Powerlink accused of bully boy tactics
12:00a.m. 11th September 2008
Energy minister Geoff Wilson has asked Powerlink to explain why it is seeking court costs from a Cooroy resident who unsuccessfully challenged their right to enter his property.
During parliament in Brisbane yesterday, Nicklin MP Peter Wellington accused the state government-owned corporation of using “bully boy tactics” to intimidate landowners involved in the Woolooga to Eerwah Vale power line upgrade.
Cooroy Country Cottages owner Jim Cooney, whose three unit accommodation facility lies in the upgrade’s path, questioned whether workers had a right to drive on his land outside an easement in Maroochydore District Court.
Heavy vehicles driving on the property outside the easement could damage the land which would mean the three cottages would not be able to accommodate people and Mr Cooney would lose income.
Mr Cooney’s legal bid to stop Powerlink was not successful and the company has since asked the court to order Mr Cooney to pay costs which are estimated to be as much as $20,000.
Mr Wellington said Powerlink was “going in for the final kill”.
“They knew Mr Cooney was not legally represented so they sought orders that he pay,” Mr Wellington said.
“I believe there is no valid case for Mr Cooney to have to pay Powerlink’s legal team’s cost for this matter.”
Mr Wellington questioned whether Powerlink’s claims in a recent report that they valued their relationship with the community were true.
Late yesterday, the energy minister said high standards were set for government owned corporations and Powerlink was expected to engage with the community at a high level.
Mr Wilson would not say if he thought it was appropriate for Powerlink to ask for court costs because he did not know details.
“We expect them to be good corporate citizens,” Mr Wilson said.
“In relation to the gentleman that Mr Wellington spoke to, I’ve asked Powerlink to provide me with a full briefing on the matter.
“When that’s received, I’ll consider what they have to say.”
Mr Wilson understood residents had concerns about the power line upgrade but insisted it was needed to prepare Queensland for the future.
“It’s about planning the construction of infrastructure that anticipates the growth on the Sunshine Coast,” he said.
“(That growth) is averaging about 4% to 5% and is in some places 7%.
“No one would thank Powerlink if they didn’t do long term planning.”
Mr Cooney was not available for comment yesterday because he was out of the country.
- 1Megacity will 'destroy tourism'
- 2Foxy pandas at Australia Zoo
- 3Woombye woman faces eighth driving charge
- 4Affordable homes boost for the Coast
- 5Dalai Lama meeting
- 6Chopper crash victim named
- 7Infected players blame Crusher Park
- 8Labor MP supports 'Noosangatta' fight
- 9Prison Break, Sunshine Coast style
- 10Moves to start Paper Poort in Sydney
Recent Comments
One such case is when Clarry Gray visited his neighbour to give her a pumpkin from his garden and was told from her that Powerlink had decided to build a 50acre substation on his family's property at Eerwah Vale. Two days later he received notification from Powerlink confirming his worst nightmare.
A couple of weeks later some Powerlink representatives came to speak with him.
Powerlink did not have the respect to even come and see Clarry in person to explain their intentions.The fact that he found out from a neighbour is just one example of how they treat the community they claim to be consulting with.
Minister Wilson, it is apparent that Powerlink have not been engaging with the community or with integrity 'on a high level.'
It is a disgrace that the State Government of Queensland allows these ''bully boy tactics'' to continue.
We have told Powerlink that we don't want the 50 acre sub-station and high voltage transmission pylons and lines in this unique area. There are alternatives to their proposal. Where is the consultation when they do not listen?
Namely the Project Manager claimed we are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs incurred for legal representation that we felt we needed due to the legalised notices given to us by Powerlink.
Being normal citizens and tax payers, the Govt owned corporation claims to negotiate with property owners over rights to enter property, however this information has been an excercise for Powerlink to gain vital property information to benefit themselves. After attemping to negotiate, landowners have -in the end, been served with a "Sect 36" and the negotiation requests discarded. A cost outlay that ultimately benefited Powerlink.
Shame, shame, shame Powerlink!
Under the Queensland State Govt's Residential Tenancies Act, the landlord must provide 24hrs notice to the tenant to enter the property.
We closed the call and immediately the Powerlink Project Manager called back insisting Powerlink have access to the property [within the 24hr window]. No matter how many attempts we made to explain the requirements and ramifications, the Project Manager claimed Powerlink [a State Govt owned corporation] had right under the Sect 36 of the Land Aquisition Act of 1967, to gain access to the land. An Act from 1967 when there was "no" residential tenancy act!
He proceded to 'push' on us that they 'will' enter the land as required.
We felt intimidated by this approach and felt insulted by a man, a person, a human being representing a govt owned corporation, to use these tactics to gain entry. No respect.
We understand that the timing for the entry requirement was due to weather forecasting and convenience. Though we never decline entry to the land by Powerlink or their representatives, we do expect timely notice as requested in our 'failed' and 'costly' property access protocol negotiations.
Our sons grew up locally, attended local State schools and now High school.
It is fact that, bullying will not be tolerated in schools.
In the work place, bullying will not be tolerated.
So what do we call it when the State Govt owned corporation Powerlink bully the community. This will not be tolerated either.
Shame, shame, shame Powerlink!
I believe Powerlinks 'least cost" attitude is reflected throughout the project, and that sits very uncomfortable with many landowners, both with directly and indirectly landowners. One could only think this Land Acquisition Act 1967 is somewhat outdated.
Our property access negotiations failed, when Powerlinks chose not to implement a Weed Hygiene Declaration document that have put in place by other government departments and adopted by local shire councils. This document showed a more transparent and responsible weed control for our property, a section 36 was issued and (Powerlink) moved onto our property under their terms of weed management, that we recently encountered was had obvious signs of being flawed.
We also requested with ample time for them to reply, to supply us with a list of names and their purpose for access, only to remind them the day before entry that they had not done so. The verbal answer was “staff name” and a couple of others. I asked for an e-mail reply only to receive it with a key staff members name omitted and pupose for entry. I found this to be in total disregard to our place of business and as a property owner.
In my opinion, at all times all land-owners should know who is entering and for what reason the investigation is being conducted on their property, I believe landowners in the Eerwah Vale corridor have not been given this information fully.
I am in total support of P.A.G.E. questioning Powerlinks proposed 275kv High Voltage
We should remind them they are dealing with people, not with beasts.
Shame on Powerlink.
ORGANISATION
WRECKING
EERWAH-VALE
RESIDENT'S
LIVES
INDICATES
NON-COMPLIANCE
KYOTO PROTOCOL
Have your say
We welcome comments on our stories and blogs - after all it's your site. Please note comments should be on-topic and not abusive. Comments are checked before publication.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
Your comments will be checked, for legal reasons, before being posted live.
Thanks again for contributing to the Daily's online community.
We value your views.
Comment again