The Replies

Posted on 20 August 2010 by Alexander Kohl

The ads are just the puplic version of a letter that went to every candidate. Most replies were short emails with “Yes, Yes, No”-style answers. Where SCEC did receive a detailed answer, it is published on this blog. you’ll find it linked in below table.

Didn’t give a flying fish

Candidates that did not reply at all are marked with “Didn’t give a flying fish”.

Fairfax

Candiate Party Q1 Q2 Q3
Dan McIntyre ALP No No Yes
Narelle McCarthy The Greens No No Yes
Ron Hunt Family First Didn’t give a flying fish
Alex Somlyay LNP No No Yes

Fisher

Candiate Party Q1 Q2 Q3
Chris Cummins ALP Avoided commitment
Robyn Robertson Family First No No Yes
Garry Claridge The Greens No No Yes
Peter Slipper LNP No No Yes

Longman

Candiate Party Q1 Q2 Q3
Johne Sullivan ALP Didn’t give a flying fish
Andrew Jackson DLP Didn’t give a flying fish
Michael van Boeckel Independent No No Yes
Rod Blair The Greens No No Yes
Claire McErlane Family First No No Yes
Bob Fox Independent No No Yes
Wyatt Roy LNP General commitment
Joshua van Veen LDP No No Yes
John Reece Independent Didn’t give a flying fish

QLD Senate

Candiate Party Q1 Q2 Q3
Joe Ludwig ALP Didn’t give a flying fish
George Brandis Liberal Party Didn’t give a flying fish
Larissa Waters The Greens No No Yes
Posted in Campaign | Leave a comment

Reply by Chris Cummins

Posted on 16 August 2010 by Alexander Kohl

——Note: this is the written reply of a candidate to our questions and does not reflect the position of SCEC or any affiliated association———————————————–

Dear Wiebe,

Thank you for your letter raising the concerns of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council, concerning proposed developments in the Pumicestone Passage area of the Sunshine Coast.

As you are aware, the Federal Government’s responsibilities for environmental protection are defined in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which constitutes our national environment law. Under the EPBC Act, the Federal Government’s role is confined to the protection of certain defined matters of ‘national environmental significance’. These encompass a number of matters that you have raised concerns about in your letter, and include world and national heritage properties, wetlands of international importance (listed under the Ramsar Convention), nationally threatened species and ecological communities, migratory species listed under the EPBC Act, nuclear actions and Federal marine areas.

The proposal for the Bellvista Stage II was, as you state in your letter, referred to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) in April 2010 and it was determined that it was not a ‘controlled action’ under the legislation. Accordingly, it did not raise issues for Federal Government approval. The development involves a 65.5 ha mixed use residential area, including a village centre, open space areas and a variety of dwelling types. The development will be on an area that was historically used for agriculture and silviculture (plantation forestry).

In their referral documentation, the proponent also committed to a series of detailed mitigation measures. The key matter of national environmental significance was the Moreton Bay Ramsar site located approximately six kilometers away. The Department found that significant impacts on this and other matters of national environmental significance were unlikely to result from the proposed action, given the current condition of the site and the proposed mitigation measures, among other things.

No proposal for the Caloundra South development has yet been submitted to the DEWHA, and so we cannot comment of the specifics of the proposal at this time. With no federal statutory process underway, it is not legally possible to halt the proposal.
While you would understand that Federal Labor cannot pre-empt the outcome of an assessment decision prior to a referral being received and properly considered, if it is determined that a future proposal is a ‘controlled action’, it will then be rigorously assessed in accordance with the requirements of our national environment law. All referred proposals are also published for a mandatory ten day public comment period before a decision is made on whether further assessment is required, and those public comments are taken into account when that decision on referral is made.

If a proposal is determined to be a ‘controlled action’, Minister Garrett will only make a decision on whether or not the proposal can proceed once a rigorous and comprehensive environmental assessment has been completed, and he has all relevant information before him to make a properly informed and legally robust decision. For this reason, if the Minister feels he does not have sufficient information before him, he may request further information from the proponent or from independent scientific experts and expert bodies such as CSIRO, GeoSciences Australia and universities.

In making decisions of this kind, the Minister always carefully considers the various reports, public comments through the mandatory public consultation process, departmental and independent advice provided to him on relevant environmental, social and economic matters, while also paying regard to the overriding objects of the EPBC Act.

Regards,

Chris Cummins
ALP Candidate for Fisher

Go back to the Overview of All Replies.

Posted in Candidate | Leave a comment

Reply by Narelle McCarthy

Posted on 14 August 2010 by Alexander Kohl

——Note: this is the written reply of a candidate to our questions and does not reflect the position of SCEC or any affiliated association———————————————–

Mr Wiebe ter Bals
Executive Officer
Sunshine Coast Environment Council

RE: PUMICESTONE PASSAGE

Good morning Wiebe

Firstly my thanks for the opportunity to experience the magnificent Pumicestone Passage first hand. Exploring the Passage on such a magnificent day, one would be inclined to think that “all is well’.

However, I understand this is clearly not the case with the looming threat of major development impacts and therefore respond in the following manner to your survey questions

a. CAN YOU guarantee that this massive housing development will not affect fishing on Pumicestone Passage or water quality for swimming on Caloundra beaches?

NO

b. DO YOU think the Queensland Government should approve this development without the required Federal Government environment studies being completed?

NO

c. WILL YOU work to ensure the Queensland Government has all necessary studies in place prior to giving any approvals?

YES

The disregard for the necessary environmental impact studies, ecological and hydrological data prior to approving the Caloundra South Structure Plan is clearly worrying and unacceptable. There is no question that any further development should not be approved nor lock in development rights negating further scrutiny for 30 years, let alone proceed under the current scenario.

The justifiable concerns raised by SCEC as to the potential impacts of a city the size of Gladstone and an apparently open-ended minimum population of 50 000 people on the Pumicestone Passage are well founded and shared. As you rightly point out, the cumulative impacts of all the development and activities (past, present and future) must be assessed and weighted in relation to their impacts on MNES and locally significant biodiversity and amenity. The economic and social implications must also be considered

The Sunshine Coast Environment Council and the community have my undertaking to proactively work towards protecting this international icon and to challenge approval of development on the scale proposed prior to robust studies providing comprehensive, forecasted, strategic and cumulative assessments. Further, should planning proceed, mechanisms must be incorporated into the Structure plan and subsequent Master Plans providing assessment benchmarking with the opportunity to suspend development without fear of injurious affection or potential compensation claims against the Sunshine Coast Council should negative impacts become apparent.

Naturally, do let me know if I may assist in any way and feel free to call me to discuss

SCEC is to be commended for highlighting this significant issue and for taking a lead in the protection of the Pumicestone Passage into the future when it was clear it was left wanting.

Yours sincerely

Narelle McCarthy
The Greens Candidate for Fairfax

Go back to the Overview of All Replies.

Posted in Candidate | Leave a comment

Reply by Wyatt Roy

Posted on 13 August 2010 by Alexander Kohl

——Note: this is the written reply of a candidate to our questions and does not reflect the position of SCEC or any affiliated association———————————————–

Good afternoon

Thank you for your emails in regard to the Pumicestone Passage and also your invitation to attend a cruise.I appreciate and share the concerns raised in your email.

I agree that there should be an environmental assessment study under the ECPB Act in regard to all developments impacting on the Pumicestone Passage.

I enclose for your information an article from the Sunshine Coast Daily from 3rd August.

I regret that I am not able to accept your kind invitation to the cruise as I have a prior commitment.

Kind regards

Wyatt Roy
LNP Candidate for Longman

Go back to the Overview of All Replies.

Posted in Candidate | 1 Comment

Reply by Alex Somlyay

Posted on 13 August 2010 by Alexander Kohl

——Note: this is the written reply of a candidate to our questions and does not reflect the position of SCEC or any affiliated association———————————————–

Dear Wiebe

Thank you for your letter in relation to the protection of the Pumicestone Passage.

I share the concern of the Sunshine Coast Environment Council in relation to the matters raised in your letter.

I agree that there should be an environmental assessment study under the EPBC Act in relation to all proposed, planned and future developments impacting on the Pumicestone Passage.

I would also like to remind you that the EPBC Act is legislation that was enacted by the previous Howard Government. I referred the Traveston Crossing Dam for consideration under this act, the result of which is now well known.

SCEC should also be aware that the action which gave us the Noosa Biosphere was initated by me.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity of making my position clear.

Kind regards

Yours sincerely

Alex Somlyay MP
Federal Member for Fairfax

Go back to the Overview of All Replies.

Posted in Candidate | Leave a comment

Stirling Hinchliffe Costs Coast Ratepayers the Earth

Posted on 12 August 2010 by Annie Nolan

The Sunshine Coast Environment Council today claimed that the State’s Planning Minister, Stirling Hinchliffe, would make Coast ratepayers pay for his dumb mistakes …again!   SCEC says the proposed Caloundra South urban development isn’t simply an environmental issue or lifestyle issue and calls on the Planning Minister to indemnify the Council for any future costs associated with cleaning up his Sardine City at Caloundra South.

SCEC campaigner Annie Nolan said today that “Minister Hinchliffe had “stuffed up” the Traveston Dam process by spending a fortune before getting a comprehensive study done and those enormous costs are now being paid by Unity Water consumers here on the Coast.  He is now planning to jam 50,000 plus people into his Sardine City at Caloundra South against the Coast’s wishes, but the ratepayers will have to pay the developer compensation if the numbers are reduced.”  says Ms Nolan.

State Planning Minister Hinchliffe has forced the Sunshine Coast Regional Council to fast-track the Sardine City before the Council could do the studies it wanted to do.  Then he removed the sustainability conditions that the Council required to reduce the impacts from the city the size of Gladstone in the catchment of Pumicestone Passage.  “If a future Council has to reduce the size of this development because the Pumicestone Passage gets toxic algae, then the ratepayers will have to pay the developer compensation.  The Sunshine Coast can’t afford another stuff up from Minister Hinchliffe.  He is already costing us the earth through our water bills.”  Ms Nolan said.

“This is one of the reasons we want the Federal Government to intervene to do the necessary studies over the whole of Pumicestone Passage so that we know how many people we can safely house there.  It’s just simple common sense but, as we saw with Traveston, Stirling Hinchliffe will make the Council ratepayers pay for his mistakes.” said Ms Nolan.

Bribie Island has already had toxic fire weed blooms from too much nutrients in the water.  The currents flow from the south at Bribie through the Passage, past Golden Beach to the Caloundra bar.  “If that bloom happens at Happy Valley and Kings Beach, it will decimate our tourism incomes and our most important fish nursery.  Who is going to pay for that?  I’ll bet now that Stirling Hinchliffe or the State Government won’t be putting their hand in their pocket.  The ratepayers will have to pay for the clean-up, re-stocking the beaches AND compensating the developer when they reduce the later stages of this crazy development, but no one will pay the cafe owners or the other businesses that go bust. ” Ms Nolan claimed.

“Minister Hinchliffe says the environmental studies will be done, but he is talking about small local studies on each stage of the development, not the comprehensive study on Pumicestone Passage that common sense says we need.  He has said there will be a buffer on the creeks, but he just doesn’t get it – this is a city the size of Gladstone.  We are calling on the Federal Election candidates to show the common sense that escapes our State Government and require a full study of Pumicestone Passage BEFORE any approvals establish future liabilities.” Ms Nolan concluded.

Posted in Campaign | Leave a comment

Taking Action

Posted on 6 August 2010 by Annie Nolan

The Ad

The Sunshine Coast Environment Council (SCEC) has placed full and half page advertisements in newspapers within the Fairfax, Fisher and Longman electorates calling on all Federal candidates to show their commitment to protecting the Pumicestone Passage, which is internationally recognised for its environmental values.

The State Government is demanding that the Sunshine Coast Council fast track the Structure Plan for the Caloundra South development. Caloundra South is proposed to be a city with a minimum population of 50,000 people – equivalent to that of GladstoneThis development will have major consequences on matters of National and International environmental significance within the Pumicestone Passage and its catchment.

Yet to date there have been NO comprehensive studies which have examined the impacts of this development.

The Sunshine Coast Environment Council is deeply concerned about the impact that such a large scale urban development will have on a sensitive wetlands area both during the construction phase and through increased human activity on the Pumicestone Passage. Moreover it is concerned about the cumulative impacts of existing developments plus the investigation areas of Halls Creek and the Caloundra South‐ Beerwah Corridor as well as those occurring in the Moreton Bay Region such as Caboulture West and the Elimbah Industrial Estate.

SCEC is asking all Federal candidates to state their position on protecting the Pumicestone Passage and is asking each candidate to state their response to the following questions:

  1. Can you guarantee that this massive housing development will not affect fishing on Pumicestone Passage or water quality for swimming on Caloundra beaches?
  2. Do you think the Queensland Government should approve this development without the required Federal Government environment studies being completed?
  3. Will you work to ensure the Queensland Government has all necessary studies in place prior to giving any approvals?

This region is reeling from the social and economic cost of the Queensland Government’s decision to arrogantly progress with the Traveston Dam debacle without the Federal Government’s approval.

We are therefore asking Federal candidates to commit to taking action to insist on a full environmental assessment of the impacts on Pumicestone Passage before the Caloundra South Structure Plan is approved. We cannot risk yet another Traveston fiasco nor jeopardise matters of National and International environmental significance in the Pumicestone Passage.

This is THE most significant environmental issue of this Federal election for the Sunshine Coast and Moreton Bay Regions and our only opportunity to choose leaders at the Federal level that will take decisive and courageous action to protect the environment and the lifestyles that depend on the Pumicestone Passage.

Posted in Campaign | 3 Comments

The Bigger Picture

Posted on 6 August 2010 by Alexander Kohl

While our situation on the Sunshine Coast is essential, I always find it good to remember the bigger picture.

Last year’s film “Home” reminds us that we humans have been around for a mere blip in time. Yet in the last 50 years, we have managed to completely alter the face of the Earth.

At the same time, all solutions exist today. It is just a matter of our combined will to turn them into reality. Let us make the Sunshine Coast one of the pioneers is truly sustainable living.

Posted in Campaign | 1 Comment

Caloundra South

Posted on 5 August 2010 by Ann White

The major worry for Pumicestone Passage is the Caloundra South development.

Proposed Caloundra South Development

Proposed Caloundra South Development

The 3,700 hectare Caloundra South greenfield site, also known as Caloundra Downs, is owned by property developers Stockland. The development of the former pine plantation is described and planned in Caloundra City Council’s draft Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) as occurring between 2018 and 2046, although it may be sooner.

The strategy outlines three major developments on the greenfield site: the Caloundra South Town Centre, a major commercial and retail hub of more than 50,000 people in 23,750 dwellings; the 150 hectare Caloundra South Aeronautical and Enterprise Area supporting a new aerodrome; and the Caloundra Regional Industry and Enterprise Area.

The SEQ Regional Plan shows Caloundra’s urban footprint extending west from the coast to the Bruce Highway and south to Bells Creek. Planning and urban design consultants Tract, who are working with Stockland on Caloundra South, also point to “significant land beyond the SEQ Urban Footprint, which is likely to be suitable for development”.

Bells Creek is the main watercourse draining Caloundra South and a major waterway into Pumicestone Passage.

Under the draft LGMS, Stockland’s development must “provide for the protection, buffering and reconnection of ecologically important areas”. While Stockland is not announcing any specific plans for the site, it points to its 147 hectare Bellvista development west of Caloundra as a model for urban stormwater management that would be adopted at Caloundra South.

Bellvista uses “raingardens” of native plants throughout the estate to trap and filter sediments, oils, metals and litter in stormwater before discharging to Lamerough Creek which in turn flows into the passage.

Stockland believes the raingardens reduce total suspended solids in urban runoff by 80 per cent, phosphorus by 60 per cent and nitrogen by 45 per cent. Caloundra South may go ahead even earlier than planned. The State Government recently announced a review of its timetable as part of its Housing Affordability Strategy, and development may be fast-tracked.

Anna Grosskreutz has grave concerns about Caloundra South, fearing it will overload natural ecosystems. Cr Grosskreutz has been a Caloundra councillor for 12 years and her division includes parts of the proposed development.

“Caloundra South is a massive urban development that will bring another 60,000 to 100,000 people – a frightening thought. It will be like another Robina on the Gold Coast, drawing activity away from the existing centre. It needs review on environmental and population grounds.”

“Once you start this kind of development, there’s no stopping it. Decades to come will see it progress further down Pumicestone Passage. People need to ask if this is what they really want. The government plans to overpopulate the coastline, and it’s the wrong philosophy,” Cr Grosskreutz said.

Posted in Pumicestone Passage | 2 Comments

Cumulative Environmental Impacts

Posted on 4 August 2010 by Ann White
Rob King on Pumicestone Passage

Rob King on Pumicestone Passage - Photo by Ann White

Rob King is also uneasy about the continued health of the passage. He has lived on the southern reaches of Pumicestone since 1977 and is a board member of NRMSEQ (part of SEQ Catchments) and environment officer for recreational fishing group, Sunfish. He monitors the passage closely and his major concern is around the growing number of poultry farms in the catchment.

“There are 30 to 40 intensive poultry farms in the Caloundra-Caboolture area, and I calculate there are 2.8 million birds east of the Bruce Highway in the catchment. More sheds have been approved, and this is happening next to a migratory bird habitat.”

“The poultry sheds are cooled by tunnel ventilation, and massive fans blow air through the sheds into the open air. The proximity of the farms to the passage and to each other raises serious concerns about the spread of disease, as well as airborne nutrients and toxicants settling into waterways,” said Mr King.

“Pumicestone Passage is protected by the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to maintain the ecological balance and diversity and it is heritage listed. The problem is, responsibility for managing the environmental impacts of development has been devolved to two local councils (Caloundra and Caboolture) and they are struggling to understand what’s required.”

“They assess each development application on its merits,” he said, “which doesn’t take account of the cumulative effects of environmental disturbance and pollution. There are no checks and balances; the poultry industry doesn’t share its information; the EPA and Department of Primary Industry don’t link. We’re seeing a failure of all levels of government to protect the passage. Until we look at things cumulatively, we won’t solve the problems.”

Council amalgamation still leaves Pumicestone’s catchment split between two councils. “Amalgamation will set the cause back 10 years,” Mr King added. Much of the urban and agricultural development along the passage has occurred since the last major storm surge in the 1970s.

Given the low rainfall in recent years, there are fears about the effects of the next storm surge on the passage. Litter, pollutants and sediment will be flushed from the creeks and sand banks in the northern passage will shift.

Greg McKean, whose community group Night Eyes has removed 40 tonnes of rubbish from the northern passage in the last seven years, says: “It hasn’t really rained in years and when it finally does people will get a big shock.”

Posted in Pumicestone Passage | Leave a comment