Commencement of works, eviction of leasees - Senate Question

[SteveB]

Appendix C5 of the supplementary EIS outlines the 'geotechnical investigation' that involves building mining haul roads, blasting and digging more than 20,000 cubic metres (30,000 tonnes) of rock from the ridge on the eastern edge of the dam wall. In spite of the fact that this entails the eviction of the landholders in the area and is the start of the clearing, blasting and excavation operations that are required to build the dam wall - QWI insists that this activity does not form part of the dam project. Even though they are digging a hole that would normally require a mining approval from EPA, QWI insist that they are only mining 200 tonnes of rock - which they can approve themselves because they have been granted the powers of a local planning authority.

Bob Brown asked a question about this in the senate yesterday, to which there was a follow-up question later in the day Here is the Hansard transcript of those parts of the debate. (The proof hansard transcript shows the numbers out by an extra zero - the rock sample that QWI have given themselves permission to take is 200 cubic metres, the size of the hole they want to cut to take that sample is 20,000 cubic metres).

Traveston Crossing Dam
Senator BOB BROWN (2.21 pm)—My question
goes, with some notice, to the Minister representing the
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. It
regards the Traveston Dam. I ask: is it true that earthworks
are underway at the dam site to remove 200,000
cubic metres of overburden and 20,000 cubic metres of
rock preparatory to building the dam, and have eviction
notices been given to at least half-a-dozen local farmers
effective by the end of this month? I ask the minister:
is it not a clear breach of the spirit, if not the letter,
of the law for the project to have got underway, as it
obviously has done, before the minister for the environment
completed an assessment?
Senator WONG—Senator Brown, I did make some
inquiries, given you indicated that you had some concerns
about these issues. A similar question was asked
at estimates by Senator Macdonald in relation to various
activities being asserted. Can I just step back for a
moment and remind the Senate what Minister Garrett’s
role is in relation to the proposed dam. Mr Garrett is
the minister making a determination under the EPBC
Act. That assessment and approval process is not a political
process; it is a process predicated on a rigorous
and comprehensive scientific assessment of this project,
as with any other project. I am advised that the
Queensland government has yet to finalise the assessment
report for Traveston Crossing Dam and has not
yet approved the dam under state legislation. I emphasise
again that Minister Garrett’s responsibilities for
decision making under the EPBC Act will only commence
once that assessment report has been submitted
to him, and the timing of that is at the discretion of the
Queensland Coordinator-General.
In relation to the specific issues raised, Senator
Brown, it may be that further information may be
available, given the additional detail you have provided
us with today. Can I indicate to you that my advice is
that the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage
and the Arts, which is responsible for the administration
of this legislation, has not given any explicit or
implied authorisation that would allow the construction
of the Traveston Crossing Dam to commence prior to a
final decision to approve or not approve under the
EPBC Act in terms of the process I have outlined.
I am advised that the department is also not aware of
any notification or advice having been given to local
residents by any other party that they should expect
construction to commence prior to the required approvals
having been obtained. It is the case that commencement
of construction prior to the conclusion of
an assessment process would constitute a breach of
section 74AA of the EPBC Act, and such a breach
would be investigated by the department as appropriate.
I am advised that the proponent has notified the department
that they will be undertaking a range of investigative
geotechnical works necessary to inform design
elements of the proposal. The advice I have received is
that the department’s view is that these investigations
do not constitute the taking of an action that has been
referred for assessment under the EPBC Act. That action
is the construction and operation of the Traveston
Crossing Dam. It is also the case that the proponent has
notified the department of their intention to conduct
other geotechnical investigations in the vicinity relating
to the upgrade of community facilities. Similarly,
my advice is that this is not considered to be part of the
referred action.
Senator BOB BROWN—Mr President, I ask a
supplementary question. Did the minister, as distinct
from the department, make the decisions on the socalled
preparatory work, which as she indicated is essential
to the dam proceeding and therefore should be
seen as part of the construction? Secondly, if it is true
that people have been given until the end of the month
to vacate their land, without the minister’s knowledge,
is this a breach of either an arrangement with the
Queensland government or the legislation to which she
refers? Finally, is it possible for the Queensland government
to build a dam and do everything except put
the plug in before the minister takes action?
Senator WONG—The answer in relation to the last
question is no. I have clearly indicated the advice the
government has about the nature of the action which is
to be determined under the EPBC Act. The second
point I would make is that Senator Brown made an
assertion about my answer which I do not regard as an
accurate reading of the answer I gave. I made it clear
that commencement of construction prior to the conclusion
could constitute a breach, but there was a distinction
in the advice given to me—
Senator Bob Brown interjecting—
Senator WONG—I appreciate that Senator Brown
has strong views about this, but there was a distinction
in terms of the advice given to me as between that and
investigative geotechnical works necessary to inform
design elements of the proposal. If Senator Brown considers
that there has been a breach—and I referred to
the section that would enable such investigation—he is
welcome to provide further details to enable an assessment
as to whether such an investigation should
occur.


Traveston Crossing Dam
Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the
Australian Greens) (3.31 pm)—I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister
for Climate Change and Water (Senator Wong) to a
question without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown today
relating to the proposed Traveston Crossing Dam, Queensland.
I would like to take note of Senator Wong’s answer
because what is occurring in Queensland is analogous
to what happened on the Franklin Dam in 1982-83, in
that the state authorities are moving to carry out infrastructure
even before the full assessment and the process,
certainly between the Commonwealth and state,
has been settled.
There cannot be two ways about this. The state government
cannot be issuing eviction orders to farmers—
even those who have negotiated some lease-back arrangement—
to enable explosive testing to be done at
the dam site and to have the removal of tens of thousands
of cubic metres of overburden and rock but at the
same time say that they are, in some way or another,
assessing the impact of this scheme. At best, it has to
be said that it is irresponsible of the state government
to be allowing QWI—the water authority in Queensland
that is looking at four dam proposals—to be proceeding
to spend large amounts of taxpayers’ money
without the approval for the dam to proceed and without,
indeed, the authority of the Commonwealth.
The question here—and it goes straight to the Minister
for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the
Hon. Peter Garrett—is: at what stage does the assessment
by people in departments end and the minister
take action? The minister should be making it clear to
the Queensland authorities that the major works involved—
certainly where they are so advanced that they
are leading to the effective eviction of neighbours from
the site—have gone beyond the simple assessment of
the region for the purposes of the dam proposal. Indeed,
the proposal, when it went the Queensland cabinet,
and when it goes to the federal cabinet via the national
minister for the environment, should at that stage
cease further advancement. The proposal is in. The
proposal for the Mary River Dam has been made. And
it is quite irresponsible for these major works to be
proceeding while further consideration is underway.
This is effectively the pre-emption by the Queensland
authorities of decisions to be made by elected representatives
in both parliaments—certainly in the national
parliament and by the federal minister for the environment,
and that means the federal cabinet. It is arrogant,
it is expensive, and it is very, very unfair to the hundreds,
if not thousands, of farmers, tourism operators,
environmentalists and people who are associated with
the area to be destroyed by this dam were it to proceed.
What I say to the federal government is: this should
not be allowed to be a process of attrition and caving in
at the end. The minister needs to make a stand on this
matter. The minister should be in contact with Premier
Bligh and, if she is not in contact with QWI, put an end
to these works at the site. I can tell you that the locals
are very, very seriously disturbed. For them, it is a decision
as to whether or not this is the start of the dam
works. They ought not to be put in that position when
they know that the federal minister has not got to first
base, effectively, in making a decision on this matter.
There is a lot at stake here. I have moved, and this
Senate has agreed, that there is a need for the Queensland
authorities to be looking at all the prudent and
feasible alternatives. That is what Premier Bligh should
be doing, instead of allowing her bureaucrats to run her
government and the decision-making process. She
ought to be saying, ‘We are using this time to look at
the prudent and feasible alternative for Brisbane and
the south-east corner of Queensland in terms of using
the water that is available much more wisely than it has
been up to now. This dam is not necessary. It is an expensive
alternative to prudent and feasible action by
the Bligh government. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
_________________
"Bad luck ... you dickheads. Suffer in your jocks". (from: the Castle)

[westholme]

Thank you Bob Brown. Your words are like music to my ears.
_________________
CESARE LOMBROSO "The ignorant man always adores what he cannot understand"

[arawajo]

And what happened to chaining ourselves to the bulldozers? Are we just letting it all happen are we? Just talk about it and have a whinge then move on?
_________________
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes obligation" - Steve Biko

[Darren E]

As I read it, ever since the proposed project was declared a "controlled action" under the EPBC Act, the only activities which are allowed to proceed are those which are required to inform the assessment of the project under the Act.

So, for instance, drilling of some holes to determine the size / shape / construction method of the proposed dam wall was OK - this info was required to help determine the impacts so they could be assessed. Ditto for the water quality investigations.

But bulldozing a house, for example, is not OK. Digging a 20,000 BCM test pit is certainly, emphatically not OK. It does not help inform the assessment, and it is therefore part of the construction phase of the project, not the assessment. As SteveB points out, such a pit would probably constitute a “controlled action” in its own right.

It is simple to demonstrate that these actions do not inform the assessment - because QWI has already submitted their EIS. Unless QWI are specifically requested by the Federal Department to undertake further investigations, anything they do from now on is an advancement of the project itself, not the assessment. Non-physical stuff - like design calculations - is OK, but anything on-ground must be considered “construction”.

Under the EPBC Act, QWI do not have the authority to say whether or not a particular on-ground physical aspect of the job will or will not impact on the MNES (matters of environmental significance) governed by the Act. It is all part of the overall “controlled action” which is under assessment, and only the Federal assessment can determine what the impacts are and whether they may be allowed under the Act.

Penny Wong says:

[Darren E]

This is a good start.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/11/14/2419537.htm

[Glenda Pickersgill]

[Darren E]

There were some good articles about this in today's GT. Hopefully they'll be available on the web soon.

After all the denials, arguments, mistruths, etc, a picture truly is worth 1,000 words.

If you didn't catch the front page, here is a photo of the excavator QWIPL has brought on site for their "geotechnical investigations".



The 255LCV is not a toy.

It weighs 25 metric tonnes. It has a reach of 10 metres and a dig depth of 6.6 metres. It can lift up to 8.6 metric tonnes in a single scoop (with the standard 2.4 metre wide bucket).

It is, as they say, clearly not there just to $&#*@ spiders.
_________________
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything" - anon.
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies" - Walter Lippman

[cirod]

This morning (Sunday) there was a helicopter circling over the proposed dam wall site.
It was circling there for about 10 minutes.
I guess taking pictures.
Anybody knows who was it?
_________________
"Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights.
Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner."--Larry Flynt

[DougHaigh_JenMercer]

Probably TV News trying to take shots of us waving SAVE the MARY RIVER placards at the 3 busloads of ANCOLD people who arrived for morning tea under QWIPL tents over at the site of the proposed dam wall !!

Quite a flurry of activity down there at "Gate 2" !!

The security guards got a bit of a workout this morning...

[Glenda Pickersgill]

Looks like QWIPL have been busy painting graffiti on the rock bend of the river where the proposed wall alignment is. Here is a summary of photos of works that have been done already prior to state or federal approval. http://picasaweb.google.com.au/glendap5/ProposedTravestonCrossingDam?authkey=MAbg0Nltk-I

No work started???

[Darren E]

Fantastic work, Glenda.

I trust you are assisting Peter Garrett's department with their investigation.
_________________
"If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything" - anon.
"There can be no liberty for a community which lacks the means by which to detect lies" - Walter Lippman