Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to raise a considerable grievance of the residents of the southern Sydney suburb of Liverpool in my electorate of Hughes—a grievance I share. Currently on the books are plans for two massive intermodal freight terminals in Sydney. An intermodal terminal is the location for the transfer of freight from one transport mode to another—in other words, one could define it as an inland port transferring containers from rail to road. The current proposal is for these two intermodals to be located on the existing National Defence Storage and Distribution Centre and the School of Military Engineering, located right in the heart of residential Liverpool amongst the family oriented suburbs of Wattle Grove, Moorebank, Holsworthy and Hammondville.

There are real economic and environmental concerns about these developments, including the cost of the projects, the effect they will have on local roads, their effect on the health on local residents through increased diesel emissions, and of course their effect on the entire local environment of south-western Sydney. However, these developments are currently being bulldozed through without adequate community consultation or the required consideration of all environmental issues.

Firstly, I will go to the cost of projects. In 2008 the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport stated that the government had committed $300 million towards the development of an intermodal terminal at Moorebank. Further, the 2010 budget provided $70.7 million to undertake business cases, designs, approvals and an implementation strategy, as well as for the relocation of the School of Military Engineering. However, earlier this year a government tender for the relocation of the School of Military Engineering was issued, at the staggering price of up to $750 million. So already, even before one single construction cost has been incurred, this project is more than 150 per cent over budget. In addition, the government will have the expense, unknown at this stage, of relocating the National Defence Storage and Distribution facility—a facility substantially larger than the School of Military Engineering. Therefore it is likely that the taxpayer is going to face a bill of at least $1.5 billion just in relocation costs. We could be spending in excess of $1.5 billion and not have a single new thing to show for it.

The real concern for the local community is the environmental effects of such a massive development in their own backyard. During the last federal election campaign, my ALP opponent for Hughes had a number of different positions on the intermodal, until finally, some 2½ weeks before the election—after he had been in the field for seven months—he came out saying, 'I oppose the Moorebank intermodal unconditionally and will fight it on every front.' However, within a week of the election he had packed his bags and moved out of the electorate, and he has not been sighted since.

In the meantime, the local community has held many well-attended community information meetings, which I have attended. While no Labor minister has even bothered to visit the site and the federal environment minister has not even bothered to reply to my invitation to visit the site, the shadow environment minister met with community members back in December, when he called for a 'full and proper environmental study' and an 'arm's length assessment' under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.

Further, the shadow minister for infrastructure noted on 27 January: 'The concerns surrounding this proposal have been made worse because of the poor local consultation process which has failed to adequately deal with the issues raised about the possible environmental impact of this facility.'

To put a halt to this project, with the help of local residents, I have been successful in having Liverpool City Council agree to prepare and submit a 'referral' of the intermodal developments to the federal environment minister under the provisions of the EPBC Act. This was despite local Labor initially opposing a thorough investigation, before being shamed by an overwhelming display of community desire for the referral, as demonstrated by the large turnout at the council meeting considering the motion for it.

The EPBC Act is our nation's key piece of environmental legislation. The act has been designed to provide a high level of public involvement in the decision making and to ensure an open and transparent system that allows public scrutiny of decisions made. The wide definition of the word 'environment' under the act would enable consideration of many factors before the intermodals could proceed, including if there is a real chance or possibility that the intermodals will: (1) generate smoke, fumes or other chemicals which will substantially reduce local air or water quality; (2) result in the spillage of toxic substances through their storage or transport; (3) substantially increase the demand for infrastructure such as local roads; (4) affect the health, safety, welfare or quality of life of members of the local community through factors such as noise, fumes, smoke or other pollutants; (5) cause physical dislocation of individuals or communities; and (6) cause a long-term decrease in or threaten the viability of a native animal population.

It is clear that the intermodal developments qualify for `assessment' under the act, because the intermodals are proposed on or will affect Commonwealth land. And although neither members of the public nor myself as the local federal member have the ability to 'refer' the intermodals to the federal minister for his determination if the developments are to be assessed under the act, under the provisions of section 69 of the act, the Liverpool City Council does have the authority to 'refer' the developments to the federal minister. The comments reported in a past edition of the local Liverpool Leaderby a spokesman for the minister for infrastructure that the local Liverpool councils do not know the process associated with major projects, and further comments which created the false impression that construction work could not proceed unless there was a proper assessment under state and federal environmental laws are simply false and misleading.

It should be noted that the 10-step planning process detailed by the Sydney Intermodal Terminal Alliance, known as SIMTA, in their Community News Update of October 2010 did not include any reference to an assessment under federal environmental law. Further, the preliminary environmental assessment report prepared on behalf of SIMTA conveniently overlooked the fact that the development could—and should—have been referred under the federal EPBC Act because the intermodal is proposed on or will affect Commonwealth land. Either the minister's office does not know what is going on with the intermodals or they do not fully understand the processes for assessment under federal law or they are attempting to hoodwink the local community.

Following receipt of the council's referral, the minister must publish the proposed intermodal development on the department's website for public comment. It is crystal clear that the intermodals are likely to have a significant impact on the environment in general, and it is clear that the minister will have no alternative other than to have the intermodals fully assessed under federal environmental law.

The minister must also decide on the type of assessment process to be undertaken. This includes the option of assessment by full public inquiry, under the provisions of sections 106 to 129 of the EPBC Act, whereby the minister appoints a commissioner and specifies terms of reference for the environmental inquiry. Such an inquiry provides for a kind of 'public trial', and would provide a forum for extensive public involvement to ensure a transparent system of assessment for all the environmental factors in connection with the proposal. However, the minister can also choose a less vigorous inquiry.

I am putting the minister on notice that the residents of south-west Sydney will be demanding a full assessment by public inquiry under the provisions of sections 106 to 129 of the EPBC Act. We are not going to accept anything less. At the conclusion of the public inquiry, the commissioner must report to the minister and the report must be published. Then the minister must decide if the intermodal cannot proceed or if the intermodal can proceed in full or in part and what conditions are placed on the approval. In making the decision the minister must consider both economic and social matters, and the effect on people and their communities.

In conclusion I would also like to thank Councillor Gary Lucas and Councillor Ned Mannoun for proposing and seconding the motion for the referral, and the other councillors that ensured that the motion passed. Additionally, I would like to congratulate the hard work and toil of the dedicated community members across Liverpool's south-western suburbs including Roy Carter, Nansi Giddies, Dominic Scutella, Lorrae Lemond, John Anderson, Jane Desmond, Brian Bruce, Ray Van, Allan Corben, Peter Langsam and many other local residents that seek to protect the beautiful family-friendly area in which they currently live. I repeat and I give them my promise that I remain committed not to leave a single stone unturned in fighting against these intermodal developments. (Time expired)