Hindmarsh Island Bridge Bill opposed

Extract from Hansard

Legislative Council
16 November 1999

Mike Elliott
Leader Australian Democrats
Member of the Legislative Council

Parliament Index
1999 Spring Session Index
Browse by Subject
About the SA Parliament
Hansard on line

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The Hon. Sandra Kanck is taking the lead on this bill for the Democrats but I want this opportunity to say a little about this matter. This may be (but I think I should be somewhat cautious here) the last time that this matter comes before the parliament in legislation; then again, it may not be. This matter has certainly had a life of its own for a very long time. The Hon. Sandra Kanck, for the most part, I think, concentrated on matters of Aboriginal interest and I do not intend to cover that ground again. However, I wish to make one observation which I do not think I have made in this place on the record.

There are some who insist that the claims of women's business in relation to Hindmarsh Island were fabricated. In fact, as I recall, the royal commission suggested that it was made up at a particular time and on a particular date at a meeting-and I forget the exact location but it is referred to in the report of the royal commission. I met with Sarah and Doug Milera a significant time before the meeting at which the royal commission claimed the evidence was fabricated took place, and Sarah on that occasion made it quite plain to me that there were matters of very great significance to Aboriginal women in relation to Hindmarsh Island that were causing her grave concern.

I know for a fact that the royal commission is wrong, because the records of that meeting were taken and we know the dates, and, indeed, well before the time at which the royal commission claimed that the women's business was fabricated I was speaking with Sarah Milera and Doug-although she was doing the talking (and I suppose, because it was women's business, that that is not surprising). While she did not tell me the nature of it (and I did not think it was my business to ask), it was quite plain that she was talking about women's business at that time. So, the royal commission, as the Hon. Sandra Kanck has said, got it wrong on a number of matters. I can assure this place that it got it wrong there-it got it wrong absolutely. That is the only comment that I will make in relation to Aboriginal matters and Hindmarsh Island.

As I said, this may be the last time- but I would not hold my breath-that we will visit this matter within this parliament. I think that a little of the history really needs to be revisited, albeit briefly, because I think that this government is setting itself up to make the same sorts of mistakes repeatedly. The Hindmarsh Island bridge was not something to which the government was bound, to begin with. In fact, the Department of Transport had a very clear view that a bridge to Hindmarsh Island was a very low priority.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes. I will get to that. The Department of Transport had a very clear view that a bridge to Hindmarsh Island was a very low priority. Clearly, the bridge to Berri, which has now been built, was the highest priority but other places along the Murray River upstream had a far greater need and would carry far more regular traffic. I suspect that probably Swan Reach and several other places along there would carry at least as much traffic as travels to Hindmarsh Island. So, there were clearly higher priority needs.

I also understand that the Chapmans initially were encouraged to look at sites for a marina on the mainland, if you like, but they chose to go onto Hindmarsh Island. However, when they applied for the right to develop, the DAC said that, with the ferry operating there, it would create some difficulties if the development went beyond a certain size. My recollection is that the DAC said that stage 1 of the development could proceed but that stages 2, 3 and 4 could not proceed unless a bridge was built. That is really where it should have rested. However, the Special Projects Unit, somehow or other, became involved.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, it was under the Labor government. The Premier's Special Projects Unit became involved and the ERD Committee reported. I recommend that members refer to a copy of the ERD Committee's report of 1993, which was an all party committee report. Two members of that committee, the Hon. Terry Roberts and I, are still in this parliament and we are still members of that committee. That all party committee unanimously determined that the bridge should not be built for a range of reasons, and that clearly was the case. It was a stupid decision and, for reasons we did not get to the bottom of, the Special Projects Unit decided to sponsor it, and the government signed an agreement with the developers that the bridge would be built. The whole sorry saga-

The Hon. Diana Laidlaw: The Liberal Party asked for the contract not to be signed.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: -continued from there. I do not want to digress but it would not be too hard for me to point out that the current government seems to have a propensity to do the same sorts of things. Frankly, I think that the soccer stadium probably fits into that same category. I think that what the government managed to do at West Beach will prove to be in the same category in terms of enormous, long-term liabilities being created for the state. The scenario of deals being done for political reasons and governments creating obligations into the future is all being repeated.

That so often happens as premiers in particular like having projects because, somehow or other, having projects under way proves that you are a good government, but they do not practise due diligence. That was a problem back then and, frankly, I have not seen any change in behaviour since that time despite a change in government. Anyway, that is a digression and I do not want to digress.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I said I could not come back. I did not anticipate what would be done to the Hon. Mr Gilfillan, and the minister knows very well that no-one would have anticipated that. We know who was behind it, but that is another story, too.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: We know the names and it will go down in the history books at the appropriate time. We know who was involved in the media and who in what parties did what.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: Yes, it would be a good one, too. The construction of the Hindmarsh Island bridge, I commented on 6 October 1993, was wrong on three grounds: it was wrong on the basis of costs; it was wrong on the basis of the impact on tourism; and it was wrong in terms of the impact on the environment. At that stage I had only a very passing awareness of Aboriginal significance, but I believe very strongly that it was wrong on those three grounds. At that stage the government had a spare ferry and, as a result of building the Berri bridge, it would have had two more.

The government would have been able to park a ferry at Hindmarsh Island which would have had to operate only 27 days a year to handle the peak traffic-and I emphasise 27 days. A high cost would not have been involved in utilising a second ferry. As well as all the additional costs created by the lawyers, building a bridge-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: No, the lawyers have been dreadful. They are a curse on this world in many ways.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: There are very few exceptions but I will not name them right now. The building of the bridge was always going to be more expensive than the second ferry option. I explored that aspect in my speech at that time. Also, in terms of tourism, on a few occasions I have taken my children to Hindmarsh Island and the only thing they enjoyed about Hindmarsh Island was going over on the ferry. The island itself, frankly-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: That's right, but if you are at Goolwa and you have done the tourist bit and you have seen the heritage steamers, the heritage steam trains and things such as that, you then get on a heritage ferry and go across there and you drive down to the Murray mouth. In fact, with some good interpretation, I think viewing of the Murray mouth from Hindmarsh Island can be quite spectacular-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: It is just a longer drive. In terms of tourist attractions down there, I think the ferry at Hindmarsh Island was an attraction in its own right. A bridge certainly is not. I also made a comment at the time that-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: I have already touched on that matter; you wandered in halfway through. I do not want to repeat myself so you will have to go back and read the speech.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: You're not paying enough attention. It is also worth noting when one talks about tourism in Goolwa that one of its strengths is its heritage values. The heritage wharf is there; there is the steam train which runs behind the wharf; and the steamer also operates from there. Then, within 50 metres of this heritage precinct, we are having a bridge-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: This particular argument is not one about a bridge: this is an argument-

The Hon. T. Crothers: Doreen Kartinyeri, the most senior of the Kartinyeri elders, said it was a fabrication.

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The comment I was making in terms of the bridge and impact on tourism is largely about location. As I said, essentially, it really is a very brainless exercise to build what is at least a four-storey high modern structure right through that heritage precinct. Just in terms of location it would undermine, I would argue, the tourist value of that location.

In relation to the environment, the members of the ERD Committee actually commented upon the fact that the EIS was incredibly brief in terms of time spent. In fact, when the EIS was carried out there was no consultation with the Chief Wildlife Protection Officer of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The reason why that was so staggering is that the waters around Hindmarsh Island are subject to a number of international treaties, such as the Ramsar treaty. We have treaties with Japan and with China in relation to migratory birds which use that area and migrate-

The Hon. M.J. ELLIOTT: The treaties clearly covered waters around Hindmarsh Island and birds migrating between Australia and North Asia. In fact, as wetlands of international significance, it is absolutely staggering that the Chief Wildlife Officer of the National Parks and Wildlife Service was not consulted at any time in relation to the EIS process or the assessment of the EIS. Again, this shows the very farce that the EIS process was.

There always was another possible solution. The development on Hindmarsh Island could have been freed of the constraint whereby a bridge had to built for it to proceed to stages 2, 3 and 4. The present ferry being upgraded to a larger ferry and then having a second ferry on stand-by would have handled all the traffic. There would not have been any financial loss to the developers; in fact, there would have been no losers in that process. I am deeply saddened that we did not in fact go down that path. I recall meeting with Mrs Wendy Chapman very early in the process and suggesting to her that this was a route worth following. She refused point-blank even to consider that possibility. She was absolutely determined that it was a bridge or nothing. I said to her at the time, `I have a feeling that this will go on for a very long time.'

In fact, I said in parliament back in about the same time as I spoke then (in October 1993) that I believed this would go on for many years. I do not think I expected it to go on for quite as many years as it has, but it was fairly predictable that it would take a very long time. So, it was not just the stupidity of the major projects team: it was the stubbornness of the Chapmans, who really were in a position to look at other alternatives that would not have threatened her development.

In fact, the other suggestion I made was that, as part of a package, it would be sensible if the government also committed not to allow other developments of that type on the island. That would have been a win for the environment in that the wetlands, etc., would have been protected, and it would have been a win for the Chapmans, because they then would have had an exclusive development. There would have been nothing else on the island competing with them. Frankly, I was bitterly disappointed at that stage that that suggestion did not seem to be really actively pursued by anyone.

I do not know whether the current Minister for Transport pursued it privately, because I concede that she, at least, has always thought that this bridge was a silly idea. But there was a way out of this a long time ago, even after the major blunder of the special projects unit under John Bannon. I only wish that the state, regardless of party in government, could have learnt some lessons from this, but I am seeing enough signs already in terms of the way in which other developments are being fast tracked to suggest that the lessons have not been learnt.

It is possible to create win-win situations in most cases that otherwise lead to conflict, if people care to take the time. In fact, a little time spent can save a lot later on, but that simply was not done and to this day is not being done in other cases. Along with the Hon. Sandra Kanck, I oppose this bill because, as I see it, it is a culmination of mistake after mistake, of stupidity, of arrogance and of people being unwilling to explore other possibilities.