Carolyn Tucker
25/8/06 

HYPOCRISY and deceit are a familiar feature of politics.

Elected representatives are often accused of breaking their word, reneging on promises or telling outright lies — whatever it takes to achieve the outcome they’re seeking.

It happens so regularly that many he electorate have become indifferent to such displays of dishonesty. It’s just politics, after all.

Children overboard, weapons of mass destruction, the never-ever GST and even plans to hand over the leadership are clear examples of the Prime Minister being loose with the truth.

But weighed against arguments about who can deliver greater prosperity and national security honest is apparently irrelevant.

Of course both sides tell porkies contradict their own stated views when it suits, so It probably won’t surprise anyone that the Beattie Government was outraged a couple of years when the Opposition said It should be doing more about water.

However given the current ‘crisis’ the determination to proceed with the Traveston Dam at any cost, some of those comments are worth revisiting.

The Coalition’s $1 billion dam plan outlined on Wednesday might have a familiar ring.

It was detailed in Lawrence Springboard’s Budget reply speech in June 2004 and was immediately condemned by former Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson as unsustainable, unscientific and failing on economic, environmental and social grounds.

“Mr Springborg committed the National Party to a $1 billion water policy that basically promises dams, and more dams without any regard to the impact on our rivers, our farmers and communities,” Mr Robertson fumed.

“(He) wants to build dams on a political whim and leave the community and the environment to pay the price.

“There is no sense building dams if the new infrastructure kills the health of the river in the process.

“It’s this type of 1950s’ dinosaur thinking that makes Mr Springborg and the National Party unelectable.’’

Mr Robertson went on to trumpet the Government’s responsible approach to securing future water supplies.

“Queensland is acknowledged as leading the nation in water planning and reform,” he said.

“Water planning is more difficult as a result of the legacy of dam performance disasters that the Beattie Government inherited from the National Party.”

Mr Robertson said it was “breathtaking hypocrisy” for Mr Springborg to suggest the Government should be doing more to ensure the southeast didn’t run dry and his tirade continued seven months later, in January 2005.

“Mr Springborg’s ‘just dam it’ approach to water planning is what makes the National Party so out of touch and so economically and environmentally irresponsible,” the Minister said.

“He conveniently ignores the fact that it is the community that foots the bill for the many millions of taxpayers’ dollars it costs to build, operate and maintain dams.

“Sadly, Queensland is littered with National Party-built dams that never fill because for decades, politics overrode good planning.

“The Nationals wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in under performing water storages which tax payers pay for today through subsidies to operate and maintain empty or near empty dams.”

And in June 2004, Mr Robertson lashed out at the Opposition’s suggestion that Toowoomba was facing a critical water shortage within six years, describing it as “alarmist and a deliberate distortion of the facts”.

Mr Robertson added that Lawrence Springborg should apologise for causing unnecessary concern.

“Experts agree that even without better water use efficiency such as greater use of recycled water and rainwater tanks — water demand will not exceed supply in Toowoomba until about 2015

“Mr Springborg is simply beating up this issue to give oxygen to his ‘dam at all costs’ water policy which is unscientific and neither economically nor environmentally sustainable”.

So in 2004, water planning and supply was well in hand and building new dams was a backward, politically driven option.
But in 2006 we have a water crisis which must be partially resolved by building a massive, shallow, highly questionable dam on the Mary R1ver.

Hypocritical?
It would seem so. Deliberately deceitful? Possibly.
Will it matter come election day’
Probably not.