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

As is usual, I can't resist complimenting Senator McCarthy on her contribution. I can't imagine how proud those elders would be of you, and especially the way you conduct yourself. As I have commented in the past, if all Australians conducted themselves with your tone and temperament as we go on this pathway towards the referendum, that would be a wonderful thing.

I stand up for the people of Ipswich today once again in relation to the New Chum landfill site, which is operated by Cleanaway, an ASX listed company. I gave a speech last September in relation to the horrific ordeal so many people in the Ipswich region were battling with concerning the odour emanating from this landfill site. It was disgraceful—absolutely disgraceful. Can you imagine that it was so bad that residents could not even leave their homes at certain times. They would do the washing, hang it out and then go out to get in the washing and have to redo the washing—that's how bad it was. What triggered my contribution in the Senate at that time was the fact that Cleanaway gave all of the senior executives 100 per cent of the incentive attributed to environmental performance, at a time when there were thousands of odour complaints—-absolutely unbelievable and difficult to fathom.

What has happened since then? The first thing that happened was that the shareholders of Cleanaway registered their dissatisfaction and voted against the remuneration reports, so Cleanaway got their first strike on the remuneration report. That's the first thing that happened. The second thing that happened was that Cleanaway is now subject to charges which have been brought by the Department of Environment and Science in relation to those matters which I discussed in this place. These are serious charges: one offence, contrary to section 441 of the Environmental Protection Act, one offence contrary to section 432 of the EP Act, 10 offences contrary to section 433 of the EP Act for contravening a condition of an EA, and the prospective penalties are millions of dollars. Those charges were brought in March 2023.

The third thing that has happened is that the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland brought down its decision just yesterday in relation to Cleanaway's application to actually expand their activities on the New Chum landfill site. At a time when you would think their focus would be on remediation, rectification and an orderly shutdown, Cleanaway was actually progressing an application to expand their operations on that site. I made the point that in the annual report Cleanaway had issued they made an assumption that they were going to be successful in the court case. At that time I called that 'a courageous assumption', and it actually surprised me as somebody who used to be a company secretary of an ASX listed company. Well, guess what? They weren't unsuccessful, and the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland has now brought down its judgement. I call upon all of the directors of Cleanaway to reflect on that judgement. Don't just read a summary. I call on the directors: you read the judgement that was brought down by his Honour Judge Michael Williamson KC. You read the whole judgement and then you decide whether or not you will seek to appeal this judgement. What happened in this case was the Planning and Environment Court of Queensland upheld the decision of Ipswich City Council to knock back this expansion of activities on this landfill site. The court of planning and environment knocked back the application to expand the facilities on the New Chum site.

I want to read the findings. Again, this is something the board of directors of Cleanaway need to reflect upon when deciding whether or not they will take this to the next level of appeal. In relation to environmental risk of expanding the activities, this is what the court found:

… I am not satisfied the evidence demonstrates:

(a)      the environmental risk associated with the proposed development is acceptable;

So the judge, after listening to expert witnesses and considering hundreds and hundreds of pages of expert reports, found that he was not satisfied that the environmental risk associated with the proposed development was acceptable. Secondly, he was not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates that:

… conditions imposed on any approval for the proposed development can be implemented and maintained to manage environmental risk at an acceptable level.

So the judge actually found that—notwithstanding what were put forward as mitigating factors and processes et cetera—he was not satisfied that the environmental risk could be sufficiently mitigated. So that is the environmental risk.

The other risk is the risk to amenity. Now, what does 'amenity' mean? 'Amenity' means: families living in proximity to this landfill site, going about their day-to-day business and having a look at this mound of landfill every day of the week, 24/7—that's what the amenity risk is. And this is what the judge said as to amenity risk:

It has not been established the proposed development can successfully manage its impacts on residential amenity.

So you've got the environmental risk and you've got the residential amenity risk, and, as to that amenity risk, the judge said:

First, an approval would delay the rehabilitation of the land and lead to an adverse visual impact, albeit of a limited and uncertain duration. This delay is the direct product of the vertical extension—

that means they're building the landfill up; it means it's going higher—

proposed to the landfill facility, which the evidence:

(a) does not establish is required to rehabilitate the land;

(b) establishes will cause the facility to become more visible …

The judge went on to say:

Second, given the nature of the use (a waste facility), and given the circumstances traversed in paragraphs [348] to [354] and [358] to [366], an approval would be inconsistent with a reasonable community expectation—

'inconsistent with a reasonable community expectation'. And it's because of that community expectation that Ipswich City Council, in part, made the original decision to knock back the development application and has had to fight to defend its decision, with millions and millions of ratepayers' dollars being spent to try and defeat Cleanaway—and they were successful in their application to overturn that original decision.

The board of directors of Cleanaway need to reflect very, very deeply on their next steps. And I ask them: given what this judge found—and I should say that this is judge was not just a lawyer; he also had a professional qualification in quantity surveying, so he was well and truly across the expert evidence—over days and days of hearings, in a 100-page judgement, how could you, the board of Cleanaway, possibly sign off on this development? How could you possibly apply the precautionary principle and decide that it's the right thing to do to proceed with this development application? You couldn't.

That is no reflection on the employees of Cleanaway or the managers and senior executives, many of whom joined Cleanaway after the event. Certainly, in terms of my interactions with the senior executives of Cleanaway in this matter, they've been very courteous, and, from my perspective, engaged in good faith in terms of communication.

But this is about management of environmental risk and risk to amenity, and the judge has been very, very clear on both counts that, because of both the nature of the site—which is outside of the control of Cleanaway—and the nature of the risk, you simply cannot sign off on this development from an environmental risk perspective or an amenity perspective. I say to the board of Cleanaway: read the judgement. Don't read a summary of it; read the judgement. And, if you read the judgement, you could not possibly come to a conclusion that this development should proceed. Now is the time for Cleanaway to bring this sad and sorry saga to an end, to remediate the site, to consider its legacy and to end this misery for the people of Ipswich.