Submission to:

Senate Select Committee

Inquiry into Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration

Submission about the Queensland Government’s dealings in relation to the

Toondah Harbour Priority Development Area

Chris Walker

Cleveland, Queensland

25 November 2014

Inquiry into Queensland Government Toondah Harbour Development

Introduction

The Queensland Government has actively sought to promote coastal development in the area around Toondah Harbour, Cleveland. In this matter the Queensland Government has been assisted by the Council.

Most of area proposed for development is publicly owned land. Plans for development include a 400 berth marina and development of some 2,000 multi-story units in buildings up to 10 storeys high. This development is proposed in an area that currently features community parkland, unspoilt tidal waterways and low-rise residential dwellings (as well as a former CSIRO research facility).

The area proposed for development includes a small ferry terminal which serves , the nearby G.J. Walter Park, and many hectares of internationally significant Ramsar Wetlands.

The ostensible reason for the proposed development in this area was to achieve an upgrade to the ferry terminal. But it has become apparent that the bulk of the proposed investment in this area is intended to be spent on development of high rise residential accommodation units and a marina.

Concerns about the proposed development of Toondah Harbour

There are two principle concerns about the Queensland Government’s involvement in promotion of this development which have Commonwealth Government implications:

Federal Environmental Law

Any development would have a potentially significant impact on matters which are protected by Federal environmental law (the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act). The Queensland Government has consistently given minimal recognition to this issue in its efforts to facilitate private sector investment in this protected area.

Federal Native Title Law

In its planning for the transfer of publicly owned land to the private sector the Queensland Government has avoided public discussion of native title (and culture and heritage) issues. It is not clear if traditional owners will be able to exercise their rights under Native Title Law.

Other Concerns

Apart from the two concerns mentioned above which have specific Commonwealth Government implications, the proposed development is questionable on many other grounds including:

 Selection of a proposed developer (Walker Corporation) with a long record of making donations to political parties that happen to be in government  Government’s involvement in a deceptive and inept community consultation process  A lack of proper cost-benefit based planning processes to determine if the community would be better off as a result of the proposed development

1

Inquiry into Queensland Government Toondah Harbour Development

Overview of the Toondah Harbour Priority Development Area Development Scheme

The Queensland Government facilitated a proposed development of a Priority Development Area (PDA) at Toondah Harbour under the Economic Development Act 2012. This legislation provides for minimal community engagement in the development process.

A public consultation process in early 2014 put forward a draft development scheme for review without any information about the potential impacts on the environment or issues to do with culture and heritage. Only after the public consultation period closed was a brief environmental assessment report made publicly available.

Figure 1 Toondah Harbour PDA Following the receipt of petitions and public submissions the Government finalised the scheme and then proceeded to select a preferred developer. In September 2014 it was announced that the preferred developer is Walker Corporation.

Federal Environmental Issues for Toondah Harbour Development

The Federal Government’s Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act exists to protect what are called “matters of national environmental significance”.

Moreton Bay is nationally significant for at least two reasons. It is both a Ramsar wetland (listed under the international Ramsar convention since 1993) and an important habitat for migratory shorebirds.

The coastal land subject to development contains many koala habitat trees. Queensland’s koalas are now classified as vulnerable under Federal Figure 2 Ramsar site environment law.

The waters of southern Moreton Bay are regularly visited by southern right whales which are classified as endangered under Federal environmental law. In 2014 a southern right whale was killed after being struck by a ferry operating out of Toondah Harbour.

The Queensland Government appears to have determined that commercial development at Toondah harbour should not be restrained by consideration of Federal environment regulation.

The draft development scheme and final development scheme were put in place with negligible public acknowledgement of the constraints of Federal environmental law. The public was not given an opportunity to review and consider the environmental impacts of proposed development before the scheme was adopted.

The information made available for the purpose of selecting a private sector developer showed similar scant regard for the likely need to comply with Federal environmental constraints. In the case of a marina or similar project located near an urban area, such as a planned 400 berth Toondah Harbour marina, some particular environmental issues that should have been considered, before signing up a preferred property developer, include:

2

Inquiry into Queensland Government Toondah Harbour Development

 The extent that a proposed marina project is part of a process of cumulative impact, following previous port, canal estate and marina projects which have already affected species and ecological communities in the area (Moreton Bay) and with the propensity for other projects to follow which will in time add even more pressure on these conservation matters;

 The likely consequential “second order” impacts of development including increased boating traffic that would inevitably result from a large marina and the impact that such additional boating activity would have on large species which are the subject of conservation requirements e.g. more whales, and large turtles suffering boat strikes;

 Increasing recognition of the important role that plays in marine ecosystems;

 The lack of credible scientific evidence that seagrass beds and tidal mudflats can be artificially created in other areas as environmental offsets.

Native title and revocation of public reserve

In its planning for the transfer of publicly owned land to the private sector the Queensland Government has avoided any public discussion of native title (and culture and heritage) issues.

Part of the area proposed for development is public parkland known as the G.J. Walter Park. This land is owned by the State and gazetted as reserve for recreation. It is managed by the Redland City Council as trustee for the Government. It appears that the Government intends to make this land available for development as part of a proposed redevelopment without giving traditional owners an opportunity to make a native title claim over this land.

When pressed to clarify its intention on dealing with the tenure of publicly owned parkland, the relevant Queensland Minister (Hon Andrew Cripps, Minister for Mines and Natural Resources) wrote that the Government may revoke the Park’s reserve status and issue a deed of grant. He indicated that this may be done in a way that precludes traditional owners from making claims in accordance with native title law.

The Minister also stated that for any land below the high water mark “Native title will need to be addressed and extinguished…” but “To date …no formal application has been made…”.

The Queensland Government’s lack of transparency with regard to native title issues for land in the Toondah Harbour PDA is objectionable.

Walker Corporation, donations and lobbyist

The emergence of Walker Corporation as the preferred developer of the Toondah Harbour PDA may be an issue that deserves detailed investigation.

Walker Corporation has a long and well documented record of making political donations, generally to the party in government. Refer, for instance, to Democracy 4 sale website

Walker Corporation is known to have engaged well known Queensland Liberal party identity Santo Santoro as a lobbyist as shown in this report to the Queensland Integrity Commissioner http://lobbyists.integrity.qld.gov.au/register-details/company-details.aspx?id=216

In addition to his lobbyist role, Santo Santoro was also Vice President of the Federal Liberal Party until March 2014: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/santo-santoro-quits-as-liberals-vice-president- 20140320-3561z.html

3

Inquiry into Queensland Government Toondah Harbour Development

When announcing that Walker Corporation was the preferred developer of the Toondah harbour PDA, Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney stated that the community would have no further opportunity to review Walker Corporation’s development plans. He said that any development application would be assessed against the provisions of the approved development scheme which was put in place following a community consultation process. He claimed that the development scheme had public support ( http://redlands2030.net/?p=4859 ).

These statements by Minister Seeney are at variance with earlier assurances given by the local Federal member Dr Andrew Laming. Dr Laming advised local residents who were concerned about the draft PDA development scheme that the community should defer its concern until detailed proposals had been submitted i.e. “I am sure when we have a final proposal, we can get some more precise sentiments on specifics like what is built and where”.

Deceptive and inept public consultation Problems with the Toondah Harbour PDA consultation process include:  Findings of previous public consultation exercises (in 2013) ignored;  The consultation exercise commenced on 10 January when many residents were away on holiday;  Information made available was limited to a badly worded draft development scheme which contained a significant error in description of allowable building heights;  The Government and Redland City Council attempted to influence the consultation process through circulation of “artist’s impressions”, results from a dubiously worded community attitude survey, and unsupported claims by local LNP MP Dr Mark Robinson that the proposed development was supported by the “vast majority” of Redland City’s residents;  Information deliberately withheld from the public consultation process included various “technical studies” including a report on environmental issues and reports on the real estate market for development (written by a firm subsequently engaged to help sell the project);  The terms of reference for these “technical studies” have never been made publicly available nor has the process that was used to prepare the terms of reference including details of which people and firms may have had input;  Community members were encouraged to make comments at information sessions and told that these comments would be taken into account. This was never done so these people were duped;  The Government’s public report on submissions failed to address many of the points raised by the community in hundreds of submissions.

In essence there appears to be a high likelihood that this was a premeditated “tick and flick” exercise which was intended all along to give a major developer an opportunity to develop publicly owned land with minimal regulatory constraints and community engagement.

The contempt shown for “proper” public consultation appears to be a breach of the Government’s international human rights obligations. In essence, Australian governments should not attempt to deceive their own citizens.

Lack of proper cost-benefit based planning processes

The Toondah Harbour PDA development process has been characterised by a reckless approach to the disposition of publicly owned assets.

The Government has failed to make available to the community any information about important issues such as:  The amount of money that is required to be spent upgrading ferry terminal facilities;  The value of publicly owned assets like parkland and unspoilt waterways (and loss of amenity if these community assets are no longer available);  The developer premium that might be achieved from the envisaged marina and high rise developments that are being proposed for this area;  The split of costs and benefits between the community (who own the assets) and the preferred developer (Walker Corporation).

4

Inquiry into Queensland Government Toondah Harbour Development

Conclusion The Queensland Government has adopted a “suck it and see” approach to the disposition of publicly owned waterfront land to a property developer with a long track record of making political donations.

The whole process fails many aspects of the public interest test but more importantly shows blatant disregard for Federal laws about native title and protecting matters of national environmental significance.

Further Information

Should further information be required to substantiate any comments made in this submission it will be made available promptly.

5