Paul Williams looks behind the politics of water

Will Kevin Rudd mimic Bob Hawke and promise to stop a dam?

FEDERAL Parliamentary Secretary for Water Malcolm Turnbull's accusation this week that the Queensland Government secretly plans to sell the $1.7 billion Western Corridor pipeline might be written off as mere mischief-making.

Superficially, it appears no more than an ambitious junior frontbencher scoring a few points against a political enemy. Turnbull certainly has form on this front. Since assuming his water responsibilities, he has launched broadsides at a number of states.

He accused New South Wales of being "happy to run their water companies for cash (and) avoid expensive investments so they can keep pocketing large dividends and taxes". Turnbull similarly attacked Victoria over its Ballarat-Bendigo pipeline proposal, refusing to fund the project until the Bracks Government released more details. And, in South Australia, he blasted the Rann Government for commissioning too little infrastructure.

It seems Turnbull is bent on a wider political strategy to hit Labor where it hurts.

By attacking Labor's stronghold in the states over an alleged inability to plan and administer basic infrastructure, the Federal Government hopes to blunt what has proven to be a very sharp assault by Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd on the Coalition's public opinion standing.

Of course, it might also be a simple case of the Commonwealth throwing its weight around, arrogantly reminding the states just who's boss in our present federal arrangement.

But there's probably another, more subtle, motive behind Turnbull's tack. It seems the Federal Government is softening up Queenslanders before the likely establishment of a potentially thorny Senate inquiry into the controversial dam at Traveston Crossing near Gympie.

The Traveston project, at a cost of about $1.7 billion, represents almost a quarter of the Beattie Government's $8 billion water plan. It is, by any measure, a huge financial and political investment, and state Labor has a lot to lose if the plan is scuttled.

Following angry protests over the resumptions of homes, the dis-endorsement of rebel MP Cate Molloy, and the subsequent loss to the Liberals of the seat of Noosa, the dam has already proven costly. The whole of Queensland Labor, and not just the Government, will be damaged if the dam is overturned.

And federal intervention is more probable than many would like to think.

Queensland's problem is that virtually no one outside the state supports the dam, with many inside also hotly opposed. In fact, opposition to the dam has seen the forging of some unholy political alliances.

The Greens and Democrats, for example, apparently have found a soul mate in Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce, who described the dam as an "environmental disaster" that would only result in a "$2 billion swamp". Joyce's sentiments are echoed by Liberal Senator Russell Trood, who was also "not convinced" the dam would solve our water problems.

Given independent evidence that rare species such as the Mary River turtle and the Queensland lungfish will be threatened by the dam, it's likely the proposal will be referred to a Senate committee on environmental grounds alone.

But it is the less publicised support the federal ALP has tacitly given any Senate inquiry that should alarm Queensland Labor most. Put simply, when ALP Opposition water spokesman Anthony Albanese said federal Labor would "not oppose" the move, Queensland Labor was left out in the cold.

Apart from the humiliation at being deserted by federal colleagues, the divide between state and federal Labor augurs very badly in an election year, particularly in Queensland where so many federal gains are needed.

Given that Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd also has pledged to investigate the proposal, we might even see Traveston in 2007 pick up where the Franklin River left off in 1983.

But can we really expect Rudd to mimic Bob Hawke and surf to power on a promise to stop a dam?

Source: The Courier Mail