Save the Reef A member group of Lock the Gate Alliance www.savethereef.net.au Committee Secretary Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Phone: +61 2 6277 3526 Fax: +61 2 6277 5818 [email protected] Submission to the Senate Inquiry on The adequacy of the Australian and Queensland Governments’ efforts to stop the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, including but not limited to: Points a–k. Save the Reef would like to thank this committee for the opportunity to make a submission and would also like to speak further if there is an opportunity at any public hearings. The Great Barrier Reef is Australia’s greatest natural asset. It is a tourism mecca, a 6 billion dollar economic boon as well as a scientific wonderland. It is a World Heritage Listed property and an acknowledged world wonder. The Great Barrier Reef is part of Australia’s very identity. We are failing to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The efforts to stop the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef are grossly inadequate. It demonstrates that our current system for protecting the environment is broken. Environmental impact statements, conditions, offsets, regulations, enforcement and even the EPBC act, processes meant to protect the environment are being subverted and the impact is apparent. The holes in the “Swiss Cheese” are lining up and have allowed and are continuing to allow further destruction of the Great Barrier Reef when it needs our protection the most. The recent developments in Gladstone are a clear demonstration of the failure of our systems. A World Heritage Great Barrier Reef Island was turned into a site for three gas plants, (with a fourth gas plant also approved despite the expressed concern of the World Heritage Committee). There was an environmental collapse in Gladstone Harbour contributing to destruction of seagrass, and sickness in multiple species including humans. A fishing industry was destroyed and the World Heritage listed harbour was transformed from a blue sanctuary for endangered dugongs, turtles, dolphins, seagrass, into a muddy mess with a leaky bund wall. These failures were eventually acknowledged over two and a half years later in an independent review into the Gladstone Bund Wall. To date in this World Heritage Property no-one has been held accountable and apparently no laws have been broken. Great Barrier Reef World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef World Heritage listed Curtis Island and Gladstone Harbour before Curtis Island and Gladstone Harbour after Even worse Gladstone Harbour has been touted as the model to follow for other port developments up and down the Great Barrier Reef, rather than the disaster to avoid. A cynic might suggest the lesson learnt from Gladstone Harbour is if you want to build oil and gas facilities on a World Heritage Island, or dredge a World Heritage harbour, take shortcuts, cut costs and hide documentation for a few years. Gladstone Ports, a government owned organisation delivered its part of the project not only on time but before its scheduled time. The resulting collapse of the environment and sickness in multiple species including humans, - effectively an example of “ecocide” in Gladstone harbour - was an “unfortunate” development. One might suggest that the social license to continue to dredge the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area was severely damaged by these “unfortunate” events. The failure to protect Curtis Island and Gladstone harbour was apparent internationally and the risk of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area being listed as “In Danger” is in a large part due to the events in Gladstone. 2 Gladstone turbidity average 5.8 NTU (2004) Gladstone Turbidity averages ~20 NTU (2011) Save the Reef has been concerned about government and statutory authorities’ mismanagement, particularly of the southern reef, for many years now. Two recent ‘independent’ inquiries commissioned by the federal government – one while Labor was in office, the second by the Coalition – have been immensely disappointing in their narrow focus and inadequate response to the ecological disaster that has been wreaked upon Gladstone Harbour. The most recent independent review acknowledged significant failings but exonerated all federal officers charged with enforcing federal environmental responsibilities. A number of misleading statements by port officials, government appointed scientists and senior bureaucrats has led us to reflect on wider questions about the haste with which this development has been pursued by all levels of government beginning in 2008. Our concerns begin with the original decision to excise land from the World Heritage Area of Curtis Island for an industrial hub as well as the failure to enforce environmental regulation in Australia’s premier world heritage property. A number of our concerns have already been outlined in submissions to the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone, the Independent Review of the Bund Wall and letters to Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt. They are appended to this submission. It has been disappointing to note the narrow approach of these reviews and the failure to address matters of substance that highlight inadequate management and responsibility for the World Heritage Area. There has been contention around six major areas which we believe need to be fully investigated to restore public confidence: Excision of land within the World Heritage Area 3 Energy Corporations relations with state and federal Governments since 2008 The nature of agreements between Gladstone Ports Corporation [GPC], the LNG companies and the contractors for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project Mismanagement by the federal environment department of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project [WBDDP] Government failure to identify the cause and respond to toxic algal blooms in the inner harbour Impacts on marine life especially seagrass, and endangered species such as turtles, dugongs, whales and dolphins (including the snubfin). Concerns regarding the Management of Gladstone Harbour 1. The excision of land within the GBR world heritage boundaries to create a state development area/industrial precinct: Why was the selection of a site outsourced to an engineering firm and why were World Heritage Values not included as part of any assessment criteria? Was the federal government consulted or informed about land use within the world heritage area? Was UNESCO advised of the plans to industrialise Curtis Is? Was the land sold to the LNG corporations? The ‘Properties’ section within the Queensland Department of State Development is now corporatized and presumably had responsibility for the land sales. Was the excised land sold at market rates? Were any staff paid fees for the land sales? Were public servants with responsibility for compulsorily acquiring and then making the land available to the energy corporations able to benefit financially from the transaction? What part did Mr Harvey, Director of Properties, play in the excision and sales of land? This was public land forcibly acquired from the World Heritage Area and the public have the right to know how this world heritage land was alienated and who precisely profited from it. 4 The Queensland Government made further changes to the Curtis Island precinct in 2010. Were the LNG proponents consulted over the creation of the environmental management precinct in 2010? Was UNESCO’s world heritage committee? Was land that is part of the Environmental Management Precinct provided to the LNG projects for their environmental offsets? Is the state government excising land which the public assumed was already protected as part of the world heritage area, in order to on-sell it to the LNG corporations as offsets? Are they required to purchase it and if so what rates are they charged? 2. Extent of influence of the main 4 energy corporations involved in CSG and LNG development with the state and federal governments. The New South Wales Independent Against Corruption is currently investigating the undue influence that coal mining companies, mining services companies and their lobbyists have had on government decision-making in that state. The diaries for Premiers Bligh and Newman indicate that they have had meetings with major gas corporations prior to government approvals and after public complaints about their improper influence. It is Save the Reef’s view that we need an equivalent investigation into meetings between state and federal government ministers with any individuals representing energy corporations in the lead up to the approvals for csg projects, for LNG projects, and for port infrastructure in Gladstone harbour. It is in the public interest to make the basis of those discussions publicly available including what support and assistance was promised to the energy corporations. 3. Agreements between the Gladstone Ports Corporation, LNG companies and WBDDP contractors. It is clear that Gladstone Ports Corporation placed project deadlines ahead of its environmental responsibilities. GPC whistleblowers, according to reports in the Australian newspaper in December 2013, claim GPC signed commercial contracts with the dredging contractors that gave them payment for any days the dredge was not in use. Consequently we would like to know who signed these commercial contracts which ignored GPC’s environmental responsibilities. In addition we need to know about any agreements Gladstone Ports Corporation has made with the LNG companies. Were