Chapter 4
Concerns raised by local
governments and communities
4.1
This chapter
discusses concerns about the Perth Freight Link raised by local governments and
communities, and in particular addresses evidence concerning:
-
insufficient consultation
on the project by the federal and state governments, especially with local
governments, industry representatives, and the communities who would be
affected the most;
-
the damage the
Roe 8 extension could cause to local environmental, Indigenous and other
heritage sites, as well as apparent irregularities in the overturning of
previous environmental and heritage assessments; and
-
negative
effects the project may have on local communities; and
-
some negative
impacts the Freight Link would have for residents and businesses of Fremantle.
Lack of consultation
4.2
The committee
received evidence suggesting that the Commonwealth and state governments did
not undertake appropriate or sufficient consultation about the Perth Freight
Link with local governments, industry stakeholders and the communities who would
be affected the most by the project.
Local
government and industry stakeholders
4.3
The Mayors of
Fremantle, East Fremantle and Cockburn all told the committee their communities
would be negatively affected by the Freight Link. All agreed that they first
heard of the project through the media and had no contact with Main Roads WA
until well after the Budget announcement had been made.[1]
Councillor Logan Howlett, Mayor of the City of Cockburn, reflected that the
Freight Link was presented by the state government as the only potential option
for transport infrastructure to support Fremantle Port:
...the
level of public consultation with regard to Roe 8 focused only on one option
and that was to build Roe 8. There were no other options put forward to be
considered by the community.[2]
4.4
Even the City
of Melville, which supports the Freight Link proposal, conceded that they had
not been consulted by Main Roads WA on the Freight Link proposal until June
2014, well after the project was announced.[3]
4.5
Regarding
industry stakeholders, the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA), told the
committee that key stakeholders in the freight sector, including the main
leaseholders of the Fremantle Port and the MUA, had not been consulted over the
Freight Link proposal.[4]
Local
communities
4.6
Main Roads WA
maintains that plans for the Freight Link were developed with extensive and
'award-winning community consultation'.[5]
However, the
committee received a great deal of evidence that challenged this, and suggested
the communities that would be affected most by the project were not consulted
until after plans had been decided and announced.
4.7
The committee
heard that many communities did not feel as if they could challenge or inform
the development of the project, as its parameters had already been set by the
state government. For example, Mrs Kim Dravnieks, Campaign Coordinator, Rethink
the Link, commented:
Consultation
is not about just hearing somebody and ignoring it. It is finding out what
those impacts are. For anyone trying to design anything, if you have not been
out and talked to the stakeholders you are not designing a full design; you
have no idea of what those impacts are. And this is what has happened with the
Perth Freight Link. It has been put on top of us. There has not been that
consultation this time round...[6]
4.8
Ms Kate
Jones, Vice-President, Hamilton Hill Community Group, also submitted that state
government consultation had been poor, and noted how this had affected her community:
There has
been no meaningful engagement, no information, no traffic modelling, no costings,
nothing about stage 2 - nothing that assists in bringing the people of Hamilton
Hill or other affected communities along in the process... The approach the
government is taking at the moment lacks openness; it lacks transparency and
distances the government from its people...The people of Hamilton Hill are in
the dark, and the WA government is giving them nothing to fill the void,
nothing to help them understand how it intends to manage the impacts of the PFL
on their lives. This makes them scared for their future. It makes them angry,
too - angry at being rendered invisible, overlooked and ignored.[7]
4.9
Mr Joe Branco,
Action Convenor, North Lake Residents, spoke of the frustration of many
communities who felt as if they were only consulted in a tokenistic way, after the
decision to implement certain policies had already been made:
This
brings me to a very key point in our submission: there is no point to
consultation when there is no other option but to build a highway. What is the
point? Why spend all that taxpayer money if the consultation is about: 'Where
you would like your little plaque to be placed on the road? Where would you
like these little flowers to go once we put the six-lane highway there?'
Consultation means that you have a democratic right to challenge the word on
[the state government's] own pamphlets which says 'proposed'. It is a proposal
that the community have a right to challenge. This consultation process had
none of that—none of that at all.[8]
Negative effects of the
Freight Link for local communities
4.10
Many
submissions made by the individuals and local communities that will be most
affected by the Freight Link raised concerns to the committee, including:
-
the damage
the Roe 8 extension would cause to the natural environment;
-
the negative
effects on sacred and cultural sites for the local Indigenous communities, as
well as on other heritage sites;
-
the uncertainty
faced by some families whose homes are being reacquisitioned for the
construction of the Freight Link;
-
other
negative effects for local communities, particularly changes to traffic flows,
meaning that while air pollution and dangerous roads would be improved in some
areas, they would be made far worse in others, as well as the reduction of
recreational facilities; and
-
potentially
poor outcomes for Fremantle and neighbouring suburbs.
Damage
to the natural environment
4.11
The committee
received evidence that argued the proposed Roe Highway extension through
North Lake and Bibra Lake would cause significant damage to the natural
environment (see map below). Moreover, some submissions highlighted that the
decision to implement the Roe 8 extension contradicts earlier advice from the
Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).[9]
4.12
In their
submission, North
Lake Residents drew the committee's attention to a 1988 study that found that
the area is 'probably the most important fauna conservation location in the [Perth]
metropolitan area'.[10] Ms Katharine Kelly, Chair, Save Beeliar Wetlands
Inc. told the committee that the Beeliar Wetlands contained significant and
rare species of plants and animals, including the graceful sun moth, an
unidentified and potentially unique millipede, as well as rare woody pears and
orchids.[11]
4.13
As discussed
in chapter 2, the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)
advised that the Freight Link should be approved subject to the following
conditions being met:
-
consideration
or demonstration (to the maximum extent possible) of on-site impact mitigation;
and
-
development
and implementation of an acceptable offsets package for significant, residual
adverse impacts.[12]
4.14
Some
witnesses argued that this approval contradicts earlier advice from the EPA
undertaken as part of the state government's Freight Network Review in 2003.
Although no formal proposal for the Roe 8 extension was being considered at the
time, the EPA assessed that any construction through the Beeliar Regional Park
would be environmentally damaging as:
...the
overall impacts of construction within the alignment, or any alignment through
the Beeliar Regional Park in the vicinity of North Lake and Bibra Lake, would
lead to the ecological values of the area as a whole being diminished in the
long-term.[13]
4.15
In a Supreme
Court hearing for the challenge to the Freight Link mounted by the Save the
Beeliar Wetlands group, a lawyer for the EPA conceded that the agency did not
follow its earlier advice when it approved the Roe 8 extension.[14]
4.16
Dr Danielle
Brady submitted that the Beeliar Wetlands could not be 'offset' as they were a
unique and irreplaceable natural resource:
Offsetting
with 'like for like or better' is a key principal of both State and Federal
environmental guidelines. As the Beeliar Wetlands system is unique, it cannot
be offset by the purchase of additional land (details of which have not been
provided in the offset package).The offset package contravenes the EPAs own
guidelines which, in general terms, preclude offsetting of critical assets
including Public Conservation Reserve Lands, Bush Forever lands, native
vegetation of high conservation value and wetlands.[15]
4.17
Some evidence
taken by the committee spoke about the potential negative effects of the
Freight Link on the environment more generally. For example, Mr Samuel
Wainwright, Spokesperson, Fremantle Road to Rail Campaign, suggested that the
Freight Link would increase the total carbon emissions produced:
Although
transport contributes to about a third of our emissions, it is the
fastest-growing greenhouse gas contributor. All significant transport
investments should have as an aim the qualitative reduction in emissions.
Instead, Perth Freight Link, by its own definition, seeks to increase them. In
the 21st century, investing in freeways is the equivalent of building new coal
fired power stations. There has to be a different path.[16]
4.18
The committee
understands that, in late 2015, the Supreme Court of Western Australia found
the environmental approvals for the Roe 8 works were invalid. The committee also
understands that the Western Australian government is appealing this decision, and
that this process could take up to one year.[17]
Indigenous
sacred and culturally significant sites
4.19
Some evidence
to the committee highlighted the spiritual and cultural significance of the
Beeliar Wetlands for Indigenous Australians. Additionally, concerns were raised
about the process by which consent for the Roe 8 works was granted by the
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in September 2015.[18]
4.20
The North Lake
Residents highlighted that the National Trust of Australia (WA) found the North/Bibra
Lakes to be a site of historic and ongoing cultural significance for the local
Noongar people, containing 'many registered and mythological sites'.[19]
Councillor Logan Howlett, Mayor of the City of Cockburn, told the committee
that there were 13 registered Aboriginal sacred sites around the North and
Bibra Lake area.[20]
4.21
Ms Lynn
McLaren MLC submitted that the current Roe 8 plans would extend the highway directly
through the largest site of mythological significance in the area:
The
largest of these sites is a registered mythological site known as DAA 3709
which encompasses North and Bibra lakes and is known as the birthplace of the
Waugyl, a serpent of great spiritual significance to the Nyoongar people of
Perth and the South-West. The proposed path of Roe 8 runs directly through
DAA3709.[21]
4.22
Reverend
Sealin Garlett, Chairperson, Cockburn Aboriginal Reference Group, spoke of the
ongoing spiritual relationship that local Indigenous communities had with the
land around Bibra Lake:
On
that land, in the area that we are sharing today, there are food resources,
there is medicine and there is healing. I, for one, and my family still
practice those medicines that we get from that area now.
We as
Aboriginal people find that that area has a tremendous impact and sense of
belonging. There is a pride when we look at that place and say, 'That belongs
to yesterday and will go with us today and will go with us tomorrow.' As
Indigenous people we hold that area up very highly because it is a part of our
dreaming. It is a part of our connection and it is a part of our
identification. It is part of our identity, of being able to access that place
as Indigenous people.[22]
Concerns
about Indigenous heritage consent
4.23
Regarding the
heritage consent granted for the Roe 8 extension by the Minister for Aboriginal
Affairs, Main Roads WA states:
The local
knowledge shared by the Traditional Owners, which included an emphasis on
minimising impacts on sacred and mythological sites, rehabilitating degraded
areas of the wetlands and maintaining hydrological and ecological links, has
helped shape the project's preferred design, construction approach, footprint
and alignment.[23]
4.24
However, consultations
in 2010 and 2012 suggest that there was no clear approval from local Indigenous
stakeholders. An ABC news story suggests surveys undertaken by Main Roads WA
with traditional owners in 1987, 2010 and 2012 found significant opposition to
highway works being built over the Beeliar Wetlands:
[From
the 1987 survey] 'A number of Aboriginal people
consulted are implacably opposed to the proposed highway development between
the two lakes'... 'All people consulted would prefer a situation where the highway
did not pass between the lakes. However the majority did not want to be seen as
opposing the Main Roads Department'...
[From the
2010 survey] 'Of the
54 people consulted, 26 expressed approval of MRWA/SMC’s plans to seek approval
under section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) for registered sites
including no. 3709 to be disturbed to allow the highway extension to proceed. A
total of 28 others were not in favour'
[From the
2012 Survey] 'A total of 45 people who participated in seven consultation sessions
between 21 and 25 May 2012, most had taken part in the initial survey... Most
remained opposed to the highway extension plans'.[24]
4.25
The committee
heard some concerns that due process had not been followed in the 2015 decision
made by the Aboriginal
Cultural Materials Committee (ACMC) that overturned
its 2013 heritage assessments. Ms Lynn McLaren MLC outlined how the decision
made was not transparent in her submission:
...in
February 2013, the ACMC recommended consent [for Roe 8] was not granted 'based on
the ethnographic significance of the sites' and objections raised by the 'majority
of Aboriginal (sic) consulted'.
...For
reasons that do not stand up to scrutiny, the ACMC was asked to reconsider its
decision in June 2015 at which point it agreed to the Section 18 application.
The WA
Aboriginal Affairs Minister’s explanation to date for the re-referral to the
ACMC and the CMC’s change of heart does not make sense. The Minister has
referred to 'new information about the archaeological heritage places on the
land' but given the major site in question is a mythological site, not
archaeological, any archaeological data should have no bearing on the
information on the decision.[25]
4.26
The committee
understands that a case is currently before the Western Australian Supreme
Court challenging the Roe 8 extension on indigenous heritage grounds.[26]
Other
heritage sites
4.27
The committee
received evidence that Roe 8 works could irreparably damage other significant heritage
sites in the Bibra Lake area.
4.28
Some submitters
were concerned that roadwork over the Bibra Lake area would destroy a
recently-discovered Australian Women's Army Service Searchlight Station, which
was built during World War II. These submitters emphasised that this site is
the only one of its kind in Australia and is yet to be researched
comprehensively.[27]
4.29
The committee
also received submissions highlighting potential negative outcomes for the
Randwick Stables, currently Perth's oldest working stables and listed on the
permanent State Heritage Registry as a class-A site.[28]
Submissions were concerned that these stables are located on land owned by Main
Roads WA, which could be used for tunnelled sections of the Freight Link.
Moreover, it was also suggested that the stables could not continue to be used to
stable horses should Roe 8 proceed.[29]
Uncertainty
in the reacquisition process for some home owners
4.30
The committee
also received evidence from some individuals whose houses are set to be
repossessed by the state government and demolished to make way for the Freight
Link.[30] Ms Tania Smirke told the
committee that uncertainty over the implementation of the Freight Link
continued to affect her family profoundly:
I stand
to lose my home of nearly 18½ years, a home that started off as a modest four
by two but is still being renovated by me, my husband and my four boys to
become a seven-by-four dream castle...After we received the letter...from Main
Roads - that we received on 22 April...we got on the website. It showed the
preferred route was the one that destroyed our home. There was no mention of
what the other options were, only that they had been considered. If they have
been considered, where were they and why weren't they mentioned?[31]
4.31
Mr James
Gleeson outlined to the committee the effects of his house being forcibly
acquired by the state government and demolished for the Freight Link proposal:
On 20th
April 2015 we were given this information, and we are still left hanging in the
air, on our future, which has caused a lot of worry and stress to the people of
[my area]... I do not want to lose my home, as at my age (88) I don’t know where
I can relocate. My mobility is limited, and I would have big problems trying to wind up this home
and move to I don’t know where.[32]
4.32
Ms Smirke
told the committee how frustrating communication from the state government and
the relevant minister on the implementation of the Freight Link had been:
Suddenly,
on Friday afternoon just gone, we received a call from [an adviser] who works
in the transport minister's office. He said it was too hard for the minister to
personally talk to us but he wanted to tell us he would have everything he
needed to make his decision by the middle of this month, and that it would be
[the adviser], not the minister—who would call us and tell us whether we had
lost our homes. They want to take our homes, yet they will not come and see us
to let us know our fate. This is wrong. Surely we deserve better than that.[33]
Other
negative effects on the community
4.33
A number of
other concerns were raised about the Freight Link's effects on the health and
recreational opportunities enjoyed by local communities.
Community
health
4.34
Proponents of
the Freight Link project have suggested it would lead to improved health
outcomes for local communities by reducing pollution and increasing public
safety from the reduction of traffic volumes on some roads.[34]
However, the committee received evidence that suggested that pollution would
actually increase for many local residents and, moreover, that it could make
some roads more dangerous.
4.35
The summary
of the Freight Link Business Case estimates that it would remove 500 trucks per
day from the Leach Highway by 2031, 'reducing noise and increasing mobility by
removing slower vehicles from the road'.[35]
Some submissions noted
that conflicting figures had been released by Main Roads WA. For example, Miss Pascale Angliss observed that:
It is
stated in the Business Case published in December 2014 that the Project will
benefit the community by removing 500 fewer trucks per day on sections of Leach
Highway by 2031...
This is in contrast
to more recent figures released by Main Roads that Roe 8 at completion will
"divert approximately 2000 heavy vehicles from (a particular) section of
Leach Highway".[36]
4.36
Ms Christine
Cooper, Chairperson, Bibra Lake Residents Association Inc., told the committee
that increased traffic being diverted away from main roads could cause many
issues for local residents:
The 5,000
trucks per day will cause major issues such as noise, light and serious health
issues resulting from diesel pollution for those living in the areas and the
children attending the closely located schools. There will be traffic
congestion issues for our residents, as important local roads will be permanently
closed if the highway is built. Congestion issues that exist now will be
transferred to our suburbs.[37]
4.37
Ugo di Marchi,
Member, Bibra Lake Residents Association and Coolbellup Community Association, suggested
the government recognised there would be significant leakage from the Freight
Link, which would have uncertain effects that had not been modelled
sufficiently:
In the
state government Standing Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations, Main
Roads, when questioned, admitted that with, as a conservative figure, 42 per
cent of the 1.3 million trucks using the road, there will be a leakage to
suburban streets. That is at the maximum number of trucks on the Perth Freight
Link in here; it quotes 2031. That is on page 30 of the report by the Standing
Committee on Estimates and Financial Operations of the state government. Not
everybody is going to use Perth Freight Link. They will still proliferate on
the other roads. So, as we all know, why should Roe 8 go ahead when we are not
sure what is going to happen and whether all of the trucks will be using it?[38]
Reducing
recreational and educational community activities
4.38
Some evidence
received by the committee highlighted the negative effects of the Freight Link
on community educational and recreation activities that take place in the
Beeliar Wetlands. For example, North Lake Residents submitted that extending
Roe 8 as planned would significantly reduce the recreational and educational
opportunities available to the local community, citing a 2004 EPA report that
found:
The
environs surrounding North Lake and Bibra Lake currently support recreational
activities which involve cycling, walking, exercising, picnicking and
educational pursuits for school and university students.... Currently, the
Cockburn Wetlands Education Centre is located within the Beeliar Regional Park
and is utilised by [a various number of] groups such as the Bibra Lake Scouts,
the Wetlands Conservation Society, Friends of Ken Hurst Park, [and the]
Wildlife Conservation Society.[39]
4.39
Councillor
Howlett, Mayor of
the City of Cockburn,
also highlighted the effects of the Freight Link on the recreational
opportunities for local communities:
Importantly,
over and above that, Roe 8 impacts on wetlands, on the banksia woodlands and on
the recreational opportunities of thousands of people who come to this location
every year—it is the most used recreational area in the City of Cockburn, and
probably has been for the last 30 years. It is in a pristine state.[40]
Effects on Fremantle
and surrounding areas
4.40
The committee
received evidence that the Freight Link would damage the long-term viability of
Fremantle as a living and working city. The study undertaken for the City of
Fremantle by Professor Newman and Dr Hendrigan found the project would damage
the liveability and economic health of the city and its surrounding areas in a
number of ways, including:
-
increasing
pollution from trucks driving to and from Fremantle, affecting the community's
health;
-
creating
access difficulties for local residential and collector route car traffic;
-
setting back
urban renewal in Fremantle and thereby impeding its future economy, including the
developing knowledge economy, and a slowdown of employment in services and
tourism;
-
damage to
existing Fremantle industry, including the removal of the historic D'Orsogna
factory, which employs 500 people;
-
larger
volumes of trucks on Fremantle's roads and increased pollution reducing the
number of visitors that the services and tourism sectors depend upon;
-
the Freight
Link creating a physical and social barrier around the city, reducing
investment in the city over the long-term;
-
negative
effects on shops and businesses along Stock Road, which will no longer have
street frontage or access; and
-
reduction of
land values of key locations in the Fremantle CBD, due to slower redevelopment
and job creation.[41]
4.41
The following
chapter sets out the views and recommendations of the committee.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page