The Burnett River Dam: the politics of environmental management in Qld

State-federal agreements

The stated purpose of Bi-lateral Agreements - as specified in the EPBC Act 1999 - is to remove duplication of environmental assessment by federal and state departments. To achieve this, the Federal government will accredit the state government to undertake certain assessments that are the responsibility of the federal government under the EPBC Act 1999.

The concern for environmental management is the level of supervision that federal government will have over the actions of the State governments. This concern was brought to the fore this week by the Federal Minister of Environment's decision to list the lungfish as vulnerable. In his statement Mr. Kemp said he was in no doubt the Queensland government has done everything that is necessary to ensure all environmental obligations have been met, including those about the lungfish.

It would appear that Mr. Kemp could not have taken the remotest effort to ensure the Queensland government has complied with its obligations, or that it intends to.

Queensland's Environment Minister has admitted that there is a more sustainable development option for water infrastructure in the Burnett but that any evidence showing environmental degradation will not be considered "due to the project being an election promise".

The second and more poignant point is that the Queensland Department of State Development has precedence over all other departments once a project costs more than $10 million. This explains why the recommendations against the dam by EPA, DNR and DPI were ignored by the government and the DSD-established Burnett Water Pty Ltd in order to fast-track the EIS and gain all necessary licenses for the project.

This means that the management of the Queensland lungfish is not currently under any state or federal environmental control. The Department of State Development has complete control of management of this internationally significant animal although the DSD has no expertise in environmental matters and is inspired by purely electoral motivations.

Burnett Water Pty Ltd, the government company established to fast-track the dam to meet the election promise, has Tom Barton, the Minister of State Development, as its single shareholder and is co-chaired by Rowena McNally, Chair of the Sugar Industry Authority.

The company chosen to undertake the EIS was Sinclair Knight Merz, which had previously been contracted by the Burnett Water Development Group; an industry lobby group widely perceived to be established to discredit the WAMP.

The EIS reads like a prospectus for the dam project, uses incorrect data and is very selective of the Brooks and Kind report. It does not mention spawning.

This significant project was approved by Federal Minister Kemp in January 2002. Mr. Kemp did not consider the lungfish in his approval. Nor did he consider water quality issues for The Great Barrier Reef. Subsequent analysis by the Reef Risk workshop in 2003 recognised the Burnett River as a high risk to the reef due both to catchment quality and high risk from further developments. It was Mr. Kemp's responsibility under the EPBC Act to consider both these issues.

Environment Australia, responding to questions about Mr. Kemp's behaviour in this issue, says their advice from the Australian Government Solicitor is that Mr. Kemp did not have to consider the lungfish because it was not a listed species at the time.

However, in the EPBC Act Part 9, Division 1, Subdivision B 136 Subsection 1 (b) economic and social matters, 2 (a) principles of ecologically sustainable development, 2(c) the EIS of the proponent and 2(e) any other information relevant offer a somewhat different conclusion.