Ms O’CONNOR (Hobart) – Mr President, I have obviously made a number of arguments against this bill and will not be supporting it, but I have heard a couple of interesting things in here this afternoon. I have heard a Labor member taking a Liberal minister on trust. I have heard a Labor member accepting the word of a Liberal minister that there is legal advice that provides a legal foundation for this bill, on trust. I will file that one because I am not sure I have seen it in my 15 or 16 years in parliament, such trust.
Ms Forrest – It is gripping about this place, you are being surprised constantly.
Ms O’CONNOR – I am. Well, you know, member for Murchison, every day is a school day. That was quite interesting. Then we had the bogeyman presented by the minister himself, who told us to have a look at the real estate guide and have a look at how many places are built on the coast. We are not talking about every structure on the coast, we are talking about structures that have been built on ‘mobile land’, on actively mobile landforms. I will not read out the submission that was presented to us by Professors Jan McDonald and Anja Hilkemeijer again, but it makes it clear that there are no strong grounds to say that there is uncertainty or ambiguity around the term ‘actively mobile landforms’. The commonsense understanding of it is ‘moving land’.
Again, we have been thrown up this issue. That said, however, I will acknowledge that it has been raised before by people with expertise, for example, Dr Chris Sharples who made it clear that, in his view, there was some ambiguity over this term in the policy. That was in 2004. So, 20 years ago, a coastal expert made it clear that there was a question mark over this definition. For 20 years successive governments were quite comfortable letting that perception of ambiguity stand. In all that time, nobody, as far as I know, challenged an approval on the basis that ‘that development was in contravention of the State Coastal Policy’.
A lot of Tasmania, when you look at the coastal hazard mapping, is hard shoreline, and a lot of that work was undertaken when I had the privilege of being the minister for Climate Change. We have had a good understanding for some time now of the vulnerabilities to sea‑level rise, storm surge, erosion and coastal landslip. Very significant agency resources and money have gone into coastal hazard mapping. There is no doubt that it is a bogeyman that we are being presented with here, which is why we are subject to ‘Vindictive Vera’ stories in here because that is the best they can do.
I simply say to members who are prepared to take a minister on their word that, in this place and in the other place, we see on a semi‑regular basis ministers who are quite prepared, either through concealment or obfuscation in their language, to not give a full and frank answer. I have watched a minister of the Crown approach the lectern in response to a Greens’ question about changes to the Residential Tenancy Act, which we knew were true, and tell a bare‑faced lie to parliament. There were no consequences for that, of course, because it is not like the old days when a minister misled parliament they excused themselves as cabinet ministers or were told by the premier, in the case of Steven Kons, that they had to go.
Ms Forrest – You also had a bit of a shredding problem.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes, quite a shredding problem. Thank goodness for the slightly obsessive nature of the former member for Bass, Kim Booth, who spent many hours putting together a shredded document.
Ms Forrest – Lots of sticky tape.
Ms O’CONNOR – Yes. The minister tells us that the issues exist because of advice that we have never seen.
Mr Duigan – As is the convention with advice provided to government.
Ms O’CONNOR – I do not know, you were not in the Chamber much yesterday, minister, but we had in our hands a copy of Solicitor‑General’s advice that was provided to us to support our understanding of the Judicial Commissions Bill. I have seen Solicitor‑General’s advice on any number of occasions when the Attorney‑General decides that it is probably in the government’s interest to release it. The corollary of that is that maybe the government has decided it is not in their interest to release the legal advice that they say they have that was the foundation for this bill.
What we do have is a set of texts, or a text exchange going back to late last year, when, on Saturday 26 November, in the evening, the minister texted David Pollington from ACEN Australia. He said:
Hi David, Nick Duigan here, hope you’re well. Really looking forward to a positive outcome tomorrow, Robbins is such an important project for the state. Will give you a call tomorrow when we know more.
All the best,
Nick
And then the proponent says:
Good Evening Nick
Thanks for the message. We are anxiously awaiting the TASCAT decision at 10 tomorrow.
We would be pleased to speak tomorrow post the decision announcement.
Regards
David
Very polite, all very cosy.
Mr Duigan – First interaction.
Ms Forrest – You would hope that the minister was polite in his communication.
Ms O’CONNOR – What it tells us is there are catalytic sets of circumstances and conversations happening between a government minister and the proponent going back to last year. Then, this year, we are told that there is an issue with previous approvals for developments on the coast that require an urgent validation bill. It is a bit hard to swallow.
When I was talking to my son about this legislation a few weeks ago, he reminded me of the Sermon on the Mount from the book of Matthew, which I think is appropriate. I am definitely not a religious person, but these words, this is from the book of Matthew 7:24‑27:
Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell ‑ and great was its fall.
The fact of the matter is that the State Coastal Policy of 1996 has held us in very good stead over the journey. It is part of the reason that we have one of the most beautiful, unspoiled coastlines, not just in Australia, but anywhere in the world. That State Coastal Policy is a document that we should respect. It has been through a review process. In fact, I found a submission I wrote for the then member for Franklin, Nick McKim, on 11 November 2005.
Ms Forrest – My, how things have changed.
Ms O’CONNOR – I was unemployed at the time, and the member for Franklin offered to pay me to do a presentation to prepare the draft submission for the Greens to present on the review of the State Coastal Policy 1996. It has this beautiful chapter, a beautiful little section that came from the former DPIPWE (Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment) coastal policy unit, which we do not have any more, greatly regrettably. It says this:
Tasmania has more coastline per unit land area than any other state in Australia – about 4900 kilometres not including Macquarie Island. No place in Tasmania is more than 115 kilometres from the sea, and most population centres and major industries are on, or near, the coast. The principal landmass is surrounded by islands and is indented by a myriad of bays and estuaries.
Describing the diverse coastal, estuarine and marine environments of Tasmania’s coastline is a challenge, for they include rocky reefs, sandy beaches, sea cliffs, headlands, river estuaries, harbours and open coast. Our rich variety of marine life includes delicate basket stars and sea dragons, kelp forests, seagrass beds, sponge gardens, rarely‑seen endemic handfish, crustaceans, plankton, fairy penguins, great white sharks and migrating whales.
I do not like calling something that is a natural treasure an ‘asset’, but our coastline is the most precious asset for us all, and for our children and grandchildren. There is a history here that we should also remind ourselves of, and that is of the palawa of Robbins Island. Here is an excerpt from a submission that was made by the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania to the planning process. It is a short descriptor written by Michael Mansell about life on Robbins Island.
Our people lived on Robbins Island since the time of the seas rising. They were parperloihener people with their own dialect and history, their warriors and major events carved over centuries into the petroglyphs at preminghana, to where they travelled for cultural and social exchanges. In return, the takayna came to Robbins Island for dogwood spears when the three stars come. Great ceremonies were held among the two people on these occasions.
Robbins Island not only contained a number of villages, but also burial grounds among the dunes, away from the villages, situated among the trees and the bushes, sheltered from the fresh westerlies, with plenty of water in the running creeks. Kangaroo was abundant, kunakon grew along the foreshore. She-oak and kangaroo apples were in plentiful supply.
Robbins Island and Robbins Passage has a human history of occupation of over one thousand generations. I note that the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania does not support the Robbins Island windfarm proposal. We can pretend, in here, that this legislation has nothing to do with that but, of course, it does. We are not silly.
I have been through enough of the bill, so people know my view, but I encourage members to have a think about this. The State Coastal Policy was written, in part, to protect communities and coastal infrastructure from the impacts of extreme weather events. This is before we had a really deep understanding of how fast the climate is changing.
It is foolish, it is the Sermon on the Mount, for us as a parliament to contemplate making changes to law that make it easier to place communities, people, property potentially in harm’s way. That is what the State Coastal Policy provisions 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 were designed to prevent.
We need to be not stupid here and make sure we are not weakening a document that has provided us very good protection over many years.
Finally, on Robbins Island itself – I do not know if members have had a really good look at some of the documents for what is proposed, but that wharf is half‑a‑kilometre long. It is a half‑kilometre long wharf from Bass Strait, across fragile dunes, across the beach, most certainly across mobile landforms. I do hope members have taken the opportunity, at this point, to have a look at the video that was sent through to us by Grant Dixon. That wharf is a massive piece of coastal infrastructure that is proposed, most certainly, in contravention of the State Coastal Policy and designed to industrialise a place that should have Ramsar listing. There have been a couple of attempts before to get a windfarm up on pilitika/Robbins Island and they have failed because it is the wrong place for wind turbines. I do not think there is any member in this House who does not support more wind energy. We need all forms of renewable –
Mr Duigan – Honestly.
Ms O’CONNOR – Well, you can snicker. It is pretty childish, minister. You can snicker, but you need to be able to have windfarms that are in the right place, so that you are not damaging biodiversity in the process. Also, you need to have windfarm proposals that take the community with them, and need to be properly planned. What we have at the moment is a situation where developers turn around, wander around the state, literally sniff the breeze, and come and see the government with a proposal for a windfarm, which we have up at pilitika/Robbins Island, and there is another one the same company wants to build in the north-east. They want to build a massive wharf onto mobile landforms as well, and this validation bill, in part, is obviously a foil for that as well.
Obviously, the Greens do not support the bill and will not support the bill. I really hope members scrutinise this very carefully through the committee. We have not been given the answers that we are entitled to as responsible legislators. We have never seen the Solicitor‑General’s advice or any other advice that the government says it has to support this legislation. This legislation should not be supported. It is subverting and undermining a Supreme Court case, as other members have made very, very clear.
It is poor law with no solid foundation, and we should reject it.
