Jandakot Airport Master Plan and Environmental Approval of Future Development - Motion
Hon Lynn MacLaren; Hon Max Trenorden; Hon Alison Xamon; Hon Donna Faragher; Hon Dr Sally Talbot
HON LYNN MacLAREN (South Metropolitan) [10.42 am]: I move —
That this Council calls on the Rudd government to reconsider its 19 March 2010 approval of the Jandakot Airport Master Plan, and its 26 March 2010 environmental approval of future development at Jandakot Airport, particularly in view of —
(a) the current lack of proper integration between the proposed new development within the Jandakot Airport land, and state and local planning in surrounding areas, including in relation to the important issue of protecting communities from excessive aircraft noise;
(b) the unacceptable risks to the quality and quantity of groundwater, and the environmental values of the Jandakot mound; and
(c) the loss of yet more Bush Forever land with the promise of offsets unlikely to adequately compensate for that loss.
HON ALISON XAMON (East Metropolitan) [11.09 am]: One of the really good things about bringing forward these debates is sometimes we get some really interesting responses. I thank Hon Max Trenorden for his contribution to this debate. It provides a complementary side; an interesting alternative perspective. Quite a lot of interesting thought went into the honourable member’s contribution. As Hon Lynn MacLaren anticipated, even the time allocated to a mover of a motion during non-government business does not permit much detail to be provided on a few key matters. I intend to deal with the issues of water and urban bushland in a little more depth. I will start by underlining the two key points made by Hon Lynn MacLaren in describing this new development proposal.
Zone 5 is a proposed site for the development of mixed business and a portion of the proposed new fourth runway is located almost entirely within a priority 1 resource zone of the Jandakot underground water pollution control area. This is a proposal to clear 220 hectares of high-quality remnant bushland, including 167 hectares of banksia woodland—96 hectares of which is for a large non-aviation development area. Yesterday, I asked a question of the Minister for Water about this matter and the answer was very interesting. In October 2008 the then director general of the Department of Water, Kim Taylor, wrote to the Jandakot Airport Holdings consultant in the following terms. I will quote from these papers, but these papers were tabled yesterday so they can be easily referenced. According to my notes, the letter stated —
Previous management plans for Jandakot airport land in the UWPCA —
The underground water pollution control area —
have been aligned to reflect WA’s drinking water source protection requirements. This alignment is reflected in the undeveloped bush land still present in Area 2. The DoW strongly supports ongoing aligned protection of this vulnerable area through the Jandakot airport master plan.
In conclusion, given the information available to me at this time, the DoW does not support your proposed development. The only avenue available for this advice to be reconsidered would be if an independent hydrogeological assessment … showed that groundwater flows below Area 2 would not enter the capture zones of the Water Corporation production wells.
In April 2009, the Department of Water wrote, noting that the desired independent study had been engaged, but that the study had not been concluded, or at least had not been presented to the Department of Water. The Department of Water noted that since its October 2008 letter, further encroachments into the designated P1 source protection area were now being planned. Minister Peter Garrett’s final Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act decision—I have it with me for tabling if members wish—requires the airport to develop a Jandakot groundwater mound management plan. That plan must be approved by Minister Garrett, but Western Australia’s Department of Water and water minister will not get a direct say. We are highly dubious about the prospect that the management plan will allay our concerns. I should add that we are often frustrated by development approvals that leave all of the important details to future management plans.
Hon Lynn MacLaren also mentioned that there are at least 40 grand spider orchids and four glossy-leaved hammer orchids. Minister Garrett’s solution was to basically just pick them up and move them. Translocation seems to be getting more and more popular, which is a real worry because sometimes it cannot be done successfully and is badly managed. Hon Giz Watson spoke recently about Barrow Island mammal translocations—translocating orchids is different again to that process. Hon Lynn MacLaren asked a question of the Minister for Environment on 6 May, the answer to which showed that the Roe Highway stage 7 grand spider orchids seemed to be steadily dying off—it was more concerning that none had yet set seed. If they do not, then the entire translocation will have been unsuccessful. We have that theme again of approving things and proposing mitigating measures that do not seem to be working.
I am aware that other people want to speak, so I will talk briefly about the broader banksia woodland targeted for loss. Apart from being Bush Forever land, it is also described on the Register of the National Estate as being one of the best remaining examples of banksia woodland on the Swan coastal plain. Minister Garrett’s solution was to put some money aside for rehabilitation of other banksia woodland—which should be happening anyway— but the key offset for the Carnaby’s black cockatoo foraging habitat is the acquisition and protection of land that could be anywhere in the state and is not necessarily even going to be banksia woodland. It need not even be on the Swan coastal plain. We could have Carnaby’s as far inland as the Wheatbelt, which might benefit from this decision.
Hon Sally Talbot interjected.
Hon ALISON XAMON: But those on the Swan coastal plain can just suffer. I note Hon Sally Talbot’s interjection that perhaps the Carnaby’s cockatoos may end up in Merredin, along with the training students proposed by Hon Max Trenorden.
Hon Sally Talbot: They’ll distract the students!
Hon ALISON XAMON: This whole situation is a sad indictment on the Rudd government. Members recall that I spoke in March about 2010 being the International Year of Biodiversity. It seems that the Rudd government— along with this state government—does not seem keen to support that international year in the way that it deserves. I call on this house to support this motion so that the state upper house, at least, can speak out in favour of appropriate levels of biodiversity conservation.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to temporary orders.