MORE NOTES FROM UNDERGROUND

Should we give up the fight against the landfill?  Not yet!

York’s reaction to SAT’s decision seems rather muted, on this blog anyway.  I get the impression that most people have accepted that the landfill is a fait accompli and destined in short order to arrive on our doorstep.

If they’re right, it’s time for all of us to start looking for ways to make the best of a bad job. 

By that I mean pressing SITA to confer some social and economic benefits on York, say by offering firm employment opportunities and—if conditions attached to the SAT and DER approvals permit—reverting to its original offer, withdrawn in the Tribunal, to receive York’s waste free of charge.

Then the shire can make a start on the rubbish-led recovery advocates for the landfill have promised us.

A few stalwarts of the struggle take a contrary view.  They say we should fight on until rubbish from Perth finally begins to arrive by truck at Allawuna.

Meanwhile, word on the street is that Allawuna hasn’t yet changed hands and the deal is on hold.  More about that in a moment, but first…

One resident’s dogged campaign to stop the landfill—and be damned to SAT and DER

Some folk never give up until every prospect of success lies ruined before them, sometimes not even then.

One resident determined to fight on—under pain of piecemeal dismemberment, I’m not allowed to name her, so I’ll call her Ms X—has emailed every councillor, 145 in all, in every town along the pipeline from Mundaring to Kalgoorlie, pointing out the dangers posed to the Mundaring catchment by the presence of a landfill at Allawuna and thence to the drinking water supplied to those towns.

Those dangers were discounted by SAT on the basis of expert hydrogeological opinion.  Ms X is not alone in being more inclined than the Tribunal to be sceptical of expert opinion—especially when such opinion appears to ignore the precautionary principle alluded to by Keith Schekkerman in an article recently published on this blog.  

In simple terms, that principle would require decision-makers to take full account of risks to public health and safety, or serious environmental degradation, which might arise from a proposed government- or privately-sponsored industrial development. 

Its advocates argue that the principle should always trump the profit motive or merely political considerations when health and safety issues are at stake.

With good reason, they see the stage of human history as being littered with the corpses of unwitting victims of advice from experts who ignored the precautionary principle, and with the mutilated reputations of public figures who acted on such advice.

Its opponents, on the other hand, tend to see the principle as an irritating hindrance to economic progress.

In her email, Ms X expresses concern that as things stand ordinary people are generally no match for giant multinational corporations and have a lot less clout.   

She contrasts environmental approval of SITA’s landfill with the EPA’s repeated refusal to approve the development of a conservation zone on an adjoining farm, as proposed by the property’s owners.   

The refusal appears to have been based partly on the grounds that the proposed development might pollute local watercourses.

The intention of Ms X’s campaign is to galvanise councillors into making known to politicians of all parties their objections to the risk of pollution, by leachate from Perth’s rubbish, of watercourses feeding into Mundaring Weir, the main source of drinking water throughout the Wheatbelt.

Making their concerns known to politicians is something everyone from Mundaring to Kalgoorlie who is worried about the future purity of our water supply should consider doing. 

 And don’t forget—Premier Barnett promised us in 2013 that there would be no landfill without Cabinet approval (yes, Colin, you did).  I can’t say for certain, but I don’t think Cabinet has approved the landfill yet.

Word on the street—tell me, could this be true?

York’s rumour mill is active again.  Not long ago, I heard whispers that SITA had concluded its business with Allawuna’s owners by handing over to them an impressive sum of money.  I put this information up as a question on the blog.  As I expected, the question wasn’t answered.

Now I hear that the rumour was wrong.  Not only has the sale of Allawuna not been settled; according to the latest report, it is ‘on hold’.

Why?

Well, say my informants, SITA (or ‘Suez’ as we’re now supposed to call it) has just agreed to fork out a cool $87 million to take over Perth Waste, including that company’s giant landfill at North Bannister, 100 km southeast of Perth.

You can find reports of this transaction at https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/31280967/suez-buys-perthwaste-for-87m/ (the West Australian) and http://www.ben-global.com/StoryView.asp?StoryID=826962221&sectionsource&aspdsc=yes&sectionsource=&aspdsc=yes (WME Business Environment Network).

The North Bannister facility began operation just over a year ago.  It is superior to the proposed SITA landfill in several ways.  For a start, it has a projected lifespan of 80 years, double Allawuna’s, and can accommodate about three times as much rubbish.  What’s more, I’m told there are no groundwater or other environmental problems arising from use of the site, and no significant public opposition to it.

According to WME Business Environment Network, Perthwaste owns ‘two materials recycling facilities, an organics composting facility, two waste transfer stations, three depots and a landfill', as well as  ‘a fleet of 68 trucks’.  (Those operations, or the bulk of them, are located at Bibra Lake.)  It is a highly profitable business, ‘forecast to generate revenues of more than $50 million in 2016’.

My informants believe that owning the North Bannister facility may persuade SITA to withdraw from the Allawuna deal.  They say that deal is on hold while SITA awaits the approval of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for the purchase of Perthwaste. 

I’m not so sure.  The fact that SITA has acquired a giant facility in North Bannister by no means rules out the construction of a smaller one in York. 

SITA has spent a good deal of time, money and effort getting approval for the Allawuna landfill.  I imagine head office in France will expect some return on that investment, and there’s no reason to suppose that a landfill at Allawuna won’t produce a handsome profit over the years of operation.

But with any luck, I’m wrong—again—and SITA’s Allawuna project will never be more than a fading gleam in Nial Stock’s eye.

Postscript

Kay Davies has just contributed an article, ‘Losing control of our agricultural land’ to the ABC Open Site.  The article is an eloquent and convincing critique of state legislation and processes that permit town planning schemes designed to protect agriculture to be overruled in favour of giant corporations interested in landfills, mining, fracking and the like—on the basis of advice from experts who have no knowledge of agriculture or connection with the land.

Read it at https://open.abc.net.au/explore/92fp0yq .

                                                                                 *******

Mia responds to Roma's questions about the landfill

On 12 Apr 2016, at 6:51 pm, Roma Paton wrote:

Hon. Mia Jane Davies MLA BMM
Minister for Water; Sport and Recreation; Forestry; 

Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (WA)

Member for the Wheatbelt.

Dear Ms. Davies,

I have read with great interest the extract from Hansard - link below. 

I ask you, as W.A.'s Minister for Water to please stop the SITA (SUEZ) Landfill proposed for the York property known as Allawuna situated within the Mundaring Weir Catchment Zone.

I heard you interviewed on ABC Radio and I must say I was left speechless with the comments you made. How can you possibly believe this proposed Landfill is safe for the future generations of Rural W.A. residents when you know the liners are only guaranteed for 5 years and can start to break down after 10-14 years?  

I find it difficult to comprehend how, as our State’s Minister for Water, and Member for the Wheatbelt, you are prepared to trust the 'system' set in place by the multinational company to monitor the leachate.

Can you advise me what you intend doing IF the periodic testing proves the Liner has accidentally been breached and leachate has contaminated the ground water?

Can you unequivocally guarantee me in writing the Mundaring Weir Catchment water will not be contaminated?

Surely the serious health issues exposed in the Victoria Key water playground debacle is enough to ring warning bells for you. 

Page 1/Hansard

The site of the Elizabeth Quay project is one of 23 unlined former waste dumps dotted around the Swan River suspected of leaching an unknown cocktail of contaminates into the Riverpark, official documents show. Could this explain why children are getting sick?

Page 2/Hansard

Landfill liners are only guaranteed for 5 yrs by the manufacturer and start to breakdown after 10-40 yrs depending on the contents of the landfill. All liners leak and an ‘acceptable’ level is set by DER but after the liners degrade the leachate leakage rate increases significantly. Leachate is very toxic and is produced for up to 150 years.

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard/hansard.nsf/0/e142873262461b8248257f920021bb60/$FILE/C39%20S1%2020160407%20p2248c-2260a.pdf

I hope you use your Ministerial Power to stop this ludicrous idea of dumping toxic waste on a farm within the Mundaring water catchment. 

I look forward to receiving your responses to my questions.

Yours sincerely,

Roma Paton. 

From: "Davies, Mia" <Mia.Davies@mp.wa.gov.au>

Date: 13 April 2016 2:20:42 PM AWST

To: Roma Paton 

Subject: Re: Hansard/Landfill

Dear Roma

Thank you for raising your concerns in relation to the proposed SITA / SUEZ project. In relation for your request for me to stop the project - unfortunately it is not within my remit to do this either in my role as Member for Central Wheatbelt or Minister for Water. I have, throughout the process, through appropriate channels (publicly and within Government) made it known that I do not support the project - largely because of the impact of increased traffic on the road, and the fact it isn't something that was envisaged in the town's planning scheme.

At no point have I made a comment in relation to the integrity of liners or the conditions that will be applied to the project - my comments were made in the context of the assessment the Department of Water carries out and the advice it provides as part of the environmental assessment process. 

The Department of Water is a referral agency in environmental assessments - it is not a decision making agency in this process. This means its advice is taken into consideration by the Department that has final responsibility for a decision. Its core business is to assess hydrological modelling information for projects, hundreds every year, and advise of any conditions that could be considered for licenses to be provided to manage risk (if there is any). 

When interviewed, I commented that I was probably more comfortable than some members of the community in relation to the water aspects of the project because I understood the rigour applied through the Department - they are an inherently conservative decision making body and take their role in protecting our State's precious water resource very seriously.

The conditions in place to monitor the project are set by the Minister for Environment (not the project proponent) and will be monitored to ensure they are being applied - we don't allow proponents to set the terms of their license. 

I am seriously concerned that the approval of the project gives others the green light to look to the Avon Valley for future sites and as a result Paul Brown and I secured $50k of funding to support a project to identify areas where these types of projects might be better placed. This was because we have been unable to convince the Minister for Environment that a regional waste strategy is necessary and so sought to progress a potential solution via other means. 

I appreciate that you are frustrated, but as local MP I believe I've worked through the channels available to me to assist the community - and in this instance we've been unsuccessful. 

In relation to the questions you've raised about the Swan River and Elizabeth Quay I will forward your concerns to the Minister for Planning (responsible for the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority which delivered the project) for an answer.

Yours sincerely

Mia 

                                                                                 *******

NOSTALGIA CORNER

Entrenching nepotism and patronage at the Shire of York…

Extract from minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting, 19 February 2007.

[Members Present:  Shire President Pat Hooper; Deputy President Cr Brian Lawrance; Cr Michael Delich; Cr Trevor Randell; Cr Tony Boyle; and Cr Ashley Fisher (who came late).

Staff Present: Mr. Ray Hooper, CEO; Mr. Graham Stanley, Deputy CEO; Ms Tyhscha Woolcock, Senior Administration Officer; Mr. Peter Stevens, Health, Environmental Officer and Building; Mr. David Lawn, Planning Consultant; and Mrs Alison Emin, Executive Support Officer.]

PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4.3 Mr David Paton

Question 1

How many of the present staff employed at the Shire of York are engaged presently in further formal study to enhance their careers and so be of benefit to Shire of York ratepayers?

Response

This question is a gross invasion of privacy of members of the York Community who happen to work for the local government rather than the school, the banks, the co-op or any other business.

Conditions of employment at the Shire of York do not require staff to undertake further formal study nor is there any funding commitment by the Shire of York to underwrite their studies.

Professional development and learning of best practice techniques is encouraged and staff are sent on specific learning courses relevant to their positions and customer needs e.g. Licensing, library, rates etc….

[Note the inept and inapposite nature of the comparison drawn in the first sentence of President Hooper’s response.  Shire employees get paid from the public purse, as do school employees whose qualifications, if required for their employment, are not usually hidden from public view.  Bank and co-op workers and others in private employment are paid accordingly.  In my experience, people who have qualifications in any field, or are striving to obtain them, are only too happy to let the world know. JP]

Question 3

Over the previous two years how many employees have been given a job at the Shire of York without their positions being formally advertised?

Response

Positions that have been filled without formally being advertised are five (5) in the Works Department and one (1) in Administration. All applicants provided a resume and were interviewed by a panel.

There is no requirement for local governments to advertise any position other than those for designated senior employees e.g. CEO.

[The trouble is that if jobs aren’t advertised, they may end up being awarded to friends and relatives of councillors, and of staff already employed, when others—more capable, more experienced and better qualified—might have applied if they’d known the jobs were available.  The Local Government Act 1995 expressly forbids nepotism (jobs for the family) and patronage (‘jobs for the boys’).  Of course, I’m not saying anything like that ever happened in York…but surely even lowly jobs with the Shire should be advertised, if only locally, to assist ratepayers in getting the best possible value for money.   Perhaps fairness comes into it somewhere, too.  New CEO and HRO, please consider. JP]