The Pioneer-Burdekin Pumped Hydro Project has been a contentious issue for the communities of the Mackay region, with locals raising concerns about the project's transparency and social impact. After an anonymous tip-off revealed that Queensland Hydro had taken an individual from EMM Consulting on a project tour, Save Eungella reached out to request the same opportunity. Our aim was to provide an alternative tour of the local area to showcase how the project has already affected the community and to ensure a fair perspective on the project's social impact.
Despite our efforts, Queensland Hydro rejected our request, explaining that the individual from EMM Consulting was part of the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) process, which is scheduled to occur after an investment decision is made—likely in 2025. This response only deepened our concerns. Why was someone who will be involved in the SIA, a process meant to take place post-funding decision, provided a project tour by Queensland Hydro? This action alone undermines the integrity of an impartial and thorough SIA, which should remain independent of the project proponents' influence. Furthermore, why was Save Eungella's request for a similar opportunity rejected? If the SIA takes place after an investment decision is made, why was that person given a tour of the project area in the first place?
This issue about accurately documenting the social impact of the project is critical. In late 2023 and early 2024, numerous individuals and community representatives were interviewed by Mott MacDonald as part of the Social Impact Evaluation (SIE) for the project. However, when Save Eungella and other community members requested findings and evaluations derived from these interviews, most of these requests were ignored. When Queensland Hydro did provide information, the findings were vague and did not align with our accounts or concerns.
It is our belief that the insights from the Mott MacDonald interviews have been largely disregarded in the SIE. Queensland Hydro has presented summaries to the Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG), but these presentations include minimal information—such as an 85-word summary buried in half a slide on page 25 of a presentation. This level of detail is far from sufficient and does not genuinely represent the community's concerns about the project's impact so far.
The SRG Meeting Minutes and Presentations have mentioned the SIE findings, but these remain at a high-level and focus primarily on the evaluation process itself, such as Mott MacDonald’s workshops and surveys, rather than providing concrete evidence of the community’s concerns. Much of the data referenced appears to be based on desktop analyses of census data rather than direct community engagement, failing to capture the unique characteristics and voices of our community. The lack of thorough, on-the-ground evaluation shows that Queensland Hydro is more interested in meeting technical requirements than understanding the real and present impact the project is having.
Furthermore, Save Eungella has serious concerns about a clear conflict of interest that threatens the credibility of the evaluation process. GHD, Mott MacDonald, and Stantec, all part of the Water2Wire Joint Venture, have been contracted by Queensland Hydro for engineering and design work on the project. At the same time, these firms are also responsible for conducting assessments that influence whether the project proceeds. This overlap presents a significant conflict of interest. How can firms with a financial stake in the project be trusted to provide unbiased and objective assessments? It is highly likely that these firms would be motivated to frame findings favourably to ensure the project continues, regardless of community impact.
Compounding these issues is the fact that Save Eungella only learned through word of mouth—rather than from Queensland Hydro directly—that the individual from EMM Consulting involved in the SIA was taken on a project tour. This lack of communication and transparency is now common practice with Queensland Hyro and has reinforced our belief that Queensland Hydro continues to present a one-sided narrative while failing to listen to the voices of those most affected by the project.
In response, Save Eungella reached out via email to Queensland Hydro, seeking clarification on four critical points:
Why was someone involved in the SIA process, which takes place after the funding decision, given a project tour?
Why do the findings from the SIE fail to reflect the actual sentiments of the local community, instead relying on census data rather than direct interviews?
Why have several requests from the community for access to interview findings from Mott MacDonald been ignored?
What is the explanation for the clear conflict of interest in involving firms like Mott MacDonald and GHD in both engineering and assessment roles for the project?
Queensland Hydro responded to our email but failed to provide clear or specific answers. Instead, we received a vague and evasive response that skirted around our concerns and offered no meaningful information. Queensland Hydro’s continued refusal to be transparent only further indicates that their interest lies not in listening to the community but in pushing the project forward on their terms, regardless of the social and environmental costs.
This lack of transparency and accountability from Queensland Hydro shows that they are determined to conduct this project in a way that suits their agenda, disregarding the well-being and voices of the community. As we continue to advocate for fair and honest engagement, it’s vital that the public is made aware of these tactics. We will persist in seeking answers and holding Queensland Hydro accountable for their actions.
Save Eungella remains committed to amplifying the voices of our community and demanding the transparency that Queensland Hydro has consistently promised, but refused to provide.