Ms LAWRIE - 2005-02-10
The new convention centre and waterfront development will provide jobs for Territorians and drive growth in our economy. Could you please outline the environmental remediation processes being undertaken as part of this very exciting new project?
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question …
Mr Burke: We are in recovery mode, are we? You are on the back foot.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Ms MARTIN: I welcome the question from the member for Karama, as the Darwin City Waterfront is a most exciting project. It is about turning 25 ha of industrial wasteland into a wonderful waterfront development for Territorians and tourists; to create jobs and business opportunities.
In recognition that it is an old industrial site, an extraordinary level of environmental work has been done, and will be done. I will put on the record what the process is. It is 25 ha of land which has been subject to the most extensive site investigation studies for an urban development in recent Territory history. It is a very complex environmental process - nobody disputes that - and we recognised that from the outset 18 months ago.
This is what has happened so far. I did refer to this yesterday, however, I thought it important to go through in detail what has taken place. Between September 2003 - 18 months ago - and May last year, there was the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement. Therefore, to say there has been undue rush, no. September 2003 was when this process started.
In the middle of last year there was extensive public consultation. In August last year, there was a supplementary environmental impact statement produced in July last year, and the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Report by the Office of Environment and Heritage, based on the draft EIS and the public comment. The minister made a determination on the basis of Environmental Assessment Report No 43 and the EIS in August 2004 ...
Mr Dunham: They said it could not be adequately assessed. Turn to page 4.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the member for Drysdale does not want to hear this, because he does oppose the project.
Extensive work has been undertaken on contamination investigations, including three phases of field investigations; in excess of 200 test pits; soil sampling and analysis; and groundwater monitoring 76 times. In parallel, extensive field studies and reports have been prepared, including those on marine, water quality traffic, and dredging investigations.
Furthermore, as there is this vast suspicion from the opposition that this is somehow being done in a dodgy way, we have an independent auditor for contaminated land appointed; most highly accredited under the Victorian legislation, which is the most stringent in the country. The project team conducted workshops with the auditor to determine the most appropriate processes for clean up of the site. Those workshops led to the preparation of an environmental management framework. That framework includes - and I do not apologise for going into the details, so please bear with me – a remediation action plan which identifies all contaminants found and their potential impact on both human health and the environment; a site management plan, which governs the long-term work practices to be adopted on the site; and construction environmental management plans, which detail how individual contractors perform works in accordance with those two previous plans. There is also an operational environment management plan which controls post-construction. This is very detailed and has a substantial process to it, which we are following.
Work to be done and already commenced is as follows: the Territory is about to commence the clean-up of the iron ore contamination on Fort Hill, and has commenced clean up of hydrocarbon contamination on Stokes Hill. The remaining contamination will be dealt with by the developer, as required under the environmental framework, including adherence to the remediation action plan. All of this will be policed by the environmental auditor to ensure the work is done at the highest standards.
All this goes before the Development Consent Authority. The authority has to tick off - as they do with all projects - whether every aspect of environmental management has been put in place or will be put in place. If they do not think it is adequate, the DCA will ask for more.
How can you suggest that this process is too rushed? It is a complex one; we do not dispute that. However, we have worked for 18 months to this date, and we are committed to the best environmental practice. The cost, at this stage, we say, over the life of the project, is probably …
Mr Mills: This is a very long answer.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a very long answer, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: … something in the vicinity of $10m, which is, over the life of the project, about $1m a year.
ANSWER
Madam Speaker, I welcome the question …
Mr Burke: We are in recovery mode, are we? You are on the back foot.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of the Opposition.
Ms MARTIN: I welcome the question from the member for Karama, as the Darwin City Waterfront is a most exciting project. It is about turning 25 ha of industrial wasteland into a wonderful waterfront development for Territorians and tourists; to create jobs and business opportunities.
In recognition that it is an old industrial site, an extraordinary level of environmental work has been done, and will be done. I will put on the record what the process is. It is 25 ha of land which has been subject to the most extensive site investigation studies for an urban development in recent Territory history. It is a very complex environmental process - nobody disputes that - and we recognised that from the outset 18 months ago.
This is what has happened so far. I did refer to this yesterday, however, I thought it important to go through in detail what has taken place. Between September 2003 - 18 months ago - and May last year, there was the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement. Therefore, to say there has been undue rush, no. September 2003 was when this process started.
In the middle of last year there was extensive public consultation. In August last year, there was a supplementary environmental impact statement produced in July last year, and the preparation of the Environmental Assessment Report by the Office of Environment and Heritage, based on the draft EIS and the public comment. The minister made a determination on the basis of Environmental Assessment Report No 43 and the EIS in August 2004 ...
Mr Dunham: They said it could not be adequately assessed. Turn to page 4.
Ms MARTIN: It is interesting that the member for Drysdale does not want to hear this, because he does oppose the project.
Extensive work has been undertaken on contamination investigations, including three phases of field investigations; in excess of 200 test pits; soil sampling and analysis; and groundwater monitoring 76 times. In parallel, extensive field studies and reports have been prepared, including those on marine, water quality traffic, and dredging investigations.
Furthermore, as there is this vast suspicion from the opposition that this is somehow being done in a dodgy way, we have an independent auditor for contaminated land appointed; most highly accredited under the Victorian legislation, which is the most stringent in the country. The project team conducted workshops with the auditor to determine the most appropriate processes for clean up of the site. Those workshops led to the preparation of an environmental management framework. That framework includes - and I do not apologise for going into the details, so please bear with me – a remediation action plan which identifies all contaminants found and their potential impact on both human health and the environment; a site management plan, which governs the long-term work practices to be adopted on the site; and construction environmental management plans, which detail how individual contractors perform works in accordance with those two previous plans. There is also an operational environment management plan which controls post-construction. This is very detailed and has a substantial process to it, which we are following.
Work to be done and already commenced is as follows: the Territory is about to commence the clean-up of the iron ore contamination on Fort Hill, and has commenced clean up of hydrocarbon contamination on Stokes Hill. The remaining contamination will be dealt with by the developer, as required under the environmental framework, including adherence to the remediation action plan. All of this will be policed by the environmental auditor to ensure the work is done at the highest standards.
All this goes before the Development Consent Authority. The authority has to tick off - as they do with all projects - whether every aspect of environmental management has been put in place or will be put in place. If they do not think it is adequate, the DCA will ask for more.
How can you suggest that this process is too rushed? It is a complex one; we do not dispute that. However, we have worked for 18 months to this date, and we are committed to the best environmental practice. The cost, at this stage, we say, over the life of the project, is probably …
Mr Mills: This is a very long answer.
Madam SPEAKER: It is a very long answer, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: … something in the vicinity of $10m, which is, over the life of the project, about $1m a year.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016