Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today I stand up for the people of Ipswich in relation to the New Chum landfill site, which has been an environmental disaster for the people of Ipswich. I stand up for the people of Collingwood Park, Bundamba, Ebbw Vale, Dinmore, Riverview and Booval, and for everyone else in Ipswich who has been impacted by the New Chum landfill facility operated by Cleanaway, an ASX listed public company.

Cleanaway operates the New Chum landfill site at Ipswich, and it has been the subject of ongoing community concern, local protests and media attention. The Queensland government is currently conducting an investigation into Cleanaway's operation to determine if there has been any unlawful activity by Cleanaway. Ipswich City Council has previously called upon the Queensland department of health to conduct an inquiry in relation to the noxious odours coming from the New Chum site. Perhaps as way of introduction, no-one could put it better than the outstanding previous local member for the seat of Bundamba, Jo-Ann Miller, who served as the local state member between the years 2000 and 2020. This is what she said:

This is about the health of tens of thousands of Ipswich people. I live in Collingwood Park. I have suffered from sinus, asthma and headaches. The stench has also caused vomiting and nausea in many people. Families are captive in their houses, with windows and doors shut, can't have a barbecue because of the stink, and are continuously sick. It is a health crisis. It's an environmental crisis.

Can you imagine such a thing?

So I was absolutely gobsmacked to read Cleanaway's recent annual report, released earlier this month, and read some of the details with respect to the remuneration of the senior executives. The fact of the matter is that the senior executives of Cleanaway who have caused this awful environmental impact on the local residents of Ipswich have received 100 per cent of their bonuses linked to environmental performance. They received 100 per cent of their bonuses linked to environmental performance. This is clearly set out in the remuneration report in the annual report, which I have read—all 140 pages—cover to cover. Let me give you some quotes. From page 50:

Group Environment Incident metric has a target level performance and outcome only, which is that there are no significant or major rated environmental incidents.

That essentially means you get the environmental component of the bonus if there are no significant or major rated environmental incidents. That's what the annual report's remuneration report says.

Then we read on page 51 that the senior executives got 100 per cent of their remuneration in relation to environmental performance. In fact the CEO, Mr Schubert, received a total short-term incentive for the year ended 30 June 2022—the financial year in which the people of Ipswich went through misery as a result of this landfill site—of $970,902. That's in addition to his base remuneration and his long-term incentive. I was absolutely gobsmacked.

No environmentally significant act? How's this for significant? The Queensland Department of Environment and Science has a dedicated webpage to the New Chum landfill odour issue. It's got its own webpage. How significant is that? Not significant?

On 14 April 2022, A Current Affair interviewed local residents. I just want to quote from one of them. Tracey Butler and her husband, Gary, live 11 kilometres away from the site. Tracey said:

We get woken up (in the) early hours of the morning and we actually feel like vomiting, and it is that bad, it comes through vents in our bathrooms, through our ceilings.

Not environmentally significant? A Current Affair? April? How about this article in The Courier Mail on 19 April 2022:

Since 2011 locals have struggled with the strong odour coming from the New Chum landfill site.

And I want to quote from Jim Dodrill, a local activist, in relation to this matter:

There's an acidic nature to the air, it's eye-watering. There's that chemical stench component to it, like burnt, soiled disposable nappies.

Not environmentally significant? They got 100 per cent of their bonus related to environmental performance and that's what the local residents are saying. An article from ABC News on 21 May 2022 said the Ipswich City Council actually wanted Queensland Health to set up an inquiry in relation to the health impact on local residents. Not environmentally significant?

How about the environmental protection order issued on 21 June 2022 by the Queensland government? Not environmentally significant? This protection order actually says in paragraph 7:

Since 8 March 2022 to date, the department has received over 3,000 reports about nuisance odour from Collingwood Park, Bundamba, Ebbw Vale, Dinmore, Riverview and Booval areas of Ipswich.

Is that not environmentally significant? They got 100 per cent of their bonus related to environmental performance.

I will quote from Cleanaway's ASX media release on 22 June 2022:

In FY22, $30-40 million of costs are expected to be incurred relating to rectification and remediation at New Chum.

That is $30 million to $40 million! Is that not environmentally significant? Their independent auditor's report from their own annual report has a section that deals with significant matters that occurred during the year, and that actually refers to the New Chum issue. Is that not environmentally significant? Are they deserving of 100 per cent of their STI and bonus, notwithstanding the misery that they have put the people of Ipswich through?

I also raise the matter of Cleanaway's continued pursuit of an appeal against the Ipswich city council's refusal of their development application to expand their operations at New Chum. With this performance, they have the gall to actually want to expand their operations at New Chum. Given what has happened at the New Chum landfill site, it astounds me that Cleanaway thinks it should continue with its appeal. Whatever the court decides with respect to the planning law, let me say this in this place: Cleanaway has no social licence to expand its operation at New Chum. It has absolutely no social licence; that social licence has been forfeited. Their focus should be on remediation and rectification of the site, causing the minimal impact to residents.

I used to be the company secretary of an ASX-listed public company; I know where to look, and I did look. Astoundingly, in the accounts in their financial report, in note 2 on page 86—it's so small I've had to take my glasses off; hang on, I've got to close one eye to read it—they've actually made an assumption that their appeal against Ipswich city council's decision to knock back their development application is going to be successful, and that's how they've prepared their accounts. Well, let me tell you that I've looked at the decision that Ipswich city council made, and there are pages and pages and pages of reasons why they knocked back the application. But they've prepared their accounts on the basis that their appeal is going to be successful. I'd call that very courageous. It's very courageous.

Lastly, they've been issued with a notice of proposed amendment by the department of environment in response to the generation and release of odours from the site. They had until 6 September to make a submission to the department about the proposed amendments to its EA. And do you want to know what Cleanaway says in relation to this? I went to their community website. This is what they say:

This proposal is subject to a statutory process and we will continue to work with the Department of Environment and Science on the best outcomes for all stakeholders.

The stakeholders know what they want: fix it; remediate it; rectify it. The people of Ipswich have lived through this misery long enough.

The annual general meeting of Cleanaway is going to occur in October. I call upon all institutional shareholders to look at Cleanaway's performance in the lead-up to that AGM and hold this company to account for the misery which it has caused the people of Ipswich.