Anna Bligh - QLD Hansard
4 Comments
Mr SEENEY
(10.30 am): My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. Yesterday 10 bureaucrats had the courage to appear before the Senate inquiry and they had a huge difficulty identifying the cost of the Traveston Dam. There were five different opinions offered and the estimate went from $1.7 billion to $2.75 billion in the space of two hours. Then it transpired that those figures did not include the cost of realigning 11 kilometres of the Bruce Highway, nor the cost of pumping the water back to Brisbane. Does the minister have any idea at all how much this project is going to cost? More importantly, is she game enough to front the inquiry and explain it?
Ms BLIGH:
I thank the honourable member for the question. Let me start with the last part of his question first: am I willing to appear before the inquiry? Yes, I am. I have made that very clear in a number of public statements and in a discussion with the chair of the committee, Senator Heffernan. The fact is that I have not been invited to appear. The chair of the committee obviously believes that they do not require me to be there.
I have to say that after watching the news reports of the Senate inquiry yesterday it would have been much more fun to have been there than to have been here. I watched as Senator Joyce paraded with the nuns on the steps of the Convention Centre. They wrapped themselves in a coloured scarf. I am not entirely sure what the political message was. I have to say that I was taught by the Franciscan and Mercy nuns and I have nothing but respect for the many orders of nuns in this country. Frankly, I do not believe that the people on the steps on the Convention Centre did themselves or their cause any good at all.
In relation to the cost of the Traveston Crossing Dam—I am happy to advise the House, as I have on many occasions, that the cost of the Traveston Crossing Dam will be $1.7 billion for stage 1. There will obviously be other costs when we go to stage 2. What the costs will be in 2035 dollars—they will depend on the environmental impact statement at the time—will have to be finally calculated in about 28 years time. There are a number of estimates. I understand that the officers of the relevant departments who attended the inquiry yesterday gave that information when they were asked to give it.
Those people who are genuinely concerned about this dam and those people whose lives are going to be affected by it must frankly be watching on aghast at this absolute fiasco. I cannot remember the last time I saw the taxes that fund the Senate put to a less worthy purpose. I watched yesterday as the circus unfolded. I do not believe that to date we have seen any serious material presented to the Senate inquiry.
Mr Mickel
interjected.
Ms BLIGH:
Yes, the former member for Noosa made a contribution. The Cate Molloy fan club over there must have been very pleased with that appearance. I have provided to the Senate inquiry a very comprehensive submission on behalf of the state of Queensland. It amounts to some 200 or more pages. I would honestly recommend that members who are concerned about this issue read it.
Mr SEENEY:
My second question without notice is also to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. When I appeared at the inquiry yesterday the inquiry staff informed me that they have received 199 submissions about the Traveston Dam. Some 198 of those submissions are strongly opposed to the dam. Why is it that this government has not been able to find one engineer, one academic or one scientist who has been prepared to support the government’s proposal to build the Traveston Dam?
Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Before calling the Minister for Infrastructure can I welcome to the public gallery teachers and students from the McDowall State School in the electorate of Everton represented in this House by the Hon. Rod Welford. I call the Minister for Infrastructure.
Ms BLIGH:
I thank the honourable member for the question. I have noted some commentary from those opposite and from some media outlets that the fact that there are some 180-odd submissions opposed to the dam somehow leaves a question mark over the government’s commitment to the dam. Can I assure members that not only did the government submit a 200-odd page submission; it also backed it up with 12 volumes of material from scientists, from engineers, from geotechnical experts supporting all of the claims that are in the submission.
I am not surprised, and I do not believe the general public would be surprised, that those people who feel most motivated to put a submission to a Senate inquiry are those people who live in the area and whose lives are going to be affected by the dam. That does not surprise me, nor would it come as a surprise to anybody. I have every confidence that the two million people who live in south-east Queensland who understand what is happening to our water situation, who understand how important it is that we put in place new water storages, including this dam, understand how important this all is. I believe that those opposite who think that 188 against two million—
Mr Seeney:
199.
Ms BLIGH:
199 against two million. That makes a big difference. It helps to explain why you are over there and I am over here. There are two polls on this issue that stand out. There was one last week in the Gold Coast Bulletin. It was an online survey of readers of the Gold Coast Bulletin. It ran over a number of days. Those in support of the construction of Traveston Crossing Dam on its lowest day were 69 per cent yes and on its highest day were 74 per cent yes. I wonder what the member for Surfers Paradise, the member Robina and the others over there from Gold Coast electorates actually think about this dam. I wonder how many of them are going to stand up and say to their constituents that it is a bad idea.
Of course the big poll on the issue was held at the state election last year. We went to the election on the issue of water. We went to the election saying that we were going to build a dam at Traveston Crossing. Those opposite went to the election on the basis that they would not construct that dam. I think the results of that particular survey are available for all to see.
MS BLIGH ………There was much made yesterday at the dam Senate inquiry about the need for this dam, and I am sure we are going to hear a lot more. I just wanted to inform the House about some recent modelling that has shown that if the Traveston Crossing Dam had been built before 2003 it would have filled on two occasions and reached 87 per cent on a third occasion. The dam would have been at 87 per cent full in April last year. Current modelling advises that Traveston Crossing Dam would have been at 80,000 megalitres in October 2006—that is, 52 per cent of its capacity. What does all of this mean? What it means is that had the dam been built prior to 2000 it would have delivered 70,000 megalitres per annum for the whole period of the current drought and the Wivenhoe-Somerset-North Pine system would currently be above 30 per cent. Do members know what that means? It means that the south-east corner would be on level 2 water restrictions—not level 5, level 2.
Opposition members
interjected.
Ms BLIGH:
Those opposite do not want to hear the good news—
Opposition members
interjected.
Ms BLIGH:
Here we have the sisters of the perpetual opposition, and that is what we saw on the steps of the convention centre yesterday. The sisters of perpetual opposition—
Mr Lucas:
There’s the Mother Superior.
Ms BLIGH:
There is the Mother Superior sitting at the front. If those opposite are not prepared to seriously address the infrastructure needed for the provision of water for south-east Queensland, they are not listening to the people of the south-east and they fail to understand how important this dam is. But we do not. I say to the people of south-east Queensland: if you want a dam, you can count on us.
stevem
Now, HERE’s an interesting little situation from Thurs 19/4 episode of “The Boldfaced and the Bootified”! Join with me in frustration and despair as you read the first altercation! Gasp with horror and dismay at the later reply! Dare to imagine what trickery may be underfoot! Read on, bravehearts ……(Comments by ElaineB)
Quote:
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (3.13 pm), by leave: I refer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition this morning in relation to the level of support for the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam. The Leader of the Opposition made much of his attendance at the Traveston Crossing Senate inquiry and at what he claimed was a level of community support against the proposed dam. In my reply this morning, I made reference to two recent surveys about levels of support—being the Gold Coast Bulletin’s on-line poll and last year’s state election where this government won a mandate to proceed with the dam. However, I feel obliged to advise the House that there has indeed been a recent third poll that I believe must be drawn to the attention of members and the public.
The member for Burnett, Mr Messenger, has on his web site—and I recommend members read this; it is www.robmessenger.com—a simple question. The question is: do you support the Beattie Labor government’s proposal to build a dam on the Mary River at Traveston Crossing? The result of that poll— which polled 537 people—is not 69 per cent, as with the Gold Coast Bulletin; it comes as no surprise to me that 85 per cent of the people who replied to the member for Burnett’s poll said, yes, they support the Beattie government on this position. I want to thank the people of Burnett for their overwhelming endorsement of the dam. I look forward to the member for Burnett taking on board the views of his constituents. I table a copy of the web site pages. I encourage other members to get on to the web site before the member for Burnett takes this information off it.
Tabled paper: Pages from the web site of Rob Messenger MP, Member for Burnett, downloaded on 19 April 2007 and titled ‘Welcome’, ‘Poll’ and ‘Previous Polls’.
Quote:
Mr. Messenger: ……Earlier this afternoon the Deputy Premier skipped into the chamber armed with survey results that were going to convince this state that we need the $3 billion mistake that is called the Traveston Dam. The Deputy Premier quoted the result from my web site where I had held a poll. I asked the question whether people agreed with the government’s decision to build Traveston—
A government member: And they did.
Mr MESSENGER: I have a sneaking suspicion that the results have been manipulated, or my web site has been hacked into. ……. I believe that my web site has been attacked by the ALP or hacked into. I am getting technical advice on that. I think it is a sign of this government’s desperation that the Deputy Premier interrupts parliamentary business—and I think this is very important—to raise this issue. I am embarrassed that I have to defend myself in this way and take up this valuable time. I think the Deputy Premier is playing petty politics with a very serious issue. She is behaving more like a deputy school captain rather than the Deputy Premier.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (4)
A.B.: But I've been saying my "Dam Mary"'s every day.
Mother Superior: Ummm, it's "Hail Mary". You were always a bit slow, weren't you?
The "press vote" on the sunshine coast in the SCdaily was 97% against the dam. Are Gold Coast people more important?
How many of the Gold Coast public are in favour of piping water from over the border?
(I think the arguments that the NSW State government comes up with against damming a river system and diverting the water out of the catchment to somewhere else will be interesting to hear, because I bet they will be echoed by Rudd and Beattie) All these arguments will be directly applicable to the Mary, except that the Clarance is a much bigger river with much more water, doesn't have Mary River Cod, Turtle, Lungfish or a RAMSAR wetland, and the proposal isn't to put a dam on the floodplain, and the Northern Rivers proposal doesn't put 3 towns within the impoundment.
Steve Burgess
Dear Senator Heffernan,
I have heard about your exchange with one of the “Mary River Sisters” at the Brisbane Senate Inquiry last week. As a founding member so the Sisters of Mary River, I want to assure you that the concept behind the “sisters” of the Mary River is not intended to be disrespectful to members of religious orders. Rather than attempting to trivialize the depth of commitment felt by those who enter religious orders, in electing to identify as “sisters” of Mary River we are acknowledging such religious “sisterhoods” as models for devotion and loyalty. We live in an era when ecosystems everywhere are under pressure from the activities of humans. It is timely that some groups stand up for the beauty, balance and diversity that characterize natural systems.
Sisters of Mary (River) was formed in May 2006, one month after the Traveston Dam proposal’s announcement. The original members all knew each other previously through activities involving the Mary, such as riparian regeneration projects, wildlife education and site-specific environmental art installations. In some way, we were already working for the Mary. In forming the group, we aimed to find positive ways to help the Mary River, the residents and the endangered wildlife. We represent a wide cross-section of professions, political views and religious persuasions and engage in respectful dialogue with all parties in the Traveston Dam debate.
Sisters of the Mary has a positive vision for the future of the Mary River catchment within the overall context of SEQ. The green, uncrowded countryside of the Mary Valley is a perfect complement to the heavily-populated areas to its south. It is close enough to be visited for weekend recreational purposes, and for the fertile flood plains to provide essential fresh food supplies. A mixture of eco-tourism and sustainable agricultural practice is a viable and harmonious way for the Mary Valley to co-exist with its urbanised neighbours.
While we often try to provide “light relief” at rallies, meetings and gatherings, Sisters’ purpose is a serious one. We believe that future generations will judge us harshly should we fail to protect the unique and precious Mary river ecosystem, when there are far more effective and reliable ways which are not rainfall-dependent to provide water for the cities of South East Queensland. Sisters of Mary is taking a principled stand to use all means at our disposal, including costuming and performance, to ensure that what can never be replaced is not lost. In doing so, we honour the river as in its role of Mother (nurturer and provider) in a profound way which resonates with the reverence for nature shared by all great spiritual traditions.