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

I move:

That the Senate calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water (Mr Garrett) to ensure that the assessment of the proposed dam on the Mary River in Queensland include all prudent and feasible alternatives.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The proposal to construct a dam at Traveston Crossing on the Mary River in South-East Queensland is currently being assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The method of assessment is an environmental impact statement, an EIS, in accordance with the requirements of a bilateral agreement under the EPBC Act with the Queensland government. The terms of reference of the EIS include a requirement that the EIS discuss reasonable and practicable alternatives to the proposed dam, including a comparative description of the impacts of each alternative. The EIS was made available for public comment and a large number of submissions were received, many of which raised issues regarding potential alternatives to the Traveston Crossing dam. The proponent’s response to those comments is contained in the supplementary report, which is now publicly available.

Both the public comments and the proponent’s response will be considered by the Queensland Coordinator General when finalising the assessment report. The report must be presented to the minister for his consideration. It goes without saying that the minister will make his decision on the proposed dam in strict accordance with the EPBC Act. In particular, he will consider all relevant matters, including the alternatives to the dam that were canvassed in the EIS, public comments on those alternatives and the proponent’s response to those comments.

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

by leave—I would like to state for the record in reflection on what Senator Ludwig said that we have not found the process of the EPBC Act open and accountable or able to be audited. It is a process that has been under question right from the word go. This is a peculiarity, in that on one of the most unsuitable sites for a dam in Queensland they are proposing the expenditure of multiple billions of dollars of what ultimately would be taxpayers’ revenue. The Snowy Mountains water commission says that it is one of the most unsuitable sites for a dam. There are huge problems with evaporation and huge problems with seepage. This will completely decimate the economy of the valley and also cause huge problems for the ecology of the river. This is something that Mr Garrett does have the potential to stop. I hope that Mr Garrett shows his true credential in how he acts on this, which is one of the most vital issues for this part of the coast.

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

by leave—I appreciate Senator Joyce’s contribution. The motion calls for all feasible and prudent alternatives to be investigated. That would include, of course, the integrity of this proposal for a dam at Traveston Crossing. But the former environmental legislation required that in all cases like this the environmental assessment must include feasible and prudent alternatives. From what the government is saying here, it is leaving it to opponents to come up with those. That is simply not good enough. The proponent should have to come forward with prudent and feasible alternatives to the Traveston dam on the Mary River. That includes those that avoid the quite disturbing and destructive components, including the destruction of the last great nurseries for the Australian lungfish, the Mary River cod and the Mary River turtle—not to speak of thousands of hectares of prime food-producing farmland which would be inundated by this unnecessary and unreasonable dam.

The question here is: is the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett, going to insist on those prudent and feasible alternatives being fully discussed and costed—social cost, environmental cost, economic cost included, and the cost to Indigenous interests—before he makes a decision? That is not the job of the opponents; that ought to be a job of the proponents, and that includes the Queensland government.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—This is an issue that has been of concern to the coalition for some time. I need only refer senators to the report of coalition senators—Senator Boswell, Senator Trood and I—when this was inquired into by the Senate committee set up for that purpose. Perhaps Senator Brown’s motion is not absolutely essential, but nevertheless the coalition will be supporting the motion because every bit of pressure that we can bring on Mr Garrett to assess this issue appropriately and in the interests of the environment deserves support.

Question agreed to.