An excellent article that gave me an overview of the issues. Thanks.

I enjoyed reading your article. It is a very concise article that outlines the major issues in the political flow of events surrounding another BIG thing in Queensland. I would like to add a point to your article. The reason for the large number of land acquisitions in the footprint of the dam is because of the changes to the State Development and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006 which added significant power to the Queensland Government under the ‘significant infrastructure project’ amendments. This received little media coverage in 2006 despite having a large effect on democratic rights in Queensland. The effect of the change is as follows. If a project is deemed a significant infrastructure project, as is the case for the Traveston Crossing dam, a property owner whose land will be compulsorily acquired has no right of appeal to dispute the valuation by the lands court*. The property owner can lodge an appeal but because of the amendment to the Act the Coordinator General can take over any decision making process including land acquisition processes.

Landowners in the dam footprint know about the future process of land acquisition that will happen if Peter Garret approves the project. Thus many have entered into negotiation with QWI to ensure a more acceptable settlement price. This helps explain why there has been a large number of property acquisitions despite the large scale local resistance to the dam. It is feasible conclusion that the fear of economic loss resulting from valuations and settlements from the land court/coordinator general is facilitating the past and present rate of property acquisition. The Queensland Government routinely publishes the number of property acquisitions as though these are a testament to local community acceptance of the project. Unfortunately for the Queensland Government this does not provide evidence of the local community’s acceptance. Many of the people who have sold their property to the government are still living in the valley and are fighting the proposal. The State Development and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2006 is an erosion of yet another pillar of democracy in Queensland.

Rob Hales
Griffith University

As someone who has been closely following the Traveston Dam saga can I say what an excellent article.

Can I also add that not one academic in any field that I am aware of has come out in support of this proposed dam. In fact of all the 246 submisions to the Senate Inquiry which investigated the dam only one was in support - the QLD Govt submission.

I took the time to meet (or more correctly ambush) Peter Garrett at the Woodfood Folk Festival in Dec 2006 to brief him on the concerns over the proposed dam and you are absolutely spot on when you say this will be a test of his determination. Lets hope he hasn't sold out to the man.

David Gibson

An even earlier test of the Federal EPBC Act will be how the federal government responds to the Queensland Government's clear breaches of the EPBC approval conditions placed on Paradise Dam. The non complience of this dam with it's federal conditions was clearly identified in the DEWHA audit of the dam conducted last year. The same proponent is now proposing to use its actions on Paradise Dam and the Burnett as a model for its assault on the Mary.

We may be able to claim some degree of ignorance for our destruction of the Murray-Darling system. The destruction of the Burnett system has been almost assured by the actions of the Beattie Labor government and the traditional pig-headed attitudes of preceeding premiers and role-models. But now, in the full light of current scientific knowledge and historical experience of the likely consequences of their actions, are Rudd, Wong and Garrett going to join hand in glove with the Bligh Labor Government and partake in the pre-meditated destruction of the Mary River system?

Thank you for an excellent and well balanced article.

I would like to add to the comments by Rob Hales in respect of voluntary property sales to QWI.

In a series of information briefings from the Queensland Government a couple of months after the project was announced, it was made clear to landowners whose properties were required for the inundation and buffer areas, that under a voluntary sale process the government would buy the whole of the property if that was what the landowner wanted. However it was emphasised that if a voluntary sale was not completed, at some point the property would be compulsorily acquired and when that occurred, there would be no price negotiation and the land acquired would be either all of the property or only that part of the property that the Government required. To many people, the second issue was scarier than the first.

The implication of partial acquisition only is that the land owner may well be left with property that is unusable, unattractive, uninhabitable, and/or practically worthless. While to those whose properties were to be totally consumed by the inundation or buffer area this is not an issue, to others the risk was just great to bear.

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss what is happening to our community and the environment here in the Mary Valley. I would like to provide an example of how QWI have conducted their negotiations. My neighbour (farmer, near retirment age) has refused to have any dealings with the company, although they want 12 acres of his 50 acre block. QWI contractors entered the site through a back fence, conducted drilling bores and surveyed for the new road without telling him they were there. He made contact with them to raise his objection to this and to inform them that his cattle got out. He still hasn't had his $15,000 bull returned (2 weeks it has been gone). A negotiator met with him at his home. They discussed his concerns at the kitchen table. My neighbour was strongly encouraging to sell now. He was told that they'd take what they want in a few months time (presumably with an approval from Garrett given) so he should sell now. The QWI negotiator had a personal body guard with him at he meeting. Is this the way public officials conduct business in other parts of Australia?