The tragedy of Lake Pedder tragic because of failure to give weight to values not expressed and perhaps not expressible in money terms. Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, writing as Vice President of the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Various witnesses have spoken to us of Lake Pedder as a kind of symbol, and the decision on Lake Pedder as a turning-point in Australian history.
The controversy over the flooding of Lake Pedder has, it is true, been the most sustained, the most widespread, and the most deeply felt, of any conservation issue which has yet arisen in this country.
Of all the natural assets yet threatened with destruction in Australia, Lake Pedder is seen as the most precious.
Thus the Pedder controversy has indeed become, very naturally, a kind of front line, a field of battle, between opposing forces. It is clear that Pedder has come to assume this kind of symbolic significance for a vast army of men and women throughout Australia, including some of our finest and most distinguished people -artists, scientists, educationists, bushwalkers, conservationists and other men and women, young and old, from many different walks of life.
This in itself becomes a factor of importance, (at least in political terms), in deciding what had best be done. Generations of Australians will judge their own country, and shape their image of it and of their leaders by reference to the way in which this issue is decided. It behoves us to look carefully to it.
Another relevant matter : it is or should be so much easier, we believe, for the HEC and those who supported the flooding of Pedder to accept a reversal or a postponement of the decision, than it would be for those opposed to it to accept the flooding of Pedder. The reason for this is obvious enough : a reversal or postponement of the flooding should be seen by those who advocated the diversion of the Huon as, at worst, a triumph of emotion and sentiment over common sense but one which, nonetheless, costs them but little, in any personal sense; for those who oppose the flooding, however, the loss of Pedder would be a very real and personal loss, and a cause of bitter resentment against those responsible for it for generations to come, a cause of division in Tasmania and indeed Australia for many years in the future. But a decision to save the Lake, or postpone the flooding, would come to many throughout Australia as a kind of modern miracle, a resurrection from the dead, a testament that democracy can still be made to work, a living proof that we are not the crass, materialistic people we sometimes fear ourselves to be. It would do much to restore the faith of the Australian people in themselves and their leaders, and their hopes for a new order in which some thing as precious as Pedder can rate higher than the making or saving even of quite a large sum of money.
There are now a number of precedents for this kind of occurrence reversal, that is under pressure of public opinion, of engineering plans and works or the spending of large sums to alleviate adverse consequences, often after very large sums of money have already been spent. Some of these are mentioned in our joint Interim Report. The American Everglades case, Lake Manapouri in New Zealand, and the recovery of Abu Simbel, are well known examples.
The lowering of the impounded waters to restore Lake Pedder could herald a new era, a transmutation of the Australian ethos and our whole attitude to our country. Pedder could be a touchstone, a turning point; the restoration of the Lake would come to be seen as an act of atonement, of magnanimous reconciliation between those who planned, perhaps too well, and those who care, so much.
We have addressed ourselves in this Report to various interrelated questions concerning Lake Pedder : the aesthetic considerations; the recreational and scientific values; the national status and importance of the South-West and Lake Pedder as a National Park, and a wilderness area of world renown; the symbolic significance of Pedder. All the answers, as we have seen, (at least in this writer's view), point in the one direction, the saving of Pedder.
There is only one real argument against it; it is that upon which the decision began, and that upon which the argument must end the economic argument that the flooding of Lake Pedder will create more electric power, for a lesser unit cost, or putting it another way, that the cost of any alternative was too high. For a small State such as Tasmania this appeared to be argument enough.
Why then, should the Australian Parliament and people offer to accept responsibility for the cost of a modification to save Pedder?
The answer is perhaps obvious enough from what has gone before. In a single phrase : because Lake Pedder is worth it.
How does one "price" a lake such as Lake Pedder?
Some comparisons may be helpful. Art patrons quite commonly have to make up their minds what they are prepared to pay, say, for a painting or a piece of sculpture. Men and women quite often have to decide how much extra they are prepared to pay in order to acquire some merely ornamental feature in a house or garden, or a public building. A State or city may have to decide how much it is pre pared to pay in order to have an opera house. True, there may be some kind of market to aid in establishing the value of a painting in the market; and again, there will be an estimated cost of erecting the building, or the ornamental feature; but this should not obscure the fact that in each of the hypothetical cases put men and women do have to decide how much it is worth to them, in money, to acquire or retain something which might never be saleable for that price, nor capable of earning any money for the owner -something which they want for its aesthetic value alone.
The matters which determine the answer are, first, how much one wants the desired object, and secondly, how much one has to spend.
The question that now arises for the Australian Parliament and people is, in principle, much the same as the cases we have put. The scale is very different, of course; and the funds to be employed are public funds. Instead of a work of art, to be acquired perhaps by a connoisseur for his own gratification, we have here a Lake and environs, with all the qualities and values for so many people, now and for generations to come, which have been described. In lieu of the gratification of a personal whim we have a Government endeavouring to decide whether it is proper to allocate public funds for the Lake's preservation, and to that extent, necessarily diverting those funds from other purposes.
But there is one great difference in this case, which distinguishes it from all the others we have put : the choice is now or never.
The man who decides not to buy a Drysdale this year can comfort himself with the thought that he may be able to afford it next. The State or city can decide to defer the erection of its opera house.
But Lake Pedder, which was ours, is in danger of being lost for ever. By spending the money now we can save it for posterity. By refusing to outlay the money now we shall lose it for ever. If once we let this opportunity slip, we can never re-create it, however much we spend, that is certain.
And so it comes to this : Is it worth $30 million, or even $48 million (the very highest figure, we believe, ever placed upon it by the Tasmanian Government and we do not stay to argue it),to save Lake Pedder? Suppose, if it were possible, some rich foreigner were to have offered us $48 million for it -lock, stock and barrel. Should we not have spurned the offer, treated it with the contempt it deserved?
Many governments and people have thought it worthwhile to spend, or lose, far more money, for less, that much is certain. Governments and people throughout the world subscribed some $40 million to save from the flooded Nile some statuary carved by human hands, at Abu Simbel. The people of New South Wales will pay some $100 million for their Opera House. A DDL class destroyer will cost us over $300 million. Saving Lake Pedder would cost the Australian people perhaps two or three dollars per head pretty cheap for a Lake such as Pedder, "one of the most incredibly beautiful places in Australia. "
For the year 197(+1971 we spent $1.300 million on alcohol, and $550 million on tobacco and cigarettes. New South Wales alone spent $2.725 million on legal gambling in 19711972. And we cannot afford to pay $30 million, just once, to retain a most precious Lake? Then are we poor indeed, poor, and mean in spirit. There will be no other year when we can pick up a Lake, and all it stands for, quite so economically
The issue can be simply stated. it is the value of Lake Pedder, which is a matter of opinion, set against the value of a power development, which can be assessed in real terms ...
The Hen. W.A. Bethune. then Premier of Tasmania. (From a letter to the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, dated the 20th December, 1971).
One of the most incredibly beautiful places in Australia.
From the book, Lake Pedder
It is of little use to say, as one has done, that Lake Pedder can be saved, (in its physical and biological aspects), or that Lake Pedder should be saved, unless one can foresee a way in which this can be accomplished, having regard to the political realities.
"Isn't it too late" people ask.
No : it is not too late.
But Pedder will not be saved unless the Australian people care enough.
This Enquiry was not a mere academic exercise, divorced from political reality, for members of the Committee. On the contrary, brought face to face with those realities as we were in many ways, during the course of our Enquiry, we could not fail to be very conscious of them. Politics as such were not our concern; but the political realities, as they related to the saving of Pedder, these could not fail to be of interest to us. It seems to me more realistic, therefore, and not unhelpful, to endeavour to spell out those realities and the possibilities and probabilities as the writer sees them.
When it proved impossible to persuade the Tasmanian Government to change its decision to flood Pedder, the only practicable way to save it, (following the election of the Labor Government in the Federal sphere in December 1972), lay through this Committee. in the first instance, and through the decisions, next, of the new Australian Government, and last, through that of the Tasmanian Government, which will follow this Committee's Report.
It became fairly apparent that there were three stages in the process:-
Obviously a Report from this Committee favouring the saving of the Lake, (or at least a moratorium period, to grant it a reprieve), was the first essential. But this Committee was important in other ways also. First, the very fact of its appointment was important in keeping up the hopes that had almost died. Some people still cared enough, had faith and hope enough, to keep trying, though Pedder was drowning. That was the message it signalled.
And then our sittings, and particularly the hearings in Hobart, were valuable also. They generated some controversy, true -but by the same token they generated publicity also, publicity for a cause no longer dead. Our Committee hearings provided a forum a forum for the conservationists, for the HEC, for the Government of Tasmania, or anyone else who wished to present a view. The HEC and the Government, one regrets, disdained our forum; the conservationists occupied it, and day after day they spread their message of faith and hope and love of Pedder.
And perhaps our proceedings helped to create a climate of opinion in which people could at least contemplate again the possibility that Pedder might yet be saved.
So, we now have a Report favouring the restoration of the Lake, or at least a moratorium. to give it that reprieve, that last chance of resurrection from the desolation to which Pedder and all its beauty had been condemned. But that is merely the first step.
"How will the Government react?" some might say.
Yes, but first, how will the Australian people react? It's a precious piece of their Australia, after all. And in these days of open government, they have a right to be informed, one would think, and to demonstrate their reaction, before the Australian Government makes its decision -certainly before it decides to reject the Report, if that is possible.
And so one hopes that the Report will be quickly published and widely circulated, to give the maximum opportunity for public information and public debate, before the next fateful decision, that of the Australian Government, is made.
No-one wishes to see repeated the mistakes of the past -the mistakes that led directly to the immersion of Pedder -the secrecy, the delay in informing the Parliament and the public that there were ways in which Pedder might be saved, the failure of the Government to see that there were things which mattered even more than money to an ever-increasing number of the Australian people.
Of course, not everyone can or will read our Report. But a lot of people will, or so one hopes. Some of the Ministers and Members of the Australian and Tasmanian Parliaments, for a start; some of the public servants in key positions; some of the media people -editors and commentators, and so on; and some of the people in the community who care about these things.
And if enough of these people read our Report, and it finds favour with them, they will influence others. In this way Pedder will have a chance of survival.
Times have changed. One recalls that the present Prime Minister himself, speaking as Leader of the Opposition, at the Sunbury Conference, in May 1972, said these words :
"If anybody is prepared to say in the Federal Parliament, 'We made a mistake and we will help to pay to correct that mistake', I'll support him ... I'm telling you we made a mistake ... it's no good going and blaming them (Tasmania) without first admitting that we in Federal Parliament, in all parties, made he despoliation possible in the first place ... pot the proposition (hat we should reverse flooding) and I'll support it."
And that is what Mr Tom Uren M.P., now Minister for Urban and Regional Development did say in the Federal Parliament:--
"Now is the rime to set aside politics and admit we were all wrong, including all of us in Parliament. Let us all be big enough to admit we were wrong. Let us rectify our mistake. This is what I am asking the Government to do."
These are the kinds of utterance which rekindled hopes for Pedder, and gave reason to believe in the possibility of a new deal for conservation under the new Government.
But support for Pedder comes not from the Australian Labor Party alone. The Australia Party and the Democratic Labour are both strong in their support for conservation issues. And although the Liberal Party declined, for understandable reasons, to take the initiative to save Pedder before the December elections, declarations by Party spokesmen would appear to indicate that in the Federal sphere Liberals will certainly not oppose, and in the Tasmanian State sphere would actually welcome, an Australian Government initiative to save the Lake -provided, in the latter case, that the Australian Government is prepared to meet the cost, and Tasmania is not financially prejudiced in any other way.
There is good reason to believe, therefore, that the Government would be well supported by a consensus of opinion throughout Australia if it were to endeavour to honour the promises, or half-promises, made by Mr Whitlam and Mr Uren before the elections. And history would count it to their credit.
What is called for (having regard to the natural sensitivity of the Tasmanian Government on this issue), is a public, open, generous offer by the Australian Government to the Tasmanian Government, somewhat along the lines :
"Please allow the Australian people to retain Lake Pedder. And let us pay the cost, whatever it may be. And we assure you -Tasmania will nor be prejudiced financially in any other way by he receipt of these funds."
The' principle is the thing; once that is accepted the experts will find a way to reach detailed agreement, (even by the decision of agreed arbitrators, if need be, though that should be unnecessary between men of good-
The last decision will be that of the Tasmanian Government, for it is that Government alone, in present circumstances, which can be expected to decide the matter.
I have given reasons earlier for my belief that if the appropriate offer is made by the Australian Government, the Tasmanian Government may be expected to accept. (See under the heading "Predominance of the Economic Factor", above).
Such a decision, if given not grudgingly, but graciously, generously, magnanimously, would do them much credit. It will be a precedent which will have echoes around the world. The saving of Pedder will take its place alongside the saving of Abu Simbel, Lake Manapouri and the Everglades. one of the deeds of the twentieth century for which the whole of mankind will be grateful for generations to come.
One hopes, indeed one knows for certain, that the lovers of Pedder will keep on trying to the very end, without ever giving up hope, as they will need to do if success is to be achieved.
A lot of patience is required in the conservation cause, as in pursuing any other great campaign for truth or right. One must be prepared for the long haul. One cannot always win. But there are great rewards, nonetheless, for those who will not give in.
Whilst there's yet life in the Lake, and faith in the hearts of those who love her, there's hope for Pedder.
Edward St. John
Canberra June 1973.
Lake Pedder Committee of Enquiry
Interim Report
I personally derived much assistance in preparing those parts of my reasons dealing with the history of the matter, and other background material, from the following major sources:-
A History and Critical Analysis of the Controversy concerning the Gordon River Power Scheme, a paper by Keith McKenry, included in the Pedder Papers, published by the Australian Conservation Foundation, 1972.
Why Lake Pedder Is Being Enlarged, a statement issued by the Tasmanian Hydro Electric Commission in March 1972, and subsequently published in the Pedder Papers.
Lake Pedder, subtitled Why a National Park Must be Saved, published by the Lake Pedder Action Committees of Victoria and Tasmania and the Australian Union of Students. 1972.
Waterpower and Wilderness: Political and Administrative Aspects of the Lake Pedder Controversy, by B.W. Davis, published in Public Administration XXXI(I), March, 1972, p. 21.
One has had to allow for the fact, of course, that the first, third and fourth of these publications were composed by people holding strong views, not only that Lake Pedder should be saved, but also that the Hydro-Electric Commission was very much at fault in the whole matter. It is partly for this reason that the Committee decided to postpone any attempt to write a full history until we produce Part II of our Report, by which time we shall have received, we trust, the detailed historical statement promised by the HEC (see Introduction to the Interim Report).
1. Hereinafter referred to as "the HEC" or "the Commission".
2. Mr Max Angus pointed out in his evidence before us that such was the size of the beach, "the city of Sydney from Circular Quay to Central Station and from Darling Harbour to Hyde Park would have fitted comfortably on the beach at Lake Pedder".
3. Geologist, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
4. Or perhaps substantially less than that, due to the varying effects of evaporation on the larger and smaller impoundments contemplated by the two alternatives: see later.
5. A note as to the principal sources, from which I shall quote freely, appears in Appendix "A" of these reasons. I shall refer in the footnotes to the various papers upon which I have drawn, and which are detailed in the Appendix, by the initials of their authors, namely Keith McKenry as K.McK, the Hydro Electricity Commission as HEC; Lake Pedder Action Committee as LPAC, and B.W. Davis as B.W.D.
6. B.W.D. p. 22.
7. Ibid p. 23.
8. K.McK. p. 10.
9. K.McK.pp.l2and 13.
10. K.McK. pp. 13 and 15.
11. HEC p. 51.
12. K.McK. p. 13.
13. See figure 2, Interim Report of this Committee.
14. P. 14.
15. P. 38.
16. Select Committee Report p. 11.
17. P. 53.
18. A reference to the New South Wales Opera House; now a much higher figure.
19. P. 10.
20. Australian Conservation Foundation.
21. Even the Hen. E.E. Reece, Premier of Tasmania when the development was authorised, in 1967, and since (except for an interlude from 1969 to 1972), had never seen Lake Pedder, it is said, until in 1973 he first saw it, and then from the air. The writer has recently been informed that Mrs Reece had stated in an interview that her husband had seen the Lake from the ground, in earlier days. If so, it gives fresh cause for hope.
22. An LPAC campaigning slogan.
23. Reader in Zoology, Monash University.
24. Who were, with the Australian Union of Students, its publishers, (1972).
25. It was clear from subsequent evidence that Mr Angus was referring strictly to the inner city areas of Sydney and Melbourne respectively; Pedder beach was wide and long enough to contain either of them.
26. Pedder Papers, pp 55 et seq.
27. Mr Jones, transcript.
28. Reader in Zoology, Monash University.
29. Lecturer at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
30. c.f. the evidence of Mr Bruce C. Jones referred to: "an intuitive appreciation of the effect produced by the sum total of its physical attributes". The idea that the aesthetic emotion is closely linked to an appreciation of the myriad forms of nature was advanced in evidence before us by Mr Geoff Parr, Senior Lecturer in Act, Tasmanian College of Advanced Education.
Regarding the cost of the Moratorium it should be noted that the $8M. mentioned in the Interim Report is NOT the expected cost, but the maximum cost. It is a contingency figure intended to cover the unlikely event of encountering both a higher demand than expected, and a succession of dry years over the critical period, when the Bell Bay oil-fired station would have to be run as a standby unit.
The annual rate of growth of power demand -ie the demand by customers for more electric power has been falling recently. The main reason for this change is the sharp drop over the past decade in power costs for thermal (coalfired) plants on the mainland, so that Tasmania no longer has a monopoly of cheap power. In particular, power at Gladstone (Queensland) is now markedly cheaper than from the Gordon scheme.
Since industry consumes two-thirds of the total power output, there seems little reason to expect power demand to rise sharply in future. The HEC has admitted this itself see "The Mercury". 8.3.'73,p.2.
Since the Interim Report was issued, fresh information has come to light. Figures from the Bureau of Census and Statistics for 1972-3 indicate an annual growth rate of 2.19/0.
This is one-third of the long-standing rate on which the HEC have based their construction programmes, including the Gordon scheme. Recently commissioned schemes have now given the HEC a considerable surplus of power generating capacity.
Evidence given in Appendix II of the Report shows that even if the growth rate rises to 3.5%.* power from the "Pedder" section would not be needed over this period tie till 1980, when the Pieman scheme is scheduled to begin producing power),and there would be no need to run Bell Bay.
Again, the Moratorium period could be reduced to two years, if need be this would provide a further safeguard and still be adequate for the purpose.
In other words, this means that:
Tasmanian power supplies would not be jeopardised, and
Apart from the minor cost of completing the current investigation and temporarily draining the Lake, the Moratorium delay will cost nothing.
(*Rate used by the HEC)
Lake Pedder Action Committee
September 1973
I'll admit I was one of the guilty ones...as I understand it, alternative arrangements ought to be made even at his stage...if anybody is prepared to say in the Federal Parliament, "We made a mistake, and we will help to pay to correct that mistake", I'll support him. I'll be in it...l'm telling you we made a mistake...and I'm not going to criticise the Tasmanians without acknowledging my own share of the responsibility...now you're saying we should now reverse it. We should pay to stop hat's going, any further. Well, put that proposition and I'll support it... let's see some of these issues through.
Hon E G Whitlam QC. now Australian Prime Minister speaking as Opposition Leader at Sunbury Architects Convention, May 1972.
There is no doubt at all that the saga of Lake Pedder will go down in Australian history. This case simply reflects the rather sudden awakening of the Australian people to what is happening to their natural heritage. In a pioneering society, the principal problems are to survive, to exploit and to develop. The Lake Pedder case marks the end of Australia's pioneering days and it ushers in a new phase of conscious concern by a// sections of the community for the long-term future of the natural and human environment I very much hope that never again will Australians have cause to question so vehemently a decision on any conservation issue.
HRH Prince Philip -'Pedder Papers' foreword, September, 1972.
The natural beauty and character of the area thus constitutes an important national asset, regardless of whether visitors to he region are classified as tourists (thus forming a kind of "cash crop") or whether they are classified as visitors, whose individual enjoyment is regarded as a thing of value.
Keith McKenry, BE MSc 'Pedder Papers', 1972
Tasmania is a beautiful and peaceful place. Tasmania is also a place at the crossroads, with people having very different and conflicting views about the future direction Tasmania should take. It is also he only state so far where conservationists have organised themselves to run candidates at State elections. Whether this continues here or spreads elsewhere will depend a lot on how governments of all political complexions respond to the highly articulate demands of the conservationists.
...I also want to deal with Lake Pedder symbolically. After Lake Pedder we all know that life in Tasmania or in Australia will never be the same again.
The people who feel most strongly about Pedder, are the people of the city and suburbs, the people who know that man is not nourished enough by city living alone. In the more alien, larger cities of the mainland this feeling is even stronger.
We (a possible Labor Government want to get quickly the real economic and environmental costs of all alternatives. Once this Enquiry has made recommendations, I will recommend these to my party for action. We must all be big enough to admit, like General de Gaulle did in Algeria, that we were wrong.
Just as an irresponsible local government can be overruled by a State Government in the Stare's interest, so must a Commonwealth Government act, in Australia interests...we will ensure that 'environmental wisdom' is practised. We will use Pedder to get our environment impact assessment policy off the ground. ...we will ensure that 'environmental wisdom' prevails and that it is not lost to State chauvinism.
A Federal Government must invest in Tasmania on behalf of all Australians and not only Tasmanians.
Environmental wisdom will prevail much more when people have a real say in the process of government..
Hon Tom Uren, M P now Minister for Urban Affairs & Regional Development as Labor Environment Spokesman at John Coates' election rally. Hobart, November, 1972.
At stake is not only the intrinsic value of Lake Pedder as part of Australia's not just Tasmania's irreplaceable natural heritage. At stake is also the credibility of the Federal Government's claim, and the firm belief of a growing number of Australians, that conservation of our natural resources and the environment must sometimes come before economic exploitation, even if the price is high. The Federal Government should pay that price and, if necessary, compel the Tasmanian Government through its financial powers, to comply.
The Age Editorial. June. 1973.
If the Federal Government doesn't come to the parry, it will have deceived the voters and again let down its own conservationists.
The Launceston Examiner Editorial. June. 1973.
The report of the Lake Pedder Committee now depends upon the attitude that is taken by the Australian Government
Hon E E Reece, M H A. Premier of Tasmania at ALP Conference, June, 1973.
I will be supporting the Committee's recommendations.
R F X Connor. Minister for Minerals and Energy. Canberra. July. 1973.
Further Reading
Other books published concerning Lake Pedder -
Damania, the Hydro-Electric Commission, The Environment and Government in Tasmania; edited by Dr R Jones. published by Pullers Bookshop (Publishing Division), Hobart. 1972.
Lake Pedder, Why a National Park Must be Saved; written and published by the Lake Pedder Action Committees, with the Australian Union of Students, Colong Committee and Save Our Bushlands Action Committee, Melbourne and Hobart. July. 1972.
Pedder Papers, Anatomy of a Decision; (contains A History and Critical Analysis of the Controversy concerning the Gordon River Power Scheme, by Keith McKenry BE MSc; and Lake Pedder: its Importance to Biological Science, by Drs I A E Bayly. PS Lake. R Swain, and P A Tyler; plus several other papers). published by the Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne, September 1972.
Echo in the Wilderness; by Ms H P Brinsmead of Melbourne, published by Oxford University Press, London, November, 1972 (children's fiction).