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

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)

rejects the assertion by the Queensland Premier, Ms Anna Bligh, that the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam will save threatened species like the Mary River cod, Mary River turtle and Australian lungfish from farmer-induced extinction;

(b)

recognises that, to the contrary, the Traveston Crossing Dam presents real threats to these species and others and to the farmlands in question; and

(c)

calls on the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (Mr Garrett) to reject the Premier’s crude and misinformed assessment.

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

Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

I think this matter was also dealt with in part yesterday. Minister Garrett’s statutory decision-making responsibility for the Traveston Crossing Dam proposal will not commence until the Queensland government submits the Coordinator-General’s final assessment report. A decision on the proposal will then be made, but only after thorough consideration of all relevant information, including all relevant scientific information, in strict accordance with the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

It is inappropriate to seek to have the environment minister express views on the potential environmental impact of a project prior to a final decision being made or to ask the minister to comment before the final assessment report has been submitted. In asking the minister to effectively comment on the potential environmental impacts of the proposal at this time, the motion is calling on the minister to breach due process and compromise the integrity and legal validity of any decision he may ultimately make. As the minister’s track record in relation to this and other proposals demonstrates, he is committed to ensuring he carries out his statutory responsibilities in a rigorous, comprehensive, transparent and legally robust manner. The same approach will be applied to any decision he may ultimately make in relation to the Traveston dam proposal.

I understand the opposition is supporting the Greens’ motion, and on that basis we know the numbers will lie on the positive side of that motion. Therefore we will not be calling a division; we will just indicate our opposition to the motion.

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

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

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

Senator Ludwig says that Minister Garrett is treating this matter in a transparent fashion, but that is just not so. The motion yesterday called on Mr Garrett to release the draft report from the Queensland Coordinator-General so that the public could have a look at it and the government and the minister are steadfastly refusing to do that. Moreover, there is no commitment to the final report being a matter for public comment either.

However, in the Queensland parliament the Premier, Anna Bligh, has made these very injudicious comments about the potential extinction of the lungfish, the Mary River turtle and the Mary River cod—because of farmers, for goodness sake. She was coming up with this extraordinary logic—hillbilly logic—which says that, if the dam is put there, it will help these species and that flooding the farmlands will prevent the impact that farmlands may have on the species. I have a certain regard for Premier Bligh. She did not think that up; she was given it as advice and she did not take time out to think about before she got to the floor in the Queensland parliament and put it forward. She did the case for destroying those farmlands no good at all.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask the minister for the environment to say whether he is entertained or influenced by the statements being made in Queensland. This is a public debate. The other ministers in this parliament had no problem putting their point of view in a public debate like this. Why on earth the minister for the environment is the one who is self-nobbled, I do not know.

Question agreed to.