Mr SEENEY:
I will put the Premier out of his misery, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:
 Do you also have a question, Leader of the Opposition?

Mr SEENEY:

Yes. My second question without notice is to the Deputy Premier. On Tuesday the Deputy Premier tabled in this parliament a map that she said was the final boundaries of the Traveston Dam, and she distributed that to every member. Deputy Premier, I table today a copy of that map and marked on that map is a property that is owned by Mr and Mrs Blair and Pauline Price. When the Deputy Premier tabled that map Mr and Mrs Price were pleased to see that their property was well outside the boundaries of the inundation area. But they were devastated yesterday to receive a letter to say that their property was going to be resumed. Does the Deputy Premier understand the mental anguish that is caused by her ineptitude when people receive letters to say that their property is going to be resumed the day after she tables a map showing that their property is well outside the boundaries of the inundation area?

Tabled paper:
Map of area of proposed Traveston Crossing Dam.

Tabled paper:
Letter dated 30 October 2006 from Graeme Newton, Chief Executive Officer, Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd to Blair D and Pauline L Price, and attachment.

Ms BLIGH:

I thank the honourable member for the question. I think that he and every other member of the House would appreciate that with 1,000 information packs going out I am not in any position to comment on any individual letter. But let me say this about the issue: firstly, do I and every single member of this government understand the anguish of anybody whose home is needed for a public purpose, whether it is the Traveston Dam, a school or a road? Of course we do, and that is why we took the opportunity from day one to stand in the market to give certainty to people who wanted certainty about their homes and to enable them to offer their homes for sale as quickly as possible. It is why I am going up there tomorrow to talk to people personally, and it is why we have made available very reasonable, very compassionate and very generous leaseback arrangements on this project.

In relation to the specific circumstances, can I say this: I do not know the specific circumstances of this case and I do not think the member would expect me to, but of course I will look into it. The maps that I have released are the engineers’ advice about the final boundaries. But it is not only the boundaries of the dams that will affect people’s property, and I made this clear on Tuesday. The roads will need to be realigned. I do not know if that is the case in this person’s situation, but in addition to the inundation levels every dam has to have a buffer area around the boundary. The buffer area will also affect properties. I will have a look at the circumstances of the case the member has raised here, but I am very confident that you could not find a more thorough and more committed person running the Queensland Water Infrastructure company than Mr Graeme Newton. I am very confident of the work that he has done. If there has been some mistake, I will look into that.

Mr Johnson:
The buck stops with you, Minister.

Ms BLIGH:
Of course it does, and that is why I will look into it.

Mr Seeney:
You said they were the final boundaries.

Ms BLIGH:

They are the final boundaries, and the boundaries include the inundation levels, the full supply level and then they include the buffer, and properties will also be affected by road and rail realignments. Yes, there are a number of things that can affect a person’s property. Each and every single person will have the opportunity to think about how they want to take their circumstances forward. Can I also clarify that nobody has been sent a resumption notice, and the member’s misleading of the House and characterisation of those letters as resumption notices is nothing more than dishonest. People received a letter outlining how the dam would affect their property. Some people have 10 per cent of their property affected, some 90 per cent, some 100 per cent. They have to make their own decisions about whether they will sell all of their property, just those parts that are affected, whether they will sell on a voluntary basis or whether they will ultimately be in the resumption category. So there were no resumption notices sent out this week—none. I would hope that we are able to work with every single landholder to find a solution that works for them and achieve that voluntarily, and that is what I am committed to doing.

Mr GIBSON:

My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. On Tuesday, included in her so-called good news for the people of Gympie was the announcement that the flood modelling based on the 1999 flood indicated that the proposed dam at Traveston Crossing would have significant flood mitigation impacts on Gympie. Is it not true that this same modelling showed that in the major floods of 1968, 1974 and 1989, this proposed dam would have no mitigating effects on Gympie and only a minor impact on the flood of 1992? I wish to table the flood modelling data.

Tabled paper:
Table (1 page) containing data relating to predicted flood mitigation effect of proposed Traveston Crossing Dam.

Why does the minister continue to treat the people of Gympie with contempt with her misleading and selective propaganda?

Ms BLIGH:

I thank the member for the question. There has been quite a bit of debate about this issue in the Gympie community. The Gympie Times discusses the flood modelling and questions that are being raised in relation to it. I can assure the House of the status of the flood modelling upon which I based my comments on Tuesday.

Flood modelling for the stage 1 operation was done on the basis of the full dam, that is, a worst case scenario, and impact upstream no higher than the identified stage 1 buffer area. The flood modelling employed is specifically designed to take into account the dam design, including the operation of four gates on the dam which would flatten out the flow. The modelling measures the stream flows at 10 minute intervals. Therefore, it is significantly more accurate and more reliable than the work being touted by some of the proponents in the debate quoted in the Gympie Times

The Traveston design includes stream gauges to identify when water flow is coming. That allows the dam operators to operate the dam in a way that anticipates flow and mitigates the flood.

The methodology employed by the Queensland Water Infrastructure Company has been utilised and applied on dams such as Wivenhoe, which successfully mitigated a major flood event in 1999. The modelling done by the QWI engineers was supported by SunWater, which operates Wivenhoe Dam. The whole modelling exercise was peer reviewed by nationally recognised flood modellers. The methodology is recognised around the world as world’s best practice in flood modelling.

I do not expect the people of the Mary Valley to see flood mitigation affects in Gympie as a complete justification for the dam. Nobody does.

Mr Copeland
 interjected.

Ms BLIGH:
 I did not.

Mr SPEAKER:

Order! The member for Gympie has asked a very serious question on behalf of his constituents. I would ask that the Deputy Premier be allowed to give a serious answer.

Ms BLIGH:

It would be nice if the member for Gympie’s leader would let me give the answer, Mr Speaker. I do not for one minute expect the people of the Mary Valley to see flood mitigation effect of the dam as some justification for the dam or a reason for them to feel less distressed about it. But I think it is important to put on the public record that the dam will have a flood mitigating effect. It will not be a total prevention—the dam is not going to stop rain falling from the sky at some stage.

Mr Robertson:
 I hope not.

Ms BLIGH:

Yes, we hope not, but it will have some mitigating effect. I do not resile from my comments that that is good news for the businesses and residents of Gympie.

Traveston Dam

Hon. AM BLIGH

(South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (11.40 am), by leave: I rise to inform the House of the circumstances involving Pauline and Blair Price as raised by the opposition leader in a question this morning. I am able to inform the House that the Queensland Water Infrastructure company does propose to purchase a part of the property owned by these residents for a water storage easement. I stress that this is like other easement acquisitions in other projects and it would allow the owners to retain title on the land. It is essentially an offer by the state to purchase a right of way to part of the property or a right to use the property for certain designated purposes—in this case, a water storage area in the event of a flooding incident. It is completely up to these landowners if they want the Queensland Water Infrastructure company to acquire the easement or not. It is also up to the owner if they want to sell the land identified or all of the property. That is an option that we have given to all affected landowners.

I am also able to advise the House that other areas where easements are needed for some purpose are marked on the map with small black dotted lines. In this small area in Imbil those dotted lines do not appear on the map and in my view, having re-read the letter that was sent to these residents, the fact that part of their land may be required for an easement as opposed to a purchase could have been and should have been made clearer. If that has caused some distress to these residents, then I apologise for that. In the context of 1,000 letters and 1,000 maps, I think it is a small mistake. But for the people who are concerned, it is obviously a very big issue and I recognise that. I regret any discomfort or distress that has been caused and can advise the House that the individuals concerned have been personally rung this morning and had those issues explained to them. I understand they now have certainty about the issue.