Peter, your comment regarding your 'surprise' that Powerlink's Woolooga line is to continue to Caboolture is a proven lie. When Powerlink's media release during late 2007 or early 2008 indicated the line would end at Eumundi with no need to expand further, some of your constituents took that claim to you to confirm. We were emailed later when you reported of this questioning of Powerlink and their confirmed plan to continue the line south as noted on post 2002 maps which caused our writing campaign to enlist participation by the southern MPs (unfortunately all Labor). I think you are falsely denying knowledge to protect yourself from criticism when the line is extended closer to your Nambour base and affected residents similarly object to the 40 prior year authorization, claims of an "existing easement" and allegation that no compensation is due under such circumstances. Not just few constituents but others specifically warned you of such plan and its future effects on your other southern residents during our September 2008 meeting, while also warning this appears to be a "test case" in which if Powerlink's agreed false interpretations of the law are allowed here, they will more likely avoid repeated challenges there.

PL's claim of thorough assessment is directly proven to be a lie given the statements by Jardine. If the line is planned to extend to Caboolture as reported, and Jardine indicates within an alleged existing easement and by an existing line, it simply tells all, obviously already dismissing any highway option route in favour of PL's pre-determined route which was supported by the sham EIS process. It is interesting how the latest PL newsletter specifically indicates the line will involve "new easements" for its entire lengthy, while Jardine reverts to the "existing easement" analogy. The double wide easement means nothing when the required printed purpose doesn't authorize other than "an Electric Line" and the proposed 1972 easement which attempted to authorize multiple lines was rejected. The wider easement width was needed for the expected access tracks and alignment options winding through steep terrains. However, as we know, those 100% full length access tracks claimed to also exist by the sham EIS, simply don't, and remain an ongoing fight with me as PL illegally trespasses on my property and risks damages to my property and business operations.

We so tire of fighting blatant mistruths when it appears you are more worried about keeping politically neutral to advance your self-interests.

We continue to wonder why there has been no media release from you (incl Wellington’s Way) proving Main Roads supports the line within the existing corridor and suggest design alterations which would overcome the problematic two intersections which have been there only areas of past concern. Such a story would prove how "thoroughly assessed" the highway route will be by PL and PB when they both have deliberately lied and distorted the Main Roads position again to promote their pre-determined.

Gamisou,

Eerwah Vale