Action taken and process of management

Introduction

This chapter will explore the processes of management that led to the decision in 1996 to allow Cardwell Properties (CP) to go ahead with the controversial mangrove removal and dredging activities associated with the Port Hinchinbrook development. Since work initially began in the late 1980s, there have been numerous setbacks in the course of developing the tourist resort. Much of the complexity surrounding the approval process can be attributed to the lack of a thorough assessment of the development's environmental impacts being conducted when it was first proposed. Other factors contributing to the development's history were changes in power at the federal government level and the overlap between local, State and federal governments in matters relating to coastal management in World Heritage areas. See image 1

Management responsibilities

In order to understand the decision-making processes that determined the fate of the Port Hinchinbrook development, it is necessary to clarify the overlap of State and federal government jurisdictions in the area. The foreshore of the Hinchinbrook region coastline (up to low tide mark) is considered territory that comes under Queensland State and local government jurisdiction. Decisions over whether or not to approve developments situated along the mainland coastline are therefore at the discretion of the Queensland Government and the local council of the area in which the development is being proposed. See image 2

It is significant to note, however, that in the Port Hinchinbrook case the federal government also became involved because of the impact that the proposed development may have had on the World Heritage-listed values of the Hinchinbrook Channel, Hinchinbrook Island and the Great Barrier Reef. As a signatory to the World Heritage Convention, the Australian government is responsible for ensuring that these values are protected. The Hinchinbrook Channel, beyond the mainland foreshore low tide boundary, is also considered within the limits of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - an area over which the federal government holds jurisdiction.

Background to the development

When plans were first proposed to develop a tourist resort at Port Hinchinbrook, no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was carried out. Under State Government legislation at the time, the decision as to whether or not an EIA should be conducted fell into the hands of the Cardwell Shire Council. In light of subsequent criticism for not completing an EIA, the local council has since stated they, at the time, did not believe that the activities being proposed for the site required such an assessment. This decision was made despite calls from environmental groups, dating back to 1987, that a thorough evaluation of the development's potential environmental impacts should be undertaken.

Conducting a full EIA is an effective method of evaluating the likely impacts that a development proposal will have on the environment to which it is being applied. They provide a platform for discussion between stakeholders and should therefore play a part in the management of environmental issues that involve numerous stakeholders. That no EIA was conducted for the Port Hinchinbrook development at this initial stage meant that no comprehensive research into its potential environmental risks had been undertaken. This was seen as negligent environmental management practice by many stakeholders and, as will be discussed, caused unnecessary complications in the decision-making process later on.

Initial construction commences in 1988

Having been granted approval from the Cardwell Shire Council to commence working on the resort, the development company, Tekin Ltd, began the major earthworks required for construction of the wharf and marina in 1988. This involved the removal of mangroves and land clearing on the foreshores of the Hinchinbrook Channel. They did not begin dredging the channel as approval to do this required permission from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), which did not issue the relevant permit. Soon after Tekin Ltd commenced work, it was forced to stop as a result of financial difficulties. The development site was subsequently abandoned and was not rehabilitated from its disturbed state by the developers.

The 1993-94 re-approval process for Port Hinchinbrook

In 1993 a new development company, Cardwell Properties Pty Ltd (CP), purchased the site and put forward a new proposal to resume development of what they claimed would be a world-class tourist resort. Although this second proposal differed slightly from the initial one that was started in 1988, it still involved construction of hotels, houses, the wharf and the 250-berth marina. The resort had an estimated value of $100 million. CP also planned to seek approval for the more controversial aspects of the development, which related to the removal of mangroves and dredging the Hinchinbrook Channel for all-tide and all-weather boat access.

Prior to being granted formal approval to recommence works, CP required new approvals from the Queensland Government and the Cardwell Shire Council. Again, no EIA was requested by either of these governments, despite the fact that expressions of concern were again received from scientists and environmental groups. Instead of completing an EIA at this second approval stage, the Queensland Government produced an Environmental Review Report (ERR). The problem with this report (which, as it turned out, also caused complications for the management process later on) was that it only assessed the environmental impacts of some aspects of the development. More specifically, it dealt solely with the impacts of activities which had not been approved back in the late 1980s. This meant that the impacts of activities that had been granted prior approval went unassessed because, as mentioned earlier, no EIA was requested for the activities that were originally approved. Permission to begin dredging beyond the low tide water boundary in the Hinchinbrook Channel was still not granted at this stage.

The Queensland government claimed that the ERR placed more than adequate environmental restrictions on the developer. Considering it was the only real assessment of environmental impacts, it was, however, criticised by many opponents for not being comprehensive enough. In defending their decision to re-approve the development, the government also claimed that they thought developing the resort was a better alternative to leaving the neglected site in the state it was in at the time. As mentioned, the area had been significantly disrupted by the development works that had begun in 1988.

The 1994 'Deed of Agreement'

In 1994 the Queensland government, the Cardwell Shire Council and CP signed a document called the Hinchinbrook 'Deed of Agreement'. This agreement was essentially created as a management plan between these three parties, which outlined what environmental protection protocols the developers would need to adhere to. Significantly, this deed was a private agreement between these three parties. It was not developed in consultation with the public or any other stakeholders.

By 1995, permission to remove mangroves for foreshore work had been granted, as had approval to begin dredging for the access channel within Queensland waters only. The boundaries between what was considered Queensland waters and Commonwealth waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park World Heritage Area was the mainland shoreline at low tide.

The Governor-General's 1994 Proclamation

In November 1994, after the ERR report had been completed and the 'Deed of Agreement' signed, CP recommenced construction. Progress on the development was, however, short-lived. This is because work was stopped just a few months later when the Governor-General, acting upon the advice of the Labor Government's Minister for the Environment, Senator Faulkner, used his powers under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth) (the Act) to issue a proclamation over certain activities involved in the construction process.

Under this Act, the Governor-General has a legal power to ban any activity (by way of issuing a proclamation) that may threaten the values of a World Heritage area, such as the Hinchinbrook Channel, Hinchinbrook Island and the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). In the case of the Port Hinchinbrook development, it was decided by the federal government that the removal of mangroves, required for foreshore works, and the dredging of the channel for boat access would have indeed threatened the World Heritage values of these areas. Significantly, this was only the third time in Australian environmental history that a Governor-General's proclamation under provisions of this Act had been made.

Consent given in 1996

In 1996, the Liberal/National Party Coalition Government, under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard, was elected in Australia. The government's new Minster for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, made the decision to re-approve CP's proposals to remove mangroves along the shoreline and dredge the Hinchinbrook Channel. In issuing this consent, the federal government also became party to the 1994 Deed of Agreement, which from this point on became known as the 'Deed of Variation'. Part of this amended deed included an 'Acid Sulphate Management Plan'. Many opponents did not believe the plan could be considered one of much integrity because CP had already commenced the earthworks (that contribute to acid sulphate problems) by the time the plan was produced.

Senator Hill stated it was the belief of the federal government that these activities could go ahead without jeopardising any of the World Heritage values of the surrounding areas. While consent was given on the condition that CP promised to employ 'best practice engineering' to minimise environmental impacts, Senator Hill did not, in his formal announcement, elaborate on what exactly was meant by 'best practice engineering'. He also did not explain at what precise environmental costs the development could proceed without threatening World Heritage values. As will be discussed in Chapter Five, statements such as these were ambiguous (lacking clear definition) and essentially left open to the interpretation of the developers. This decision-making process attracted criticism from anti-development proponents.

Chronology of the management process of Port Hinchinbrook in the 1990s

1985: A subsidiary of Tekin Australia Ltd puts forth the first proposal to develop a resort at Oyster Point. The Cardwell Shire Council does not demand that an EIA be carried out.

1988: Land clearing commences, involving removal of mangroves for construction of the marina. Work related to dredging Hinchinbrook Channel was not allowed because it required a permit from the GBRMPA, which did not grant one.

1989: Tekin Australia Ltd goes bankrupt, construction ceases and the site is abandoned.

1993: The development site is purchased by Cardwell Properties Pty Ltd (CP) and a new proposal put forward. It is slightly different, but still a massive multi-purpose development with an estimated value of $100 million.

1994: The Queensland government conducts an Environmental Review Report (ERR), in place of a full EIA.

1994: 'Deed of Agreement' signed between the Queensland government, Cardwell Properties and Cardwell Shire Council.

1994: Cardwell Properties recommences construction, involving the removal of mangroves.

1994: Work is stopped in November when the Governor-General issues a proclamation against dredging in the channel.

1995: The scientific community was drawn in on the issue of the environmental impacts of the build-up of acid sulphate soils.

1995: The Queensland government allows for mangroves to be disrupted for the development of shoreline.

1996: The Howard Government elected and new Minister for the Environment, Senator Hill, allowed work to recommence. The Commonwealth Government become a party to the 'Deed of Agreement'

1996: The Queensland Government allows for boat passage to be constructed

1997: Issue of Senator Hill's consent is taken to the Federal Court and Administrative Appeals Tribunal (by the non-government organisation Friends of Hinchinbrook).

1998: Senate Inquiry into the issue conducted by SECITARC. The original report date was June 1998, but this was extended until 1999 in light of other events, such as controversy over uranium mining at Jabiluka.

1999: Senate inquiry released its findings. It found that the development did threaten the natural values of the area and that adequate assessments had not been carried out at any stage of the management process.

1999: Hinchinbrook Island Management Plan released.