SENATE Official Committee Hansard
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Official Committee Hansard ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFERENCES COMMITTEE Reference: Hinchinbrook Channel MONDAY, 10 AUGUST 1998 CANBERRA BY AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE CANBERRA 1997 INTERNET The Proof and Official Hansard transcripts of Senate committee hearings, some House of Representatives committee hearings and some joint committee hearings are available on the Internet. Some House of Representatives committees and some joint committees make available only Official Hansard transcripts. The Internet address is: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard SENATE ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFER- ENCES COMMITTEE Monday, 10 August 1998 Members: Senator Allison (Chair), Senator Tierney (Deputy Chair), Senators Hogg, Lundy, O’Chee, Payne, Reynolds and Schacht Participating members: Senators Abetz, Bartlett, Bolkus, Boswell, Brown, Calvert, George Campbell, Chapman, Colston, Coonan, Cooney, Eggleston, Evans, Faulkner, Ferguson, Margetts, McKiernan, Neal and Patterson Senators in attendance: Senators Allison, Hogg, Ian Macdonald, Payne, Reynolds, Tierney and Woodley Terms of reference for the inquiry: 1. The relationships between Federal, state and local governments and developers in the Hinchinbrook Channel. 2. The effect of developments on the environment of the Hinchinbrook Channel and surrounding environs. 3. Whether governments have met their obligations under the various acts and agree- ments that deal with the Hinchinbrook area. 4. Alternatives to the existing regime. 5. What lessons have been learned and what can be done to prevent problems like this occurring in the future. WITNESSES BOWMAN, Dr Gregory Mark, CSIRO Land and Water, GPO Box 1666, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601 .................................. 272 HORSTMAN, Mr Mark, Research Coordinator, Australian Conservation Founda tion, 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy, Victoria .............................. 203 JOHNSON, Mr James, Director, Environmental Defender’s Office, Level 9, 89 York Street, Sydney, New South Wales 2000 ............................... 286 MALCOLM, Mr Hamish, Conservation Officer, Queensland Department of Envi- ronment and Heritage, PO Box 5391, Townsville, Queensland 4810 .......... 298 MELVILLE, Associate Professor Michael Dick, School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052 ...................... 222 ROGERS, Dr Stephen Lloyd, Executive Assistant to the Chief of Division, CSIRO Land and Water, PMB No. 2, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064 .......... 269 SAMMUT, Mr Jesmond, Lecturer, School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052 .............................. 222 TALBOT, Professor Frank Hamilton, 48 Kallaroo Road, Lane Cove, New South Wales 2066 ................................................... 244 WHITE, Professor Ian, Jack Beale Professor of Water Resources, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200 .......... 244 WILLIAMS, Mr Keith, Principal Executive, Cardwell Properties Pty Ltd, PO Box 444, Main Beach, Queensland 4217 ................................. 303 YOUNG, Mrs Virginia Kay, National Lobbyist, Wilderness Society, PO Box 188, Civic Square, Australian Capital Territory 2608 ........................ 203 Monday, 10 August 1998 SENATE—References ERC&A 203 Committee met at 8.53 a.m. HORSTMAN, Mr Mark, Research Coordinator, Australian Conservation Foundation, 340 Gore Street, Fitzroy, Victoria YOUNG, Mrs Virginia Kay, National Lobbyist, Wilderness Society, PO Box 188, Civic Square, Australian Capital Territory 2608 CHAIR—I declare open this third public hearing of the Senate Environment, Recreation, Communications and the Arts References Committee’s inquiry into the Hinchinbrook Channel and I welcome representatives of the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society. The committee prefers that evidence be given in public, but should you at any stage wish to give your evidence, part of your evidence or answers to specific questions in camera you may ask to do so and the committee will consider your request. However, I point out that evidence taken in camera may subsequently be made public by order of the Senate. The committee has before it submission No. 91 and submission No. 147 which have been authorised to be published. Before we move to an opening statement or questions, are there any alterations or additions you would care to make at this stage? Mr Horstman—No, thank you. Mrs Young—No. CHAIR—Do you wish to make a brief opening statement? If not, we could proceed straight to questions. Mrs Young—I thought we would both make a brief opening statement partly because, at least in my case, the submission omits a couple of things that I would like to place formally on the record. I want to emphasise that the primary reason we feel we have all ended up in this mess is that there has been a failure of successive governments to recognise that the Great Barrier Reef is actually a world heritage area and that the management requirements for world heritage areas have never been properly incorporated into any management plans for the region. There are inadequate management plans at every level for the Great Barrier Reef. The other primary reason we are here is that there was a failure of environmental assessment processes from the very beginning. If we just put aside the issue of the implica- tions of this place sitting on the edge of a world heritage area, the fact that there was never a comprehensive assessment of all the environmental impacts has landed us in this sorry mess. I also think it is important to place on the record that the only reason we have any studies at all, and any interest by government at all in what happens at this site, is through the efforts of the conservation movement. If it had not been for people standing in front of bulldozers in 1994, if it had not been for the continual protests and the continual drawing to the community’s attention of the problems with this site, would we have had anything other ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS ERC&A 204 SENATE—References Monday, 10 August 1998 than a tick-the-box approach to Port Hinchinbrook? I very much suspect the answer would be no. The other issue that is of very deep concern is the way in which the developer appears to our organisation to have been essentially able to bully his way through various government processes. Why is it that every time the developer says that he is going to go bankrupt if he does not get approval A, B or C, governments simply say, ‘Okay, you can have approvals A, B and C’? I do not have specific examples with me today, unfortunately. I was looking for some through our FOI records, but I did not manage to get out what I wanted. The concerns that we have about the ability of this developer to essentially dominate, if you like, the public concern for the place are epitomised by what happened on Sunday, 14 September, when a peaceful protest on the foreshores in the state marine park of Port Hinchinbrook ended in a very violent debacle. As the protestors were leaving that site, Williams employees entered the crowd of people as they were leaving and proceeded to bash up key Hinchinbrook campaigners. That was a deeply shocking experience for me to be part of and it was deeply shocking to watch the police in action. There has been a Criminal Justice Commission inquiry. I found the results of that inquiry deeply disturbing, and it is something that I would like to see the Australian Senate raise and take issue with in the course of its deliberations. The other issue that has not been raised in my submission concerns the timing of the government’s decision, or at least of Senator Hill’s announcement. Courtesy of Dr Carmen Lawrence, we have on the public record a letter from the Prime Minister to Mr Williams of July 1996 which indicated that the government was supportive of the proposal, and yet we did not hear the minister’s final decision until August that year. There were also public announcements in the press, both by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, well in advance of Senator Hill’s decision. How can that be? I think there are serious questions relating to the timing and how the government’s decision was made. The concerns about whether or not the decision was politically motivated are heightened if you consider that part of Senator Hill’s responsibility was to determine whether or not there was a prudent or feasible alternative to this project. To do that, he would have had to look at the economic feasibility of the project. There is nothing on the public record that indicates that was done. Indeed, in an affidavit from Dransfield and Co. to the High Court in support of the Friends of Hinchinbrook court case, it is quite clear that steps should have been taken to determine whether or not there was a prudent or feasible alternative. Moreover, based on the analysis of that accountant and financial adviser, the project is clearly not economically viable. These are fairly serious questions that the committee should look at. I have raised a number of other very specific concerns in the submission and I am happy to talk to those. They relate to the issues of acid sulfate and dugong. There is one piece of information, however, that I would like to read to the committee. It is from Dr Bob Morris, who is a specialist. He is one of the few people who have done any studies on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef. The information relates to the issue of acid sulfate damage and heavy metal transport onto the reef. ENVIRONMENT, RECREATION, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS Monday, 10 August 1998 SENATE—References ERC&A 205 This is a faxed note from Bob Morris on Friday. He reveals that he has been doing research in the Hinchinbrook Channel and has taken seagrass samples from the coastal area adjacent to the spoil dump which show raised metal levels compared to values for seagrass samples taken from other coastal areas in Queensland.