2nd Letter to the Minister regarding Range Road permits

Here is my latest email to TMR and the minister. It’s great that this in only one of many emails that other residents (I will let them identify themselves if they wish) have written to TMR, the Minister and the Premier expressing their anger and frustration over how the permit system has been implemented and the refusal of the Department to openly share the information and reasoning that has guided their decisions.

---

Wed 4/06/2025 4:10 PM

The Honourable Brent Mickelberg MP,
Minister for Transport and Main Roads

Dear Minister, 

I am disappointed not to have received a response from you to my previous email (May 21).  I acknowledge the response received on May 27 from your Director General  to an earlier email (May 19) on the same issue.

Unfortunately the response from Ms Stannard was not very informative and mostly repeated the rather vague information from TMR Range Road Updates. I had indicated this information was deficient for the purpose of understanding how the permit system had been developed and why it clearly discriminates between different categories of residents in Paluma. That email also refused to provide the PDCA with access to technical documents that would help us to understand the facts and reasoning behind permit decisions.

The Mt Spec Road has been closed to all traffic for nearly 4 months and continues to be closed to part-time residents and the general public.  The poor state of the dirt road providing access to the Village and surrounding district means that access is impossible or highly impractical for non-permanent who don’t have high clearance vehicles and those individual whose health could be compromised by travel over rough surfaces. Commercial enterprises in Paluma are in dire straits, and there are strong rumours that the range road will remain closed till the end of the year. This is virtually guaranteed to result in severe financial distress if not bankruptcies.

The latest update on the Mt Spec Range road report continues to arrogantly provide less and less information on the progress towards opening the Road to all residents, and the general public.  The PDCA finds it extremely disappointing that TMR  has not provided specific dates (or even provisional targets) for:

1. Opening permit applications from part-time residents
2. Analysis of permits applications and issue of formal permits
3. Commencement and likely duration of restoration works at critical sites

Closing of a public road and effectively cutting off homeowners from accessing their properties is a very significant imposition on people’s daily lives and personal freedoms. For many of us Paluma is an extension of our Townsville home and being refused access can be likened to being told we know longer have access to some of the rooms in our house.   In making such a major decision, with profound personal impacts the government has a duty to follow best practise and:

1. Base its decision on careful expert analysis of the risks to those requiring access, that is based on reliable verified data
2. Base its decision on a clear understanding of the risk tolerance of those who will be affected and the impacts of denying them road access
3. Seek independent review of its data, analysis conclusions
4. Consult (not just inform) those affected during the decision-making process, to explore level of risk tolerance, and alternative means of reducing risk whilst minimizing impacts
5. Openly share and explain the key data and logic behind its decision as part of this public consultation

Unfortunately, due to the active refusal of the Department to answer our request for information on data used and processes followed to make its decision, the residents of Paluma are quite reasonably inclined to consider the possibility that none of the above steps were properly followed and that the restrictions imposed are based on inadequate data and faulty reasoning. They also would be reasonably entitled to feel furious that major impositions on their lives have been made without adequate justification.

In addition to the lack of best practise in items 4 and 5 above and lack of demonstrated best practice in items 1-3,  residents’ confidence in TMR decision making has fallen due to two key decisions that defy common logic.  In the absence of any cogent explanation from TMR they just don’t pass the “Pub Test”. 

1. Closure of the road after dark.

TMR has frequently allowed traffic to travel up the range road after dark when the road had significant sections that were reduced to one lane and subject to traffic lights. Clearly the risk of a land slide does not increase at night, and the use of powered night lights on those critical sections would adequately ensure that any land slip would be detected as easily, or even better, than during daylight. So why insist that the road must be closed after dark for safety reasons? And why allow current permit holders to start up the range road at 6pm when this means that a large part of the trip will be made after sunset in darkness?   In the absence of any explanation from TMR, the most logical explanation is that the TMR wishes to avoid costs of manning the gates after 6pm. If so the TMR is being duplicitous in using safety as a more palatable justification than penny pinching.  If this is an unfair assessment TMR could just answer the question we have posed repeatedly over the last month.

2. Using traffic volume rather than individual risk levels to determine how many permits should be issued

Unless TMR has established that an increase in the number of small vehicles traveling on the road will increase the probability of a land slip there appears to be no reason to claim that capping the number of vehicles on the road will increase safety.  Safety is increased by decreasing the likelihood to individual people or cars that they will be hit by a landslip.  This could be achieved by obvious measures that stabilise the slope or provide remote monitoring and telemetry to warn of any signs of increasing instability.  Increasing traffic volume does not affect individual risk. If the road was opened up to all residents and homeowners none of them would be placed at a higher risk than those who already have permits. Likewise letting additional people use the road would not change the risk to permanent residents.  So why does TMR justify its claim that vehicle cap is in place to increase public safety?  Perhaps it’s because TMR does run the risk that as the volume of cars goes up, there could be more cars caught in a land slip, which results in greater political and legal liability.  Using this logic, we should be restricting the number of cars allowed to use roads on public holidays – it would drastically reduce the carnage on our highways. But we don’t do this. Instead, we try to reduce individual risk by keeping dangerous drivers off the road through increased RBTs and speed traps.

Currently part-residents are furious because they have been deprived of access to their homes and are being kept in the dark about the reasons for this. TMR is refusing to provide residents with information that might provide satisfactory explanations to the illogical nature of its decisions, and this is leading to rampant speculation that TMR is either incompetent, duplicitous or both!

The current TMR Road report just repeats pathetic platitudes about how much it appreciates our patience and understanding, both of which were exhausted weeks ago!

Minister, the PDCA calls on you to thoroughly review the analyses and decisions that have been made and ensure that best practise (including external review and true community consultation) is being implemented. Based on the publicly released information we believe that your Department’s decisions have unnecessarily made life increasingly intolerable for Paluma residents. We seek urgent relief from what are viewed as draconian decisions based on faulty reasoning.

Yours sincerely

Jamie Oliver
President, Paluma & District Community Association