Dam expert to miss Seqwater hearings

4 Feb 2012, 9:00 pm   -   Source: AAP
Share This

A Queensland dam expert will not take part in further hearings involving Queensland's Wivenhoe Dam operator, due to a perceived conflict of interest.

In a dramatic turn of events, the deputy commissioner of the Queensland flood inquiry will not appear in the remainder of hearings into Seqwater's handling of the Wivenhoe Dam to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest.

Nine extra days of the inquiry are being held in Brisbane to investigate allegations that the four engineers who controlled Wivenhoe Dam botched the water releases, caused unnecessary flooding and misled the inquiry over what water release strategies they were working under.

The integrity of the commission was questioned on a front-page story in The Courier-Mail, which accused deputy commissioner Phillip Cummins of having an alleged conflict of interest.

It was revealed that Mr Cummins is an associate of Australian Dams & Water Consulting, which had been hired by Seqwater to sit on a committee to review technical work in connection with the Wivenhoe manual.

Mr Cummins is not currently receiving any wage from Australian Dams & Water Consulting, but would take up work after the commission finished.

However, he would have nothing to do with the committee or its review.

The flood inquiry last August ordered the review, which raised the allegations that there is conflict of interest.

A spokesman for Commissioner Justice Cate Holmes said Mr Cummins was not aware until late Thursday that the consultant would take work with Seqwater.

The spokesman said it had been decided that Mr Cummins should not take part in any hearings that involve Seqwater, nor would he give advice to the commission in that area.

He will remain as a deputy commissioner.

"Justice Holmes notes that to date there has been no conflict of interest," the spokesman said in a statement.

"However, given the seriousness of the issues under consideration by the commission, she is concerned that its work not be compromised by the perception of a conflict in the future."

During Saturday's hearing, Ms Holmes said Mr Cummins did not advise her to make the "pretty obvious" recommendation to revise Seqwater's manual and she "was able to work that one out for herself".

She called on the editor of The Courier-Mail and the reporters to come to her and explain their actions for casting a shadow of doubt unnecessarily over the commission.

News Queensland editor-in-chief David Fagan and The Courier-Mail editor Michael Crutcher are standing behind journalists Tuck Thompson and Mark Solomons as well as their front-page story, which ran the headline: "Up to his neck in it".

"Our obligation is to present the facts to our readers," a statement from the paper said.

Seqwater's final report into the January floods, handed down in March last year, was again attacked during hearings on Saturday.

Counsel assisting the inquiry, Peter Callaghan SC, said the report was written like a punter going to the TAB, knowing the outcome of a race, placing a bet and having the cashier accept it.

He made the analogy after accusing Seqwater of writing parts of the final March report post the event to give the impression the dam's manual had been followed.

In particular, to give the impression that the correct water strategies had been enacted at the right time and the four engineers that operated the dam made conscious decisions about changes in real time.

Mr Callaghan grilled Seqwater principle hydrologist Terry Malone over whether he realised that people would have a problem with the technique used to write the final report.

"You would love wouldn't you ... to be able to go across to the TAB, look at the result of a race, fill out a ticket that backed a winner, put it in the machine and have the operator give it back to you and say that's a valid ticket," Mr Callaghan asked.

"I don't bet," Mr Malone replied.

Mr Callaghan noted that the witness had previously stated support for more record keeping during flood events and questioned why it would be necessary.

Mr Malone replied: "To satisfy an inquiry like this."

"Is that the only reason?" Mr Callaghan asked. "It appears to me to be."

  • Follow us: 
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • Follow us on Youtube