And so it begins again...HANSARD (starting 11/10/06)

[westholme]

Grit your teeth folks. It is very hard to get through these things without getting sick and wanting to hurl or feeling a deep sense of unabated anger.
ENJOY.

Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.59 am): Our government is committed to building the infrastructure that Queensland needs to secure a prosperous future. Whether it is roads, rail, water, energy, ports, or schools and
hospitals, we are on the job, with the highest capital works spending per capita in the country. 11 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 43 Opposition members interjected.
***Ms BLIGH: They do not want to hear about it, but I know that people on this side of the House are very, very interested in infrastructure. I am pleased today to provide a brief update on the progress of some of the major projects.
Let me start with water. I am pleased to advise the House that, in relation to both the proposed Traveston Dam and the Wyaralong Dam, flood and hydraulic modelling are being completed, final designs are being refined and are very close to conclusion, and further geotechnical work and
investigations are being undertaken to underpin that design work.
The land requirement definition, as required for the EIS and for referral to the Commonwealth government for assessment under its legislation, will be known and made public before the end of 2006, with the EIS draft terms of reference released for public comment.***
Let me talk about the desalination plant at Tugun. As Gold Coast members will know, early site works have already commenced in mid- September this year. The final decision to proceed on the basis of the final costings will be formalised
and formally approved by both the Gold Coast City Council and the state government in November.
Let us talk about the water grid. The pipes for the 100-kilometre southern regional water pipeline are currently being manufactured by Queensland pipe company Tyco, and pipe laying is scheduled to commence later this month. The Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme is being progressed in two stages. Preconstruction activities at the Bundamba to Swanbank section are well underway. Preliminary establishment work has started on the advanced water treatment plant at Bundamba that will supply
recycled water to the Swanbank precinct.
Hastening this, an initial order of approximately 50 kilometres of pipe has been placed with Tyco Water for both the southern regional pipeline and the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme. Tenders are being evaluated for the construction of the remaining advanced water treatment plants. These plants will provide high-level treatment of water to be recycled from the Luggage Point and Gibson Island waste water plants. Last week I announced the two successful consortia to design and build the eastern and western pipeline network that will deliver additional recycled water in that western corridor, thereby freeing up water currently being used by industry for domestic and potable purposes.
In relation to both the northern pipeline and the eastern connector, work is underway and government is due within the next month, in November, to received advice about the preliminary design and pipeline route information for the Sunshine Coast pipeline. The Redland shire is undertaking a detailed investigation and planning report for the eastern connector and is, I am advised, on track to respond to government in November.

**********************
WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr SEENEY (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. I refer to the Premier’s election commitments to provide water infrastructure worth some $5.6 billion in south-east Queensland alone. I table a list of those election promises and their costings. Of that $5.6 billion less than
$200 million is specified in the budget. Now the election is over, can the Premier tell this parliament where the other $5.4 billion is going to come from?

Mr BEATTIE: The answer to the question is absolutely. Can I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Can I congratulate him again on his election and congratulate his colleagues in the same spirit as his congratulations today. I think that is a good start for the parliament. Well done. What we said right from the outset was that in last year’s budget we would not include all the costs for water infrastructure. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right to say that in the budget all the money was not included. That is absolutely right. We said exactly the same thing. The Deputy Premier said the same things in estimates. Do those opposite know why? Because we had not finished the evaluation of some of the projects—the desalination plant, for example. One of the things that we have said—An opposition member interjected.
Mr BEATTIE: Just be patient. I want to answer your leader’s question. The member should have enough courtesy not to interject when I am answering his question. He is your leader now.
The important point I want to make is this. Take the desalination plant, for example; we had not finished the scope of it. Remember that recently we extended the scope of it. Why did we do that? Because the original desalination plant on the Gold Coast was going to provide water just for the Gold Coast. The new member for Robina knows this. What we did was say to Gold Coast Water and the Gold Coast City Council, ‘We want to take some of that water and put it into the SEQ water grid.’ That makes sense but it costs more. Therefore, what we have done for each one of these projects is announce exactly what the costs are when the evaluation work is finalised. Members will recall that recently—and the Gold Coast Bulletin reported this fully—the mayor of the Gold Coast was open and up-front, and so were we, about the extra costs. When planning each one of these stages we cannot determine the full extent of the costs until the evaluations have been done and the full scope decided. Will this cost a lot of money? Yes, it will. As we evaluate each project we will release the amounts.
The Treasurer is quite happy to do that. Members will recall that before the election I set in place a series of regulatory requirements which required time lines for the delivery of each aspect of the water grid. As that water grid is delivered and the evaluations are done the costs will be released.
The Leader of the Opposition has moved a motion which we will debate later tonight. Whether we agree with the time lines is another matter, but we have no problem in reporting to this parliament on a regular basis the total costs of that water grid—that is, how much it costs, the scoping, and how much any changes in scoping will cost. We look forward to those opposite supporting what is the most imaginative and visionary plan for the delivery of water in the history of Queensland.
Tabled paper: Document titled ‘Costs of SEQ water projects’.

WATER CHARGES
Mr SEENEY: I was happy to write the policy for you, Premier. I did not mind at all that you pinched it as long as you deliver it!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do you have a question, Leader of the Opposition?
Mr BEATTIE: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his support. What a great way to start a parliament.
Mr SEENEY: My second question is also to the Premier. I refer to the promise that the Premier made on 27 September that the price of water for consumers in south-east Queensland will not rise as the promised infrastructure is completed. I table a copy of the media coverage of those statements. How does the Premier intend to provide water from these new high-cost sources without significant increases in the cost of water to consumers?
Mr BEATTIE: I again thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Both of his questions were designed to end up exactly where he is going now, and I understand that. The issue of water pricing is not an easy one. It is a tough one. It is a politically sensitive one, as members well know.
That is one of the reasons we asked the Water Commissioner—those opposite will recall this; again this is on the public record—to give us advice about the costing of water. That article came out of an attempt by certain media representatives, quite appropriately, to get me to say at that time that there are going to be enormous increases in water prices. I would not do that because, frankly, until the Water Commissioner has completed the evaluation no-one knows that. The reality is this, however. If we are going to provide significant infrastructure—the Leader of the Opposition has already referred to this and I am not going to agree or disagree with his figures off the top of my head because he may or may not be right about the costs; I have to evaluate what he has calculated—yes, there will be significant costs for water. No-one should be under any illusions about
that. We do not build dams for nothing and we do not build pipelines for nothing, as those opposite well know.
Mr SEENEY: Because you want to build the wrong ones.
50 Questions Without Notice 11 Oct 2006
Mr BEATTIE: No. The Leader of the Opposition supported our proposal before, I thought. I thought there may have been some sort of conversion on the way to Damascus. I thought, ‘There is a God and everyone had been converted.’ I think there was a halo there for a moment. I thought he had seen the light. I thought the new parliament had been given spiritual guidance. I was warming. Let me come back to the point, because these are very serious questions that the Leader of the Opposition has raised today. Both sides of parliament will have to deal with this. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it would not matter whether he was sitting here or I am sitting here. He well knows that the water pricing issue is a sensitive one. What I have said consistently, and I said it at that news conference, is that while the councils are in a good partnership with us—and I want to acknowledge the partnership with the mayors—certain
councils have been making a lot of money out of water. What I have basically said—An opposition member interjected.
Mr BEATTIE: If the member wants a sensible answer I will give one. Those opposite know as well as I do that certain councils have been making a lot of money out of water. Before we start hitting the ordinary consumer, the profits that are going to councils and elsewhere need to be returned to the
consumer for that infrastructure provision. That is what I have said. When members look at the regulation they will find that I have set in place—and the Deputy Premier has responsibility for this now—that each one of the councils has to account for how much money they have received for water in recent years and how much they have spent on water infrastructure, because we want absolute transparency.
The reality is that there will be a movement in water prices. Let me say that clearly. Our job is to keep prices as low as is humanly possible. I notice some comments from our federal colleagues in relation to this that suggest that the states have been making money out of water. We have not been. Other states may well have been. The state government has been investing in water. We have not been making money out of it. We have been returning it. An opposition member interjected.
Mr BEATTIE: SunWater reinvested it all. That is not true about SunWater. We are happy to provide those opposite with details about SunWater, but they are not right. Can I thank the honourable member for his questions. They are both very sensible and constructive. If those opposite want to work with us on water, we are happy to do that because water pricing is the key to the future.
Time expired.
Tabled paper: AAP media article dated 27 September 2006 titled ‘Qld: water grid will not push up water price: Beattie’.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[westholme]

WATER CHARGES
Miss SIMPSON: My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, now that the Premier has agreed that water price hikes are inevitable, backing away from his earlier statement, has the minister made any estimates of how much more Queenslanders will pay for their water due to her government’s failure to plan and build water infrastructure in a timely way?
Ms BLIGH: I thank the honourable member for the question. Can I just put her straight on one thing. Firstly, it is not my role to wander about making estimates of what the cost of water might be. This parliament is well aware of a water regulation that gave responsibility to provide estimates and advice to government to the Queensland Water Commission. The Queensland Water Commission is required under the regulation to provide that advice to government in, I think, February next year. I expect that, on the basis of that advice, we will be in a position to incorporate that advice into the2007-08 budget process. That advice will be made public. I expect that it will minimise the impact on water users and consumers and, as the Premier said, maximise the use of existing water charges towards the cost of water infrastructure. I also hope that by then the Commonwealth government, through its new national water office, will be in a position to provide final advice about Commonwealth contributions to the projects. I look forward to that advice being very positive. I had a very constructive meeting with Malcolm Turnbull. Of course, that will assist in our consideration of water pricing. I can say to consumers that any increases in water costs will go to fund the infrastructure that will provide a security of supply of water right across the south-east corner. We will not be asking consumers to pay for a water system that fails to deliver water where it is needed. If the election had turned out differently and the current shadow minister for infrastructure was sitting on this side of the House, I can tell members that that is exactly what would have happened. One issue that unfortunately received very little airplay during the election campaign was the long-term water planning proposed by the coalition. The member for Moggill signed up to a water strategy that saw the coalition commit to three dams: Amamoor Creek, raising Borumba Dam, and Glendower Dam in the
south-east corner, all of which were not connected to Brisbane. None of them! No pipelines were costed in the coalition’s plans. If members read the coalition’s election commitments they will not find the word ‘pipes’ mentioned and they will not find them mentioned in the coalition’s costings. During the campaign the coalition members gained a reputation for being clueless. They are not only clueless; they are pipeless.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[westholme]

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr SEENEY (Callide—NPA) (Leader of the Opposition) (5.25 pm): I move—
That this House notes the government’s water infrastructure promises together with its associated costs and delivery timetables; and, in view of the water crisis facing the state, calls on the government to provide this House with a report on progress on these projects on a quarterly basis with particular reference to any changes to the proposed costs and delivery timetables. This is a very appropriate motion for us to move on the first day of the 52nd Parliament following the election. This is a motion that seeks to achieve the delivery of the government’s election promises. It
is a motion that seeks to ensure that the government is not only reminded of the promises that it has made but that it reports regularly to this parliament about the progress that it is making towards
delivering on those promises, and that is a right and proper thing to do.
I think too many times in politics that governments or political parties go to elections promising a whole manner of things and then they are forgotten, and there is confusion about what was promised 106 Water Infrastructure 11 Oct 2006 and whether or not those promises have been delivered. This is about the accountability of the newly elected government to this parliament. It is about the newly elected government being accountable to
this parliament of the people and reporting on a quarterly basis on the progress that it is making on this very important issue. And it is an incredibly important issue. It is a crisis that is engulfing south-east
Queensland. It is a crisis that will get immeasurably worse unless we are lucky enough to get some very extensive rainfall in the coming summer. It is a crisis that has to be addressed quickly and it has to be addressed in the manner in which the government has promised the people of Queensland that it will be addressed.
To a very great extent there is agreement about what needs to be done. I said this morning in question time that I do not mind at all that the government picked up the water policy that I released back in May almost word for word. I do not mind at all, because it identified what needed to be done. It was quite clever politics, I have to say, and I say that to the Premier because he knows that it was quite clever politics. In the end there were only a couple of differences between our water policy and the
government’s water policy. One difference was that the government chose to build the wrong dam—the Traveston Crossing Dam. The other difference was our emphasis on the use of recycled water for industry. The Deputy Premier and others tried to make much political mileage out of the fact that
somehow the four dams as we proposed were not going to supply as much water theoretically as the dam that they chose to commit to, but they conveniently ignored the great emphasis that we had in our
policy on recycled water.
So there is a broad agreement at least that there needs to be a massive investment in water infrastructure to address the water crisis in south-east Queensland. There is a very strong disagreement from our side about where some of that investment needs to take place, but there is a very broad agreement that we need to get on with this and catch up on the failures of this government to do this work over time.
I tabled in the parliament this morning a list of water projects in south-east Queensland that the government had committed to. That information was sourced from the government’s own documents, so there should be no argument about the fact that the government has committed to those projects and the latest costings attached to them. One of the projects was the southern regional pipeline, which on the government’s own figures will cost $600 million and is expected to be completed and has to be completed by 2008. There is the desalination plant, which is currently costed at $1.126 billion. As the Premier said this morning, that was a much inflated cost from the original because of the expected increase in water production to provide water to Brisbane. That is supposed to come on line by 2008-09.
The western corridor recycled water pipeline should have been built by now, had the government accepted the urgings of the opposition to get on with that project years ago. For years we have been standing in this parliament advocating that that recycled water had to stop going into Moreton Bay and instead be turned inland and put to good use. That project should have been completed by now. With the modelling we are currently working under, that has to be completed by 2008 at least to the stage where the power stations are able to use that water rather than continue to draw those large amounts of water from Wivenhoe Dam.
Then of course there is the Traveston Crossing Dam, which the government has costed at some $1.7 billion but which I confidently believe will end up costing closer to $3 billion—if it can be built at all.
It is in the government’s program to be completed by 2011. What a disaster it will be if the government does try to construct that dam. I also confidently predict that sooner or later this government will accept
the mistake it made in adopting that project. The government will accept the mistake it made because it will be forced by the weight of evidence to accept its mistake. I say to the Premier that it was a political decision in the first place. The Premier has had his political win because of it, now let us adopt some common sense and deal with the reality that it is impossible to construct an economically viable water infrastructure storage in the Mary Valley, which it is proposing to do at Traveston.
Let us put the politics aside. Let us accept the fact that that was a political decision and move on and build the water infrastructure that needs to be built. The day the Premier stands in this place and abandons that project, I will walk around there and congratulate him—and that day will come. That will happen because the Premier knows and I know that that project was politically inspired, and it will certainly be a disaster if the government continues to pursue it.
These documents contained a range of other promises concerning areas other than south-east Queensland, including the Beattie governments commitment to fund a statewide water grid. Some of those projects were a little bit fanciful, I would suggest, but there are a range of projects here which the opposition wants to see progressed as well. We will be ensuring that we keep the government accountable in this parliament.
The government suggested in this document that it will invest $222 million in raising existing storages, weirs and dams, including a whole range of projects from the Fitzroy through to the Connors River Dam, the Nullinga dam and the Nathan Dam in the Taroom shire, which is something I have
spoken about in this parliament for eight years. I have spoken about that for eight years now, and all of a sudden it is in the Beattie government’s election promises. I am going to remind the government of that 11 Oct 2006 Water Infrastructure 107 for the next couple of years, and I hope we get more progress in the next two years than we have had in the last eight. I hope we see something done in the next two years because it is there in the government’s election promises.
There is also the promise regarding the statewide water grid—$198 million worth of pipelines—with pipelines from the Connors River Dam to Nebo, pipelines from the Burdekin River Dam to Bowen, pipelines from Rockhampton to Gladstone, a pipeline from Bowen to Proserpine, and another pipeline from the Capricorn Coast to Rockhampton, which incidentally is funded by the federal government—
Mr Beattie: What’s wrong with that?
Mr SEENEY: There is nothing wrong with that, except the government has included the total funding in there even though two-thirds of it is other people’s money. The only thing the government can point to is projects that other people have funded. All of those pipeline projects are good projects and we want to see them delivered. We want to see the promises the government has made about that infrastructure in regional Queensland delivered. But, most of all, we want to see the infrastructure the
government has promised for south-east Queensland delivered, with the exception of the Traveston Dam, which the government will inevitably realise was a bad decision. I know in time that the reality of that will be forced upon the government. This motion is about holding the government accountable and it should be supported by every member of the parliament.
Time expired.
Dr FLEGG (Moggill—Lib) (5.35 pm): It gives me pleasure to second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. In relation to water, the government is shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted. The shortage of water in south-east Queensland was foreseeable. The government knew about the population growth of south-east Queensland. It knew that we have periodic droughts in Queensland. Yet, when it came to water, it had nothing underway, no projects in the pipeline—if members will pardon the pun.
The projects that we are being promised, now that we have already entered a crisis phase, are years from completion. Many of those projects that the Premier has promised the people of Queensland will not deal with the present crisis in water because they will not be on stream for many years to come. They may help with some future crisis in water, but the crisis in water in south-east Queensland is in 2007. Not one of the promised projects will be on stream by the time Brisbane’s water supply becomes
critical. If government members think we do not have a crisis until the last drop of water flows out of Wivenhoe Dam, then think again. This government has been asleep at the wheel when it has come to
planning and providing for growth, particularly in water supplies for the people of south-east Queensland.
In the Leader of the Opposition’s motion, we have called for quarterly reporting to the parliament. Why do we want quarterly reporting from this government? Simply because we do not trust it. We have heard and the people of Queensland have heard it all before—promise after promise in relation to infrastructure that simply do not get delivered. This government is now inflicting on the people of Brisbane, in particular, and south-east Queensland progressively more and more punishing water
restrictions because of its failure to plan our water supplies, because of its ffailure to deliver projects and infrastructure on time and because of its failure to deliver projects on budget.
Members on this side of the chamber have called for this debate because of the continuing uncertainty about the true picture of what the government is doing to fix the current water supply crisis. Prior to the recent election, the Premier made a number of announcements which he repeated during
the campaign as promises to the people of Queensland. These did not provide full costings for all the promises made to date to fix south-east Queensland’s water crisis. Recently, we have seen concerns raised by the people on the Gold Coast about the desalination project, which has grown from an initial cost of $260 million to an estimate of $1.6 billion, as contained in the Gold Coast Bulletin. On top of that, there will be no full-scale environmental impact statement on the desalination
project. It is hard to believe that a government that endlessly trumpets its green credentials and endlessly trumpets its concern about global warming and greenhouse gases would choose to proceed with a project that may have substantial environmental consequences for the local environment without a full environmental impact statement. There is a rapidly growing list of unanswered questions about the bottom line in regard to this project. The same problems with costings of the government’s water policies surround each of the dams in south-east Queensland. On top of this, there are other unanswered questions about each of these dams, especially about the locations and whether all the engineering issues have been addressed.
The Premier is presently asking members of this House to give him an open chequebook. The Premier’s official media release in July this year relating to the Wyaralong Dam at Beaudesert states that it would cost between $400 million and $500 million which is, in anyone’s language, a very substantial difference in the estimated costings. There are still significant concerns about the correct costing for all the other infrastructure and the time lines of those projects. This is a water crisis—
Time expired.
108 Water Infrastructure 11 Oct 2006
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (5.40 pm): I move the following amendment—
That all words after “notes” are deleted and the following words inserted:
“that the Water Amendment Regulation (No 6) 2006 requires monthly reports on all major water projects.”
Before us is a proposal from the opposition that there should be public reporting on the progress of every major water project on a quarterly basis. On its face it seems to be a very sensible idea. That is until, of course, members look at the Water Amendment Regulation that was debated in this parliament on 9 August. What does that regulation say? It says that it requires by regulation—requires by regulation—every water service provider that is involved in the construction of every single water project in this plan to provide to the Queensland Water Commission a report on progress every month. It is further required that that progress report be made public on the web site. So there will be publicly available reports every single month.
Mr Seeney: Not on your election promises.
Ms BLIGH: Which I would have thought—
Mr Seeney: Come on, not on your election promises.
Ms BLIGH: Which I would have thought was a significantly higher level of public accountability than quarterly reporting. I am happy to tell the opposition that while we certainly agree with it—
Mr Seeney: That’s taking weasel words to a new height.
Ms BLIGH: While we certainly agree that there ought to be publicly available and regular reporting on progress, we certainly will not be lowering the standard that was debated in this parliament
on 9 August in relation to this regulation. One should not be surprised to find that the opposition is so unfamiliar with the contents of this
regulation. Anybody who was here on 9 August will know that the opposition voted against the regulation. When members hear the Leader of the Opposition standing up here championing the cause of recycled water, championing how much he agrees with the government’s policy on water, they should remember that the opposition agreed with it so much that it voted against it. The opposition voted against the water grid, it voted against the desalination plan, it voted against the new dams, it voted
against the water demand reduction strategies, it voted against the water rebates and it voted against the Traveston Dam.
Mr Horan interjected.
Ms BLIGH: The opposition voted against everything. As I said, I have never seen such a wholesale rejection of water infrastructure—
Mr Purcell: A clean sweep.
Ms BLIGH:—in one clean sweep, as the member says.
I report to the House that progress is being made on these written report requirements. I sought the House’s understanding that during the caretaker period a number of water service providers obviously had disruptions to progress, but the Queensland Water Commission advises me that it is
negotiating with each of the water service providers for a standard pro forma so that these reports are much more easily understood by the public and are much clearer in a public reporting sense. The October progress report will be published on the commission’s web site by the end of this month. By the end of October, the first monthly report on every single one of those projects will be publicly available. As I said, our government is accountable on these issues. The members opposite want to limit
the public awareness of progress on water, and we will not be stooping to their level. I do accept that the opposition’s original motion related to water projects beyond the scope of the Water Amendment Regulation. I think it is a fair indication of this government’s commitment that we are regulating to requirenot only ourselves but also every council and council water related company to report monthly. That is a very strong indication of our commitment to transparent public accountability. Of course, we will have a
public reporting regime on those components of the statewide water plan that were released during the election campaign. I am very happy to give that commitment tonight, and I will advise further when we are in a position to say what the details of that will be.
These water projects are very big and ambitious undertakings, whether it is in south-east Queensland or the rest of the state. I can assure members that nobody cares more than I do about their delivery on time and within budget. I give my absolute, ironclad guarantee that the good news and bad
news is going to be on the web site for public display each month on every single project. I expect the state government entities involved to be as fulsome in their reporting as I expect local councils to be. I do expect we will see mixed reports. Across this many projects, there will be some that slip and there will be some that are ahead of time, but we need to know what they are and we need to be publicly accountable about it. That is exactly what we will do. 11 Oct 2006 Water Infrastructure 109
I have some additional copies of the Water Amendment Regulation; I will have them handed out. Once again I urge the honourable members opposite to find out what it says in the water regulation because that is the legal framework that will deliver the water plans for this government that we were elected on.
Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (5.46 pm): I am happy to second the Minister for Infrastructure’s amendment to the motion. In doing so, I table for the house the Water Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2006.
Ms Bligh: Again.
Mr Seeney: Read the section for us.
Mr BEATTIE: I will. I am more than happy to do that. What I want to highlight to the member opposite—
Mr Seeney: The section about declaring an emergency.
Mr BEATTIE: Listen, I was very courteous to you. Just take it easy, Digger. Sorry, honourable Leader of the Opposition, otherwise known as ‘Digger’. This regulation provides for transparency that has never existed. Each one of these regulations—and I introduced this when I was the minister
responsible—sets out not just a time frame; it sets out when each one of these projects is to be delivered. If members go to page 15, it sets out, for example, what Caboolture Shire Council is required to do; it ensures transparency. Remember the question that the member opposite asked me this morning in relation to the water costing issues? All these things are set out clearly in here. We did not hide any of it. Why did we do it? We did it because we wanted to make certain that everybody understood what they were required to do and implement a reporting mechanism that has never existed. I have tabled the Water Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2006. I urge the member opposite to read it. I came in here and went on and on about it. I would have thought the Leader of the Opposition would
have been attentive. I give the member credit for one thing—he is like us in that he is interested in water.
Therefore, I am disappointed that the member opposite did not read every single word in that regulation.
Mr Seeney: I’ve got one here.
Mr BEATTIE: It should have become your second Bible; that is what it should have become. The Leader of the Opposition should have read every line of it, and then he could have stolen it for his election campaign. Had he done so, heaven knows what the numerical balance in here may have been.
Ms Nolan: He hasn’t read much of the first one, either.
An opposition member interjected.
Mr BEATTIE: Oh, don’t you interject.
In recent years, the Queensland government has invested almost $420 million in water infrastructure in rural communities. This includes projects such as the Paradise Dam, stage 2 of the Awoonga Dam, the Gattonvale and Moura off stream storages and the Moura Weir refurbishment. This
has added more than 190 million litres to the bush water supply capacity and improved reliability for existing users. My government was responsible for the planning decisions and building Paradise Dam. It was my government that addressed all the environmental issues.
In the two and a half years that those opposite were in government, they did absolutely nothing. There was no environmental impact study done—nothing! During its term in government the current opposition talked about building a dam but it did absolutely nothing to deliver it. We are proud that we planned and built the Paradise Dam, which was completed late last year. I officially commissioned it in December 2005. The dam has a 300,000 megalitre capacity. It will assist in the social and economic
growth of the region. It is also significant in the wider context of leading the way in state-of-the-art dams due to many notable environmental features. The dam is expected to yield approximately 124,000 million litres each year of medium priority water for agricultural use and 20,000 million litres
each year of high priority water for urban and industrial use.
The Paradise Dam is the only major dam built by any government in this country in the past decade, and my government did it. We have a track record when it comes to delivering water infrastructure, and this is part of it. This huge project had a workforce of 450 workers at peak construction, and approximately 200 businesses in the Wide Bay area benefited directly by supplying products and services for the construction of the dam.
The Kirar Weir was also completed. Construction of the Kirar Weir, previously known as the Eidsvold Weir, was completed in March 2005. The weir is capable of yielding 20,000 megalitres of new water allocations and is situated on the Burnett River five kilometres north-west of Eidsvold and
approximately 80 kilometres south-west of Bundaberg. The construction of the $20 million weir took 15 months to complete. These are just some of the projects that we have already completed. 110 Water Infrastructure 11 Oct 2006 The Gattonvale off-stream storage was completed. The town of Collinsville and its surrounding mines and power stations are now able to rely on a 5,200-megalitre water storage with completion of the
Gattonvale off-stream storage. Also, there was the raising of the Awoonga Dam in Gladstone. There have been a number of significant raisings of that dam. In June 2002 work was finalised on the raising of the Awoonga Dam
near Gladstone. This huge project gives Queensland a water facility with a storage capacity of 770,000 megalitres, vital for the further development of the industrial opportunities in the Gladstone area. Again, that is another project that we have delivered.
There is the Blueprint for the Bush. A multimillion-dollar investment in water security and supply was a key feature of the Blueprint for the Bush. The state government is committed to a raft of initiatives. The Blueprint for the Bush outlines more than $990 million in new dams. The list goes on. There are other projects including plans for the Moranbah pipeline. I table the full details of those projects for the information of the House.
Tabled paper: Water Amendment Regulation (No. 6) 2006.
Tabled paper: Details of water infrastructure achievements in rural Queensland.
Mr HOPPER (Darling Downs—NPA) (5.51 pm): It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak in support of the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. I would ask the Treasurer and Premier to read the speech of the member for Chatsworth, Chris Bombolas. I thought it was brilliant the way he outlined what the government has to do in this term of government with all the money that has been promised, or something along those lines—they were not his exact words. That is exactly what we are debating tonight. Some 1,500 people a week are moving to Queensland. We have heard the Premier talk about this on a number of occasions. That puts a lot of pressure on infrastructure. That is exactly what this motion is about tonight. I challenge the new members in this House to catch the lift up to level 23 and get an attendant to take them on to the roof of the Annexe and ask themselves, ‘What has this Labor government built? What can I see that this government has put in place for Queensland?’ They will see the footbridge. If they go to the other corner they will see the football stadium. That is about it. What did we do when we were in government? We built every dam. We heard the Premier talk about Paradise Dam. We announced Paradise Dam, and those opposite had to build it when they came to government. That is what happened in terms of Paradise Dam. We built every other dam. We built the Bowen Basin. We built the Burdekin Dam. We built the electric train system. We built every highway. We
built the Gold Coast freeway and the Gateway Bridge, just to name a few. We were a government with a vision for the future.
Government members interjected.
Mr HOPPER: They might laugh. Do those opposite know what people are calling them? They are calling them the ‘gonna-do government’. That is what it is. It has again been elected on promises. This morning when the Treasurer was asked two questions about how things are going we saw her hide and say, ‘It’s not up to me; it is up to the Water Commissioner.’
If I buy a farm I have to pay the bank manager. When the bank manager rings me I do not pass the buck on to the manager. That is exactly what we are seeing from the Treasurer of Queensland. That is the problem. The people of Queensland want to see some fruits of the promises that the government made during the election campaign. Government members should read Chris Bombolas’s speech. That speech will come back to haunt the member for Chatsworth because he is now part of a ‘gonna-do
government’.
Let me outline a few things that we have done. For the Wyaralong Dam we purchased 2,326 hectares of land, for the Glendower Dam we purchased 2,534 hectares, for the Amamoor Dam we purchased 1,516 hectares and for the Borumba Dam we purchased 5,507 hectares.
Look at the hiccups in Toowoomba lately due to its water problems. We have some policies that could have fixed that. I see the Premier laughing. Has he seriously looked at the policy we put in place for the Norwin irrigators? Some $40 million would see a pipeline to Toowoomba which takes water out of that aquifer and the farmers leasing the water to Toowoomba. When we get rain, which we will get—and I see the minister for natural resources in the chamber; he is aware of this and I hope he seriously looks at this in the future—then if that pipeline is put in place that water would go straight into the Mount Kynoch plant. We would only need to add chlorine to it. It is potable water. It is not going to hurt the acquifer. It means no more water coming out of the acquifer. When the dams fill up the farmers can go back to using that water. They are happy to sell it to Toowoomba at $1,000 a megalitre, which is quite cheap for a council of today. That is a solution that is the result of the opposition’s hard work. That is an answer for Toowoomba right now. We also announced that we would build Emu Creek Dam. The Emu Creek Dam would hold exactly what the three dams in Toowoomba can hold at the moment. That would double the size of Toowoomba’s water-holding capacity. Those opposite say that we cannot build it because it is on the catchment of Wivenhoe. Wivenhoe was put in place as a flood buffer for Brisbane. That means that 11 Oct 2006 Water Infrastructure 111 when there is a flood and Wivenhoe fills a lot of water goes past Wivenhoe. All that would do is catch the water that would have gone past Wivenhoe. I think it is a brilliant move.
We have to look at common-sense policies that can be put in place. This motion tonight is simply about accountability. That is exactly what we have not seen from this government. Sooner or later the people are going to wake up to the fact that they cannot live on promises. I do not believe the dam at Gympie will even be built. I heard the statement from our leader that he will walk around and shake the Premier’s hand when it is. I do not believe it ever will be built. The Premier knows it will not be built.
Mr SHINE (Toowoomba North—ALP) (Minister for Natural Resources and Water) (5.56 pm): I support the amendment moved by the Premier. As the Minister for Natural Resources and Water I am determined to work, in my areas of responsibility, to deliver on the government’s commitment to provide greater water security. The government’s commitment to water security is most comprehensive. We are working on both sides of the water equation—supply and demand. The government’s work on demand
management is very significant. By using our existing water supplies more efficiently we are not only saving water; we are also saving money. The government has programs offering rebates for water-saving devices for households in south-east Queensland. The Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme was launched on 1 July this year to help residents in 22 local council areas in south-east Queensland, including Toowoomba, to save water.
The scheme offers rebates on rainwater tanks and water-efficient washing machines, shower heads, dual-flush toilets, pool covers and greywater devices. There has been a tremendous response to this scheme—more than 32,000 applications for rebates in the first three months. The department is bolstering staff working on the scheme. I am
advised the department is increasing staff from 51 to 90 and continuing the night shifts and part-time teams. The department will continue to monitor the response to the scheme and the extension of the scheme statewide, as promised at the last election, with these staffing arrangements.
The Home WaterWise Rebate Scheme is just one of the demand management initiatives supported by the government. The Home WaterWise Service provides a subsidised plumbing service to
retrofit up to 150 homes in south-east Queensland by September 2007. In addition, through the Business Water Efficiency Program the government is working with local councils to promote water conservation among its industrial water users.
The government has also committed funding to assist councils cut water losses from leaks and breaks in their water distribution networks. The government has committed $32 million for this work in south-east Queensland, and we have committed a further $25 million for this program to be extended statewide.
For rural industry the government has championed water savings and increased productivity through its Rural Water Use Efficiency Scheme. We are also working with landholders and the federal government to reduce water losses through the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative, which involves the capping of bores and piping open channels in the basin.
In responding to the water challenge, Queensland is honouring its commitment to the National Water Initiative—the national agreement on water reform signed in 2004. Queensland indeed is playing its part. Queensland in fact was the only Murray-Darling Basin state not threatened with a financial penalty. Our implementation plan for the National Water Initiative was approved in August. Implementation of the National Water Initiative is also linked to access to the Australian Government
Water Fund. The government’s approach to water charges, pricing, trading and planning is consistent with the National Water Initiative. As minister, delivering on these commitments to provide greater water supply security for users and the environment will be a major priority. As the member for Toowoomba North, I am keen to see the outcomes of the Toowoomba Water Task Force. The task force was established by the government following the outcome of the referendum on the Toowoomba Water
Futures proposal. The task force has met again today. The Premier advised the House this morning that by 17 November the task force aims to have established the amount of water needed by Toowoomba up to the year 2050 and options for immediate action. The task force will provide a final report to the government on its preferred strategy, which will then be acted upon.I urge the opposition to support the government’s endeavours to secure water for Queensland. The impacts of climate change, the severe drought and our growing population and economy are placing unprecedented pressure on our water supplies. The initiatives and projects the government has committed to deliver will provide long-term water security. The Deputy Premier as the Minister for Infrastructure has ministerial responsibility for the delivery of new water infrastructure projects. As the minister for water, I believe the government’s water infrastructure program is an essential part in delivering the additional water supplies and greater water security for our state. As the minister for
water, I know the decisions we make on water infrastructure are accommodated in the comprehensive catchment resource planning we have been doing. This means that the infrastructure decisions we
make will take into account the needs for environmental flows as well as the needs of existing water users. The important point about the government’s water infrastructure plans is to build dams in catchments where it rains and where there are sufficient inflows. 112 Water Infrastructure 11 Oct 2006
Time expired.
Miss SIMPSON (Maroochydore—NPA) (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (6.01 pm): I strongly support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition, because this is about accountability and keeping this government accountable for its promises to the people of Queensland. This Labor government has been elected on the basis of these promises—very important commitments as far as delivering very necessary infrastructure for the state of Queensland. But why is this government now
saying that it does not want to support this motion about greater accountability in terms of delivering that very important infrastructure and the promises that led to those infrastructure promises being met? Why
is it intending to vote against it? Because quite frankly on its track record of the last eight years it does not believe that it can commit to these projects and see them delivered within budget and within time; otherwise, it would support this motion of the coalition. What the government has put up as an alternative in its amendment is quite frankly weasel words, and let me explain. The regulation that the Minister for Infrastructure and the Premier referred to is substantially to do with water supply emergencies which have not been declared at this stage in Queensland. Quite clearly this government anticipates that we are about to have a water supply
emergency and therefore it will be enacting provisions within this regulation. With regard to the deadlines referred to in the schedule of this regulation, many of those deadlines have already passed. Many of those deadlines have already passed, and we still await to see those reports released publicly as has been promised. The water crisis that has emerged in this state is not because of global warming; it is because of seat warming. It is because of seat warming by a Labor government that promises much, delivers little and then does not want to be held accountable for the promises that it takes to the people of Queensland. We also see with the infrastructure crisis not only in water but also in roads and all social infrastructure, particularly health, that this government has abused the trust of the people of Queensland by blaming growth as if somehow population growth has just happened and that it did not expect it and that it turned around one day and by surprise there were all of these people coming to Queensland. I suggest those opposite go and talk to the Parliamentary Library and get the population growth figures for Queensland for the last 20 years, because, hey presto, there are no unexpected growth figures in Queensland. It has been going on for 20 years.
We have a government that now wants to blame population growth for all of the problems with infrastructure in this state. Growth is not the problem and is not the reason we have seen failing infrastructure in Queensland. It is lack of planning. Now we have a situation where the government has
promised much and won an election on the basis of those promises, many of which were promises that we also as a coalition had initiated, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined earlier, particularly with regard to water, with a very notable exception—Traveston Dam. Let me set the record straight for this parliament after listening to the Minister for Infrastructure, who said that the coalition was against water infrastructure and planning because we voted against this water regulation that she has referred to. We voted against this water regulation because it included Traveston Dam. She should have told the parliament the truth, because Traveston Dam is an absolute disaster about to happen, and that has been well outlined by my colleagues previously in the House and by that excellent maiden speech from the member for Gympie. The Traveston Dam is a disaster, but this government must be held accountable.
This motion that the coalition has moved is about accountability, because if this government does
not deliver and report on those deliveries in a timely way the water in Queensland will run out. We will see our roads continue to grind to a gridlock, and it is too important for those promises of this government not to be fulfilled and for this government not to be held accountable. This coalition in opposition has an important role as well, and that is to demand better of this government, to demand better than what it has done for the last eight years. For the sake of the people of Queensland, we demand better. We are watching and we ask that this parliament accept the motion that we put to the House tonight, not the amendment moved by the Premier which will fail Queenslanders if the track record of the last eight years is anything to go by.
Ms NOLAN (Ipswich—ALP) (6.06 pm:): The very essence of this motion brought to the House by the National Party is a firm and ringing endorsement of the Beattie Labor government’s policies on water
coupled with an attempt to water down the accountability provisions within those policies. What those opposite have said today is, ‘We resoundingly endorse all aspects of the Beattie government’s water plan, but we don’t want you to report every month. We want you to report every quarter.’ That basic nonsense at the heart of the opposition’s position on water is nothing new. This opposition has had so many different views on water policy in recent years that it would be hard pressed to remember exactly
where it was when it started. Let me give the House just a few examples. For years in here the National Party has tried to paint itself as self-styled dam builders. They are the people who will build the dams —that was until it came to the Traveston Dam which, overwhelmed in a tsunami of nimbyism, it suddenly opposed. It wants to claim that it initiated the Paradise Dam despite the fact that the public record clearly shows that this is 11 Oct 2006 Water Infrastructure 113 simply not the case. And then it came to recycled water. And where was it on recycled water? Well, in
the case of Toowoomba—the only case where there has been an absolute black and white yes or no question on recycled water in Australia—the National Party first was right there. It was absolutely saying yes—until its patriarch Clive Berghofer came along, at which point it ran into the corner of no. So is it any wonder that the National Party is all over the place again on water? It would be so confused it would be hard pressed to remember where it was that it started. The Beattie government in stark contrast has a
complex, comprehensive, well put together platform of water measures. They include new dams. They include measures to reduce demand and our water policy includes a water grid to ensure that water can be re-used and that it can be moved to the parts of south-east Queensland where it is most needed at any particular time. Today, the National Party today finds itself in this funny, wishy-washy position of not knowing where it stands but simply hoping that we cannot meet the timetable that we have set. That is what this motion is about. Let me tell the members opposite that, sadly, they are going to find themselves disappointed.
I want to talk specifically about two aspects of that water grid. The first aspect is the Southern Regional Water Pipeline, a pipeline that runs from just west of Ipswich down to Helensvale over a course of about 100 kilometres and which will have the capacity to pump water in both directions—that is, from western Brisbane to the Gold Coast or, if need be, as in a case such as now where the Gold Coast has water but there is not so much water in Wivenhoe Dam, in the opposite direction.
The National Party would like to say that we are not going to meet our timetable on that pipeline. I want to tell them that that is simply not the case. That Southern Regional Water Pipeline was designated as a project of state significance way back in September 2005. The corporation that will build it was established in January 2006. The pipes—or at least the start of them—are now on order from Tyco Water at Carole Park, and work on that pipeline will commence very shortly. Then there is the western corridor recycled water pipeline which, again, the National Party wants to suggest somehow is not going to happen. But I should tell them that in Ipswich—at Bundamba specifically—work has commenced already on the earthworks for the first stage of that pipeline, which will link the Bundamba waste water treatment plant to that huge water user, Swanbank Power Station.
That pipeline will ultimately run from Luggage Point all the way up to Tarong and include three major waste water treatment plants along the way.
I make those specific points to the National Party because they so undermine what is today’s argument from that side of the House. Having said that it is for and against dams and that it is for and against recycled water, the National Party now does not know where it stands. We will build these water projects and we will ensure water security.
Mr HORAN (Toowoomba South—NPA) (6.11 pm): It is good to support this common-sense motion that has been moved tonight. It is absolutely disgraceful to see the amendment that has been moved in this House that will try to con the government backbenchers into believing that the government has some sort of reporting system every month. In fact, the reporting system that the Deputy Premier and the Premier talked about is one for emergency declarations only, and that system covers only
south-east Queensland.
The coalition’s motion is about all the promises that were made during the election campaign in relation to the supply of water in south-east Queensland—along with all the other promises that were made in relation to other areas—and a quarterly report to the parliament that will show changes in the timetable and changes in costs, not some web site, so that we can debate the issue in an open and accountable fashion. There is only one reason we have a crisis in water supply—and it is a crisis. That is, for eight years the Beattie government had a policy of building no new dams in south-east Queensland. In 2004, we were roundly criticised when we said that there was going to be a water shortage. But now the chickens have come home to roost. This massive infrastructure is a major undertaking. Any delays or any financial blow-outs must be fixed in a timely manner; otherwise those delays or blow-outs will worsen.
The coalition has moved a motion to ensure that this parliament and the people of Queensland can have every promise made in relation to water supply, ranging from those that were made in relation to water supplies in rural and regional Queensland to the important promises that were made in relation to the water supply in south-east Queensland, which is facing a water supply crisis—and it is a real crisis—debated in this parliament every quarter rather than the government simply relying on that cunning trick of saying that information is released every month when that information will be released every month only if it has been a declared emergency. If the government would move an amendment to this motion to state that it will declare every situation an emergency, that might satisfy us. But, once
again, this government is hiding behind this facade. This water crisis is immense. It will take a long time to put this major water infrastructure in place. I have only a few minutes left in which to speak, but I want to say a couple of things about what we should do. At the end of World War II we were a poor nation, yet we built the great Snowy Mountain Scheme. Now we are a nation with a trillion-dollar economy, a national $13 billion surplus and a state 114 Water Infrastructure 11 Oct 2006 $3 billion surplus. It is about time we put real money into the supply of water and not continue with bandaid and boutique solutions. One such boutique solution was recycled water. A referendum for that was held in Toowoomba. In order to recycle water we need sources of water, because only 60 per cent of water that is used in the recycling process results in recycled water. So we need dams and bores and the ability to transfer water throughout the state.
I agree with the principle of the water grid. The opposition leader proposed such a project when he was the shadow minister for water. Grids are important so that water can be taken from areas where there is rainfall or where there are good catchments to population centres or to where it is needed. We will have to transfer water more often in the future. We have to have a vision of the way in which we supply water to places such as Toowoomba, which is located 2,000 metres up on top of a range and
which has to bring water from catchments that are located elsewhere.
The water task force that was put together in Toowoomba after the referendum is supposed to report within six months of that referendum. We have about 3½ months of that time left. The situation is urgent. We need immediate solutions, such as accessing the Norwin water supply and sinking more bores. I note that the council has started drilling and has been successful in getting water from some of those bores. The Norwin water supply would have given us immediately 5,000 megalitres a year, which would have been leased from the irrigators. Those irrigators could take the water when they needed it or, if there had been a good year of rainfall and they did not need the water, they could choose not to take it. We need to be hooked up to the South East Queensland Water Grid or be more visionary and be hooked up to the Nathan Dam, which would have a yield of 188,000 megalitres a year and which could supply towns such as Miles, Chinchilla and Dalby, which have booming mining industries, and
Toowoomba. The sale price of that urban water could help provide water for rural irrigators at a reasonable price. South-east Queensland may also need to be hooked up to the Paradise Dam so that it could receive water from that source.
The time is now. We need accountability regarding project management and we need accountability regarding the financial cost so that this parliament can address this massive water crisis. We can do it only if each and every project—not those that have been declared an emergency—is
brought before this parliament for the people of Queensland to see and for all the elected members to debate so that we can make sure that the infrastructure is delivered on time and so that we all know what the cost and the social cost is to our state. That is what we want and that is what all members should vote for.
Ms JARRATT (Whitsunday—ALP) (6.17 pm): I rise to support the amendment moved by the Premier. I am pleased that the opposition has taken the step of highlighting the comprehensive water infrastructure commitments that the Beattie government has made. Such is this government’s commitment to improving water security and supply through the provision of new infrastructure that one of the first policy announcements made in the recent election campaign was in regard to the
government’s commitment to develop a statewide water grid. Not only did the timing of the announcement signify the priority that this government places on the provision of water infrastructure; the fact that the announcement was made in Bowen, which is in my electorate of Whitsunday, equally signified this government’s recognition of and commitment to address the water needs of rural and
regional Queensland. The statewide water policy, as announced on the first full day of the campaign, was very comprehensive in its scope and in its commitment to the people of both the south-east corner of Queensland and regional Queensland. The total funding committed was $496 million, with $420 million equity injections for new infrastructure, including $222 million for new dams and weirs and raising existing storages; $45 million for demand management programs; and $31 million for work identifying
new sources of water supply. As I am a parochial person, I am most interested in what the Premier’s water policy means for my constituents and the people of the Mackay-Whitsunday region. In terms of the Whitsunday electorate, the policy committed $1 million to secure the completion of the Water for Bowen feasibility study, $49 million to progress the project and a further $18 million for a pipeline to connect Proserpine and the wider Whitsunday region to bring water from the Burdekin Dam to Bowen.
The opposition refused to commit to the extension in the Whitsunday region. In the Mackay region, the government committed $3.5 million for design work on raising the Kinchant Dam, which is owned and operated by SunWater. Further south in the Broadsound shire, the government committed $56.5 million for the development of Connors Rivers Dam at Mount Bridget. The government has also committed $60 million for pipelines to connect the Connors River Dam
with the Broadsound and possibly Nebo and Belyando shires. The Connors River Dam is part of the government’s strategy to ensure that the Bowen Basin region has the water it needs for the future. SunWater is currently in the process of completing the 220-kilometre pipeline from the Burdekin to
Moranbah to supply additional water to the coalfields. 11 Oct 2006 Address-In-Reply 115 In the far north the government committed $6 million for design work on the Nullinga Dam near Mareeba. This project will be informed by the outcomes of the Far North Queensland Regional Water
Supply Strategy, which the Minister for Natural Resources and Water has carriage of. Prior to the election, the government committed to raising the Eden Bann Weir and building Rookwood Weir. Both projects are on the Fitzroy River near Rockhampton. The government has committed $14 million for the raising of the Eden Bann Weir and another $22 million for building the Rookwood Weir. Both of these projects and the Connors River Dam were highlighted in the draft Central Queensland Regional Water Supply Strategy, which was released for public comment late last year.
Along with the construction of the weir projects, the government has also committed funds to projects which will provide greater water security for the Capricorn Coast and Gladstone. I note that the opposition policy did not—did not—refer to a pipeline linking the Fitzroy system and Gladstone. The Beattie government committed $20 million for the pipeline from the Fitzroy River system to the Capricorn Coast. The commitment will reduce the amount to be contributed by the local Livingstone Shire Council. The federal government has also committed funds for the project.
In terms of the Gladstone pipeline, the government has committed $48 million. I note that the opposition again did not bother to include the Gladstone pipeline in its policy, which was released after the government’s. One has to ask just how much importance the opposition places on meeting the future water needs of industry in the Gladstone region.
The other commitment the government made was to provide $120 million for design work and construction of the Nathan Dam. This commitment was subject to obtaining Commonwealth approvals. In addition, the government reaffirmed its commitment to undertaking an investigation of a pipeline
connecting water storage facilities from the Burdekin to south-east Queensland. We have committed $3 million to this investigation. By moving his motion, the opposition leader has endorsed the government’s approach to new water infrastructure. His claim this morning that the government had copied the opposition policy is utterly false. During the election campaign the opposition said that it would build the same dams as the
government but it would not connect them. The opposition ruled out a statewide water grid and it did not support the government’s plan for a south-east corner water grid.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[westholme]

WATER GRID
Hon. PD BEATTIE (Brisbane Central—ALP) (Premier and Minister for Trade) (9.47 am): Work on producing pipes for the southern regional water pipeline has begun. The Minister for Infrastructure, Anna Bligh, and I witnessed the inaugural rollout of steel pipes from Tyco Water at Carole Park for the 100 kilometre route. More than 17,000 tonnes of steel pipes will be needed for the pipeline, which is part of the water grid that will connect water from water storage facilities and water treatment plants including a range of dams. In fact, the minister and I will be inspecting the first laying of those pipes today. I seek leave to incorporate full details in Hansard.


LUNGFISH AND FISHWAY MONITORING
Hon. TS MULHERIN (Mackay—ALP) (Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries) (10.07 am): In response to recent public interest concerning Queensland’s lungfish and the operation of fishways, I have undertaken a review to establish the current state of play to ensure the sustainability of this iconic species in the Burnett River catchment. The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries has been monitoring populations of lungfish and the success of fishway devices in the Burnett River since 1995.
The Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries and other government agencies have produced a number of reports since that time outlining actions to improve the efficiency of fishways and monitor fish movements. A number of questions remained unanswered by these reports. Some $500,000 has been provided to the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries under the Burnett Program of Actions for three completed reports and two other projects currently underway. I would like to table a number of recently completed lungfish reports which were the subject of my review, along with a detailed outline of measures in regard to lungfish and fishway monitoring. The reports are:
Migratory Fish Communities at Claude Wharton Weir, Gayndah; Upstream Passage of Queensland
Lungfish at Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock; Downstream Passage of Fish at Ned Churchward Weir;
148 Ministerial Statements 12 Oct 2006
Assessment of the Walla Weir Fishlock, Burnett River; Storage Operational Management Plan for Walla
Weir; Lungfish Monitoring at Ned Churchward Weir 2002-03; Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock
Contingency Revised Plan; Final Report: Operation of Ned Churchward Weir between 1998-2005; and
Walla Weir—Hydrologic Assessment of Proposed Operational Strategies.
Tabled paper: Migratory Fish Communities at Claude Wharton Weir, Gayndah.
Tabled paper: Upstream Passage of Queensland Lungfish at Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock.
Tabled paper: Downstream Passage of Fish at Ned Churchward Weir.
Tabled paper: Assessment of the Walla Weir Fishlock, Burnett River.
Tabled paper: Storage Operational Management Plan for Walla Weir.
Tabled paper: Lungfish Monitoring at Ned Churchward Weir 2002/03.
Tabled paper: Ned Churchward Weir Fishlock Contingency Revised Plan.
Tabled paper: Final Report: Operation of Ned Churchward Weir between 1998-2005.
Tabled paper: Walla Weir—Hydrologic Assessment of Proposed Operational Strategies.
My review of these reports has revealed that there are a number of issues requiring more attention, and there are some outstanding actions that are yet to be implemented. In my view this is not good enough.
As the responsible minister, I am committed to addressing these outstanding issues. We will establish a new fishway at Claude Wharton Weir in 2007; establish or upgrade fish electronic monitoring devices at Ned Churchward Weir, hopefully by 1 December 2006, and at Kirar Weir by early 2007; undertake further investigations into lungfish spawning, in particular where lungfish are successfully spawning in impoundments at Paradise Dam, Ned Churchward Weir, Claude Wharton Weir and at
Enoggera Dam and North Pine Dam in Brisbane; undertake a 10-year lungfish monitoring program at a cost of $1 million; and complete preparation of a lungfish recovery plan or management plan by January
2007, for which $1 million has been reserved under the Burnett Program of Actions to implement this plan and a range of other measures.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[westholme]

HANSARD FOR 31st, October, 2006. Outlining the announcement of a scaled down Traveston Crossing Dam and it's infrastructure.


Water Infrastructure
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (10.00 am): The Traveston Crossing Dam and the Wyaralong Dam are major projects and their importance to south-east Queensland’s water future cannot be understated—and cannot be overstated. As major projects for south-east Queensland, they necessarily will have some impact on their localities. While this is unfortunate, the government has an obligation to deliver water security for the people and industry of the region.
We promised Mary Valley residents final plans and impacts before year’s end, and I can advisethe House that this week our government delivered on that promise. Yesterday I sent letters and information packs to all affected residents of the Traveston and Wyaralong dam sites. The information package includes individual impact maps for every affected landholder. It includes facts sheets on the dams’ approvals processes, timelines, sale and leaseback processes, road network changes, land
controls, land uses and identifies how the dam will affect communities such as Kandanga, Imbil and Brooloo, Carter’s Ridge, Federal and Gympie itself.
Additional to the extensive briefing material that they will receive this week, a 1800 hotline number has been established to ensure that affected residents have access to the information they seek. In addition, I have invited all landholders in the Traveston area to a public forum that I will be
holding in Gympie on Friday. I am currently working to establish a suitable time and location for a similar forum in the Wyaralong area as soon as possible. To give landholders certainty, land required for both dams and all stages of Traveston will be acquired now. As is already known, we are offering very favourable leaseback packages for affected property owners impacted upon and associated road changes.
In relation to Traveston Dam, I can advise the House that geotechnical investigation has allowed the realignment of the dam wall, and more accurate flood modelling has reduced the overall land needed from 13,700 hectares to 9,800 hectares. Geotechnical investigation has identified the new alignment has desired solid rock foundations on both left and right abutments as well as the centre section. This quality of foundation has now confirmed that, from an engineering perspective, this is an excellent site for the dam’s construction.
Mr Gibson: Rubbish!
Ms BLIGH: The engineers on the other side! The geotechnical wizards! Why didn’t I take that advice? Significantly, the realignment of the dam wall and the reduction in the dam area means that the number of homes and properties affected by the Traveston Dam has been reduced by 403. The final dam wall alignment and subsequent detailed flood modelling mean that a total of 597 properties—not the original 1,000—will be affected by dam inundation or road alignment changes. The preliminary estimate of 556 houses affected in both stages has also been reduced to 204. So the number is down to 204 from 556. Stage 1 of the dam will require 76 houses, and that is included in the 204.
The buyback process is already underway and 16 of the properties already purchased are now no longer required and will be offered back to the owner should they wish to reacquire them. Unfortunately, there are now 18 properties which were previously not identified as being needed. Of these 18, eight are partially affected by stage 1 road works—that is, by 2011—but no houses are required. If stage 2 proceeds, a further 10 properties—made up of seven houses and/or commercial properties and three other properties, including vacant land—could be impacted. In particular, I am pleased to say that the township of Imbil will not be affected by the dam and there will be no additional flooding as a result of the dam. 004 31 Oct 2006 Ministerial Statements 243 With community support, a possible solution for dealing with remains at the Kandanga Cemetery can be considered. If the dam’s stage 2 is required, an option for consideration and community consultation is that the graves could remain undisturbed with their headstones and markers temporarily
removed and then repositioned exactly using GPS technology on a new elevated level above their existing position, after additional earth is added and shaped to ensure there will be no flooding of the area. The cemetery would be relandscaped, grassed, fenced and restored to the current environment. A new Kandanga bowls club, swimming pool, sportsground and hall would also be considered. Federal State School is not affected by the dam’s stage 1. It will continue to provide an essential community service in the area. However, its playing fields might be affected if stage 2 proceeds. Queensland Water Infrastructure has identified a suitable site should a move be needed, and they will be discussing the options with the school community. The Federal Hall is not affected by stage 1 but is
likely to need relocation by the altered Bruce Highway. A relocated site will be identified away from the Bruce Highway and above stage 2 heights.
In relation to road impacts, the Queensland Water Infrastructure company will work with the Department of Main Roads and the Cooloola, Noosa and Maroochy Shire Councils to replace or realign roads that will eventually be inundated, and to upgrade creek and river crossings, where required, to
accommodate the higher water level. We will work closely with landowners on road changes, keeping in mind that the timing of road requirements will vary according to construction schedules. Final road alignments will be subject to more detailed engineering and landholder discussions. About 12 kilometres of the Bruce Highway will need to be realigned.


In relation to Wyaralong Dam, today we have also released the final dam footprint for the proposed dam at Teviot Brook in the Logan catchment. Eighteen properties in total will be wholly or partly affected by the dam and associated road changes. However, eight of these have already been
purchased. I am pleased to advise that the iconic Overflow Homestead, and the hisotric Wyaralong Homestead will not be flooded. Wyaralong Dam is a 1,230-hectare dam and will hold about 103,000 megalitres of water and yield approximately 21,000 megalitres a year. I can report to the House that both the Traveston and Wyaralong dams have been granted significant project status by the Coordinator-General. This means that they are subject to a full and thorough environmental impact statement which will investigate the social, economic and environmental impacts of the project. The projects will also be assessed under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The dam plans will include a range of measures to protect wildlife and habitat,
including a fishway designed to world’s best practice and suitable for Mary River cod and the lungfish. The Beattie government has also put in place a multimillion-dollar package to support businesses and workers impacted by the construction of the two dams. The Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority will administer the business adjustment package and the worker assistance package programs. From today, Queensland Water Infrastructure representatives will be in both the Mary Valley and Wyaralong meeting residents.
This morning my office has made contact with the mayors of the Cooloola, Noosa, Maroochy, Boonah and Beaudesert shires. Local members whose electorates are affected are invited to a briefing on the Traveston Crossing Dam project at 1 pm today in the red chamber. If a member is unable to
attend, I am able to provide them with a separate briefing. Officers of Queensland Water Infrastructure are also offering briefings to local councils and other stakeholder groups. A similar briefing in relation to Wyaralong Dam will be available tomorrow for local members in that area. These are major projects— and the packs of information that were provided to local residents were also provided to members—and, as I have outlined in some detail today, we are getting on with the business of delivering these projects.
Interuption.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[westholme]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE-QLD PARLIAMENT HANSARD 31/10/06


Traveston Crossing Dam
Ms MALE: My question without notice is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. The Deputy Premier has outlined a range of implications in relation to the Traveston Crossing Dam. Can the minister detail for the House whether there has been any study undertaken to
determine the flood mitigation effects of the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, especially in relation to Gympie?
Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question and for her interest in this project and for her understanding of the very positive effects it will have in the south-east corner. I am very pleased to advise the member and the House that studies undertaken as part of the geotechnical work in the
design phase of the dam at Traveston Crossing do indicate very good news for the community of Gympie. It indicates that the dam will be capable of very significant flood mitigation effects. Hydraulic modelling assessment of the 1999 flood indicates that the peak water level in Gympie would have been reduced by some four metres had the proposed dam been in place at that time. What that means in real terms is that much of the $25 million damage to houses, businesses, roads and local industry would have been prevented. Based on Bureau of Meteorology data, had the dam been in place in 1999 at least 80 of the 130 businesses affected by that flood would have been saved. Flooding to most, if not all, of the 60 residences affected by the flood would have been entirely prevented. Reduced flood impacts would have substantially reduced the cost to the rural community and prevented damage to road infrastructure. Importantly, the dam would also have had the effect of substantially mitigating the effects of the smaller more frequent floods. Of course, the 1999 flood was a very serious one in a 100-year event. There are other more frequent floods that would be significantly reduced or substantially prevented by the new dam.
Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty Ltd plans detailed flood warning systems and associated gate operating strategies to be developed with emergency services, local authorities and key stakeholders for a range of flood conditions.
Mr Gibson interjected.
Ms BLIGH: I note the constant interjection by the member for Gympie in relation to this. Surely members could think that the member for Gympie would be pleased to hear this news. Would we not think that the people of his community would want to hear this good news?
Mr Gibson: The member for Gympie represents the people of Gympie, who don’t want this dam.
Ms BLIGH: Current design concepts include a spillway on the —
Mr Gibson interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I call the member for Gympie to order. I ask all members of the parliament to let the Deputy Premier have a go.
Ms BLIGH: In anybody’s terms, the outcome announced today is good news for the Mary Valley, good news for the people of Gympie and good news for south-east Queensland, because south-east Queensland gets the dam that will provide the water it needs, the people of Gympie get a safer community despite the interference of their local member, and the people of the Mary Valley —
Mr Gibson: The businesses have already gone bankrupt.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will allow the Deputy Premier a little more time. Member for Gympie, you have been here for only a short period. You do not have the ability to constantly interject. There are ramifications if you do so. I call the Deputy Premier.
Ms BLIGH: I do think it is important for members to understand that the announcement I made this morning means that we have a dam site that is sound, a dam site where we have preserved — Opposition members interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to opposition members: a question has been asked and I quite clearly indicate to you again that we need proper order in this House. If the member for Gympie does not listen to me, I will rise to my feet. When I call his name, I expect him to listen to me. I suggest to the member for Gympie that he reads standing orders pronto so that he understands what behaviour is required in this House. I will give the Deputy Premier another half minute. I suggest that the member reads the
standing orders.
Ms BLIGH: The outcome announced today means that we will have a dam site that is geotechnically sound, we will have a dam that will give us the required yield to drought proof south-east Queensland, and we will get all the water we need from a dam that will have almost half the impact on
the properties and homes of the people in the Mary Valley. Half of the properties and houses will not be affected.
Opposition members interjected.
Ms BLIGH: They hate building dams.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[RoyH]

Anna Bligh's media statement version of the above parliamentary speech is at http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=48744

Behind the smoke and mirrors, Bligh seems to be saying that the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam has been moved upstream a bit, in the light of engineering and geological studies which had not been carried out in advance of Beattie's original announcement.
She says it won't cover as big an area as previously guessed at, although the yield will be the same.
The deceptive presentation of the project as being built in two stages continues.
The QWI website shows the dam will still be designed for a water level 79.5m above sea level (unchanged on previous announcements) and will be filled to 71m in the so called "stage 1".
Bligh says that now some surveying has been undertaken, it seems only 9,800 hectares of prime Mary Valley land will need to be acquired, instead of 13,700 hectares, and not so many houses will be inundated. In fact 16 properties already acquired by the government will be offered back to the former owners!
Bligh's figures show that at 71m, the dam will hold 153,000 megalitres (down from 180,000 which Beattie had guessed at), and when full it will hold 570,000 megalitres (down from 660,000).
Forecast yields are unchanged at 70,000 megalitres/year for the 71m stage and 150,000 for 79.5m (after construction of a higher Borumba dam, presumably, although there is no mention of this any more).

[westholme]

HANSARD FOR NOVEMBER 1, 2006. ALL EXCERPTS CONCERNING THE TRAVESTON CROSSING DAM



Traveston Dam
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (9.55 am): I can inform the House this morning that the communication process for the residents affected by the Traveston Crossing and Wyaralong Dams is progressing. More than 1,000 landholders have been sent personalised packs detailing the dam impacts on their own properties. I appreciate that this is a very emotional issue and that inevitably people will have concerns when they receive this material. We have endeavoured to explain the process and the implications as clearly as
possible through one-on-one contacts wherever possible, the 1,000 individualised packs and access to a 1800 number. On Friday I will be in Gympie to meet with residents. Local mayors, federal MPs and federal ministers were all contacted yesterday. Yesterday, the Queensland Water Infrastructure company undertook face-to-face meetings with
many residents. The 1800 number linked to the dam packs is already taking calls. As at 8 am this morning there had been more than 50 calls. Of those, about 75 per cent had already received their pack and were wanting to discuss their individual issues further. This number of calls to the 1800 number is expected to increase today as more and more people receive those packs. Among those with whom the water company representatives met yesterday were principals of the school at Kandanga and Federal.
They also met with Kandanga residents, the publican and the members of the Kandanga Bowls Club. As I said yesterday, the impacts of these major projects are unfortunate. However, the government has
an obligation to deliver water security for the people and the industry of the whole region.
The Queensland Water Infrastructure company is to meet with the Cooloola Shire Council tomorrow and with Noosa and Maroochy Shire Councils over the next few days. Queensland Water Infrastructure company representatives spoke with every affected landholder at Wyaralong yesterday. They are each receiving individual packs as well.


QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Traveston Dam
Mr SEENEY (10.30 am): My first question without notice is to the Premier. Yesterday the Deputy Premier said that the Traveston Dam bungle had become good news for everybody. The comment was very similar to comments that former minister Henry Palaszczuk made on 24 May when he answered questions about the failure to find suitable foundations at the original site. I table for the benefit of the House the Hansard record of the answer that he gave to that question when he said that they had found rock.
Tabled paper: Copy extract from Hansard dated 24 May 2006 page 1889.
R-O-C-K, he said. They had found rock. Since then, according to the propaganda that was tabled yesterday, it would appear that the dam wall has been moved over a kilometre upstream in search of a site. Why should anyone believe the good news that was trumpeted yesterday is anything more than political propaganda to justify a political decision that was all about producing a political outcome rather than an efficient water supply for south-east Queensland?
Mr BEATTIE: I am absolutely delighted to answer this question. One of the good things about this term is that at least this opposition leader has the guts to ask me questions, which means that I enjoy question time. I want to start by saying thanks. The second thing I want to say in terms of the point made by the former minister, who is now in a better place— A government member: Paris!
Mr BEATTIE: Paris or wherever he is—away from politics. What he basically said was, yes, we did find rock.
Ms Bligh: And we could have built it there.
Mr BEATTIE: And, as the Deputy Premier said, we could have built there.
Mr Seeney interjected.
Mr BEATTIE: Wait a minute; just listen. Just because the Leader of the Opposition has the courage to ask the questions does not mean that he can be rude as well. Let me answer his question. There was rock there. We could have built it there.
Mr Seeney interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, let us hear the Premier’s answer.
Mr BEATTIE: We would have been very happy to build it there. We also found rock somewhere else. Guess what? It was cheaper to build it there. It was better to build it somewhere else. So why would one not go to the second site? The truth is we could have built it at either site.
Mr Seeney: Rubbish!
Mr BEATTIE: Hang on. Wait a minute. You guys want it both ways. We went about this in a very open way. We had a public meeting about it. We had all sorts of debate about this. We indicated that we were going to do more work. We said that all the way along the line. If we are going to have a
transparent process it has to be accepted that if engineers come up with better options we will choose those better options. That is what we did. Was Henry Palaszczuk right? Yes, he was. Was the Deputy Premier right yesterday? The answer is yes, she was. The reality is that engineers can come up with better options when they do the evaluation. That is what we told those opposite we were going to do. Those opposite cannot come in here and bag us if we say we are going to go and do further work and then at the end of that work make some decisions based on it. Of course if we find better rock we will do it.
Mr Seeney: You made the decision beforehand.
Mr BEATTIE: Hang on.
Mr Seeney: You made the decision at the start.
01 Nov 2006 Questions Without Notice 369
Mr BEATTIE: Now listen, the Leader of the Opposition might have more courage but he is also louder. Just give me a chance to answer the question. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting to me that if we find a better option we should ignore it? What sort of a stupid decision is that? The Leader of the Opposition would be the first person to say that the Deputy Premier had got it wrong if she had ignored the engineering advice that we had found rock again and we could do it better. I have been through this with the Deputy Premier. I think what they have done is correct and I would think that the people of Queensland would expect us to go to a better site. If there are two positions where there is rock—
Mr Gibson: Go to Borumba. That’s a better site.
Mr BEATTIE: Please don’t be rude to your own leader. He is asking the questions. Please don’t be rude. If the reality is that there are two sites where there is rock, you choose the best one. It is not rocket science; it is rock science.
Mr Seeney: It is rock science—and you didn’t have much of it.
Mr SPEAKER: Let us get back to parliamentary science. I call the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Seeney: Not a lot of rock and not a lot of science either.
Mr SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your question.


Traveston Dam
Mr GIBSON: My question is to the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure. The minister’s hastily compiled plan for the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam announced yesterday is the fourth plan released by her government. Why did the minister release plan D when further major test drilling is still being undertaken to determine whether the watertable will preclude construction at her latest site? How many maps and plans does the minister have in her top drawer? Why should the
people of the Mary Valley be forced to suffer when not a single cost-benefit or environmental study has been started, let alone completed on this project?
Ms BLIGH: I thank the member for the question.
Mr Johnson: I bet you do.
Ms BLIGH: I do. I am very pleased to have an opportunity—
Mr Mickel: He gets a new tie and he gets excited.
Ms BLIGH: Unfortunately, I have to report that I have seen that tie before. I am very pleased to answer this question. I am very happy to talk about the facilities that we are building at Traveston right now or at any other time. As I understand it, the first part of the question was why did we release further planning documents yesterday. I am a bit bemused by the question. What the Premier told people and made public when he went to the meeting in July this year was that we were committed to building a dam at Traveston. He provided what were, at that stage, the best known possible boundaries, but he indicated that, of course, those boundaries would now have to be confirmed by very in-depth geotechnical work.
That happens on every major project. When the minister for transport announces that he is going to build a road, he gives an indicative corridor—
Mr Lucas: Or corridors.
Ms BLIGH: Or corridors options. He then goes out with engineers and they do drilling and they gointo some depth about what is possible. It is not unusual in any project to change as you do that planning.
Mr Seeney: Buy the wrong houses, Paul?
Mr Lucas: The ones who live in the study area are in hardship places.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Minister for Transport and Main Roads and the Leader of the Opposition, rather than have a discussion across the chamber, can we hear the minister, please?
Ms BLIGH: As the Minister for Transport has just confirmed, it is not unusual in transport projects and it would not be unusual in other major projects for houses to be bought in the study corridor if there are hardship circumstances or the residents sought the buyer, and that is what happened in this case. And thank goodness for that, and we are going to keep doing it.
I confirm for the member for Gympie that the documents released yesterday are the final boundaries for the proposed dam, the boundaries on which the EIS will now be undertaken and the boundaries on which the federal government will make its assessment under the EPBC. There may well need to be some—and I said this yesterday—changes in relation to road alignments as we now go through the further planning. But, in relation to the dam, this is the final set of boundaries. I have to say that I am very surprised that the member for Gympie sees so little value in a facility that is going to prevent the flooding of properties of the Gympie people, whom he represents.
Mr Gibson interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I remind the member for Gympie that this is an emotional topic for him. He needs to control himself and conduct himself with decorum in this House.
Mr Johnson interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Excuse me. I see that as a reflection on the chair, member for Gregory, and I ask you to withdraw.
Mr Johnson: Mr Speaker, I apologise and I withdraw.
Ms BLIGH: I am sorry that because of the range of interjections I do not have more time to answer the member’s question. But I am happy to provide him with any briefings or discuss the issue with him at any time.
012
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[Darren E]

Thursday 2nd November 2006

[westholme]

HANSARD 2 NOVEMBER; EXCERPTS REFERRING TO TRAVESTON CROSSING DAM

Questions Without Notice

Traveston Dam
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 othermember 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.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[Bronwyn]

[Darren E]

Hear Hear Bronwyn.
And Anna, take Bronwyn's advice before you hop in the chopper tomorrow morning. We don't want your shit here.

[Darren E]

Water Supply
Mr ELMES (Noosa—Lib) (12.39 pm):

[Bronwyn]

HEAR HEAR HEAR Glen Elmes!!!! Sooooo GOOD to hear you actively supporting the people and educating yourself on this IMPORTANT issue.

[westholme]

28th, November, 2006 Ministerial Statements

South-East Queensland Water Projects
Hon. AM BLIGH (South Brisbane—ALP) (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Infrastructure) (10.23 am): Delivering south-east Queensland’s future water supplies in the face of the worst drought on record is a priority for our government. I am pleased to report that since parliament last sat work on the government’s commitment to build a comprehensive water grid with pipelines linking existing and new water storages is occurring on a number of fronts. Let me start by outlining activity in the area of pipelines.
Last Friday I signed letters of intent sent to three pipe manufacturers for the pipes for three critical projects—the western corridor recycled water project, the southern regional water pipeline and the Gold Coast desalination plant network. The three pipe suppliers are Tyco, Orrcon and Iplex, and the new orders for 240 kilometres of pipe represent an outlay in the order of $200 million. The bulk of the order will be undertaken in Queensland. However, we have cast the net nationally and internationally to ensure that this very important project stays on track.
Last Wednesday I officially launched the western corridor recycled water project—a key part of the government’s south-east Queensland water grid. Stage 1A of the advanced water treatment plant at
Bundamba is under construction.
Mr Johnson: You need rain, Anna. You just need rain.
Ms BLIGH: Pray for us, won’t you, Vaughan. The recycled project will be the largest of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere and it will actually be the third largest water recycling project in the world. This project has global significance. Pipe laying is underway on the southern regional water pipeline and members may be interested to know that the water grid in total will require almost 550 kilometres of pipes for the south-east Queensland projects.
In relation to the desalination plant, the state government and the Gold Coast City Council in the last three weeks have both approved the funding of the desalination plant at Tugun. Early site works are continuing on the Tugun site.
In relation to new dams and storages, since parliament last met I have attended public meetings at Gympie and Boonah to outline the final boundaries of the proposed Traveston Crossing and Wyaralong dams. On 14 and 16 November 2006 respectively, the government referred the Traveston Crossing and Wyaralong Dam projects to the federal Department of the Environment and Heritage, to seek a controlled action determination under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. We are awaiting a reply from the Commonwealth.
Last Saturday the government placed advertisements alerting the market to a call for expressions of interest next month to deliver early works in the Logan River catchment, including the Cedar Grove Weir and Bromelton off-stream storage and possibly the access road for Wyaralong Dam.
In relation to other matters, on 4 November I attended the Prime Minister’s water summit in Canberra with the premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Queensland has agreed to be part of a national program to examine the sustainable yield of water available in the Murray-Darling Basin. We also secured a commitment from the Prime Minister to fast-track Commonwealth assessment of major water projects submitted by states and territories under the Commonwealth’s national water fund.
Queensland has also agreed to meet its share of the 10 per cent interest costs component of the Prime Minister’s $210 million assistance package to extend income support to eligible small businesses in emerging exceptional circumstance areas. In addition, I met with the Prime Minister’s parliamentary secretary for water, Malcolm Turnbull, here at Parliament House on 9 November and provided a comprehensive briefing on our western corridor recycled water project. 28 Nov 2006 Ministerial Statements 581 I can assure the House that this government is getting on with the job of delivering these crucial projects to ensure the long-term sustainable water supply to south-east Queensland residents and industry.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"