Senator WOODLEY (7.28 p.m.) —The concern that I wish to express tonight is a real concern for one of the government ministers, Senator Faulkner, who in the debate about Port Hinchinbrook has been very much sidelined. Furthermore, the authority of the Federal government as an environmental watchdog has also been made irrelevant. That is my concern. I quote in evidence of that concern from a number of articles. The first is an article from the Sunday Mail of last Sunday by Phil Dickie entitled `The Slow Track to Club Mud' from which I now quote:

Instead of environmental impact assessment, the Port Hinchinbrook proposal became the subject of an "Environmental Review Report". This was announced as the work of the Department of Environment and Heritage, but Freedom of Information requests show that the developer, Keith Williams, through the Office of the Coordinator-General, played a large hand in the final form of the report.

I have some quotes from his correspondence with the department:

"My suggestions for amendments to this report are not negotiable . . . (they) must be incorporated before (the report) is released to the public," wrote Mr Williams. Within a week, the Office of the Coordinator-General advised Mr Williams of 10 pages of amendments and the final document was further amended in response to such further notations as "This must go" and "Under no circumstances will I agree to this".

  It would seem, at the very least, that attributing authorship of the Environmental Review Report to the Department of Environment and Heritage is highly misleading.

  Some questions have been raised with me in a number of quarters. Again, these questions suggest to me that Senator Faulkner has been ambushed. That concerns me greatly because I believe that he has a very real commitment to the environment. But questions have been raised and I wonder whether Minister Faulkner is aware of recent reports that Queensland's most senior public servant, Mr Kevin Rudd, and the head of the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, Dr Craig Emerson, are both considering nominating for endorsement as candidates for the ALP at the next federal election.

  I wonder whether the minister is aware that the two departments headed by these men are the same two departments involved in assessing and approving the Port Hinchinbrook development in Far North Queensland, the same development which the Valentine Report, commissioned by the minister, has criticised as likely to threaten the World Heritage values of this area.

  I wonder whether the minister is aware that the AWU faction of the ALP in Queensland is likely to support both these men in their candidacy. I wonder whether the minister is aware—perhaps he is aware and it causes him pain as well as it causes me pain—that any future work force at Port Hinchinbrook resort would be required to become members of the AWU.

  One has to marvel at the apparent conflict of interest of Mr Rudd and Dr Emerson and ask whether they have contributed to the farcical and inadequate nature of the approval process followed by the Queensland government for the Port Hinchinbrook development. It is not only Mr Williams, Mr Rudd, Dr Emerson, the AWU and others who have sidelined Senator Faulkner. Again, let me read from a press release:

  Environmental lawyer, David Haigh, today called the Baseline Studies required for the Port Hinchinbrook Resort development a legal farce.

  . . . . . . . . .

Mr Haigh said:

  "The farce is made even worse by the studies being done by the Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

  This Department, by giving permits for the destruction of mangroves, validated—

retrospectively—

  the illegal act of their removal by the previous developer. It has now given permits to destroy the only remaining beach mangroves at Oyster Point."

  "It is fundamental legal principle that research in an EIS be by an independent source. The Department has directly facilitated the Development and can reasonably be expected to repeat its biased and partisan approach evidenced by its actions as part of the Queensland Government.

  "To be credible the Studies must be done by an objective body such as the Australian Institute of Marine Science."

For these reasons it seems that everyone, except those who have an interest in preserving the environment and appropriate development on this site, have had an input into making this decision—everyone except those with a real interest. Senator Faulkner has my sympathy.