Antinuclear

Martin Ferguson got Australian government to weaken protection of iconic species, the giant cuttlefish

There is no publicly available explanation as to why and on what basis Minister Burke overturned his Department’s advice and acted in accordance with lobbying comments by the Minister for Resources and downgraded the recommended required level of protection accorded to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish from any adverse impacts by the operations of BHP Billiton’s proposed desalination plant.

Ferguson lobbying on Olympic Dam & Burke downgrading protection to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish, by David Noonan, 4 June 12 FOI documents reveal that on the same day that Min Burke signed the EPBC Act Approval to Olympic Dam (10^th Oct 2011) a final key change was made to the conditions of approval – in accordance with lobbying by the Resources Minister [Martin Ferguson] and against Department of Environment advice that had already taken account of comments by the Resources Minister – to downgrade the recommended level of required protection that the activities covered by the approval must not result in any adverse impact on the abundance and distribution of Australian Giant Cuttlefish and to restrict the department to only prosecute BHP Billiton for non-compliance representing significant adverse impacts on the Cuttlefish breeding population resulting from operations of the proposed Desalination plant at Point Lowly in Upper Spencer Gulf.

Min Ferguson wrote to Min Burke (letter dated 29 Sept 2011) providing comment on the Proposed Approval for BHP Billiton’s expansion of operations at Olympic Dam. The Resources Minister supported the recommendations of the Uranium Council on the regulation of uranium mining and called at p.3 for the adoption in the Proposed Approval Conditions of the term “significant adverse impacts” over the term “adverse impacts” in defining outcomes – stating this “is critical”.

This letter and other documents before Minister Burke in his Olympic Dam decision have been made public through FOI (received 15^th May 2011 in response to an application dated 12 Dec 2011).

In response, Min Burke standardised the use of wording to define outcomes in Approval Conditions to that of “significant adverse impacts” and overturned Department of Environment express advice in a Brief to the Minister (Brief No: B11/1570, FINAL EPBC APPROVAL DECISION – OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION EPBC 2005/2270) that had already taken account of comments by the Resources Minister and recommended an exception in Condition 46 relating to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish to maintain the requirement for a level of protection against any adverse impacts.

Effectively the use of “significant adverse impacts” rather than “any adverse impacts” lowers the regulatory standard applied to the uranium mine operator, lowers the required level of protection provided to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish, limits the regulatory role of the Minister for Environment under EPBC Act approval conditions and restricts the capacity of the Department to prosecute BHP Billiton for non-compliance to only occur at a higher level of significant adverse impacts rather than the recommended broader required protection level of any adverse impacts.

This is evidenced in comments by the Department of Environment to Min Burke (see attached scan), under “Key Points” at p.1 of the Brief “Brief No: B11/1732, FINAL EPBC APPROVAL DECISION – OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION (EPBC 2005/2270)” – wherein the Minister signed the approval notice dated 10 Oct 2011, stating that:

“Key Points: …

Following a meeting with you on 10 Oct 2011, we recommended two changes to the proposed final conditions of approval which were included at Attachment F to B11/1570. The recommended changes are:

 ·         an amendment to proposed condition 46, to insert the words “significant” before the words adverse impacts on the abundance and distribution of the Australian Giant cuttlefish”. This recommended change will ensure that the conditions can be implemented effectively, while maintaining strong protections for the Australian Giant Cuttlefish. This will avoid ambiguity and provide that the department would only prosecute non-compliance representing significant adverse impacts. The change is consistent with references to “significant adverse impacts” elsewhere in the proposed conditions”.

This downgrade of the level of required protection provided to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish was in direct contradiction of earlier formal Department of Environment advice to the Minister including the Recommendations of the “Olympic Dam expansion assessment report EPBC 2005/2270”  (Depart of Environment, 13 Sept 2011) which stated at 5.2.2 Australian Giant Cuttlefish that:

“Recommendations.

Based on the expert review undertaken by the SA Government and review by ecotoxicology experts within the department… Consequently, the department recommends that a condition is imposed to ensure that the operation of the desalination plant has no adverse impact on the abundance and distribution of the Australian Giant Cuttlefish.”

Importantly formal Brief advice from the A/g Assistant Secretary of EACD to the Minister in early October 2011 in “Brief No: B11/1570, FINAL EPBC APPROVAL DECISION – OLYMPIC DAM EXPANSION (EPBC 2005/2270)”, stated at page 4  that:

“Reference to significant Adverse Impacts

… One exception to this recommended change is condition 46 which related to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish, as this conditions related to the abundance and distribution of the species as a whole. This condition maintains the requirement for a level of protection against any adverse impacts.”

 There is no publicly available explanation as to why and on what basis Minister Burke overturned his Department’s advice and acted in accordance with lobbying comments by the Minister for Resources and downgraded the recommended required level of protection accorded to the Australian Giant Cuttlefish from any adverse impacts by the operations of BHP Billiton’s proposed desalination plant.

June 4, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics