QUEENSLANDERS who remember the 1974 floods that claimed 14 lives in the state's southeast understand a vital point that has eluded many of the naive journalists who have written about the 2011 floods and their aftermath. That is, Wivenhoe Dam was built for flood mitigation as well as to supply drinking water to a growing region.
The fact that Wivenhoe Dam was operated in breach of its manual in the days before last year's floods and that three of the dam engineers responsible produced a false document to cover their tracks was established by the year-long royal commission-style inquiry. As Supreme Court judge Catherine Holmes said in her final report in March: "There are several things that may have motivated the three engineers to present the false flood report, including a wish to protect their professional reputations from the damage that would be caused by a disregard of the manual or the maintenance of SEQWater's immunity (from potentially massive damages claims)." The engineers were referred to the state's Crime and Misconduct Commission, which found no evidence of criminal offences or official misconduct.
Against that background, this week's report by US army engineers, which The Australian Financial Review and Brisbane's The Courier-Mail claimed "backed" and "cleared" the SEQWater flood engineers, should be viewed with extreme scepticism. Based as it was on the engineers' false report, it was unlikely to be anything other than favourable to them -- especially as Campbell Newman's government briefed the US team to exclude consideration of Justice Holmes's findings about the false flood report.
No doubt the cash-strapped Queensland government hopes the US report will help it save on compensation payouts to thousands who could sue for damages for their loss of property and livelihoods as a result of the floods. This is no excuse, however, for Mr Newman to play down the findings of such a significant inquiry. At this stage, he is getting away with it because too many journalists and editors are content with once-over-lightly coverage of a complex issue deserving of the most thorough and sophisticated reporting. As well as disclosing how much money was wasted on the US report, Mr Newman must be pressed to explain why the US team was hamstrung by such narrow and absurd terms of reference. The resulting whitewash, lauded as an "independent review" by the AFR, has as little credibility as a hypothetical review by an overseas government exonerating corrupt former Queensland police commissioner Terry Lewis based on his testimony to the Fitzgerald Inquiry alone, while ignoring its findings that he was responsible for serious corruption. Unfortunately for the public, the business tabloid and other media have allowed their coverage to be skewed by their frustration that, unlike others who accepted the official line, The Australian's Hedley Thomas raised pertinent questions about releases from the dam in the lead-up to the floods, when Wivenhoe was allowed to soar from 106 per cent on Friday, January 7, to 148 per cent on Saturday, January 8, to peak at 191 per cent on Tuesday night, January 11.
Combing through official documents, Thomas later uncovered contradictions between official records and what the engineers told the inquiry. As a result of his reports, Justice Holmes re-opened hearings at the inquiry, later concluding that the Wivenhoe Dam had been mismanaged -- a finding that was not subsequently appealed or challenged by the engineers or government, and that is no way diminished by the US report. News that Thomas had been named the 2012 Queensland Journalist of the Year for his investigation was reported by the AFR under the fatuous headline "Soggy ending" -- which sums up much of the coverage of the issue.
Another factor that has received scant attention is the false alarmism, rife for years before the rain-soaked summer of 2010-11, that water shortages had become a permanent part of Australian life. At least in part, authorities were reluctant to release water from the dams after years of severe water restrictions and warnings from Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery, among others, who predicted in 2007 that Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would run out of water and warned Australians to "stop worrying about 'the drought' -- which is transient -- and start talking about the new climate". Such matters are again pertinent, with Brisbane's dams close to 100 per cent as the wet season approaches. The aftermath of the floods, and the importance of avoiding a repeat, highlights the importance of public interest reporting.
COMMENT: The integrity and professionalism of the US Army Corps of Engineers is under serious question as as result of their so-called "independent" report into the 2011 Brisbane River flood. The US Army Corps was specifically prevented by its terms of reference specified by the Queensland Government from considering the report and findings of the Floods Commission of Inquiry that the engineers involved had created and provided a false flood report. Given that the US Army Corps was so hog-tied in trying to unravel the truth of the entire event, resulting in their grossly-lopsided report, they should have declined the brief and said to the Queensland Government they would not be party to such an elaborate cover-up which prevented them from going to the very core of the issue. The US Army Corps of Engineers has shown itself to be less than professional over their conduct in this matter and have forever blemished their record of professionalism and integrity. - Greater Goodna Flood Group
26.9.12
