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

I support and endorse the remarks of my colleague Senator Abetz in relation to a very, very fine man, one of the most honourable and genuine persons you would meet in this political job we are all in. I join with Senator Abetz, and I know all of my colleagues, in wishing Dr Nelson every best wish for the future.

Regrettably, for the last night of sitting for another four or five weeks, I want to talk about something not quite so uplifting or quite so honourable and genuine. In fact, I want to talk about a disastrous environmental event that is on the cusp of happening in my home state of Queensland, and I want to talk about a political party that is neither honourable nor genuine when it comes to this and many other environmental issues.

Those Queenslanders in the chamber or who might happen to be listening might know that the Mary River in South-East Queensland is a very, very special river and the home of the very rare and endangered lungfish, and the mary river cod and turtle. Damming it would be an environmental disaster in itself, made more so by the fact that as a provider of water to Brisbane it will be a complete failure. It is far too shallow, it will require enormous energy in pumping the water, and it has fissures in the ground. It really will not deal with the long-term needs of Brisbane’s water supply, but it can destroy some very unique Queensland species.

The Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, before she called an early election, assured the people of Queensland that consideration of the construction of the dam would be delayed some four years—that is, until after not only the election that was held earlier this year but the following election as well. People relaxed, although Ms Bligh did say that she still favoured the dam. The Liberal National Party in Queensland has been totally opposed to this dam on the Mary River for all the right reasons for a number of years. In fact, it was the coalition in this chamber that set up a Senate inquiry to have a look at the dam and what it meant, and the majority report of that inquiry clearly indicated that the dam should not go ahead—that it was an environmental disaster in the waiting.

The Greens political party, as is their wont, will always get on the environmental bandwagon. I must say that in the speeches made in this chamber I very much support what Senator Brown has said about the Traveston Crossing dam. I am delighted to see that he joins the Liberal and National parties in our firm opposition to this environmental disaster in waiting. But what particularly concerns me about the Greens political party is that, whilst telling the electors of Queensland they were totally opposed to the Traveston Crossing dam, they actually gave their preferences yet again to the Labor Party in the Queensland state election, thus ensuring the return of the government which was pledged to construct the dam. How do you like that for hypocrisy? On one hand they will come in here, and they will go to the rallies, and oppose the dam; on the exact opposite hand they will then support with their preferences in the Queensland election a political party which is determined to continue with the construction of this environmental disaster in waiting.

The Greens political party, being a political party of the extreme left of the Australian political spectrum, will always support the Labor Party in its preference allocations. We know that. At times in various parts of the country they initiate discussions with my party, hinting that they might be prepared to give preferences, but when the crunch comes to it in every case they always roll over and give their preferences to their fellow travellers on the left of the political spectrum, the Labor Party. They are very extreme left, even more extreme than most in the Labor Party would countenance. That is the nature of democracy. That is their choice, of course. But what concerns me is that this dam will be a disaster.

Had the Greens in Queensland had the honour, strength and truth of their convictions, they would have taken the opportunity of the last Queensland state election to say to the Labor Premier of Queensland: ‘Enough is enough. We are not going to continue to support you when you continue to make these silly decisions that will destroy the unique environment of the Mary River.’ They had that opportunity. They could have done that. Had they done that, the election in Queensland would have had a different result. There were a number of seats that were won by the Labor Party on Green preferences. Had the Greens joined with the Liberal National Party in Queensland in opposing that dam at a political level, the dam would be certain of its defeat; the construction of the dam would not have happened. Yet the Greens gave preferences to the Labor Party, thereby ensuring the return of the Labor government and by that ensuring the construction of the dam.

Mr Garrett has a decision to make in relation to the Traveston Crossing Dam. It is relevant under the EPBC Act so a decision by the federal minister is required. But the Queensland Premier, Ms Bligh, has been telling the media all week that she has been lobbying Mr Rudd about this. She has been lobbying the Prime Minister to get support for the Traveston Crossing Dam construction. Why would she be doing that if the decision was to be made by Mr Garrett alone? Quite clearly, the reason Ms Bligh is speaking to the Prime Minister is to ensure that the Prime Minister, as leader of this government, will indicate what the decision will be on the Traveston Crossing Dam application when it comes before the environment minister. I know that that is contrary to law, but, if Mr Garrett is to make his decision unfettered by any pressure by the Prime Minister or the Queensland Premier, why is the Queensland Premier publicly telling everyone she is lobbying Mr Rudd for his support for the construction of that dam?

The Labor Party approach to this does not stand the test of scrutiny for honesty. I think Mr Rudd has to make it very clear that in no way will he support the construction of that dam. He has to make it clear that he will not provide money for it, because we all know that even now the required relocation of the Bruce Highway for this dam has been funded by the federal Labor Party government. And indirectly they have been assisting the construction by funding the subsidiary works.

It is a disaster in the making. Just this week Mr Greg Hunt and Mr Warren Truss lodged in the House of Representatives a petition with 5,393 signatures on it, all opposing the construction of that dam. The feeling throughout that area—and, I might say, right throughout Queensland—is total opposition to that dam. Yet Ms Bligh continues in her pig-headed way, determined to construct that dam. She is seeking the support of Mr Rudd in that environmental vandalism. I just hope that Mr Rudd will hold his ground and reject the approach— (Time expired)