Save the Mary River

Peter Garrett's decision to stop the building of the Traveston dam is to be heartily applauded. However, he did no more than what should be expected of a Federal Minister for the Environment when faced with such an environmentally reckless proposal.

This is the second significant occasion, that I can recall, on which Garrett has acted in favour of the environment, that is, in other words, treated his statutory obbligations seriously. The other occasion was when he blocked the Bligh Government's similarly environmentally reckless plan to build a coal loader in Shoalwater Bay..

Garrett's overall dismal environmental record

On every other significant issue that I can recall, he has acted against the environment.--- Uranium mining, the Dredging of Port Philip Bay the Tasmanian Pulp Mill, the Car Rally in the environmentally sensitive Tweed and Kyogle Shires, failure to act to protect the Murray Darling system, the building of a massive deslanation plant on Victoria's Bass Coast, the North South pipleline, the overall massive expansion of Australia's coal exports, not to mention his failure to take a visible stance against the Federal Governent's reckless plans to grow our populaiton, etc., etc.

If Garrett's decision is truly a sign of him changing heart back to become the environmentailst he once claimed to be, then we would explect to see him, from now on to act consistently in favour of the environment and to find ways to reverse previous decisions harmful to the environment.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I am not expecting that to occur.

If I am right, then it would be more accurate to conclude that Garrett's decision against the Traveston Dam was the result of a political calculation concerning how much he needs to do for the environment in order to retain any political credibility.

The Save the Mary River Group had no plan B

One alarming aspect of this controversy is that the Save the Mary River Group had no strategy for dealing with an adverse decision from Peter Garrett.

Environmentalists should never put themselves in a position where they have to virtually beg of our political representatives to do the right thing. If the Minister for the Environment does not fear environmental groups such as the Save the Mary Group and does not go out of his way to meet their reasonable demands, then they are not doing their job properly.

Prior to that Save the Mary River Group's principle strategy was to campaign for the Liberal National Party (LNP) and against the Labor Government at the 2009 state elections, thereby alienating many environmentalists who had good reason to be concerned about some of the LNP's poor environmental policies.

The Save the Mary Group explicitly damned the Greens in their election literature for their reluctance to give their preferences to the LNP when the Greens were (for all their considerable faults) at least as consistently agains the dam as the LNP.

With the re-election of the Bligh Government, and a cross-bench not holding the balance of power, that strategy got them nowhere.

In the 2008 local Government elections they failed to back the Integrity Gympie team, which was committed to fully utilising the resources of the Gympie council to fight the dam, and, instead allowed candidates who were prepared only to pay lip service to the fight against the dam, to win.

Astonishingly, in a referendum held in Toowoomba in 2006, anti-dam campaigners, together with the Queensland Greens, campaigned, ultimately unsuccessfully against community activists for the imposition of recycled water by the City Council. As a result, relations between them and a group of people in South East Queensland, who would naturally have been sympathetic towards them have been poisoned ever since, including during the critical 2009 Queensland State elections._#main-fn1">1

At the moment, the Save the Mary River Group can count themselves very lucky that, this time, Peter Garrett's political calculations came down on the side of the environment.

James Sinnamon

Brisbane Independent candidate for
truth, democracy and economic justice,
Australian Federal elections, 2010

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ For their part, anti-water-recycling and anti-fluoridation campaigners largely reciprocated the Save the Mary Group's counterproductive stance, and this appears to have also harmed, rather than helped them at the ballot box.

On 8 March I responded to a questionnaire from the Brisbane Save The Mary River Questionnaire group and sent copies to other candidates contesting the seat of Mount Coot-tha, as well as to Premier Anna Bligh and to Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg. Lawrence Springborg replied on the same day by 12.30PM. His response is below and my response to that is further below.

#Springborg" id="Springborg">Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg's response

Dear Mr Sinnamon

... it is clear that the Labor Government has not followed due process or properly considered the social, environmental and economic implications of building a dam at Traveston Crossing.

Thank you for your email received this morning regarding the proposed Traveston Dam.

The Traveston Dam is a ridiculous proposal, and it is clear that the Labor Government has not followed due process or properly considered the social, environmental and economic implications of building a dam at Traveston Crossing.

In fact, this dam has never been even mentioned in the various water planning reports developed over the past 12 years, and was resoundingly rejected in a 1994 report into possible water supply sources for the Sunshine Coast and Mary Valley.

I fear the Premier only announced this project to be seen to be doing something about the water crisis gripping the rapidly growing south east Queensland region, a crisis the Government created by failing to plan and develop new water supply sources over the past 10 years.

I fear the Premier only announced this project to be seen to be doing something about the water crisis gripping the rapidly growing south east Queensland region ...

I have traveled to the Gympie region on a number of occasions to meet with affected landholders and inspect the proposed dam site.

We have confirmed we would not build the Traveston Crossing dam. In addition, the LNP has a broad ranging plan to fix the water crisis the Labor Government has created by building more appropriate water infrastructure, ensuring more water is recycled and ensuring water is used more efficiently.

The establishment of a desalination plant close to Bribie Island could provide water to South East Queensland at less than half the price of water from the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam and more importantly it would not be dependant on rainfall. Desalination can provide water in two and a half - three years whereas Traveston Dam won't deliver meaningful water supplies until 2013.

Shadow Infrastructure Minister Fiona Simpson and Shadow Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation Minister David Gibson have stated in media releases that the desalination barges proposal proved water could be delivered faster and cheaper than Traveston Crossing Dams.

I invite you to visit www.climateproof.com.au for details of the LNP's Climate Proof and Water Policy.

Thank you for taking the time to bring your views to my attention.

Yours sincerely
Lawrence Springborg
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the LNP

#Sinnamon" id="Sinnamon">My further response

Dear Lawrence Springborg,

Firstly, I greatly appreciate your very prompt response to my query (in 2hrs 20 minutes).

And thank you for having reaffirmed the Liberal National Party's (LNP) opposition to the Traveston Dam.

Thank you, also, for explaining some of the background to the decision by this Government for its choice of Traveston as the site. According to former Labor MP Cate Molloy the site was chosen, not because it was the most suitable site, but because the affected residents were solid National Party voters and, hence, deemed by this Government to be politically expendable.

The details of the Opposition's proposed alternatives to the Traveston Dam were also most helpful.

However, my own stance is against desalination (which the LNP supports) and against industrial water recycling (which I understand the LNP also opposes) and for more ecologically sustainable solutions. I oppose water recycling and desalination because they are technologically complex, expensive and depend upon the burning of fossil fuels. I believe we should move back to simpler more environmentally friendly technologies such as rainwater tanks and restrictions on water use.

However, any further water restrictions must be made with the clear understanding that they will not be means to allow the Queensland Government to cram even more people into Queensland. Rather they must only be a temporary measure to eliminate any necessity to dam the Mary Valley or Wyaralong in the Beaudesert region or to build any more desalination or recycling plants.

#population">Population growth, the ultimate cause of Queensland's water crises

This brings me, again, to the main point from my previous response to the Save the Mary River Brisbane Group.

Your letter, by implicitly accepting that South East Queensland's population must necessarily continue to grow rapidly, pre-empts the most obvious solution to the water crisis.

If Queensland had not doubled its population to 4 million from 1974 to 2005, there would have been no water crisis. If Queensland's population increases by several more millions in coming years, as your letter implies, further water crises are practically guaranteed.

In fact, it is not predetermined that Queensland's population will continue to grow, rather it is a conscious choice made by governments, in this case, the Queensland and Federal Labor Governments. They could just as easily choose to end population growth.

In fact, it is not predetermined that Queensland's population will continue to grow, rather it is a conscious choice made by governments, in this case, the Queensland and Federal Labor Governments. They could just as easily choose to end population growth.

Every democratic society have the right to decide what its population will be, contrary to what the newspapers and others promoting population growth would have us believe. I believe that choice should be made available to the public at this election.

I therefore ask that you acknowledge the obvious harm caused to Queensland by population growth, not just in regard to our water security, but to our overall quality of life, to our economy, our finances, our natural environment and our long term sustainability. Accordingly, I also ask you to commit an incoming Liberal National Government to reversing the Bligh Labor Government's irresponsible encouragement of population growth.

Population growth doesn't pay for itself. For instance, the building of new infrastructure to provide water for a larger population have cost Queenslanders financially in higher water and council rates.

In my own experience, all the supposed economic arguments in favour of population growth and high immigration have not withstood intellectual scrutiny, for example, in on-line forum discussions. Population growth doesn't pay for itself. For instance, the building of new infrastructure to provide water for a larger population have cost Queenslanders financially in higher water and council rates. Another cost is the massive bill for the state Government's and Brisbane City Council's road, bridge and tunnel building projects, which have been explained as necessary due to past population increases.

If you still have any lingering doubt that further population growth is harmful, I urge you to obtain a copy of Mark O'Connor's Overloading Australia published in 2008. It costs only AU$20.00 and its 184 pages are very easy to read. Almost every conceivable argument in favour of population growth has been challenged and shot down in flames.

I will address the subject of privatisation in another email.

Please also feel welcome, as an alternative to e-mailing me directly, to post further comments in response to this correspondence to my web site here.

Yours sincerely,

James Sinnamon

Pro-democracy independent candidate
for Mount Coot-tha

The following articles #YourHome">Your home... secure haven or up for grabs? and #GreaterGood">The Greater Good - whose? both by Greg Wood appeared in the Gympie Times of 18 July 2008. The letter from a Brisbane resident included as an #appendix" id="appendix">appendix is an illustration of how the resumption of land for inappropriate projects is by no means confined to the Gympie region,

#YourHome" id="YourHome">Your home... secure haven or up for grabs?

Australians take home ownership very seriously. We get upset when title and use of our houses and businesses are put in doubt.

Native Title triggered widespread concern about loss of freehold rights. Less widely, but even more ferociously, so did regulations regarding vegetation clearing and forestry management.

Why then does silence reign as hundreds of people, in various locations around Queensland, are being forced from their homes to make way for a range of projects of ‘significance’.

Over four hundred Mary Valley households have already been displaced by the grossly flawed Traveston Dam project. Many of these people are neither happy nor comfortable with the result. More than a hundred households remain staunchly resistant but are deeply disturbed by the immediate stress and and anxious about an uncertain future.

The Gympie bypass threatens up to two hundred homes, leaving occupants as uncertain and confused about their future as Valley residents are.

A new coal conveyor to Tarong Power station is displacing about fifty families.

Hundreds of properties have been resumed to make way for Brisbane’s new north-south tunnel and air- port link.

Add in the Sunshine Coast Powerlink project, rail corridor, water pipelines etc. etc, and you have a fraction of a growing list that threatens to sweep ordinary people aside like a tsunami.

It is not just fair to ask to ask some searching questions. It is imperative.

#question1" id="question1">Question 1: Does the project provide real value? Is it worth the agony?

Obviously this varies, but some are clear stinkers, not least our infamous dam.

The real problem is the complete lack of genuine consultation being taken ahead of hatching and adopting mega-project plans. This lack also applies to the broader planning policies that generate need, or the excuse, for specific projects.

Public comment, if allowed, always occurs too late to change anything of substance. How can plans and projects hope to deliver maximum public value when the public are never asked what they value most?

Plans should be subject to fair, competent and transparent cost-benefit analysis. We accept less at our peril.

#question2" id="question2">Question 2: Is land resumption a fair and humane process?

Sadly, never.

Whilst processes are each different, they all work to isolate households within extended, high pressure negotiation where the agency holds all of the cards.

Well coordinated, experienced teams confront individuals with offers and claims that they do not have the skill, support or resources to verify. People are played off against their own doubts and fears.

Market value is touted as a standard for payment, but this is open to wild interpretation.

Much fairer, more humane land purchase processes are desperately needed... assuming of course that projects are genuinely worthy to begin with.

#question3" id="question3">Question 3: If a project is poor at its stated purpose, what is the real purpose?

If questions 1 and 2 were properly dealt with as a matter of course, we’d not have to ask this question. But they aren’t and we do.

No project better illustrates the matter than the Traveston Crossing Dam.

It’s not really a reliable water supply, so what is it?

A political stunt?

A cooling pond for a nuclear reactor?

A property development scam?

Part of a breathtakingly cynical plan to develop a water grid asset for sale to a private corporation?

Informed, rational review favours the last one. How good can the exiled, traumatised families feel about that?

#GreaterGood" id="GreaterGood">The Greater Good - whose?

The incidence of social dispossesion due to unsound planning and development is not an isolated, occasional circumstance, says Melbourne based sociologist and land-use planner, Sheila Newman. She says the condition is systematic and escalating.

Ms Newman says, “Melbourne and Sydney have both reached the stage where local residents, and local authorities, are being completely written out of having any say over the deluge of planning applications that seek to radically change their life and investment in the place they live... homes and values that might be generations old.”

“Pressure to keep up with the demands unleashed by unmanaged growth is creating a permanent state of emergency”, say Ms Newman.

“This crisis mentality is used to justify extreme options, including dispossession with zero consultation and settlement transactions that are more mafia than management”.

Ms Newman says local people need to demand that local interests are not ignored within any grand plans for the greater good.

“‘The Greater Good’ has a lot to answer for over history”, says Ms Newman. “Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and all their ilk have invoked its power. If the greater good does not care about you or the things you love, then it is probably a fraud”.

#appendix" id="appendix">Appendix: Letter from elderly Brisbane resident facing home resumption

Cars eating our homes

This letter appeared in Brisbane's Courier Mail newspaper of 29 July 08. The Courier Mail newspaper is a strident promoter of both population growth and the large number of road and other infrastructure projects that population growth necessitates. As a consequence, hundreds of homes around Brisbane, including that of Eileen Urquhart, are being resumed.

HOW ironic and tragic that a home in which you have lived for 86 years; a home that your father created from a huge hole in the ground and took years to prepare for a building, can be resumed by the powers that be.

My uncle fought the enemy in France and my brother was a Rat of Tobruk in the last war to defend us.

Where can an old lady of 87 years and her handicapped daughter live? We have been used to half an acre of land with lovely gardens, created by my dad, and having every facility we require at Toowong Village, only a short bus ride away.

Whatever happened to good public transport?

Quite possibly it could take some of the private cars and trucks off the road, instead of losing our homes to them.

Eileen Urquhart, Toowong

Conservation centre poor substitute for Mary River

Queensland Greens Media Release - 10 October 2007

The Queensland government's proposal to build a $35 million conservation centre for threatened species at the site of the proposed Traveston Dam is a poor substitute for allowing these creatures to flourish in their natural habitat, said the Greens today.

"Building a conservation centre for a species you are sending towards extinction is laughable," said Greens lead Senate candidate for Queensland, Larissa Waters.

"Leaked studies by the Queensland government on the Burnett River's Paradise Dam show that dams irrevocably destroy lungfish breeding habitat, and that lungfish aren't successfully using the fish ladders to travel up and down the river.

"Traveston Dam would be the death knell for the 110 million year old Queensland lungfish, one of our iconic fish species.

"The state and federal governments cannot approve Traveston dam in reliance on a fish ladder to save the lungfish, in the face of evidence showing they don't work. That would make a mockery of our federal threatened species laws and of the environmental impact statement under state laws.

"Risking this iconic species for a dam that won't even solve the current water crisis is ludicrous.

"The dam wouldn't be built until 2011, climate change will mean rainfall patterns ensure the dam is even less likely to ever fill up, and it is a tragic waste of good quality farming land so close to a city centre.

"The Mary Valley community don't want this dam, and nor do the majority of Brisbane residents that I speak to. It would be a social, economic and environmental disaster.

"Building Traveston dam would be like noticing your wallet is empty so deciding to buy a new wallet. They don't come full.

"Government should be proposing sustainable solutions to the water crisis, like water recycling, rainwater tanks for every home, stormwater harvesting and demand management," concluded Ms Waters.