Ms MARTIN - 1995-11-29
Will the minister confirm that the construction of the `mother of all barrages' at Tommycut Creek was not supported by the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, nor by the Power and Water Authority, and that, in addition, it was contrary to the advice of the Sessional Committee on the Environment? Why didn't the minister inform the House last week that this bungled loss of taxpayers' and private landholders' funds was contrary to the advice of the Territory's hardworking public service?
Page 1072
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I might open my remarks by providing the good member for Fannie Bay with the following quotation: `As for criticism, do it in good time. Don't get into the habit of criticising only after the event'. That was Mao Zedong on 3 July 1955.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: The member sat in this House during the debate on the Mary River wetlands and made some very supportive remarks in the media after the announcement ...
Ms Martin: I thought you intended to have a sensible project, not ...
Mr REED: ... the government intended to put the barrage in place. Now she raises all sorts of concerns. She asks, for example, why the barrage failed? In fact, the barrage did not fail.
Ms Martin: Where is it?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: It was not possible to complete it, and I have explained why it was not completed. Thus, the fact is that, in pure terms, there was no failure of the barrage.
As a result of some unfortunate climatic events at the time ...
Mr Ede: Like tides - the tide came in and the tide went out.
Mr REED: ... principally 3 inches of rainfall in the catchment - does the Leader of the Opposition want to show enough manners to be able to hear the answer, given that the member for Fannie Bay has asked a question, or does he want simply to override the member for Fannie Bay and not hear the answer?
Mr Ede: Tell the truth.
Mr REED: There are people in the community who want to hear the answer.
Mr Stirling: Yes, I am sure they do! $0.5m!
Mr REED: To illustrate the ignorance and the total laziness of the member for Fannie Bay, I will quote from the Parliamentary Record of Wednesday, 18 October 1995. In relation to her comments about the Power and Water Authority, I said:
I must pay tribute to the young hydrologist, Dave Williams, from the Power and Water
Authority, whom I met earlier this week. He gave me very frank advice about the barrage,
and I thought him to be a very impressive young officer. The hydrologists have told us
that the probability of the barrage not working and of its being breached at some stage
during this wet season remains high. The
Page 1073
probability is that the breach will occur at or around the place where it is locked. If this occurs, in the
worst case scenario, we will have lost the $350 000 spent.
I further emphasised the high risk of this project by christening it the `mother of all barrages' so that even the member for Fannie Bay would be under no illusion that it was not a high-risk project.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Your bad manners are showing.
Mr Bailey: Your incompetence is showing!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Your bad manners are showing. Do you want the answer or not?
Mr Bailey: I would rather have bad manners than be as incompetent as you are.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: As far as the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries was concerned, I do not remember the precise advice it gave but it did not oppose ...
Mr Stirling: I bet you don't. I wonder why not?
Mr Coulter: You have never built anything in your life and you never will - any of you!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House.
Mr REED: Territorians listening to this broadcast have a much more sincere concern about the environment and the wetlands in the Mary River system than have members opposite. It is a fact that this was a high-risk project. The assertions made by the member are wrong. She has chosen to have this wonderful vision in hindsight. I suspect that she has not been to the site. On radio last week, the member asked why, before a barrage was constructed, a concrete base was not constructed on the bed of Tommycut Creek to build the barrage on. We did not even know what was in the bed of Tommycut Creek.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: We did not have the technical information to know even whether the mud that we were using to construct the barrage would be supported by the base of the creek.
Ms Martin: That is not what I said.
Page 1074
Mr REED: That is what you said. I will get the transcript for you. My staff will be looking for it at this moment.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. There is far too much prolonged comment from the opposition benches. When I call for order, I expect order. The honourable minister.
Mr REED: I will try to answer this question in low dulcet tones rather than having to shout over members opposite. The member for Fannie Bay forgets conveniently what she said or what has been said by others in the House. I ask her to read again the Parliamentary Record of 18 October. It gives thorough details of the costings of the barrage, the high risk involved and also the high returns if it had been successful. She has no respect at all for the officers or for the task force. All those people supported proceeding with the barrage. They saw that, whilst there was a high risk, there would be a high return if the barrage were successful. The fact is that some 45 000 m3 of material was placed in the construction of the barrage ...
Mr Stirling: How much of it is left?
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: They are becoming rude again. They simply cannot control themselves.
Mr Ede: What was the material?
Mr Coulter: I will show you the videos if you are genuinely interested!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The Leader of the Opposition again shows his ignorance. What was the material? That information is in the Parliamentary Record of 18 October. He was in the House at the time of the debate. He was fully aware of the fact that the material to be used in the construction of the barrage was local material which was to be excavated near the site. There was a reason for that which I fully explained at the time. That was used because the nearest hard fill was 40 km away. It was difficult enough getting equipment to the site.
That brings me to the point made again by the member for Fannie Bay on radio last week. She asked why the work was not done earlier. It was because we could not get the equipment in there. A smaller barrage had to be constructed to enable us to access the site where this barrage was constructed. That had also to coincide with the low tides.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is very difficult for the minister to get his point across when there is so much chatter across the Chamber.
Page 1075
Mr REED: Particularly when he is dealing with someone as thick and as hard to put the message across to as the member for Fannie Bay. She has no concept of the difficulty of this job. For her to suggest that we had to put a concrete foundation in Tommycut Creek, which is 105 m wide, before we constructed anything above it is simply ludicrous. I do not know how many tens of million dollars that would have cost, but it would have been prohibitive. This was an attempt to put in place a barrage to stop saltwater intrusion, and the stakes were high. It would have been a marvellous return if we had been successful. As I said on radio last week, all is not lost. We will wait to examine the situation at the end of the wet season, to see whether or not any of the work that was done remains and whether there is any silting in Tommycut Creek around the fill that was placed in there. If there is, we will reassess the situation and determine whether we can take advantage of the work done this year. Again, I pay tribute to all those who worked there 24 hours a day.
Ms Martin: So do I.
Mr REED: `So do I', says the member for Fannie Bay in a seemingly innocent but not heartfelt way, without knowing what they did, what they went through or giving them any credit. Rather, she handed out criticism.
It was a risk worth taking. Unfortunately, it was not successful, but we did do something. We did not navel gaze as do members opposite. We did not criticise after the event. We did not have the wisdom of hindsight, but we went out there and we ...
Mr Stirling: It is only taxpayers' money, so it does not matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: We will ...
Mr Stirling: You would not do it with your own money on your own property.
Page 1076
Page 1072
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I might open my remarks by providing the good member for Fannie Bay with the following quotation: `As for criticism, do it in good time. Don't get into the habit of criticising only after the event'. That was Mao Zedong on 3 July 1955.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: The member sat in this House during the debate on the Mary River wetlands and made some very supportive remarks in the media after the announcement ...
Ms Martin: I thought you intended to have a sensible project, not ...
Mr REED: ... the government intended to put the barrage in place. Now she raises all sorts of concerns. She asks, for example, why the barrage failed? In fact, the barrage did not fail.
Ms Martin: Where is it?
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: It was not possible to complete it, and I have explained why it was not completed. Thus, the fact is that, in pure terms, there was no failure of the barrage.
As a result of some unfortunate climatic events at the time ...
Mr Ede: Like tides - the tide came in and the tide went out.
Mr REED: ... principally 3 inches of rainfall in the catchment - does the Leader of the Opposition want to show enough manners to be able to hear the answer, given that the member for Fannie Bay has asked a question, or does he want simply to override the member for Fannie Bay and not hear the answer?
Mr Ede: Tell the truth.
Mr REED: There are people in the community who want to hear the answer.
Mr Stirling: Yes, I am sure they do! $0.5m!
Mr REED: To illustrate the ignorance and the total laziness of the member for Fannie Bay, I will quote from the Parliamentary Record of Wednesday, 18 October 1995. In relation to her comments about the Power and Water Authority, I said:
I must pay tribute to the young hydrologist, Dave Williams, from the Power and Water
Authority, whom I met earlier this week. He gave me very frank advice about the barrage,
and I thought him to be a very impressive young officer. The hydrologists have told us
that the probability of the barrage not working and of its being breached at some stage
during this wet season remains high. The
Page 1073
probability is that the breach will occur at or around the place where it is locked. If this occurs, in the
worst case scenario, we will have lost the $350 000 spent.
I further emphasised the high risk of this project by christening it the `mother of all barrages' so that even the member for Fannie Bay would be under no illusion that it was not a high-risk project.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Your bad manners are showing.
Mr Bailey: Your incompetence is showing!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: Your bad manners are showing. Do you want the answer or not?
Mr Bailey: I would rather have bad manners than be as incompetent as you are.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: As far as the Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries was concerned, I do not remember the precise advice it gave but it did not oppose ...
Mr Stirling: I bet you don't. I wonder why not?
Mr Coulter: You have never built anything in your life and you never will - any of you!
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Both sides of the House.
Mr REED: Territorians listening to this broadcast have a much more sincere concern about the environment and the wetlands in the Mary River system than have members opposite. It is a fact that this was a high-risk project. The assertions made by the member are wrong. She has chosen to have this wonderful vision in hindsight. I suspect that she has not been to the site. On radio last week, the member asked why, before a barrage was constructed, a concrete base was not constructed on the bed of Tommycut Creek to build the barrage on. We did not even know what was in the bed of Tommycut Creek.
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: We did not have the technical information to know even whether the mud that we were using to construct the barrage would be supported by the base of the creek.
Ms Martin: That is not what I said.
Page 1074
Mr REED: That is what you said. I will get the transcript for you. My staff will be looking for it at this moment.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will resume his seat. There is far too much prolonged comment from the opposition benches. When I call for order, I expect order. The honourable minister.
Mr REED: I will try to answer this question in low dulcet tones rather than having to shout over members opposite. The member for Fannie Bay forgets conveniently what she said or what has been said by others in the House. I ask her to read again the Parliamentary Record of 18 October. It gives thorough details of the costings of the barrage, the high risk involved and also the high returns if it had been successful. She has no respect at all for the officers or for the task force. All those people supported proceeding with the barrage. They saw that, whilst there was a high risk, there would be a high return if the barrage were successful. The fact is that some 45 000 m3 of material was placed in the construction of the barrage ...
Mr Stirling: How much of it is left?
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: They are becoming rude again. They simply cannot control themselves.
Mr Ede: What was the material?
Mr Coulter: I will show you the videos if you are genuinely interested!
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: The Leader of the Opposition again shows his ignorance. What was the material? That information is in the Parliamentary Record of 18 October. He was in the House at the time of the debate. He was fully aware of the fact that the material to be used in the construction of the barrage was local material which was to be excavated near the site. There was a reason for that which I fully explained at the time. That was used because the nearest hard fill was 40 km away. It was difficult enough getting equipment to the site.
That brings me to the point made again by the member for Fannie Bay on radio last week. She asked why the work was not done earlier. It was because we could not get the equipment in there. A smaller barrage had to be constructed to enable us to access the site where this barrage was constructed. That had also to coincide with the low tides.
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is very difficult for the minister to get his point across when there is so much chatter across the Chamber.
Page 1075
Mr REED: Particularly when he is dealing with someone as thick and as hard to put the message across to as the member for Fannie Bay. She has no concept of the difficulty of this job. For her to suggest that we had to put a concrete foundation in Tommycut Creek, which is 105 m wide, before we constructed anything above it is simply ludicrous. I do not know how many tens of million dollars that would have cost, but it would have been prohibitive. This was an attempt to put in place a barrage to stop saltwater intrusion, and the stakes were high. It would have been a marvellous return if we had been successful. As I said on radio last week, all is not lost. We will wait to examine the situation at the end of the wet season, to see whether or not any of the work that was done remains and whether there is any silting in Tommycut Creek around the fill that was placed in there. If there is, we will reassess the situation and determine whether we can take advantage of the work done this year. Again, I pay tribute to all those who worked there 24 hours a day.
Ms Martin: So do I.
Mr REED: `So do I', says the member for Fannie Bay in a seemingly innocent but not heartfelt way, without knowing what they did, what they went through or giving them any credit. Rather, she handed out criticism.
It was a risk worth taking. Unfortunately, it was not successful, but we did do something. We did not navel gaze as do members opposite. We did not criticise after the event. We did not have the wisdom of hindsight, but we went out there and we ...
Mr Stirling: It is only taxpayers' money, so it does not matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr REED: We will ...
Mr Stirling: You would not do it with your own money on your own property.
Page 1076
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016