ACTING CHAIR (Senator Cooney) —Welcome, and thank you for coming along for what is in effect a roundtable discussion. We have some material from you already. Did you want to add some more, Mr O'Brien?

Mr O'Brien —I just want to read a short introduction to this new submission and then I will table it for your consideration later. We would like to table a supplementary submission to the committee. This submission includes some articles and letters relating to Shoalwater Bay. We have tabled these documents to demonstrate to you that our concerns about Shoalwater Bay have been an issue for some years. Shoalwater Bay is not just a big scrubby paddock where the military can play war games. It is well documented as one of the most important conservation sites on the east coast of Australia, perhaps in the whole country.

You people fly around Australia, you know how damaged most of the country is and, as Australia becomes more and more degraded through unsustainable agriculture and development, day by day Shoalwater Bay becomes more and more important as a species refuge and wildlife habitat. It is simply just not good enough for the military to say they are looking after the place; they also have to be accountable to the community, even if they don't like it. The only way to be publicly accountable is to have a good community consultation process in place.

I must say that the behaviour of the Australian Defence Force in the matter of community consultation has been nothing short of disgraceful. If the Australian Defence Force had deliberately set out to alienate the conservation movement, they could not possibly have done a better job of it. If we had known that the ADF would blatantly disregard the commission of inquiry recommendations, our support for the military to remain in the bay would have been much different. If we had known that the federal government would use Shoalwater Bay as a fundraiser, our support for the military to remain in the bay would also have been much different.

I can only speak for my organisation, but we will continue to oppose at every level any further escalation of military use of Shoalwater Bay, at least until an adequate, honest and properly constituted community consultation process is in place. When the three local conservation groups are saying similar things, it must be obvious to this committee that there is a serious problem here that needs to be addressed.

ACTING CHAIR —And there is some more material in that?

Mr O'Brien —Yes, there is more material here.

ACTING CHAIR —Which you would like to table?

Mr O'Brien —Yes.

ACTING CHAIR —Thank you, Mr O'Brien. Did you want to say anything, Ms Childs, before we go into discussion?

Ms Childs —I think my submission should speak for itself but I am happy to answer questions. As my submission points out, it turns on three areas: the consultation process, the lack of confidence in the environmental assessment process and, thirdly, the lack of resources for adequate monitoring and management at ground level.

ACTING CHAIR —Mr Acfield, did you want to make an opening statement?

Mr Acfield —There are five short points that I want to address, and I have not put anything in writing as yet. I have just been to hospital and had a knee reconstruction, actually, which has slowed me up a bit.

The first point I want to make is that effectively the environment groups and the Army formed a coalition in opposing sand mining here. And, following up on what Pat said, we were never told or we had no idea that the Army were going to expand out into the whole international thing with Singaporeans and so forth; we just thought it was more Australian Army was going to be there. So we feel a bit duped about that.

The second point is that, as Pat was saying, the area has immense biological diversity. It is basically a transition area between the tropics and the temperate areas and certainly needs protection. The third point is that while the Army may have intentions to manage the area and keep it pristine, how does the public know this is actually happening? It is an issue of accountability, and I think that needs to be looked at. Perhaps some independent audits could be looked at.

A fourth point is that there needs to be some indication, with all the groups that are coming in, as to how high is the bar, how many groups are coming in and how do we know, how do we measure and how do we decide the limit to growth of these groups? I do not have anything to do with the Army on a day-to-day basis, so I have no idea of how many negotiations are going on with nations around the globe. I guess it is the whole concern that it appears to have turned into a money making exercise, not just a training facility for Australian troops.

The last area of concern is our concern about the whole militarisation of the globe and how Shoalwater Bay may have something to do with militarisation of the whole globe and may not be just a training area. There are issues like the constant reminder that there are troops coming over, the impact of socialisation and of people seeing so many Army people here. Does this mean we have to start to think about increasing the size of our Army, especially when you combine it with Indonesia and what is happening up there? It is very easy to say, `Well, we need to increase the size of our Army now'—and there is the whole impact that goes on with that—and so do they. It is that whole arms race scenario, I suppose. They were my points.

The last point I want to make—this is an extra—is about resources that we were talking before. Our organisation covers Central Queensland, but from the federal government we receive $7,500, which is just impossible to operate with. When it comes to groups like this group receiving anywhere near the information, the expertise that we should get, there is something that gets missed out because of the incredible lack of funding for environment groups.

ACTING CHAIR —We have set up patterns, so we might as well stick with it.

Senator LUDWIG —What I was interested in, amongst other things, of course, is the consultation that you say is inadequate, as I understand it. What do you envisage as an adequate system of consultation? I do not mind if we start with you first, Ms Childs, and we can go through and everyone can perhaps have a comment about that. If you then say the current consultation is not adequate, what do you envisage as an adequate system that will ensure that at least you would then become aware of what processes are in place and what is the environmental impact that is occurring?

Ms Childs —I think it is going to be multifaceted. The first thing I would say is that it needs to be more two-way. What has happened is that mostly information has been coming from Defence to members of the public and, being a representative on the Environmental Advisory Committee, I can deliver some information back the other way to Defence through that means.

Senator MASON —That is the current system, is it?

Ms Childs —That is the current system, but it is extremely limited in the way that two-way conversation can take place. Although Defence has taken up some issues with individual interest groups and delved into them more deeply, perhaps—Aboriginal heritage issues, for example, or business issues—we do not feel, at a conservation level, that that is really taking place for us as an interest group. They have not gone out of their way to engage us in a two-way conversation about issues of concern to us.

Senator MASON —Just very briefly, what actually happens at the moment in terms of—

Ms Childs —Presently we have got an Environmental Advisory Committee which is quite small. It consists of one representative for conservation interests, one for local government, one for heritage—as in an Aboriginal interest there—and one for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That is nearly it. That meets only twice a year, and that is really more a chance for us to catch up with what the Army have been doing for the last six months and maybe get an inkling of what they might be doing in the next six months. But there are many, many issues which are not covered in that process and there are many times when I have attempted to foster ownership of that committee by stakeholders by saying, `Well, okay, can we as a committee put out a report as a joint committee' or `Can we have discussions about heritage issues at the EAC'—not just what the Army wants to discuss—and these things have been fairly well stifled in that process. And it feels very much that Defence has control of us.

We are a convenient way to justify their current environmental management system by saying we are there on their committee, but I think what Pat is saying as well identifies with

the fact that the community are not really feeling as if they are getting value for money out of that in terms of feeling like they are in a dialogue about environmental issues.

Mr O'Brien —There is no doubt that we have been shut out from environmental discussions. Two or three years ago we invited the base commander and the environment officer down to our environment centre at Yeppoon—

Senator LUDWIG —I am happy to hear you on all of those issues, but the question—just to remind you—was to turn your mind to what processes you do envisage would be of assistance to you. That is what I would be very keen to get on the record. I understand the current system and I can ask Defence about it in more detail, but I want to know what you then say will address your concerns. How can we then say, or what can you then say—and if nothing can address it, fine, I am happy for you to say that as well—but if you were to say, `But if they were to do X, Y, Z,' it would be very helpful.

Mr O'Brien —Okay. I believe that the EAC meeting should be at least four times a year. Our representative should be resourced. Our representative should be advised in advance of any agenda item so that she can discuss it in time with the other groups. We should have the opportunity to put our issues on the agenda for discussion at that. As well as that, I believe that we should have a committee of the representatives of the three local conservation groups meeting more often than that—and with the local managers as well.None of those things would work unless the ADF makes a commitment to actually enter into consultation.

Senator LUDWIG —And it is fair to say that you have raised those with them and have not been able to get anywhere or—

Mr O'Brien —Yes. We have raised all sorts of options through the system that is currently in place.

Senator LUDWIG —And then going to the more specific, are there any other issues like Ms Childs mentioned, independent reports or being able to provide reports? Would you also agree with that?

Mr O'Brien —Yes, absolutely. At the moment we do not know what is happening up there at all. The military are saying they are looking after the place, and they may be, but we do not know, and that is the problem. We are not getting any information.

Mr Acfield —I want to just keep going on my lack of resources, really. We are just not going to play ball very much really; it is as simple as that. I am a 15-hour worker and that is it for Central Queensland for our group. It is difficult getting members to do a whole lot of work, so the amount of consultation to start with from us will be very limited.

Senator LUDWIG —Where do you say the resources should come from?

Mr Acfield —There are two bodies from which we get funding—one is federal and one is state. The federal money is $1.6 million across the nation. That funds all the environment groups, ACF included. That amount has been dropping for a long time. From the state we

get 12[half ]. There are heaps of issues. We just maybe do a bit of a comment in the paper, play those sorts of greenie games.

Senator LUDWIG —You mentioned that there was a view that the training area is utilised by the federal government as a moneymaking exercise. Where is that view from?

Mr Acfield —There was no mention by anybody—

Senator LUDWIG —By the group here today.

Mr Acfield —There was no mention 10 years ago, when we were fighting the sandmining, that there were ever going to be any other groups come in, as far as I am aware. We are basically a small coalition that agreed to stop the sandmining. We certainly had no idea that there was going to be anywhere near the amount of people in the area.

Mr O'Brien —In the federal commission of inquiry, it said that the environment group they recommended be set up should be funded by the military. That was the intent of the finding of the commission of inquiry, but it has not happened.

Senator LUDWIG —I might come back to this area, but I will leave it at that for the moment.

Senator MASON —Senator Ludwig addressed the issues relating to the process of environmental management at Shoalwater Bay. Within the process, are there any concerns about actual damage or actual environment harm? Do you have any specific concerns?

Mr O'Brien —Underwater detonations in the marine park have always been an issue.

Senator MASON —Are there any other ones?

Mr O'Brien —Yes. There is forefront damage from landing equipment on the beaches. I guess they are the major concerns. The marine issues are the major concerns, but we are just not being told what is happening. When there is a major exercise up there in the marine areas the whole place is closed and no-one can get near it.

Senator MASON —That was my next question. You put your finger on it. What is the process for monitoring environmental damage at Shoalwater Bay?

Mr O'Brien —Leise could probably answer that because she is on the Environmental Advisory Committee. We do not know; we get told nothing.

Ms Childs —The process is that there are pre- and post-exercise inspections conducted by the environmental unit based here in Rockhampton, together with officers of the exercising force. That is a fairly effective way to pick up very obvious and immediate impacts in the major corridors—so erosion damage and creek bed damage can be picked up and some restoration put in place. There are cumulative impacts though, which is the issue that we are most concerned about.

Senator MASON —Do you believe that the monitoring criteria are not sufficiently broad? Is that your concern?

Ms Childs —It is being worked on because these are difficult areas. Cumulative impacts are difficult things to manage, and even to know if they are occurring. Some work has been going on with fire analysis, and in other areas we are trying to pick up cumulative change. I do not know that there is anything there currently that gives us a firm handle on that. Whether Defence is planning further research in that area or not, I am not sure. At the moment I do not think we really do have a firm handle on how to monitor cumulative impacts.

There are things such as the new North-South Road upgrade, which is a very significant upgrade for a section of that road. I am not aware of whether that long-term impact has been assessed. Is our monitoring simply accommodating our developments rather than slotting them into a procedure or a process for evaluation.

Senator MASON —You are concerned that the current consultation processes are not sufficiently adequate for you to be satisfied that the environmental impact, long term, is looked after?

Ms Childs —Consultation is important for transparency and also for accountability. Once the public are happy with what they are doing, it is a pretty good recommendation for them. But it is only one facet. The other facet is what is happening from the top down, what are the military masters requiring of this area, and is it feasible that we can environmentally manage what their requirements are. That is why I pointed in my submission to the need for them to define their user requirement very precisely and also to look at an infrastructure plan. Neither of these things are coming into the sustainability picture for Shoalwater Bay as yet.

Senator MASON —It seems to me from the very brief overview this morning that the problem is perhaps lack of information, because I was going to ask could we, in fact, have further operations and further military training there? I know you are against that. You say that is not so much because of the environmental damage, it is because you do not know whether it will impact—in other words, it is ignorance of the situation rather than necessarily the environmental impact. Is that right?

Ms Childs —It is a significant component.

Mr Acfield —It is a trust issue, too, with all of that, because it is a hidden away place that you cannot get to, so it is trust as well as information.

Senator COONEY —Just to make sure I have got this clear, I understand that you cannot get out there as much as you would like but do you know of any damage done or have you got an impression of any damage done, or is the real problem you face the one that has already been dealt with—that is, a matter of being able to find out by proper process?

Mr O'Brien —I guess it is a lack of information, but also we are hearing reports of damage from fishermen. I did intend to bring a few photos in today of some of the damage

that has occurred, but I forgot and I might table them later. I think it is a lack of information and because the area is so remote. There is also the issue of how much money is being spent on the environment there. The Woodward inquiry determined that military use and conservation were of equal and concurrent importance. So we would assume that equal amounts of money should be spent concurrently on both: as much as they are spending on military training they should be spending on the environment. But we do not know whether they are. It is our impression that the money that they are spending on the environment is merely patching up the damage that they have done, rather than real environmental initiatives like monitoring, surveys and so on.

Senator COONEY —Senator Ludwig and I went out there yesterday, but we did not go near the beachheads. Is it the beach that you are most worried about? I am not saying only worried about but most worried about.

Senator LUDWIG —Or the mangroves?

Senator COONEY —Or the forests?

Mr O'Brien —We are worried about the whole area, but we do have concerns about the beaches. There was a lot of damage done in one of the recent military exercises. They do try and contain their landing areas to two areas and we understand they do quite a bit of work there on monitoring damage and restricting vehicles and so on. They do try, we think. But, again, we do not know.

Senator COONEY —The Singaporeans showed us a little box, I suppose you would describe it, that they had at the side of their rifles to catch the shell cases. I think that is an indication that they are trying. It seemed from what you said earlier that it was the beach that you were worried about—not only the beach, but mainly the beach.

Mr O'Brien —It is also the sheer sizes of some of the exercises—the amount of people and the amount of equipment: hundreds of boats, hundreds of planes, thousands and thousands of troops. It is the sheer size and the impact of that on that area that is also a concern.

Senator COONEY —Are you concerned that the beaches will break up and the trees will be damaged? I do not necessarily need an answer to that now, but can you give us some concept later on of the sort of damage that you apprehend?

Mr O'Brien —Sure. I think there is something in that submission that I tabled.

CHAIR —Many thanks for your evidence this morning, it has been kind of you to come. It was a good contribution.

[10.50 a.m.]