Supplementary Submissions on behalf of Ivory’s Rock Foundation to Senate Standing Committee regarding Management of the Inland Rail Project (Calvert to Kagaru section)

7 May 2021

File no. 20190271

Ivory's Rock ‘A unique land use’

Individual liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation NeuTurn Pty Ltd trading as Neumann & Turnour Lawyers ACN 645 361 619 ABN 87 645 361 619 | www.ntlawyers.com.au

A member of the Southern Cross Legal Alliance with associated legal firms in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Auckland and Christchurch

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...... 3 Submissions ...... 4 Overview ...... 5 Key Issues Arising from the C2K DEIS ...... 6 Impact on Ivory’s Rock ...... 7 Noise Impact ...... 8 Koalas ...... 10 Other Flora and Fauna ...... 11 Natural Environment and Landscape ...... 11 Air Quality ...... 11 Impacts on the Peak Crossing Community...... 12 Noise ...... 12 Visual Amenity and Tourism ...... 13 Failure to Appreciate the True Impact of the Rail ...... 13 Community Benefits ...... 14 Community Engagement ...... 15 Conclusion ...... 16 Appendix 1: IRF Supplementary Submission regarding ARTC Engagement with Stakeholders ...... 17

Page 2 of 17 Doc:

Introduction

1. Ivory’s Rock Foundation (‘IRF’) welcomes the opportunity to make a further submission to the Senate Inquiry with regard to the impact of the Calvert to Kagaru section (‘C2K’) of the Inland Rail including:

a. Direct impacts on the Ivory’s Rock Convention and Events Centre (‘IRCE’);

b. Impacts on the local Calvert to Kagaru community and natural environment; and

c. The South-East Queensland (‘SEQ’) proposed route in general.

2. The recent release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (‘DEIS’) for C2K has further substantiated how inappropriate the C2K corridor is for SEQ, for the impacted communities, and the natural environment.

3. Along with communities and landholders throughout the Queensland proposed alignment, IRF recommends a complete review of the Inland Rail route in Queensland. This is justified by the clear inadequacies of the C2K DEIS and its clearly stated impacts. Some of the major issues highlighted by the DEIS are set out in this submission.

4. The escalating costs of the Inland Rail show that the Business Case for the Inland Rail is failing. Australian Rail Track Corporation (‘ARTC’) CEO Richard Wankmuller, on record to the Senate Estimates in 2020, admitted that the final cost could reach $20 billion. However, this estimate does not include the costs of very significant externalities such as the connection from Acacia Ridge to Port of Brisbane. The overall true cost will be much higher. It is also now not clear if this $20 billion projection includes the construction cost of the Gowrie to Kagaru Public Private Partnership (‘PPP’) section.

5. The ARTC has still not resolved on a route from Acacia Ridge to the Port of Brisbane. We submit that the Senate Committee should not recommend that the Inland Rail Project proceed until the final route and the true costs of the project are known.

6. In light of these pervasive issues, IRF submits that the Senate Committee cannot be satisfied with the Inland Rail Project:

a. Until there is certainty on the route. The beginning and end of the route have still not been resolved. This also makes accepting the current route to Brisbane (including C2K) as wholly premature. Further scoping, consultation, and impact assessments must be undertaken;

b. Until the costs of the Project are known. The beginning and end of the route have not been resolved, and cannot be properly costed. Until the route is decided and the impact accurately assessed, the true cost cannot be known. Additionally,

Page 3 of 17 Doc:

many of the key cost drivers of the project are being deferred to the ‘design phase’, which may well lead to further possibly very substantial cost escalations;

c. While the ARTC fails to commit to mitigating the impacts of the rail on local communities, property holders, and the environment (as currently being demonstrated by the now released DEIS documents for sections from Border to Kagaru) because, in addition to social and environmental impacts, these mitigations when accommodated, will add further to the costs;

d. Until the ARTC has consulted (as distinct from shared information).. On the evidence provided by IRF and submitted to the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General it seems clear that ARTC has not engaged in consultation as it is required to do. IRF put these allegations to the ARTC for a response. ARTC chose not to respond.

7. This submission focuses on the issues identified in the C2K DEIS as the other issues have been adequately canvassed elsewhere.

Submissions

8. Along with the many other submitters at the recent Senate Hearing, we submit that the only practical way forward, given the situation as it has emerged is for a complete review of the route of the Inland Rail in Queensland and to recommend a halt to the release of Queensland Draft Environmental Impact Statements until the review is completed. We accordingly request that the Senate Committee support a complete review of the Inland Rail Project so far as it relates to Queensland.

9. The current proposed route from Gowrie to Acacia Ridge, and specifically from Calvert to Kagaru and from Kagaru to Acacia Ridge, has such serious issues that it should not proceed. Failing a review of the entire Queensland route, IRF proposes that a review be undertaken of the route from Gowrie to Acacia Ridge. This should include a review of how the PPP nature of the section may be leaving local communities worse off. IRF recommends that the Senate Committee support a review of the Gowrie to Acacia Ridge route.

10. IRF understands that the Senate Committee has received several proposals for the following alternative viable routes/solutions to the current proposed Border to Acacia Ridge route:

a. Terminate the Inland Rail for SEQ in Toowoomba with a trucking hub at Toowoomba for SEQ freight,

Page 4 of 17 Doc:

b. Not terminate the Inland Rail in Toowoomba but continue the Inland Rail to Gladstone for export goods;1

c. Not terminate the Inland Rail in Toowoomba but continue the Inland Rail to west of Ipswich (possibly Ebenezer) and establish a trucking hub for SEQ at that point, possibly combined with the Gladstone option for export goods; or

d. If termination in Ebenezer was agreed, to consider a route (including underground tunnels) direct from Ebenezer to the Port of Brisbane.

11. If the Inland Rail must continue into SEQ then one of the original routes considered in the early Inland Rail planning days should be revisited. The route from Inglewood-Warwick- directly to Tamrookum-Bromelton (not via Toowoomba) should be reviewed as an alternative to the proposed C2K route.2 It is IRF’s understanding that it was rejected in the early stages partly because of costs, estimated at $450 million more expensive than the route via Toowoomba.3 However no review of this cost has been done since 2010 during which time the cost of the current route has increased substantially.

12. In summary, it is submitted that the Queensland section of the Inland Rail, particularly the C2K section must be reviewed and cannot be progressed. Now is the time to properly reassess alternatives and undertake fulsome genuine consultation on route options, costs, impact and mitigation requirements.

Overview

13. The DEIS for the C2K section of the Inland Rail was released on 19 December 2020 with closing date for submissions of Monday 8 March 2021. This was a very short timeframe given the 7,000 page scope of the DEIS for this section.

14. IRF made a comprehensive submission with regard to impacts on IRCE (owned by IRF) and wider impacts on the wider community and the natural environment with updated consultant reports on both noise, economic and natural environment impacts.

15. IRF submitted to the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General (‘OCG’) that the ARTC’s DEIS failed to meet the Terms of Reference in many critical respects. IRF have provided detail to support its position in its submissions to the OCG. IRF separately invited the ARTC to respond to its submissions and correct any errors before this submission, but the ARTC declined to do so.

1 IRF understands that the Toowoomba hub would not resolve serious issues for the Border to Gowrie Millmerran community unless this route is also reviewed. 2 It is not the route that was discussed at the recent Senate Hearing by Everald Compton (this route was the Warwick-Toowoomba direct route). 3 See 2010 Inland Rail Report.

Page 5 of 17 Doc:

16. It is IRF’s understanding that consideration by the ARTC of mitigations for the project are routinely deferred to the design phase. Mitigation will be a significant cost. Until impact and then mitigation is properly assessed the true cost of the project cannot be properly assessed. This is a very significant issue. Early estimated of mitigation of damages to IRCE are at least $25 million and that is not factored into the costs of ARTC. IRCE is but one party adversely affected and for which mitigations costs should be considered.

17. IRF is working with a broader group of landholders and community members from the C2K section and from the Border to Gowrie section (DEIS also now released) of the Inland Rail. These landholders and members are adversely affected and costs of mitigation for those parties is also not included, so far as IRF is aware.

18. IRF understands that landholders are very concerned that Draft Environmental Impact Statements are being released by the Queensland Government (and New South Wales Government) while the Senate Inquiry is still in progress and has not yet released its recommendations. Responding to a 7,000 page EIS is a mammoth task. It is unfair, it is submitted, that communities are being required to respond to Draft Environmental Impact Statements while the Senate Inquiry is still underway. If the Senate Inquiry accepts submissions by stakeholders that may lead to a reduction in issues to be addressed.

Key Issues Arising from the C2K DEIS

19. This section sets out some of the key issues identified by IRF in its review of the DEIS.

20. IRF’s review of the DEIS identified a number of very concerning failures to meet or respond to the C2K DEIS’ Terms of Reference (‘TOR’). As mentioned, IRF provided ARTC with an opportunity to respond to the issues it identified, but the ARTC declined to do so. If IRF is mistaken in any of its submissions it has endeavoured to be accurate and has given ARTC the opportunity to correct any mistakes.

21. Please also find enclosed at Appendix 1 our Supplementary Submission to the OCG concerning the C2K DEIS regarding ARTC Engagement with Stakeholders. This submission includes an analysis of a number of keys issues which IRF submits are relevant to the overall Inland Rail project.

22. IRF’s main submission to the OCG regarding the C2K DEIS is available on request along with key supporting appendices, including:

a. Updated Overview of IRCE; b. Noise Impact Report by Noise Measurement Services; c. Economic Impact Report by Gibson’s Consulting; and d. Professional Ecologist Report.

Page 6 of 17 Doc:

Impact on Ivory’s Rock

23. We also include a link to a 3 minute video4 prepared by IRF to demonstrate the impact of the Inland Rail on the IRCE and scope of outdoor activities that take place at IRCE.

24. With regard to Ivory’s Rock:

a. The DEIS demonstrates an almost complete disregard for the serious impacts on IRCE. There is no acknowledgement of the economic impact that a loss of a five- thousand seat convention centre will have on the community, nor the loss of the pre-COVID-19 forward estimated $183,150,000 contribution of IRCE (from 2018 to 2032) will have on Queensland generally, or the local community in particular;

b. The DEIS makes no mention of the previous recommendations of the Southern Freight Rail Corridor Final Assessment Report 2010 (‘SFRC Report’) which specifically recommended protecting IRCE and the wider community through mitigation measures;

c. The ARTC provides no commitment or reference to providing the much-needed noise mitigation barriers “at source” that IRF have consistently requested and which were proposed in the SFRC Report;

d. There is no acknowledgement of or significant reference to:

i. The serious noise impact on IRCE;

ii. The resulting serious impact on the operation of IRCE;

iii. The potential for IRCE to become unviable in the future on account of these impacts; or

iv. The likely loss of a unique facility (IRCE) to the region and SEQ, which will have significant and lasting economic impacts on the region.

e. The use of a criteria for “qualifying” for noise mitigation that is not appropriate for IRCE as a unique noise sensitive location completely different from any other facility between Melbourne and Brisbane;

f. Despite commitments to do so, the ARTC failed to engage in consultation with IRF from a senior level. The commitment to do so was given at the January 2020 Brisbane Senate Hearing. At that hearing the ARTC committed to CEO Richard Wankmuller (or a senior ARTC representative) visiting IRCE to hear its concerns.

4 Video accessible at: < http://www.vimeo.com/513761817/233b69b546 >.

Page 7 of 17 Doc:

This was ultimately delegated to Tony Lubofsky, director of the Gowrie to Kagaru PPP section and ARTC representatives for the local Calvert to Kagaru section who met with IRF representatives on 5 March 2020. There were not any meaningful outcomes from that meeting; only a continuation of ARTC’s position that IRCE did not qualify for any mitigation.

Noise Impact

25. The DEIS has further substantiated the concerns previously expressed to the Senate Committee by IRF, as follows:

Frequency of Trains & the Public Private Partnership

26. The noise impact on IRCE will be very serious, especially given the very high numbers of trains and night-time frequency of one at least every 30 minutes. Counterintuitively, the ARTC’s mitigation policy does not take frequency into account;

27. With up to 47 trains or more per 24-hour period, the C2K section (and broader Gowrie to Kagaru section) will have the highest number of trains of any section from Melbourne to Kagaru. This being at least twice as many as any other section of the Inland Rail per day;

28. Gowrie to Kagaru is the only section Inland Rail to be designed, built, managed, and financed through a PPP.

29. IRF understands that the projected train frequency for this section may be this high to assist in attracting private investment from tendering consortiums for the PPP.

30. Due to the very nature of the PPP arrangement, there will likely be continued ongoing pressure to maximise the number of trains using this section of the rail. Indeed, this pressure is already evident to date with the projected train frequency in 2040 rising from 40 to 47 since the ARTC’s 2015 Inland Rail Programme Business Case.5

31. IRF accordingly has genuine concerns that the Gowrie to Kagaru section will become a ‘freight train super-highway’. This puts the local property owners and communities at greater vulnerability than others along the Inland Rail. This is unacceptable and should warrant greater protections from regulators.

Type of Trains

32. The ARTC proposes that 30% or more of the trains be coal trains (with higher frequency at night) including shifting all coal trains currently travelling through suburbs of Brisbane

5 Report accessible here: < https://inlandrail.artc.com.au/inland-rail-program-business-case-2015/ >. Also note that an increase in 7 train movements is very significant. This increase is roughly equivalent to what is projected for some whole section of the Inland Rail on any given day.

Page 8 of 17 Doc:

on the West Moreton line to the C2K line. IRF and the community consider this a totally unacceptable proposal to shift this impact from one group of communities to a new greenfield location where there is no history of rail and minimal proposed noise protection for the community;

Impact on Viability of IRCE

33. IRF’s noise consultant’s reports show that camping at IRCE will no longer be viable. The noise levels will far exceed the World Health Organisation guidelines for sleep disturbance that ARTC themselves referenced in the DEIS as a guideline for noise impact;

34. In addition, the impacts on IRCE’s built accommodations, outdoor event facilities, and outdoor recreation at IRCE will be significant;

35. It is anticipated that IRF will not be able to provide any camping accommodation at IRCE and if it is possible to provide any accommodation to attendees it will be a significantly reduced number in a significantly reduced area somewhere else on the property. Substantially reducing or completely removing IRCE’s accommodation capacity of 5,000 people will be a very serious issue for the major events and therefore the viability of major events will fall into question;

36. The overall attractiveness of IRCE as a nature-based quiet environment will be irreversibly changed;

37. The cost of reengineering the centre to shift the majority of accommodations from camping to built accommodation and to provide additional mitigation have been calculated at $20 million or more. Due to the reduced attractiveness of the conference centre, it is unlikely that IRCE would be able to raise finance to the necessary changes, leading to the future unviability of the centre;

No Commitment to Mitigation

38. ARTC did not have regard to actual noise impact, on IRCE as required by the terms of reference. It referenced only the standard it adopted to measure noise impact on all locations. That standard treated the impact of train noise on natural surroundings the same as noise in cities or suburbia. As a consequence, ARTC concluded that the impact of noise on IRCE, where the evidence is that the bush could be as quiet as a recording studio, the same as a suburb. ARTC did not then actually fulfill the terms of reference in this assessment. All they concluded was that ARTC trigger levels were not reached. As IRCE was below the ARTC designated “trigger level for consideration of noise mitigation” no compensation has been offered because IRCE “does not meet the [ARTC] criteria”. IRF have raised with the OCG that the ARTC’s criteria fails to meet the TORs and this has also been drawn to ARTC’s attention;

Page 9 of 17 Doc:

39. The ARTC have not committed to any noise mitigation for IRCE. Although the ARTC refer to “continued discussions at the design stage”, there is no indication that noise barriers “at source” would ever be considered. IRF’s modelling shows that without “at source” barriers, IRCE will no longer be viable;

40. While noise barriers “at source” would assist and are essential to reduce noise as much as feasible for IRCE, the noise impact would remain significant;

41. ARTC does not recognise the unique sensitivity of IRCE and the need for the special consideration recognised in the SFRC Report;

Failure to Recognise IRCE’s Contribution to the Region

42. Although the DEIS mentions IRCE, there is no comprehensive description that would provide any reader with an understanding of the immense scale of the property and the development and its tourism value to the region;

43. There is no significant mention of the very serious economic impact on Ivory’s Rock of the proposed rail, nor the potential loss of benefits to the region.

Koalas

44. The C2K route will have devastating impacts on local flora, fauna, and natural environment on a whole. In particular the impacts of the rail will be devastating on local koala populations because:

a. Even though the C2K route runs alongside and intersects with designated koala habitat critical for the future protection of the species in this region, the DEIS offers no meaningful protections;

b. The five tunnels and one overhead crossing proposed by the ARTC for the 53 kilometres of track are opportunistic structures across creeks (i.e. bridges that would have to be built in any case). The ARTC fails to meet the standard of one tunnel for every 2 kms of rail as recommended by the Queensland Government’s Koala-sensitive Design Guideline 2019;

c. No fauna protection fencing is proposed;

IRF have submitted a professional ecologist report to the DEIS. This report highlights a number of the other critical failings of the ARTC in the DEIS.

Page 10 of 17 Doc:

Other Flora and Fauna

45. In relation to local flora and fauna more generally:

a. The DEIS identifies 13 species of bird, 1 species of fish, and 9 species of mammal that are protected by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that may be impacted by the C2K route;

b. Many of the listed species are severely affected by the proposal with inadequate mitigation proposed;

c. For example, the endangered Brush-tailed Rock-wallaby, which is indigenous to the area, is nocturnal, foraging at night to avoid predators. When there is a high noise level, such as on windy nights, the animal’s ability to hear its predators (such as dingoes or wild dogs) is impaired, and it does not come out to forage. Although train noise from the C2K route will significantly and uniquely impact the Brush- tailed Rock-wallaby, it is not addressed in the DEIS;

d. On a whole, the DEIS provides insufficient information to adequately assess the impacts on matters of national environmental significance, that is, threatened fauna species.

Natural Environment and Landscape

46. The proposed C2K alignment passes through the very high value conservation areas of the Teviot Ranges. The Teviot Ranges is a highly protected area of State and Federal significance including valuable wildlife movement corridors that are important not just to this area but to the entire SEQ region. The impact of the project cannot be fully mitigated and will be irreversible;

47. IRF submits that the C2K Project will also irreversibly impact the recreational use of these high value outdoor recreation areas.

Air Quality

48. IRF has also submitted in its response to the DEIS that the ARTC have inadequately addressed the issue of Air Quality. This is especially the case with regard to the sensitive Brisbane Air Shed.

49. IRF understands that Mr Lloyd Stumer has provided expert evidence and reports directly to the Senate Committee on the issue of the projects impact on Air Quality. Without repeating those submissions, IRF draws the Senate Committee’s attention to the following findings by Mr Stumer:

Page 11 of 17 Doc:

a. There is no serious recognition that air pollutants produced within this C2K (and Kagaru to Acacia Ridge and Bromelton) section of the Inland Rail remain in the environment as part of the larger pool of atmosphere referred to as the Brisbane Airshed. The Brisbane Airshed is currently home to 3.5 million people and is undergoing rapid population growth. These two sections of the Inland Rail will have a massive negative impact on the regional air quality of the Brisbane Airshed.

b. Preliminary conservative estimates based on the ARTC’s own data show the effects of the Inland Rail will increase the existing anthropogenic (i.e. human caused) regional emissions of particulates by at least 100% and the regional emissions of NOx by at least 50%. This is an issue of serious concern that cannot be ignored.

Impacts on the Peak Crossing Community

50. The Inland Rail will permanently and irretrievably affect the social fabric and community cohesion of the impacted Ipswich and Scenic Rim regions and the communities within it. In addition to the impacts already stated the following impacts will apply to the broader community.

Noise

51. Noise from the C2K rail will lead to the following broader community impacts identified in the DEIS and by IRF:

a. As a quiet rural greenfield location, noise will travel long distances. The impact on the day to day lives of residents will be permanent and irreversible;

b. The projected train numbers are very high at 33, increasing to 47 train movements per day. This route has the highest projected train numbers for any section of the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane. This is a substantial increase from the projections provided to the C2K community during the Southern Rail Freight Corridor (‘SRFC’) consultation in 2008-2010;

c. As previously noted, the high percentage of coal trains will exacerbate the impact;

d. Sleep disturbance will be a major issue because of the high frequency of trains at night at every 30 minutes;

e. Noise mitigation is limited to houses that have a noise impact of LAmax 80dBA or more. This is only 59 dwellings of the 1,650 plus dwellings within a 2 km range of the alignment. This will leave hundreds of houses with serious noise impact without any mitigation;

Page 12 of 17 Doc:

f. Analysis of the noise data provided for individual properties by ARTC indicates that noise levels could still be above 60 dBA LAmax more than 2 km from the alignment. An analysis of the data provided by ARTC indicates the impact on individual houses to be approximately:

i. 44 houses from 80+ LAmax; ii. 598 houses from 70-79 LAmax; iii. 429 houses from 60-69 LAmax; and iv. 155 houses from 50-59 LAmax.

g. Noise walls are not proposed by ARTC for any section of the C2K alignment and mitigation for the few houses that are entitled to receive it will be limited to the individual dwelling.

Visual Amenity and Tourism

52. The C2K rail will lead to the following broader community impacts on visual amenity and tourism:

a. Visual impact and loss of scenic amenity from the trains will be significant because of the elevated nature of most of the alignment and major bridges over key roads;

b. The DEIS acknowledges the impacts on Scenic Amenity and Tourism but offers no substantial mitigation and suggests, it is submitted, disinterest.

Failure to Appreciate the True Impact of the Rail

53. IRF notes that the ARTC appears disinterested in genuine engagement with the weight of the impact of the rail, as is evident by the following the Social Impact Assessment Technical Report appended to the DEIS. The Report notes that “There is… [the] potential for diminished scenic amenity due to the Project’s location within the rural landscape, particularly where the rail line would be elevated.”6

However, the Report goes on to conclude that “Some visitors will see the Project as diminishing the rural character”, while “others will find interest in Project structures, and the occurrence of rail lines is common in rural areas. As such, significant decreases in visitation as a result of changes to visual amenity seem unlikely.”7

The ARTC appears to be advancing the notion that enough people will visit to see the Rail as an attraction in its own right to offset any loss to tourism due the loss of amenity caused

6 Inland Rail – Calvert to Kagaru Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix R – Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, page 169. 7 Inland Rail – Calvert to Kagaru Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix R – Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, page 169.

Page 13 of 17 Doc:

by the Rail’s presence. This is unsubstantiated and suggests further that the ARTC is not seriously engaged with the impacts on local community and on tourism.

54. The DEIS acknowledges that “The Ipswich and Scenic Rim LGA Councils and communities have a strong focus on tourism development including nature- based/ecotourism, food/wine trails, adventure experiences and farm visits and stays.”8 However:

a. The DEIS indicates only minor impact on tourism and tourism businesses in the region despite the long-term impacts being irreversible and significant;

b. The Flinders-Goolman Estate and the Teviot Ranges are important natural areas for conservation, bushwalking, outdoor adventure and include the Boonah to Ipswich Trail (BIT), and scenic amenity;

c. The train line through this whole region largely on elevated embankments and bridges and along the foothills of the Teviot Ranges, with the stunning backdrop of Flinders Peak and Ivory’s Rock, and then through the Teviot Ranges, it will undoubtedly have a serious impact on scenic amenity and the natural environment;

d. Noise from the trains will travel for kilometres and the general quiet country ambience of the area will be seriously impacted. A bushwalk with a background bird noises will become a background of trains.

Community Benefits

55. The proposed benefits of the project to the community are overstated and misleadingly presented. This is particularly noticeable in employment where ARTC and government are relying on estimates of seemingly unsubstantiated indirect employment that inflate the number of jobs created, while implying that the numbers directly result from the Rail to the C2K section when they do not.

56. Furthermore, the DEIS also ignores the loss of employment in rural and tourism businesses that may be impacted.

Mental Health

57. According to ARTC figures, nearly half the local population can be rated as vulnerable to change,9 including property acquisitions and traffic disruption.

8 Inland Rail – Calvert to Kagaru Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix R – Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, page 169. 9 Inland Rail – Calvert to Kagaru Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix R – Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, Table 5-9, page 65 provides: 48.2% of the population of Peak Crossing belong to cohorts that are vulnerable to change.

Page 14 of 17 Doc:

58. Noise impact, the impact of reduced property values on retirement nest-eggs and anxiety are undeniable impacts that will exacerbate mental health conditions including depression.

59. The only commitment that the ARTC has made to address these issues has been to fund a partnership with the West Moreton Health Authority and various community donations (funding not disclosed) to support a counselling service.

60. The likelihood of mental health impact caused by noise should not be overlooked or treated lightly. For example, rerouted flight paths to Brisbane Airport have led to Teneriffe residents complaining of how unmitigated airplane noise is impacting their mental health. IRF submits that the Inland Rail project will exacerbate and originate mental health problems for residents.

61. IRF accordingly submits that the only meaningful response to exacerbated mental health solutions is to mitigate the impacts of the Rail including Noise for all impacted residents.

Community Engagement

62. The ARTC has failed to meaningfully engage with stakeholders.

63. Table 8-2 of Appendix R of the DEIS10 shows that almost all of the suggestions advanced by stakeholders around amenity, property, connectivity, road safety, health and employment have been denied or deferred to the detailed design phase. Certainty around many issues (e.g. road safety) is not offered and needs to be considered at the EIS approval stage to ensure needed action and mitigation.

64. IRF’s supplementary submissions at Appendix 1 raise doubts about the validity of the ARTC’s consultation process in relation to the C2K DEIS.

65. In particular, IRF’s submissions to the OCG in Appendix 1 set out evidence of 6 practices of the ARTC that would not be expected if the ARTC was genuinely consulting. These 6 practices include:

a. To overwhelm the stakeholders; b. To frame the messages in misleading ways; c. To mask disturbing or damaging information; d. To mask an absence of content; e. Circular reasoning and burying; and f. To employ tactics that are perceived by stakeholders as consciously or unconsciously deceptive.

10 Inland Rail – Calvert to Kagaru Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix R – Social Impact Assessment Technical Report, page 192.

Page 15 of 17 Doc:

66. As already mentioned, IRF provided ARTC with an opportunity to respond to the issues it identified in the Appendix 1 submissions before providing them to the Senate Committee, but the ARTC declined to do so. If IRF is mistaken in any of its submissions it has endeavoured to be accurate and has given ARTC the opportunity to correct any mistakes. Conclusion

67. In summation, the IRF submits that the C2K DEIS both identifies a number of unacceptable impacts of the rail, and fails to meet the OCG’s TORs on a number of critical issues. In light of this the Senate Committee should support a review of the Inland Rail as a whole, particularly the proposed route through SEQ.

68. If the route of the Inland Rail is not to be reviewed, IRF invites the Senate Committee to call on the ARTC to provide greater and more tangible commitments to mitigating the devastating and wide-ranging effects the Inland Rail will have on local communities, property holders, and the significant environment corridors.

With Compliments NEUMANN & TURNOUR

Paul Neville On behalf of Ivory’s Rock Foundation

Page 16 of 17 Doc:

Appendix 1: IRF Supplementary Submission regarding ARTC Engagement with Stakeholders

Page 17 of 17 Doc:

Ivory’s Rock Foundation Submissions Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Inland Rail – Calvert to Kagaru Supplementary Submissions 1: ARTC engagement with Stakeholders – an analysis of some key issues

5 March 2021

File no. 20190271

Individual liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation NeuTurn Pty Ltd trading as Neumann & Turnour Lawyers ACN 645 361 619 ABN 87 645 361 619 | www.ntlawyers.com.au

A member of the Southern Cross Legal Alliance with associated legal firms in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide, Darwin, Auckland and Christchurch

Executive summary

Consultation is an integral part of risk management of megaprojects. It would be expected that ARTC has consulted very well.

This supplementary submission raises doubts about the validity of the consultation process and the DEIS.

It submits that the concerns raised about both consultation process and report’s structure and content (taken as a whole) are sufficient to warrant requiring further work to be undertaken by the ARTC before government can be satisfied that the risks are adequately identified and managed in a way for matters to be progressed.

Drawing on information and examples from the DEIS of C2K and also of NS2B (North Star to Border) we provide evidence that there has not been consultation, at least adequate consultation, on issues that must be the subject of adequate consultation for the DEIS to progress to the next stage.

To the contrary we set out evidence of six practices that would not be expected, if ARTC was genuinely consulting. There are six practices adopted in megaprojects to vitiate or reduce community engagement and we provide evidence of each of the six namely:

To overwhelm the stakeholders To frame the messages in misleading ways To mask disturbing or damaging information To mask an absence of content Circular reasoning and burying, and To employ tactics that are perceived by stakeholders as consciously or unconsciously deceptive.

We acknowledge that the sheer volume of information to be processed means that it is possible that we could have made a mistake in some point. If we have made a mistake in any regard we are open to correcting it. Accordingly, we request that ARTC be given the opportunity to provide comment to us before this submission is made public or made available to Senators.

Page 2 of 25 Doc:

Table of contents

Table of contents ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 The submission ...... 4 What stakeholder consultation is and is not? ...... 4 What ARTC has, and has not, done - in summary ...... 5 Six practices identified as sometimes associated with megaprojects ...... 6 Introduction ...... 6 Overwhelming stakeholders ...... 7 Framing the messages in misleading ways ...... 7 Masking disturbing or damaging information ...... 8 Masking and absence of content ...... 10 Circular referencing and burying ...... 12 Perceptions of practices that are consciously or unconsciously deceptive ...... 14 Interim conclusion regarding six practises and stakeholder consultation ...... 14 Why the Report is not yet a draft Environmental Impact Statement ...... 15 Introduction ...... 15 Social impacts...... 15 Fauna ...... 15 Noise ...... 16 Indigenous cultural heritage ...... 16 Social Cohesion ...... 17 Why is genuine consultation and a comprehensive DEIS important? ...... 17 Risk and uncertainty ...... 17 Best practice ...... 19 The impact of consultation that is not genuine ...... 19 An acknowledgement and request ...... 19 Conclusion ...... 19 Appendix A: examples of errors or misleading statements ...... 21

Page 3 of 25 Doc:

Introduction

The submission 1. This supplementary submission raises doubts about the validity of the consultation process and the DEIS.

2. It is submitted that the concerns raised about both consultation process and report’s structure and content (taken as a whole) are sufficient to warrant requiring further work to be undertaken by the ARTC before matters can be progressed. Drawing on information and examples from the DEIS of C2K and also of NS2B (North Star to Border) we provide evidence that there has not been consultation, at least adequate consultation, on issues that must be the subject of adequate consultation for the DEIS to progress to the next stage.

3. First we set out what consultation is and is not. We then briefly summarise what ARTC has done in a second section. In the substantive third section, we discuss six practices adopted in megaprojects to vitiate or reduce community engagement and provide examples of each of these applying in the ARTC stakeholder engagement context. In the fourth section we discuss six reasons why the document is not yet ready to be progressed. We conclude the substantive section with a discussion of why genuine consultation and a comprehensive DEIS is a critical strategy in risk management that cannot be abridged. We close acknowledging that the volume of material that this firm and our client has endeavoured to process makes it possible that we have made a mistake and suggest that ARTC be given the opportunity to correct any mistakes before any aspect of this submission is made available to the public or senators.

What stakeholder consultation is and is not?

4. The wealth of detail provided in the NS2B EIS in Chapter 8, Vol 11, Appendix D and the C2K EIS Chapter 5 Stakeholder Engagement and Appendix C Consultation Summary Report suggest that the ARTC is at pains to demonstrate that it has met the SEARs standards for Consultation with the community.

5. Use is made of a model of consultation which was designed to promote collaborative consultation. This well-recognised model of consultation processes is taken from the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and is cited, for example on page 5-5 of Chapter 5 Stakeholder Engagement. It explains that consultation occurs on a spectrum, beginning with ‘providing information’ (on the left) and ending with ‘empowerment’ (on the right).

Page 4 of 25 Doc:

6. It follows that ‘consultation’ in the context of the ARTC DEIS is a term of art with specific technical meaning. It is a process of public participation in decision-making that falls between information and involvement.

What ARTC has, and has not, done - in summary 7. There has not been stakeholder consultation by ARTC that is the essential point of this supplementary submission. The mere provision of information is not consultation. 8. Consultation involves a reasonable expectation on the part of the public that they will be able to influence decisions made. The statement of the Mayor of Logan City Council, we submit, summarised the view of many when he stated to the Senate inquiry: I also want to raise the ongoing issues surrounding the lack of meaningful community consultation. Whilst some consultation on the proposed mitigation measures took place in December 2020—and what a waste of time that was!—this was just a small step forward. Many residents are still in the dark about how their properties will be impacted by Inland Rail…For many affected residents, this has been a drawn-out and anxiety- inducing process with no clear end in sight.1

1 Mayor Darren Power, Logan City Council Submission to the Senate Enquiry (Submission 18) about the inadequacy of consultation. He reiterated this complaint in person at the hearing into the Inland Rail held on 27th January 2021. See:

Page 5 of 25 Doc:

9. That quote from the Mayor is, we submit, illustrative and not isolated. From the examples below coupled with evidence provided in Senate hearings it is evident, we submit, that the public does not have a reasonable expectation to influence decisions made and in fact has not been able to influence decisions that do not suit ARTC – at least not in any context of which our client is aware.

10. If ARTC was consulting, as distinct from informing, it might reasonably be expected that it would provide information to the public in a manner that facilitated ease of response in the consultation process. This is important because if the intent is to genuinely involve the community through consultation then there is a need to address the power imbalance. Wherever there is a risk of a severe “democracy deficit”2 as is the case here, the duty to facilitate consultation (not just information transfer) on the megaproject, such as the ARTC project in this case, is so much higher. ARTC is a quasi-autonomous agency of the Australian government and it is extremely well-resourced. It has the power to create an argument and a case that small and isolated citizen and citizen groups, businesses and even peak bodies are at a very significant disadvantage to challenge. It must, in such circumstances do all that it practicably can to facilitate not just information transfer but consultation. This is a critical strategy in megaproject risk management, and it has not, we submit been undertaken adequately.

Six practices identified as sometimes associated with megaprojects

Introduction

11. Consultation is an integral part of risk management of megaprojects. It would be expected that ARTC has consulted. It would not be expected, if ARTC was genuinely consulting, that the six practices adopted in megaprojects to vitiate or reduce community engagement would be evident, namely: a. To overwhelm the stakeholders b. To frame the messages in misleading ways c. To mask disturbing or damaging information d. To mask an absence of content e. Circular reasoning and burying, and

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commsen/131af218-8f6b-414b-9111- 645016be12c5/toc_pdf/Rural%20and%20Regional%20Affairs%20and%20Transport%20References%20Committee _2021_01_27_8433_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commsen/131af218-8f6b- 414b-9111-645016be12c5/0001%22 accessed 8th March 2021. 2 Flyvbjerg, B.et al. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition. United Kingdom; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

Page 6 of 25 Doc:

f. To employ tactics that are perceived by stakeholders as consciously or unconsciously deceptive.

12. In the sections below we set out evidence of all six of these practices in the DEIS identified by our client. Our submission is that if it is accepted that any of these strategies are present that would be cause for concern. The presence of all, or many, we submit is compelling evidence that there has not been valid consultation. As actual consultation is required it follows that the DEIS cannot progress until this shortfall is addressed.

Overwhelming stakeholders

13. The DEIS for C2K is over 7,000 pages. That is overwhelming in itself for members of the public. All the more so when the time for response is relatively short.3 The overwhelming nature of the material can be reduced by making it accessible. A key to this is for it to be very well organised with clear summary paragraphs and clear leads and links. Our client had a person with a PhD working on this and he found the document not only lacked accessibility but was difficult to work with for reasons set out below. There seems to be an evident absence of clear accurate summaries that set out in a balanced way the community concerns.

14. There is an appearance of thoroughness as the DEIS uses dense detail, references and voluminous material but rather than being guided into and though the material the reader finds circular referencing and burying of key issues such as those mentioned below. This complexity is heightened by the seeming impossibility of understanding the material without technical support and then, when consultees bring forward issues they are ignored. Three examples illustrate this at:

a. The dispute over assumptions about flooding and whether or not the 1976 floods should be the relevant reference discussed at [216] ff. b. The seeming unwillingness to provide a map of the full 2 km area identifying all noise affected homes discussed at [201]; and, c. the seeming disregard for community concerns about the impact on koalas discussed at [224] ff.

Framing the messages in misleading ways

15. Framing is the process of making neutral or bad information look better. For example, the region around the C2K proposal has unemployment of around 10,000 people. The impact on employment of the C2K part of the project is stated to be 20 permanent jobs4 and during the construction phase:

Chris Joseph, Thomas Gunton & Murray Rutherford (2015) Good practices for environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33:4, p246 4 See DEIS Social p16-28.

Page 7 of 25 Doc:

Employment for up to 620 people in construction, including people living in the vicinity of the Project and in nearby local government areas, with indirect employment also likely to be stimulated.5 16. The Deputy Prime Minister and the ARTC has claimed that “… Inland Rail will now support more than 21,500 jobs at the peak of construction and deliver an extra economic boost of $2 billion.6

17. The general statement of 21,500 jobs is misleading, because it is usually framed so that the casual reader or listener would understand that these are direct jobs generated by the Rail project, when that is not, in fact the case. The message as framed, however, is that the communities should be thankful for the jobs even though the benefit to local communities is modest (271 jobs on average over three years (Chap 16,p16-18)). In addition, no acknowledgement is given to the loss of jobs from businesses that may be forced to close.

18. The impact of this misleading framing cannot be overemphasised, on our instructions. Social media of C2K reflects that some stakeholders have become convinced that the Inland Rail is a job bonanza, while a careful analysis of ARTC’s own documents demonstrate that this is only achieved by careful framing.

19. Appendix A sets out across four pages examples of errors or misleading statements identified by our client.

Masking disturbing or damaging information

20. Masking is the strategy of hiding key detrimental and disturbing information in passages of text. This strategy is assisted by the strategies of overwhelming and circular referencing. The reader is required to read, in this case, thousands of pages including technical information with which they might not be familiar, to find key information and then, when read in context, the information seems innocuous or non-problematic. Two examples are offered.

21. First, regarding impact of the proposed C2K on biodiversity. In the passage below from ‘Biodiversity’ of the Executive summary of NS2B,7 it is not evident that the ARTC is not giving any guarantee that there will not be impacts until the very end. Compensation is promised but upon consideration, it is evident that that will be problematic. With a destroyed ecological receptor, how can the receptor be compensated? How can the community be compensated for a lost environmental receptor? The relevant passage reads:

5 Executive Summary C2K page 2. 6 https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/mccormack/media-release/enhanced-inland-rail-provide-boon- jobs-and-economic-activity accessed 2nd January 2021 7 Biodiversity’ of the Executive summary of NS2B page 6, bold added for reasons that soon become apparent.

Page 8 of 25 Doc:

During detailed design, sensitive ecological features identified in the EIS will be subject to further investigation to more accurately determine the magnitude of the significant adverse impacts on the identified ecological receptors. The specific mitigation measures will then be applied to ensure that the significance ratings of any potential impacts are classified as low as reasonably practical and more significant adverse impacts are offset.

There is the potential for some proposal activities to have a cumulative, irreversible, or permanent impact on some ecological receptors, even after the implementation of all mitigation measures. In these cases, the compensation for the residual impact will occur (bolding added).

22. The equivalent passage in the C2K Executive Summary does not state even that compensation for the residual impact will occur:

However, some Project activities may have cumulative, irreversible or permanent impacts on some sensitive environmental receptors, even with environmental management measures. For example, additional mitigation measures are not likely to significantly reduce impacts associated with the loss of vegetation as a result of clearing or removal, resulting in residual impacts.8

23. Second, regarding noise treatment. The Southern Freight Rail Corridor Final Assessment Report 2010 treated noise impacts in a transparent fashion, the ARTC has not. Arguably it masks the impacts in the DEIS. This is because the DEIS Noise and Vibration sections do not provide adequate mapping to demonstrate to the public the extent of operational noise impact to the full extent of the dwellings identified as “Sensitive Receptors''.

24. “Sensitive Receptors Triggering an Investigation into Noises Mitigation” are identified on maps and in tables of data, largely representing those receptors that are at the trigger level of 80 LAmax or LAeq 55dBA.

25. Tables of ID numbers (Appendix Q 1-3) for each of the 1,350 sensitive receptors are included, providing the noise impact data for each dwelling. However, the associated aerial mapping only provides the location of the dwellings closer to the alignment. Other residents must contact ARTC to obtain this information. ARTC also does not provide any noise contour maps for operation noise impact other than the LAmax 80dBA contour.

26. When asked on 10 February 2021 for a map of the full 2km area identifying all dwellings the ARTC representative did not respond until 12 February 2021. With that response ARTC did not offer a map but advised “We are working on preparing a digital platform which will show all noise results for the project”. Since that time no digital platform or map has been provided. ARTC's social impact assessment identifies 48.2% of the population as being "vulnerable to change".9 ARTC could have, and we submit should have, reported in the DEIS that almost half of the population could be adversely affected

8 DEIS page 19 9 DEIS Appendix R p64 Table 5-9

Page 9 of 25 Doc:

by the changes introduced. It could have and we submit should have, disclosed that it had not made available to persons likely to be affected by noise information to enable them to see if their home was affected in the DEIS.

27. In comparison, the Southern Freight Rail Corridor Final Assessment Report 2010 provided detailed maps including noise impact contours by coloured zone and provided recommended noise mitigation methods for each zone for the reference of the residents.

28. From an analysis of the ARTC tables of data it appears that approximately 600 receptors would have noise impact from 70-79 LAmax and 420 receptors from 60-69 LAmax. This important information is completely missing from the DEIS and gives the impression that only 59 “sensitive receptors” will be seriously impacted, while potential sleep disturbance will potentially impact approximately 1,000 additional receptors along the alignment.

29. ARTC provides information on the World Health Organisation guidelines for sleep disturbance advising that the recommended internal noise levels “should not be above LAmax 42dBA to preserve sleep quality”, and a conservative Lamax 49dBA externally.10 ARTC advise on the same page that noise levels of LAmax 49dBA “are only likely to be exceeded within 1 km distance (as a guide)” and state “Based on the noise modelling, operational railway noise levels could be above LAmax 49 dBA within approximately 1 km from the rail corridor, within which distance night-time noise levels may have the potential to result in sleep disturbance”.11

30. An analysis of ARTC’s tables in Noise & Vibration technical report Appendix D Part 2 indicates that dwellings well outside the 1 km distance are impacted by noise levels well above 49dBA. In fact, only 1 dwelling was listed as being below LAmax 50dBA while approximately 1,100 dwellings were listed at between LAmax 60-79dBA. Noise consultants have predicted noise impact levels on our client’s property of LAmax 62dBA nearly 3 km from the alignment. It is difficult, we submit, not to form a view that masking is occurring here and consequently that there has not been proper consultation. These issues should be discussed with the community and mitigation strategies developed in conjunction with those affected.

31. Finally, the elevated design of almost the entire alignment on embankments and bridges may cause noise to travel further in the quiet rural environment. This is not discussed adequately as to impact. The expectation at present seems to be that the community is to bear this impact without compensation. Genuine consultation about the impact of raised rail and its extent has not yet occurred and the impact is masked in the details.

Masking and absence of content

10 DEIS (Chapter 15, page 44 11 DEIS Appendix R Social page 157

Page 10 of 25 Doc:

32. Masking and absence is an effective way of controlling the message.12 It is a little different from masking damaging information, which is hiding information from ready view. In the EIS of both NS2B and C2K there are numerous examples of issues which are acknowledged, but no mitigation or solution is offered, or the mitigation is minimal and inadequate. The reader searches for mitigations and through circular referencing is referred to other parts of the EIS, where they discover the same absence of content. Some of these are noted elsewhere in this submission. They are particularly evident when it comes to Social impacts including Noise.

33. In relation to one chapter and appendix of the Calvert to Kagaru section, Chapter 16 Social and Appendix R Social Impact Assessment Technical Report the reader is presented with 120 pages and 289 pages respectively. In itself the wealth of data is impressive, however a closer analysis shows that most of the information is taken up with a baseline sociological descriptive account of the community as it is today, before the rail.

34. Where impacts are detailed as in sections 3.5 Integration with EIS findings of Appendix R there is reference to other sections of the document which demonstrate that in reality the impacts are usually correctly addressed, however that is also the end of it. Mitigations are minor, ineffective or seemingly ignored. Six examples are provided:

● At page 125 under Land Use and Tenure describes the need to relocate 53 households, and states that residents would have been aware of this from the time of the Southern Freight Rail Corridor. ● At page the DEIS 126 notes the landowners’ anxiety and stress, but the mitigation offered is to listen to their concerns and refer them to the Contractor. ● At page 127 the DEIS suggests that a relevant response to the mental health concerns of displaced residents is to enter into a partnership with the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Mental Health Network and also to make available funding to nonprofits who might be able to provide support. ● At page 123 the DEIS under the topic Cultural Heritage offers photography and removal of artifacts. ● At page 139 the DEIS proposes to respond to visual amenity deficits by minimising the size of construction works. ● At page 143 under Economics the DEIS proposes that the 620 FTE at peak for a period of a year and a half and an average of 271 FTE is a contribution to the 10,000 unemployed people of the region, while also acknowledging that skilled bridge builders will be needed, presumably from outside of the region.

35. What is not absent is the actual community engagement reporting on issues that have arisen from community attempts to participate in consultation. Section 6 of Appendix C Consultation Report C2K details the “Outcomes of Consultation”. This demonstrates that

12 See for example, Mumby D.K. (1991) “ Power and Discourse in Organization Studies: Absence and the Dialectic of Control”, Discourse and Society. And Norman Fairclough. (2013) “Language and Power” Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge

Page 11 of 25 Doc:

the ARTC has responded to purely technical construction matters where it seems it is in its interest to do so. For example, ensuring that the Ebenezer intermodal will not be obstructed.13

36. The “Outcomes of Consultation” do not report community concerns about noise, cohesion, fauna protection and social cohesion. Instead in these areas the outcomes of ‘consultation’ are absent and at best they appear as impacts. We discuss these under the section below headed ‘Why the Report is not yet a Draft Environmental Impact Statement’.

37. This absence of meaningful consultation is not just evident in the DEIS it has occurred in the meetings as well. As one example, on 25th February 2021 in Jimboomba, at the invitation of the Logan and Albert Conservation Association, ecologists and officials of the ARTC met with concerned conservationists to elucidate and inform them about offsets for koalas on C2K. In answer to questions the officials were not able, or did not: reveal any information that was not already in the EIS document; could not offer any substantive information about offset negotiations (commercial-in-confidence); had no comments to make about the threat to koala populations and could make no comment about fauna fencing.

Circular referencing and burying

38. Examples of circular referencing refer the reader to another section of the report for detail. When that is accessed it simply re-states the information already given. It may then refer back to the original report which is truly circular, or refer to a technical report which is difficult or impossible to access by the public. Examples have already been cited but we provide two more from NS2B:

39. Chapter 3 “Alternatives” gives detail to support the choice of the rail alignment known as Option D st 1D. The first six pages are concerned with the high-level choices of routes. There the decision that was made buried the fact that it was dependent on a flawed flood event. It ignored the 1976 flood! The flawed decision is used to validate the continued use of a flawed assessment. The community sought to highlight the flaw. The Macintyre Landholders commissioned hydrologists to submit a report combatting the choice by the ARTC of a less serious flood event than could be expected. They were supported by other landholders such as Richard Doyle of Boggabilla.14 Even so, this was not accepted by the ARTC even though it seems obvious that regard must be had to flooding levels in 1976. This rejection builds the perspective that even when legitimate concerns are raised they are not part of a genuine consultation process. Which leads to the next point before we return to this.

13 DEIS pages 56 to 61 14 Submission 6 to the Senate Enquiry NS2B

Page 12 of 25 Doc:

40. As a second example take the same report at Chapter 3 ‘Alternatives’. That chapter cites the negative community response to the route decision and refers the reader to Chapter 8 and Appendix on Consultation which reads:

P3-14 “In conclusion, the review of the original Option A and Option D st D1 assumptions has validated that the current proposed alignment (Option D st D1) in that it achieves improved outcomes compared to that of Option A… As identified within this report, the proposal does recognise that there is community support for Alignment A (Note- the alternative route not favoured by the ARTC). Chapter 8: Consultation and Appendix D: Consultation Summary Report contain further information on how the assessment has responded to this feedback.”

Chapter 8 then refers the reader (on p8-7) to Chapter 13: Surface Water and Hydrology. Eventually the result is tracked down in Appendix D Consultation Summary Report where the ARTC claims to have commissioned an “independent evidence-based compliance review of the multi-criteria assessment” which validated their decision.

5.1.1 The preferred alignment selection process—Option A vs the proposed alignment (D1) GRC, the CCC, and directly impacted stakeholders raised concerns relating to the alignment selection process for the proposed NS2B alignment. Themes raised included: ● Community feedback was not rated high enough in the multi-criteria assessment for Phase 1 decision making of the alignment ● Consultation regarding the route selection was not sufficient ● Concerns about the cost comparison between Option A and the proposed alignment (D1), with the belief that Option A would be cheaper ● Flooding was not rated high enough in the multi-criteria assessment, with only 2.5% weighting ● Flooding impacts associated with the selected alignment, especially on Goondiwindi and Toomelah, were not considered during the alignment selection ● Concerns relating to the multi-criteria assessment used to select the proposed alignment and crossing location ● Concerns relating to the loss of economic benefit to the Goondiwindi region ● GRC not supportive of the Option D1 alignment.

In response to these concerns, Inland Rail facilitated an independent evidence-based compliance review of the multi-criteria assessment to provide more certainty about the methodology for the decision-making process and alignment selection; committed to continuing flood workshops; reviewed design assumptions; and continued ongoing engagement with key stakeholders. The findings of the multi- criteria assessment review were presented to the NS2B CCC in April 2019 and uploaded onto the NS2B ARTC website.15

41. This report could not be found by our client when it sought to find it on the website. So, it seems that the critical and allegedly independent review is difficult to find or has not been put onto the website.

42. Finally, on p39 of the same Appendix it is acknowledged that:

15 DEIS page 37 Appendix D Consultation Summary Report.

Page 13 of 25 Doc:

Although Inland Rail has completed extensive consultation and technical investigations relating to the preferred alignment selection for the project, which has included completing engineering and cost differential assessments for both options, Inland Rail has not been able to come to agreement on the alignment selection with the GRC or the neighbouring landowners (bolding added)”

43. In support of the decision the next paragraph goes on to cite further technical reports, which are either not online or are difficult to find:

“The alignment selection process has been supported by the technical reports and reviews (North Star to NSW/QLD Border Phase 1 Continuity Alignment Report—January 2017; North Star to NSW/QLD Border Phase 2—Preparatory Alignment Assessment Report May 2017; North Star to NSW/QLD Border Project Study Area Report—May 2018 and Inland Rail North Star to NSW/QLD Border Alignment Selection Compliance Review presentation— April 2019), detailed in Chapter 3: Alternatives and proposal options.

44. So, cutting through the circular reasoning and burying, a reader could come to the conclusion that because of fundamental differences about the assumptions to be made about flooding there has been an inability for ARTC to reach agreement with affected landowners. The affected land owners have made public their reasons and report. The ARTC has not justified its position regarding assumptions but is relying upon a report that is critical, and allegedly independent, but which is difficult to find or has not been put onto the ARTC website. If this is the case and it can be written in a summary paragraph like this then ARTC could, if it wished to engage in genuine consultation, have stated the position as simply as this. It could then have linked, through footnotes or text, to the landowners and its own reports. The approach taken suggests, we submit, circular reasoning and burying. 45. Perceptions of practices that are consciously or unconsciously deceptive 46. While we are reluctant to suggest deliberately deceptive conduct on the part of ARTC the information supplied above and below leaves open the possibility that there are perceptions, at least on an unconscious basis the public has been deceived.

Interim conclusion regarding six practises and stakeholder consultation

47. If ARTC has been attempting genuine consultation it has not been successful. The discussion above suggests ARTC has adopted six practices used in megaprojects to vitiate or reduce community engagement, namely:

a. To overwhelm the stakeholders b. To frame the messages in misleading ways c. To mask disturbing or damaging information d. To mask an absence of content

Page 14 of 25 Doc:

e. Circular referencing and burying, and f. To employ tactics that are perceived by stakeholders as consciously or unconsciously deceptive.

Why the Report is not yet a draft Environmental Impact Statement

Introduction 48. For the DEIS to be a draft Environmental Impact Statement it would have to state the impact on the environment in key areas in a way that was intelligible to readers. In this section we provide six examples of ways in which the DEIS does not achieve that outcome in certain key areas.

Social impacts

49. The DEIS states that: The SIA and SIMP addresses key themes raised during consultation, including accommodation, within this study area.16

50. In fact the SIA merely restates the issues. (refer our study on Social and noise impacts) It does not provide suggestions for mitigations as is required by the Terms of Reference (ToR’’). To satisfy the requirements for the ToR it would be necessary to provide the information to the public identified as undisclosed in paragraphs [198 to [201].

Fauna

51. The DEIS states that: Identifying opportunities for locating fauna crossings to maintain habitat connectivity across the rail corridor and where possible, aligning these with regional, State and locally significant fauna movement corridors or areas of important fauna habitat. Six locations have been assessed as providing movement opportunities for the greatest number of species.17

52. In relation to Koala crossings: a. identifying six possible crossings is not enough for this DEIS; b. no demonstrated effort has been made to align with movement corridors with Koalas needs; and, c. the crossings identified appear to be opportunistic bridges over creeks which seemingly bear no reference to koala needs or available studies.

16 DEIS page 57 17 DEIS page 71

Page 15 of 25 Doc:

53. To be a DEIS that states the impact on the koala environment the DEIS would have to a. Identify actual crossings, present and anticipated needs; and, b. Show how these needs aligned with movement corridors expected after the rail was constructed and the impact of the changes on koalas.

54. When, reports have been prepared by community groups such as that at Appendix 9 of the DEIS, which directly address the ToR, and the DEIS does not address these issues it is difficult to conclude the DEIS is in fact a Draft Environmental Impact Study. This is because it has an obligation to consider the environmental impact, particularly when evidence of impact has been provided to it for consideration. When the ToR requires the ARTC to consider these issues and it has not, the document cannot be said to be adequate.

Noise

55. The DEIS states that:

ARTC will continue to engage with people whose properties may experience noise impacts, to ensure impacts on amenity is clearly explained and, where relevant, to obtain inputs to the development of property-specific mitigation strategies.18

56. To satisfy the requirements for the ToR it would be necessary to provide the information to the public identified about noise and evidence mitigation consultation which, as was mentioned in paragraphs [43 to [46] has not occurred.

Indigenous cultural heritage

57. The DEIS states that:

Consultation with the Yuggera Ugarapul People confirmed that the landscape in the SIA study area is important to cultural heritage and Aboriginal connections to Country. An interview with Yuggera Ugarapul People who attended a community information session identified features that are culturally important as including the Mount Flinders area as a sacred site, a waterhole used for healing, on top of a peak (area not specified), sacred sites around Ebenezer, and the Purga Cemetery. Members of the Yuggera Ugarapul People noted that the imposition of linear infrastructure such as roads and rail infrastructure can affect the ability to connect with landscapes, and the prospect of disturbance to the landscape and environmental qualities causes distress.19

58. Distress is noted but no solution or amelioration is offered. This language in this passage evidences that the ARTC treats the word ‘consultation’ as synonymous with transfer of

18 DEIS page 82 19 DEIS page 85

Page 16 of 25 Doc:

‘information’ or meeting. More than a meeting is required. A consultation would involve identifying what could be done, or if nothing could be done, then explaining why.

Social Cohesion 59. The DEIS states that:

The Project was assessed as potentially impacting on community and stakeholder values to varying degrees and in varying locations, bringing changes to amenity and lifestyle, sense of community and place, and potentially, to community cohesion.

ARTC’s community engagement and social investment programs address amenity, lifestyle, cohesion and other quality of life concerns. ARTC’s investments in local communities focus on programs and services to strengthen local social networks and cohesion and ensure the potential benefits such as access to jobs and training are shared. This would help potentially affected communities to adapt to Project-related changes and build their resilience to change.20

60. A review of the intended particulars distils only to addressing mental anguish. The DEIS states:

ARTC has established a partnership with the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network (PHN) and the Brisbane South PHN to support mental health services in the Project region and address additional demand resulting from Inland Rail.21

61. This is inadequate even on the issue of mental anguish as it overlooks the causes of sleeplessness due to the rail as a factor in mental health distress.22

Why is genuine consultation and a comprehensive DEIS important?

62. The greater the risk the more important it is to have and implement strategies to manage it. Consultation is one of the most important strategies in managing megaproject risk. It must therefore be genuine and the DEIS must be comprehensive. Risk and uncertainty 63. The amount at stake financially for the nation and for individual affected citizens coupled with the known uncertainty associated with such projects calls for caution and full compliance before each step is taken. The process around Megaprojects is known to be

20 DEIS page 86 21 DEIS page 87 22 See the section of this submission on noise impacts.

Page 17 of 25 Doc:

subject to uncertainty.23 As an example, Flyvberg discovered that 90% of 258 megatransport projects that his team studied underestimated costs.24 That has happened here with ARTC. Community consultation is a way of ensuring that the most accurate information is built in from the outset.

64. Another group of researchers identified succinctly why this decision making tool needs public consultation not just information:

In focusing on EIA as a decision-aiding tool, the combination of uncertainty in EIA predictions, the failure to communicate that uncertainty and the lack of transparency in the predictions entail several disadvantages: Decisions resulting in unwanted environmental consequences may be made on the basis of erroneous information; democratic influences on decisions may be impeded by a lack of information; information valuable to discussions may fail to be brought to light because information holders do not know that their information is valuable; and EIAs may lose credibility among decision-makers and the public. Accurate and objective predictions would reduce these shortcomings, but, since this is an almost unobtainable goal, better communication regarding uncertainties and more transparency in the prediction processes may be more realistic objectives.”25

65. The senate inquiry has identified the need for trust between ARTC and the public and stakeholders is a pre-eminent requirement. As another author explained:

The need for proponents to maintain credibility or trust can be linked to legitimacy theory, explaining why one would be motivated, under uncertain conditions, to pursue the more socially acceptable practice… such as not withholding information. The challenge, however, is that EA operates in an adversarial environment — proponents present and defend their EISs and those opposed to development present evidence against the project, all to influence the decision about whether the project should be approved and under what conditions… The same challenges apply to decision makers…decision makers need to ensure accountability and support for their decisions and, when communicating uncertainty is perceived as making them vulnerable to criticism, it is easier for them to ignore uncertainty.26

23 Tenney, A, Kværner, J. & Gjerstad, K.I. (2006) Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24:1; Leung, W, Noble B.F. et al (2016) Disparate perceptions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure practices in environmental assessment and opportunities for improvement, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57 24 Tenney ibid page 53 25 Tenney, A, Kværner, J. & Gjerstad, K.I. (2006) Uncertainty in environmental impact assessment predictions: the need for better communication and more transparency, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 24:1, p54 26 ( Leung, W, Noble B.F. et al (2016) Disparate perceptions about uncertainty consideration and disclosure practices in environmental assessment and opportunities for improvement, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 57, p98)

Page 18 of 25 Doc:

Best practice 66. In best practice the DEIS:“ Stakeholders are provided with the genuine capacity to influence outcomes.” 27 They are also provided with adequate time.

…sufficient time must be given to all parties involved, and…a process that limits the time for government and stakeholders to scrutinize applications is unfair given that proponents are typically far less restricted in how long they have to assemble their applications.28

67. In this case there has not been, it is submitted best practice but there should have been.

The impact of consultation that is not genuine 68. There has to be genuine consultation. There has not been. The people in the 57 homes that will be affected need to be given the chance to suggest how their displacement might be best managed. People interested in koala preservation need to be consulted about crossovers not told that the koalas can use the existing bridges. The persons involved in Ivory’s Rock need to be involved in the process of noise mitigation if the rail is to proceed, not simply be informed that the land is below the level of effect selected by ARTC without regard to the unique circumstances of that site. And so on. These are just examples of why genuine consultation is important.

An acknowledgement and request

69. This submission has been prepared by Dr Matthew Turnour with substantive assistance from and in reliance upon information and research provided by Dr Jeffrey Johnson- Abdelmalik.

70. The sheer volume of information to be processed means that it is possible that we could have made a mistake in some point. If we have made a mistake in any regard we are open to correcting it. Accordingly, we request that ARTC be given the opportunity to provide comment to us before this submission is made public or made available to Senators.

Conclusion

71. Consultation is an integral part of risk management of megaprojects. It would be expected that ARTC has consulted very well. This supplementary submission raised doubts about the validity of the consultation process and the DEIS. It has been submitted that both consultation process and report’s structure and content (taken as a whole) are sufficient to warrant requiring further work to be undertaken by the ARTC before

27 Chris Joseph, Thomas Gunton & Murray Rutherford (2015) Good practices for environmental assessment, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 33:4, p242 28 Ibid at 246

Page 19 of 25 Doc:

government can be satisfied that the risks are adequately identified and managed in a way for matters to be progressed.

With Compliments

Dr Matthew Turnour

Page 20 of 25 Doc:

Appendix A: examples of errors or misleading statements

Appendix: Errors and potentially misleading statements

Distance of IRCE from the The DEIS states the distance of IRCE from the disturbance “disturbance footprint” footprint as being either 1km or 1.5km, providing different 16.7.4 (1km) distances in different sections of the DEIS without explanation R Social, page 93 (1km) which can create a misleading impression of the distance of Chapter 6 Economics 3.3 IRCE from the alignment. Local business and ARTC have provided documents directly to IRCE stating that industry (1.5km) the distance is 750m. Actual distance of IRCE from rail alignment. ● The IRCE property is approximately 500 metres from the rail alignment at the closest point ● The caretaker dwelling on the corner of Mt Flinders Road and Dunrad Road is approximately 600m from the alignment ● The Reception building is approximately 750m from the alignment ● The closest campground is approximately 1km from the alignment ● Areas approved for future accommodations not yet built are less than 1km from the alignment Clarification needs to be provided in the DEIS of the definition of the distance in the case of IRCE because of the extensive size of the property of 635 hectares.

Page 21 of 25 Doc:

IRCE description The description of IRCE includes mention of a “Banana Bash 5.4.3 Tourism car racing event held annually in October”. The Banana Bash event was held once only. It was hosted by the Qld Rover section of Scouts Queensland. While IRCE was happy to provide the venue to this NFP organisation, it does not represent the typical events held at IRCE and was not part of the detailed information provided to ARTC on activities at IRCE. The description failed to mention in more detail the regular international peace conventions for which detailed information was provided to ARTC.

R Social, Page 169 Noise level impact on IRCE during construction is listed at up to 50dbA but the description fails to identify if this is LAeq or LAmax. The same applies to the 70dbA assigned to Flinders Peak Winery, although the Winery is listed as further from the alignment than IRCE and therefore the reason for the significant difference in impact is unclear.

R Social, Page 170 This section states: “ARTC will then develop a strategy, working with any noise-affected tourism landholders, Scenic Rim Tourism Association, Ipswich Tourism Operators Network, ICC and SRRC, to ensure that both property-specific and generalised impacts on tourism values are mitigated. ARTC will also work with the Scenic Rim Tourism Association and the Ipswich Tourist Operators Network to support their promotional and marketing campaigns during the construction period. This is expected to offset any deterrence of tourists as a result of the Project”. This statement is misleading as it is not possible to successfully mitigate the impacts on IRCE either during construction or operation and there is no supporting evidence of how the proposed campaign would offset the “deterrence”. Chapter 15 Noise page 44 States: “Based on the noise modelling, operational railway noise levels could be above LAmax 49 dBA within approximately 1 km from the rail corridor, within which distance night-time noise levels may have the potential to result in sleep disturbance”. This statement is misleading, ARTC data demonstrates that noise levels of LAmax 60dBA and above will occur 2km or more from the alignment. This paragraph should be corrected.

Page 22 of 25 Doc:

Chapter 15 and Appendix Q “IRCE was not identified as a noise sensitive receptor in this Noise and Vibration assessment”. This statement is misleading. IRCE is one of the 1,350 “sensitive receptors'' identified. However IRCE was not considered a “noise sensitive receptor triggering a review of noise mitigation measures” based on ARTC’s specific “trigger level” of LAmax 80dBA (59 identified). This statement is repeated elsewhere in the dEIS and provides a potentially misleading impression that IRCE is not “noise sensitive”. A number of statements throughout the dEIS refer to “59 sensitive receptors” without clarifying that it refers only to those receptors that are considered to “trigger a review of noise mitigation measures” according to ARTC “trigger level” of LAmax 80dBA. This can give the misleading impression that there are very few properties along the entire alignment that are noise impacted. All statements referring to “59 sensitive receptors” should be changed to clarify that this statement only refers to those receptors “triggering noise mitigation measures” where the additional wording is not already included.

Appendix Q 1-3 Mapping of operational noise impact is insufficient. It does not include all the 1,350 sensitive receptors identified by ARTC and listed in the tables of ID numbers. This means that the residents with properties not shown on the maps did not have access to the ID numbers for their properties without contacting ARTC and did not even know that their properties were listed in the tables.

Appendix Q 1-3 and all Mapping of operational noise impact is insufficient as it only display maps used by ARTC shows a noise contour line for the LAmax 80dBA and does not show any noise contour lines for any Lamax levels below 80dBA. This means that it is not clear how far the noise travels and at what levels of impact. This provides a misleading impression. A complete range of noise impact contours should have been provided as was done in the SFRC Final Assessment Report 2010.

Page 23 of 25 Doc:

Chapter 14, Groundwater Scales appear to be wrong on all maps. The 0 to 25 then 25 to page 8 to 11 50 scale is just a quick way of illustrating the scale, but it should be the same as the numeral 1:42,000

Chapter 16 page 18 “Train services will be provided by a variety of operators. Trains will be a mix of grain, bulk freight and other general transport trains.” This statement omits coal trains.

Chapter 16 Page 11 Omits Allenview and Kagaru from the “potentially impacted communities” although Kagaru is identified on pages 16-21 as “potential for disadvantage”. Chapter 16 Pages 52-59 Pages 52/53 states relocation of 53 households, pages 55/59 says relocation of 60 households Chapter 16 Page 62 Indicated construction noise criteria will be exceeded on Allan Creek Road, Brookland Road, Bromelton House Road, Undullah Road, Middle Road and Washpool Road which are all rural roads. However SRRC has stated that ARTC are not to use rural roads as Haul routes.

Chapter 23, EMP Page “Project works are designed, planned and 23.13.8 implemented to maintain daily patterns of activity, and to minimise sleep disturbance at night” This statement is misleading as the ARTC noise impact level for consideration of noise mitigation is very high and hundreds of sensitive receptors above LAmax 60dBA but below LAmax 80dBA do not meet this requirement and according to ARTC’s own statements with regard to WHO guidelines, will be subject to potential sleep disturbance. Therefore the EMP cannot be achieved.

Page 24 of 25 Doc:

Appendix R Social Page “Property-specific mitigation measures may be required to 169 Tourism businesses ensure that amenity impacts do not result in a decline in use of the accommodation, which could lead to effects on the viability of affected businesses.” This statement was specifically related to Flinders Peak Winery and IRCE. However this is a misleading statement as it is completely unclear how the construction impacts, already identified in the dEIS as significant, could be mitigated. It is also unclear why construction noise impacts are identified as potentially resulting in a decline in use and yet operational noise is not identified as having the same potential impact even though noise impacts on IRCE from construction and operational noise appear similar.

Report Q, Operational Noise A number of houses at Kagaru are not shown on these maps of Maps 33 and 34 Sensitive Receptors. The map has been truncated at the interstate line. These houses are 400m from the existing corridor and the southern branch line to Bromelton. They apparently have an ID number in the Predicted Airborne Noise Level table (Appendix E) however property owners have no way of knowing which number refers to their property and therefore no way of ascertaining what noise levels are predicted at their homes

Note: This table is a sample of errors and misleading statements and is does not represent a complete reference to the entire Draft EIS.

Page 25 of 25 Doc: