Mr Peter Arnison
Chair, Community Futures Task Force
PO Box 15637 City East Qld 4002


Wednesday 24th January 2007

Re: Your response to the petition letter, and your general performance as a representative “helping” the communities of the Mary Valley, Queensland.

Mr Arnison,
I write in reply to your letter of response dated 11 January 2007 (your ref# SM10/CFTF) to the petition letter you received from hundreds of concerned Mary Valley residents in December 2006.

The petition letter asserted that:

Whether we are “affected” or “unaffected” by the proposed dam at Traveston Crossing by your “inundated” definition, we DO NOT accept the dam as “inevitable” (as you have stated on ABC radio 08/12/06). Many of us have recently attended the Office of Urban Management planning sessions and are extremely surprised that you have been left with the impression that we are “accepting” this ill-conceived, scientifically unsupported, yet to be approved swampland puddle. We see no “potential” in being left adjacent to the proposed wasteland.

The letter quite clearly requested that you:
Please publicly withdraw your comments.

Your response barely referred to the subject of the petition, other than to say:
During the various radio interviews between 7 and 12 December, on no occasion did I say that the majority of people have accepted the dam. These are not words that I have expressed. The words I used are those attributed to me in the transcripts of the relevant radio interviews of 7, 8 and 12 December 2006, which I have attached to this letter for your information.

In this remarkable example of dissembling you cleverly shrouded the facts of the matter behind a thin veil of pretence. Indeed the radio transcripts, which you provided, gave ample evidence that you used the radio interviews to project a false impression that the Mary Valley community is beginning to “accept” the dam as “inevitable”. As stated in the petition letter, and attested to by numerous attendees of the three Urban Management meetings, it is incredible that a reasonable person of intelligence could come away from those meetings with such an impression and make statements such as:
I think there are people who are now, albeit reluctantly, accepting that it will happen and certainly got a sense of that at Imbil on Tuesday night, a number of people talking about what benefits the dam may bring.

Of course, it is impossible to prove that not a single person has ever spoken to you about acceptance of the dam or their perception of potential benefits. However I submit to you that it was grossly misleading for you to publicly promote such views as the general impression you received from the three meetings; where you were in fact called upon to resign from your position due to your failure to fulfil your role and act in the interests of the Mary Valley community. What possible motivation could you have had to promote such a view?

At the time of your appointment as Chair of the Community Futures Taskforce, it was accepted that it was not your job to assist in the community’s fight against the dam. However, it was widely anticipated that you would act in the role of a community advocate, ensuring that the interests and rights of individuals and the community would be upheld, and not trampled by a State Government over-eager to progress a proposed dam project that is yet to gain State or Federal approval and has not even been fully engineered or costed. You still appear happy to promote yourself in such a role. From the radio transcripts you provided:

Angry locals called for the resignation of Major General Peter Arnison at a meeting recently, claiming he is out of touch with the feelings of the community. General Arnison says he understands the residents’ anger over the project, but say’s he won’t be standing down because it’s his job to help them.
This is worth repeating:
“it’s his job to help them”

Please then help me to reconcile your statements with the relevant facts of the matter:

    * There have been numerous reports, some backed up with written evidence and tape recordings, of unethical and/or illegal bullying tactics employed by the State Government and QWI Pty Ltd in the course of soliciting land acquisition contracts from local residents. Your office has been made fully aware of these occurrences. Why have you done nothing?

    * In August 2006, the State Government quietly withdrew funding for the Langmont Advantage psychological counselling service for affected residents. With no help whatsoever from your office, angered locals finally managed to get the service re-instated (with the assistance of journalists from the ABC). Today, despite documented proof to the contrary, the State Government and Langmont Advantage both deny that the 4-week halt to the counselling service ever occurred. Where were you when vulnerable members of this community were being left “out in the cold” by the State Government, or during the subsequent denial of their abandonment?

    * In your letter, you make no less than three references to the “decision to build the dam”. I remind you again that despite the spin-doctoring by the Premier and his team, no such “decision” has actually been made. Detailed engineering studies to determine the technical feasibility of the dam have barely commenced. Detailed cost estimates can only proceed at the completion of the engineering studies, at which time the Treasury Department will need to approve the funding and also figure out where the money will come from, or whether more cost-effective alternatives are viable. The matter has yet to be brought before State Parliament for a definitive vote, and neither the State or Federal Governments can even consider approval of the project before the completion of environmental studies which have not yet even commenced. If you are a neutral advocate of this community’s future, why do you continue to promote the Premier’s political agenda that the dam as a “done deal”?

    * For several months, concerned citizens attempted to obtain from the Department of Natural Resources some river environmental flow modelling data, referred to in the Mary Basin Draft Water Resource Plan – (Environmental Flow Assessment Framework and Scenario Implications), as “Appendix A - Hydrologic Impacts of Water Resource Management Scenarios (prepared by NR&M Water Assessment – CD available on request)”. Although I understand your office did attempt to assist in obtaining these data, you came up against the same “brick wall”, that we did, and it was only several months later that the data was finally obtained, without your assistance. Why did you never make a public issue of this unethical and illegal denial of vital and supposedly public-domain information by the State Government? You are clearly not shy of media attention when promoting pro-Government propaganda.

    * Although it may seem trivial, I feel it is necessary to remind you that the local community group rallying against the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam is the “Save the Mary River” group, not the “Save the Mary Valley” group as you mistakenly continue to refer to. As someone who purports to be “helping” the local community, and a former Statesman, you should be capable of correctly naming the key group representing local interests. I expect that you will correct this error forthwith; lest people get the idea that you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Do you know anything at all about the communities whose futures your task force is supposedly representing?

    * In the week prior to the Kandanga Office of Urban Management Planning community workshop, the Government (via QWI Pty Ltd) produced a number of “artists impressions” of New (post-dam) Kandanga. One of these showed a re-location of the flooded community hall, and on the basis of this “artist’s impression” eight families received notice that their homes were required for resumption for the new hall. At the meeting, you glibly tore up the drawing, saying “it’s a blank page – it’s up to you”. You were immediately challenged to publicly apologise to the eight families. Not only did you refuse to apologise, but you also displayed genuine confusion as to why such an apology might be appropriate. How can someone with such moral deficiency claim to lead a task force “helping” the “future of the community”?

    * The Kandanga Cemetery is likely to be flooded by the proposed dam. The facts of this matter are difficult to quantify, because the State Government (via QWI Pty Ltd) are continually releasing “final” maps of the inundation on a monthly basis. On some maps, the cemetery is high and dry. On others it is an isthmus with access via a bridge and pretty little sailing boats drifting by. On others it is completely flooded, or below the water level of adjacent completely flooded properties. Can you understand how this must rip the hearts out of the families of those buried at Kandanga? Just down the road in Kandanga is the town memorial for those local men who gave their lives serving Australia in World War 1. This memorial, where the whole town gathers each April to commemorate their sacrifice, and have done so for nearly 90 years, is also due to be flooded, (or not, depending on which “final” version of the QWI Pty Ltd map you consult). Does this seem right to you? Why have you done nothing, and when if ever do you intend to?

    * The Save the Mary River Group was formed by a public meeting of nearly 200 people just days after the public announcement of the dam by Premier Beattie. As such, the group pre-dates QWI Pty Ltd, the Community Futures Task Force, and the Premier’s “One Stop Shop” at Kandanga. The group, it’s Information Centre, and it’s associated phone support lines and websites have not only been in operation longer than the aforementioned bodies, but consistently provided more personal support and accurate information to members of the community than the other groups combined. However, within the newsletters from your Community Futures Task Force there is not even a single mention of the Save the Mary River group’s existence. For example: the latest issue (Issue 5, December) mentions QWI Pty Ltd with telephone and/or web address details seven times, the Premier’s “One Stop Shop” four times, but zero reference to the Save the Mary River Group. I can clearly see how it assists your and the Premier’s political agendas to ignore the existence of the Save the Mary River group and it’s outstanding contributions to local support, but how do you reconcile this in the context of your public role as Chair of the Community Futures Task Force? For future reference, the Save the Mary River group’s various contact details are as follows:

    * I understand that your Community Futures Task Force conducts monthly committee meetings, and indeed these meetings constitute the bulk of the items on the “Traveston Crossing Dam – Calendar of Events” in the CFTF Newsletter. One would assume that accurate minutes of these meetings are recorded, and yet I am unable to find any public disclosure of the meeting minutes anywhere. They are not published in your newsletter or at the CFTF website.
      As a member of the community you supposedly represent, a Queenslander, and an Australian Citizen, I hereby request full copies of the minutes of all Community Futures Task Force Meetings. Is there a reason why you conduct these meetings in secret and away from public scrutiny?

    * Given your recently revealed links to the Velocity Brisbane group, and in respect of the enormous financial difficulties facing many members of our community due to the dam proposal, I think it is only be proper for you to publicly disclose the financial arrangements (salary, bonuses, etc.) under which you are currently employed. What are you being paid to (mis)represent the local community?

Mr Arnison, I signed the above-mentioned petition letter in the hope that you would agree to the request that you publicly withdraw your comments regarding your “sense” of public acceptance of the dam. By your response you have made it quite clear that this will never happen, and it was in fact naïve to think that you might. In addition to my questions above, I therefore add my voice to the hundreds who have already publicly called for your resignation, and call on you again to resign from your position as Chair of the CFTF. To paraphrase the eloquent words of one community member at the Kandanga meeting, your role in this matter appears to be no more or less than to give it a sense of legitimacy which it does not deserve.