Chair's Foreword
For more than a decade the proposal to develop a marina and
resort at Oyster Point on the Hinchinbrook Channel, part of the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area, has been characterised by controversy,
inter-governmental disputes and bungling at all levels. The issue has grown
from one about short cuts in permit approvals to one about protection of an
outstanding natural area, the rights of local communities to decent prosperity
to a full blown national debate that arouses the strongest of emotions.
In the committee’s view the management of development
proposals at Oyster Point has been a tragedy of errors, the results of which
have been unsatisfactory to all concerned. It has been unsatisfactory to the
developer who has suffered uncertainty and delay; to the environment groups as
the environment has not been adequately protected; and to the authorities who
have had to handle the matter with vastly more trouble and expense trying to
repeatedly justify and defend indefensible decisions and processes.
In retrospect a tremendous amount of expense and aggravation
would have been avoided if the resort and marina project first proposed in 1987
had been subjected to a proper environmental assessment process.
This error was compounded when the project was revived in
1993-94, again with failure of the Queensland State government to insist on a
full environmental impact assessment. Instead, the government opted for the
lesser instrument of an “Environmental Review Report” which, FOI documents
later revealed, was considerably influenced by the developer.
The controversy surrounding the development has been based
around the environmental impacts of the development. While conservation,
science and community expectation is that as a world heritage area, its unique
values deserve the highest level of assessment, consideration and protection,
the reality has been far from this.
The Hinchinbrook area is blessed by outstanding values,
which include stunning scenery, endangered species and unique ecosystems found in
abundance. It is these values which have inspired the level of passion and
commitment from many Australians to protect the area.
Unfortunately the area is also a depressed regional economy
where many local residents justifiably want the guarantee of economic
prosperity which they do not have at present. The Port Hinchinbrook development
promised regional jobs in an area which sorely needs them. It is important to
note that despite the many, detailed and often conflicting reports commissioned
on all sides about the environment, and despite the many assertions made by
regulatory authorities to justify their decisions and the many public claims of
the developer as to the economic value of the development, there has never been
any economic assessment of the development.
The Committee received 166 submissions with the clear
majority being from people who did not want the resort to proceed because of
its dangers to the surrounding world heritage area. A number of independent
submissions came in from scientists expressing grave concerns about the impacts
of the resort and concerns about how the Government has managed the decision.
It is worth noting that a number of scientists reported
being threatened or intimidated for putting their views forward about this development.
The Committee finds this sort of behaviour unacceptable.
Evidence to the committee demonstrated there are serious
environmental risks from this development which have been overlooked or
downplayed by various Governments. It also shows those risks are ongoing. After
the issue became a public bleeding sore for various political parties, a Deed
of Agreement between the local and state governments and the developer was
made.
The Commonwealth later entered the agreement under what is
known as the Deed of Variation. This deed is only enforceable by the
signatories and has never been legally enforced despite documented and
acknowledged breaches. It is doubtful how it sits in a regulatory system and
whether it will ever actually protect the surrounding area from the impacts of
the development.
The committee found that the emphasis on the development is
no longer on the resort and potential of the resort, it is on the real estate
subdivision and residential sales.
The committee received evidence that there was a significant
acid sulfate problem on site with doubts cast about the adequacy of its
management. Concerns about liability and potential compensation have been
raised for any Governments which give building approvals as a result. The
Committee believes that concerns so far highlighted by the Queensland Acid
Sulfate Soils Inspection Team and by Professor Ian White raise serious
questions about the short and long term management of acid soil on site. This
also raises serious concerns for any buyers of land in the area.
In the committee’s view, the Port Hinchinbrook example is a
clear case for government in how not to consider and deal with development
applications in sensitive areas.
The attempts, mainly by State and local authorities, to
shortcut even minimal environmental assessment has had the perverse effect of
substantially increasing the costs in time, money and degradation to all
parties – developers, regulatory agencies and the community.
It is also clear to the committee that the whole system of
environmental impact assessment needs substantial overhaul. A system where
parties interested in development both commission and pay for environmental
impact assessments not surprisingly produces reports coloured to development.
Independently or scientifically commissioned reports do not demonstrate
anything like this unanimity.
Recommendations
Some key recommendations
of the report are:
The Commonwealth, as a
party to the Port Hinchinbrook Deed of Agreement, should engage an independent
assessor to report on whether the developer has been complying with the Deed;
and if there have been any breaches, the Commonwealth should act to ensure they
are remedied. (recommendation 1)
There should be a full
assessment of acid sulfate soils at the Port Hinchinbrook site, and the
Commonwealth should act to ensure that any breaches of the Acid Sulfate
Management Plan are remedied. (recommendation 5)
The Commonwealth should
fund CSIRO to expedite research on acid sulfate soils and acid sulfate mapping
around Australia. (recommendation 6)
The Commonwealth and the
Queensland governments should expedite research into the environmental effects
of aquaculture on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. (recommendation
8)
The Commonwealth should
fund a program of regional planning in local government areas where planning
decisions may affect World Heritage values of World Heritage areas. Funding
should be conditional on using best practice planning processes. The
Commonwealth should also fund a program of information and education about
World Heritage conservation in those local government areas. (recommendation
11)
The Commonwealth, in
co-operation with the States, should expedite research into risks to the World
Heritage values of Australia’s World Heritage properties. (recommendation 13)
Senator Lyn Allison
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page