide the same amount of water as Traveston dam, and you could then put the change into the Ipswich Motorway, hospitals or other water projects. These are the questions that have to be asked.

There are two major issues pushing this project: one is the ego of Mr Beattie and the other is the ego of Ms Bligh. That is what is driving this. If there is a political opportunity there, there is the political opportunity there, but that is not the reason this inquiry is going forward. The reason is that the people of the Sunshine Coast want it. The people of the Sunshine Coast have been amassing in groups. The last time there were about 500 or 600 people at a meeting on a Sunday afternoon to say: ‘We want our day in court. We want someone to hear us. We want someone to listen to us.’ Anytime there is a meeting, they turn up. These people want to be heard. The primary driver of any political issue should be that you listen to the people. When they start amassing at meeting after meeting, asking for someone to hear the truth, for someone to hear the other side of the argument, then we have to try as best we can to give them that opportunity.

I agree entirely with Senator Bartlett: no-one has said that this Senate inquiry will stop the dam. No-one has suggested that. And the people understand that completely. We have said that to them over and again. We said it to them on the radio this morning. It is not about that; it is about getting the truth on the table and raising the political pressure on Mr Beattie and Ms Bligh to do the decent thing, the logical thing, to find a better expenditure of the taxpayers’ money at an alternative site. And some of those that have been suggested are in the backyard of where the current dam is, so it is not just parochialism.

I welcome what Ms Bligh said. She said she has nothing to fear. A person who has nothing to fear should have no worries about turning up to the Senate inquiry. The only reason you would not turn up to the Senate inquiry is that you have something to fear or something to hide—some reason why you do not want to tell the truth, under oath, on the public record. That is why you would not turn up. It is going to be interesting to see whether this person who tells us they have nothing to fear shows us later that they have something very great to fear.

I think the fear would start with the assessment process and why we ended up with the Traveston dam site. Let us methodically go through the list of all the proposed dam sites to determine which would be the best deliverer of water for south-east Queensland. People want to have that debate. We have heard that the fishing industry and the tourism industry will be threatened, but, when this dam goes through, Queensland will fail to be self-sufficient in dairy products. It is a small issue! People in Brisbane like to drink milk. When the dam goes forward, one of the major dairy areas of south-east Queensland will be taken out of production. That issue obviously needs to be discussed further.

There are so many issues that have to see the light of day and be put on the table. The people of the Mary River and the Sunshine Coast are sick and tired of the manipulation and obfuscation—the nefarious imbroglio of Mr Beattie’s and Ms Bligh’s process for assessing this dam—and they want to get to the facts. I take on board what Senator Siewert says, but, with all due respect, there is nothing in her terms of reference that is not already offered and I do not think we should start this process with our own little jousting match about the terms of reference. We have acknowledged everybody. We have not isolated anybody and said that this is just a National Party idea, a Liberal Party idea, a Democrats idea or a Greens idea. We are just saying in this chamber that it is a good idea—and it is a good idea for people to know that they have a chance to have their day in court.

I acknowledge the hard work that Senator Trood has done in this process. There has been a bit of rough and tumble in trying to get this process going. Senator Trood has been a great advocate for the people of the Sunshine Coast and the Mary River. I also acknowledge the work that senators from other parties have done. But let us not cloud or stymie the issue now with an internecine fight over terms of reference. Yes, we have the potential to turn it into a political issue. But that is not just for the sake of politics; it is to get something that is just and right and to have oversight of how our nation’s money is spent. Investment in this ridiculous process will yield nothing more than a stinking swamp—and, very importantly, it will not be completed until 2011.

Ms Bligh argues that we are threatening Queensland’s water supply. Let us get this straight. Even with the most perfect time frame this thing will not be completed until 2011. The fact is that Brisbane will run out of water in the middle of next year. A dam that will only supply water by 2011 and will work only if it fills up with water—I imagine that means rain—is going to be no good for fixing a problem that will arise next year. So let us talk about the solutions for next year and how we go about doing something that will actually deliver water for the people of Brisbane. Good suggestions about desalination have been put on the table. There have been investigations by the local member, Dave Gibson, who has gone over to Western Australia to look at the costings of their desalination plants. Why would there be a wish to focus on that? Because that is all the time we have left if we want to provide water for Brisbane.

Surely, the issue that ought to be on the table is the fact that we have one of the major cities in Western civilisation and it is about to run out of water. Even Constantinople managed to deal with the siege of the Turks for three years without running out of water. But Brisbane is going to run out of water because of the complete and utter lack of planning by, and the complete and utter negligence of, the administration that currently holds the reins of power in Queensland, the Beattie-Bligh Labor government. They are going to run out of water. Ms Bligh has been saying lately, ‘We’ve got a water grid going.’ I read in the paper the other day that—if my recollection is correct—they have laid only about 500 metres of the 200 kilometres of pipeline that have to be put in. That is not a sign of a government that is taking seriously the threat of a major Western city running out of water.

We have to come up with serious solutions. Desalination has to be put on the table because, no matter what people think about it, we do not have the time to consider other alternatives. We have to come up with something that is going to deliver water for the area. We have to look at recycling, for industrial use at least, to try and take the pressure off. Certainly, new dams will have to go in—and I would be the first proponent for relevant dams—but we have to look at the facts. Why would you go for a dam that is five metres deep and on an alluvial swamp? There are even suggestions that it traverses a fault line. It will have huge social and economic impacts on the area—not just the immediate area but the whole of south-east Queensland. It will be a prime site for weed infestation. It will have huge environmental consequences for the Australian lungfish, the Mary River tortoise, the Mary River turtle, the Ramsar wetland and the Great Sandy Straits. Why would you do that when there is another site, proximate to the area, where the infrastructure is already in place and you can store seven or eight times the amount of water at far less cost? It is an argument of logic.

As Mr Beattie and Ms Bligh dig their heels in more and more, the biggest threat facing the people of the Sunshine Coast and the Mary River valley is the egos of those two individuals, who, in a dictatorial manner like a Caesar or a benevolent dictator—they have half of it right—have decided they can go into an area and inflict their wishes, illogical as they might be, on the people to prove a point. They are trying to prove the point that they are strong. This Senate inquiry will prove that they are not, that they are foolish, that they are unfair, that they are unjust, that they are wasteful and that they are completely negligent about looking for a real solution right now that is proximate to Brisbane.

Why hold an inquiry? People are going to say: ‘This is overstepping the mark. You’re infringing on that state’s rights.’ The one thing that Queensland is missing is an upper house. Queensland does not have a bicameral system. It only has a lower house and that is why there are times when this chamber must step in to give some other, greater review of the aspects of law to the unicameral system in Queensland. When it is the suggestion of the people of Queensland that there must be a review, when there are not just one or two but a whole raft of opinions—there is an overwhelming sentiment—that there has to be a review of a decision made by the single house in Queensland, then I think we have the moral premise to go in and have an inquiry.

I look forward to this inquiry taking place. I hope that it has a hearing in the Mary River area. I hope we can give the people of that area the time for their day in court without undue cost to their wallets—and gosh knows that they have had to fork out enough so far. I acknowledge that Ms Bligh has said she has nothing to fear and I look forward hopefully to her appearing at the inquiry. If she has nothing to fear and nothing to hide, it stands to reason that she should be willing to turn up. I acknowledge that the people of the Mary River and the Sunshine Coast know, and everybody in this chamber knows, that the Senate inquiry itself cannot stop the dam, but it certainly can raise the political temperature on it, and so it should. It will be a just outcome and that is what this chamber should be espousing: a just and fair outcome for those people who have not been heard.

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

I want to take the opportunity to make a few remarks on this particular issue because it is one of great interest to my constituents. It is a matter about which I have addressed the Senate at some length in the past. It is a matter which is very close to my heart, as it is of course, more so, to the people of the Mary River valley. I will not canvass in full detail the shortcomings of this particular proposal with regard to the Traveston Crossing dam; Senator Joyce and Senator Bartlett have rightly articulated those with some force. This is a fundamentally ill-conceived proposal. It is bad on environmental grounds most particularly. It is bad economically. It is bad socially for the region. In fact, what is mystifying about it is that there seems to be almost nothing that can be said in support of this proposal.

I am not one of those people who think we should not be building dams. Indeed, I think there is a place for dams in the context of addressing the wide range of issues which confront the Australian community right across the country in relation to the provision of water. Desalination, dams, recycling, conservation and other methods should all be considered. I am certainly of the view that dams ought to be part of that mix in trying to address this very serious problem.

What is surprising is that this particular proposal has only one proponent. There is only one advocate for this proposal—that is, the Queensland government. It strikes me as peculiar in the context of infrastructure developments around the country, where often there is a need for a community or an individual to yield to wider community and public interest. There are those who recognise that their own particular interests might be affected and those in a community who are prepared to say, ‘I know you’re going to be affected, I know your particular concerns are at risk, but there is a wider community interest.’

What is interesting about this proposal is that there is only one advocate for it. I have waited, breathlessly almost, to find someone else who would support the proposition of the Beattie government that this dam ought to be built in this particular place, and no-one has come forward. Indeed, all the professional studies that have been prepared by those who are anxious about this proposition make the point that there are better ways to address the needs of south-east Queensland’s water requirements than building this dam.

So it is absolutely mystifying to me that the Beattie government presses this matter with a kind of ideological position when, as Senator Joyce has rightly pointed out, there is an alternative not far away. What is particularly peculiar about this as a matter of public policy is that the Beattie government seems entirely reluctant to consider alternatives, if not determined not to consider alternatives—for example, the Borumba proposal that Senator Joyce has rightly mentioned to the chamber this morning. Why is that? Why is it that there is such an obsession? Frankly, I cannot provide an answer. It is one of the things about this issue that I find most vexing indeed.

This motion seeks to refer the matter to a Senate committee. Standing in my name and in the names of Senators Boswell and Joyce is a proposal that was put on the Notice Paper yesterday in relation to a similar topic. The people of the Mary River need an opportunity to ventilate their concerns. They have largely been shut out of any sensible, rational opportunity to communicate their concerns about this proposal to the Queensland government. They have been frustrated that the process so far has been so fundamentally dishonest—it has so fundamentally misrepresented its intentions to the point where we have yet to find a likely location for the dam wall. I think we are up to proposal 3 or 4 so far. We still do not have a place where this dam wall might be constructed.

This is creating an enormous amount of uncertainty and anxiety in the community. I, like Senator Joyce, have addressed public meetings in the area. It has been in some respects a very traumatic process, with people weeping about the consequences and the way in which this has been handled. This is no way to run a public policy railway. The Beattie government ought to do better. I have made it clear, as Senators Bartlett and Joyce have mentioned, that this inquiry will not take the place of the procedures that have been put in place under the Environmental Protection Act; what it will do is give them an opportunity, which they have hitherto been denied, to put their views and express their opinions to the Senate in relation to this proposal.

I would particularly encourage the Senate to look at the proposal in the notice of motion yesterday as in fact a wider proposal than the one that Senator Siewert moved this morning. Ours seeks to look more generally at the water requirements of south-east Queensland and it seeks to explore why it is that these needs have not been met—why it is that the water needs of south-east Queensland have been so fundamentally mismanaged by the Beattie government.

We ought to in that context pay some attention to the complicity of the new opposition leader of the federal Labor Party, Mr Rudd. As a bureaucrat in the former Goss Labor government in Queensland, it would seem he was directly responsible for ensuring that a particular dam proposal, which might well have addressed some of the water needs of Queensland and might well have provided precisely the kind of infrastructure that was needed and perhaps might not have placed us in this crisis, was terminated. We might find out why it was that he apparently terminated that proposal and did not proceed with it. That is something that ought to be of interest to the committee. Indeed, Mr Rudd needs to explain his party’s view on this particular proposal. I think I am right in saying that he has yet to declare his position on this matter

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

He doesn’t know where it is.

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

That may be right, Senator Joyce. He is still struggling to identify the possible location of the Traveston Crossing dam. The virtue of the motion we put on the Notice Paper yesterday is that the proposal would look more broadly at the requirements of water in North Queensland and south-east Queensland. It would be to the benefit of Queenslanders more generally, certainly to those who live in the south-east. It would give the people of the Mary River, who have been so disadvantaged by this process and who have been so profoundly affected by the way in which it has been conducted, an opportunity to ventilate and articulate their concerns. We would get some facts about this which have hitherto been precluded from public view.

In closing my remarks, may I acknowledge, as Senator Joyce has generously acknowledged others, his particular contribution to dealing with this matter amongst the community, and indeed Senator Bartlett’s, but also the contributions of my Liberal colleagues in Queensland—Senators Brandis, Mason and Ian Macdonald—who have all been concerned about the direction of this proposal. We all believe it needs close scrutiny. None of us is convinced that it has merit. The Senate inquiry will expose the limitations of this proposal for what it is—basically, a public policy sham and an attempt by the Beattie government to cobble together a solution to a matter prior to an election in relation to which they had given absolutely no policy thought. It was an attempt prior to the last state election in Queensland to put something on the table. It did not receive the detailed assessment and examination that it deserved. We will perhaps be able to provide that in the course of the Senate inquiry.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to briefly outline Labor’s view, but I cannot help but first respond to some of the remarks that have been made by Senators Joyce and Trood. On a light-hearted note I must say that when you come from Perth, Brisbane is an eastern city and not a western city! I struggle with that. But it is heartening to hear of your interest and the interest of your conservative colleagues in the desalination plant that we have operating in Western Australia. You might like to re-educate some of your colleagues in my home state whilst you are visiting there.

It is interesting that people invoke ideas such as these: if the proposal is such a good one then you have nothing to hide; and the degree of concern and anxiety in the community is justification for having an inquiry. I agree with both of those propositions, and they were equally valid when people voted against the proposal to have an inquiry into the sale of Qantas yesterday. There is significant community anxiety about that too, Senator Joyce, but apparently that is not good enough for you in that case. I would have thought that Airline Partners Australia and Qantas should have nothing to hide and therefore should be willing to appear before a Senate inquiry, but you did not seem to deem that as something that should take place.

It is a pity that Senator Trood has left us, because he was talking about the views of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Rudd, about a previous dam proposal in Queensland. He neglected to inform the Senate of the views of the then parliamentary leader of the state Liberal Party, who moved a motion in the state parliament on 3 October 1989 that began:

That this House demands the government not proceed with the construction or planning of the Wolffdene dam in any way.

It is very easy to come in here and say that Mr Rudd may or may not have had some involvement with that dam and to call on him to have a view about this. It is very easy to score cheap, personal, political points about an issue and neglect to talk about your own history. It is not just about Mr Rudd’s role in the Queensland bureaucracy at the time; you might like to start looking at your own first—at that of the then parliamentary leader of the state Liberal Party—before you come in here and start talking about things like that.

Having said that, though, Labor is not opposed to having an inquiry, but we are opposed to this particular motion. We are concerned about the reporting date. We agree that there is a water crisis in south-east Queensland and we do not see that the Senate should in any way choose to interfere with any arrangements that the state government may have in trying to address that crisis. That would be inappropriate for this place and for anyone in this parliament, or anywhere else for that matter.

We do agree with the proposal to have an inquiry; we are just concerned about this particular motion and the short time. Labor are in a position to support the inquiry foreshadowed by Senators Boswell, Joyce and Trood. The water crisis in south-east Queensland is obviously at the point where even those of us who live in Perth realise it exists. Those who live along the Mary River obviously have very good internet access, because they have been in touch with each and every one of us in this chamber to let us know their views.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to Telstra and the Australian government networking the nation!

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unlike regional Western Australia, Senator Abetz, or the black hole that is Greenwood, which is in inner northern suburban Perth, where you cannot get decent internet access. Perhaps if you live in those electorates in Queensland it is a bit easier. Labor will support a Senate inquiry into this issue, but we are not in a position to support this particular motion. A Senate inquiry should not be used in any way to delay the Queensland government’s bid to address the water crisis that is facing those in south-east Queensland, so we will support the foreshadowed motions of Senators Boswell, Joyce and Trood. But they need to think very carefully when they come in here, they need to look at the history and views of their own party, before they talk about what others may or may not have done.

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

I support this motion only reluctantly; I think the politics of the motion are quite crazy. Why the federal parliament would be embarking upon an inquiry that can only achieve allowing Mr Beattie to escape from his own stupidity is beyond me. This whole issue arises from Mr Beattie’s incompetence and also the incompetence of former Labor governments and their senior adviser, Mr Rudd.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about your party’s role?

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

I do not know. I would never accept what any Labor person might say when quoting a so-called Hansard

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was the 3 October 1989 state Hansard.

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

but, even if it is true, you are quoting someone who is no longer in the parliament. I want to talk about people who are currently in this parliament and who aspire to lead this country—people who claim they have the foresight to properly run this country, as our Prime Minister has done now for 10 years and will continue to do for many years. The Prime Minister is a man of vision and foresight; Mr Rudd quite clearly failed that test when he was, in effect, the Queensland government. I am not sure what his official title was, but he was obviously the string puller for Mr Goss and the Queensland government at the time. Mr Rudd has a lot to answer for in relation to the water crisis in south-east Queensland at the present time. The Wolffdene dam, as I recall the issue a long time ago, had all of the land purchased and was ready to go, and the government of the day—never mind what an opposition of about five people said—

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber interjecting—

Ross Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber, yelling across the chamber is unruly.

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

with a huge majority, was titularly run by Premier Goss but directed by none other than the current Leader of the Opposition and would-be Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. It was Kevin Rudd who had the influence at the time to look forward to the problems of water in Queensland 10 years hence. Mr Rudd did not have that vision. He succumbed to political pressure at the time. Mr Rudd crumbled with the first iota of pressure. He crumbled like a badly made cake. With no substance at all and with a bit of pressure put on him, he crumbled and pulled the Queensland government out of a proposal which, if it had been built, would have been looking after Queensland at this present time.

What has Mr Beattie done? And Beattie was part of that team at the same time. He has come up with this ridiculous proposal for a dam at Traveston Crossing, and a few other proposals besides that. Unfortunately, I have been at other meetings and have not heard what my colleagues have said, but I feel fairly certain that they have clearly enunciated the stupidity of this dam. Very importantly, not only is it going to affect the lives of many ordinary Australians but it is going to achieve nothing. It is a huge cost; the dam is not big enough; it is not deep enough; and we will lose more water in evaporation than will be usefully applied to south-east Queensland if the dam is ever built. Quite frankly, I do not think that Mr Beattie ever really intended for this to go ahead. He came up to an election a few months ago and had a number of crises to deal with—one of them was the health crisis. I must say, a democracy is a democracy and you accept the result, but I cannot understand my fellow Queenslanders rewarding Mr Beattie’s maladministration of the hospital system by re-electing him by almost the same massive majority he had before. Similarly, I cannot understand how they overlooked this water position.

Mr Beattie, clever though he is—and I like Peter Beattie; I admire him for his political nous and his political foresight; he is a great politician; he is not a great administrator, not a great Premier, but a great politician—needed something to defuse the issue of lack of water in south-east Queensland. So, what did he do? He picked some area where he knew the vote would not worry him, because it is an area where his party would never get much support in any case—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re making it up. Keep rewriting history.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, you should ignore those interjections and direct your comments through the chair.

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

I thought it might have been an intelligent interjection, but I was badly mistaken; I should not have bothered to think that. Mr Beattie needed to do something, so he declared this dam in an area where he knows he will not get any votes. He did not really bother to look into it and did not really bother to think what a stupid proposition it was anyhow. I think Mr Beattie will be desperately hoping that something will happen from this inquiry or elsewhere that will allow him off the hook. That is why I have some hesitation and wonder about the wisdom of actually putting this motion before the parliament, but it is here. I will partake in the committee inquiry. I understand it has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, of which I am a participating member, so I will relish the opportunity to learn a bit more about all aspects of it and actually getting some of the facts. I feel fairly confident at this time—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’d be well advised if you did that.

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

Well advised to what?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Get the facts.

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

I assume from that, Senator Lundy, you are guaranteeing that the Queensland government and all their public servants will come along and give evidence. As I was just about to say, I have not been involved in putting this motion together, but it is a fairly good bet that Mr Beattie will prohibit any of his public servants—any of the people with the real knowledge; any of the people with the facts and information—appearing before this committee. I understand that Senator Lundy is guaranteeing that the Queensland government will instruct their public servants to come along and give evidence. If that is what you are doing, Senator Lundy, thank you very much, because it would be fascinating to get some of the public servants involved. I have spoken to a few of the public servants and they have told me that they have never been involved in a more ridiculous infrastructure program. I asked them, ‘Why don’t you say something about this?’ and they said, ‘In Queensland at the moment, if any public servant even indicates by the blink of an eye that they do not happen to agree with Mr Beattie and his 60-seat majority in Queensland, their futures as public servants are very, very limited.’

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you making that up as well?

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

Let us see, Senator Lundy.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Lundy, you are out of order and you should remain silent.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I must say, I am enjoying Senator Lundy’s interventions because I am getting from her that she has information from the Queensland government that they will make their public servants available to give evidence.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn’t say anything of the sort. You’re verballing me and you’re making it up.

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

Are you saying that they will give evidence?

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, I am sure that if you ignored Senator Lundy she would eventually remain quiet, which would be the great wish of this chamber.

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

I do not particularly want her to remain quiet, because her interventions are showing the shallowness of the Labor Party’s approach to all this. What I do really want to get on the record is that Senator Lundy—a senior frontbench member of the opposition and obviously one who is very closely attuned to the Labor Party organisation and all the apparatchiks in Queensland—is guaranteeing that public servants will be able to give evidence to this inquiry without fear or favour. I look forward to that. I am very doubtful that it will happen. But, Senator Lundy, please prove me wrong and make sure that any public servant who is called or who has a contribution to make is able to give evidence to this Senate inquiry. If that happens, Senator Lundy, I will publicly apologise to you and Mr Beattie, but my suspicion is that they will not be allowed to come along.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re just lying. You’re standing there and lying.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, do not be enticed by Senator Lundy to respond.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lundy interjecting—

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Lundy, you are out of order!

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

Heaven forbid! We have a prospective Prime Minister who could not even look after the water crisis in Queensland 10 years ago and we have prospective frontbench people here with that sort of immature and childish approach to their duties.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What? Calling you a liar?

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

She keeps calling me a liar and hoping someone will take the point of order. I ask no-one to take the point of order. I would like it on the record to show what immature people we are dealing with when we deal with this so-called alternative government. You have an alternative government led by a person who had absolutely no vision for—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s another lie.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Lundy! You know the rules of this place very well; you have been here long enough. You should not use that term to any senator here, and I ask you to stand and withdraw it.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

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

You have a prospective alternative Prime Minister to this country with a frontbench of the calibre you have just seen demonstrated in the last couple of minutes. This prospective leader did not have the vision 10 years ago to understand the crisis Queensland would be in at this time. As the man who pulled the strings of the Queensland government back in those days, he had no vision whatsoever, no understanding of the future and no understanding of the huge infrastructure gaps.

Consider the amount of money that the Queensland government rakes in from the Commonwealth’s GST—a GST, I might say, that was opposed by the Labor Party; but, talk to any of their premiers now and see how they embrace the GST in all of its glory. People still do not quite understand that every single cent of the GST collected in Australia goes to the state governments, all of which at the moment are, regrettably, managed—or mismanaged—by the Labor Party.

I have to say my home state of Queensland has done better out of the GST than most other states, at least in the initial period. Queensland should be rolling in money—sufficient money to look after the health system that is grinding to a halt. It should have sufficient money to set up the infrastructure that is needed to assist what is Australia’s fastest-growing region. The south-east corner of Queensland is growing faster than any other region of Australia. People—and I can understand why this happens—leave Victoria and New South Wales in droves and come to the good state. Mr Beattie is getting all the additional revenue from conveyance duty and all of the GST money, and I think it has all been spent on spin doctors for Mr Beattie and his team.

Certainly, I do not think this proposal for the Traveston dam is serious. I am a bit disappointed that we are going to take the pressure off Mr Beattie by allowing this inquiry to go ahead, but the decision has been made. I will certainly be involved in the inquiry and will try to get these public servants that Senator Lundy appears to have guaranteed will appear—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I never said anything of the sort.

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

You are not guaranteeing they will appear? Will they appear?

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has nothing to do with me.

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

Oh, it has nothing to do with you!

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Macdonald, you should address your comments through the chair and disregard those unruly interjections by Senator Lundy.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Now I understand Senator Lundy is saying that she is not guaranteeing the public servants will appear. I go back to my original proposition: I hope they do, I would be very surprised if they do and, if they do, I will publicly apologise to both Mr Beattie and Senator Lundy.

As I was saying before I was interrupted again by Senator Lundy, it is an inquiry that I will participate in. If we can get the public servants and get them to have the courage to put the facts of the matter before the Australian people, I think that would be very useful. I think most Queenslanders who have followed the issue, particularly those in the Traveston dam area who are involved, know the facts of this matter at the moment. They do not need a public inquiry to know what a ridiculous proposition this is—a proposition that will impact seriously on people’s lives and futures. It is the sort of decision that a Labor government takes without any regard for the rights, wellbeing and lifestyle of the people involved. With those reservations, I support the motion.

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

So everybody agrees that there should be an inquiry into this proposal but they do not want to support this committee reference. That is fascinating. I would have thought that if people were really keen to get this inquiry underway they would want to see it done straightaway and would in fact be prepared to look at these terms of reference and maybe negotiate over them.

To set the record straight, I submitted my motion to the table office yesterday prior to notices of motion being given here. So, in fact, I was not trying to gazump Senator Boswell; I did not know he was moving a similar motion. As I said, I had already submitted my motion before presentation of notices yesterday. After I found out that Senator Boswell had presented his notice of motion yesterday, I tried to see if we could come up with a compromise where everybody’s needs were met.

If you look at the proposal that Senators Boswell, Joyce and Trood have submitted, you find for a start there is no date for when the committee should report. So we could have an ongoing inquiry just taking submissions endlessly. Where is the time frame? There is a very strong sense of urgency about the need for this inquiry. Where is their date? It seems to me the terms of reference for this inquiry were cobbled together fairly quickly. There is no date.

I would also like to point out an inherent contradiction in Senator Boswell’s terms of reference. His motion proposes to refer the matter to the committee for inquiry and report after ‘examination of all reasonable options’. Our very argument here is that this is an unreasonable option. The terms of reference say that we should be looking at ‘all reasonable options’ and then go on to look at the merits of all options, including the Traveston Crossing dam. Our very thesis is that this is an unreasonable option. That is why I think our terms of reference are much clearer. Senator Trood probably missed the fact that the terms of reference the Greens are proposing actually do require examination of other options. Our term of reference (iii) is ‘the balance of other options available to meet the region’s water resource needs’, which I think covers the question of other options very clearly.

I do think there are some flaws in the coalition senators’ terms of reference. I do think ours are better: they have a clear date for when the committee should report. They also make sure that we get on with the job right now and we do not waste any time. I am disappointed that the coalition and, for that matter, the Labor Party do not feel that they can support this motion. It was put up so that we can get on with the job of looking at this proposal and looking at alternative needs. I do agree with Senator Ian Macdonald that it is letting the Queensland government off the hook, but I think there is no alternative process for the community—the Queensland community in particular, of course—to actually get access to information and to be able to have their say. So, while I think that Senator Ian Macdonald does have a very significant point there, I do not think that that can take away from the need for the Senate to actually hold this inquiry, to at least have one method of shining some light on this proposal. As I said, I am disappointed that the committee of which I am deputy chair cannot get on with this job right now so we can start calling for public submissions and start getting access to this data. I am disappointed that we are going to have to wait weeks more before we can get on with this job. I put the motion to the Senate that the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee gets on with this inquiry and has an inquiry into the Traveston dam and the alternative options for water supply for south-east Queensland.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.