USC83

USC83 MOONBI 83 MOONBI is the name given by the Butchalla Aborigines to the central part of their homeland, Fraser Island or "Kgari" MOONBI 1s the newsletter of Fraser Island Defenders Organization Limited PO Box 5301, West End, Qld, 4101 FIDO, "The Watchdog of Fraser Island", aims to ensure the wisest use of Fraser Island's natural resources. FIDO's Registered Office: c/- Stephen Comino and Cominos, Equity house, Lang Parade, Milton, 4065. ISSN 0311 - 032X Re istered b Australia Post - Publication BH2293 20 April, 1993 Since MOONBI 82 There has been an enormous amount of action on the Fraser Island - Great Sandy Region front with the inscription of Fraser Island on the World Heritage List 10 December, 1992, 18 years after it was first proposed. It should have been a time when issues relating to Fraser Island-were starting to settle down. Suddenly though, Fraser Island issues have been debated in the media, and even in Parliament with a fervour that was not experienced even during the Fitzgerald Inquiry. The deteriorating state of affairs arise from the way that Fraser Island is being managed. MOONBI 82 publicly warned of disquiet at the state of affairs. However, nobody in the Goss Government, particularly in the DEH, seems to have heeded the alarm bells. World Heritage: This issue does not detail the deliberations which included Fraser Island and yet curiously omitted Cooloola from the World Heritage List. Needless to say, we agree with the first proposition but we are on record as being very critical of the latter decision. Our position could not be clearer. While FIDO has not abandoned its support for Cooloola, but MOONBI 83 will not carry out a post mortem. What is ironical is that our letter of thanks to the Goss Government (published p 2) was ignored. Delays in Draft Management Plan: The Draft management Plan which was supposed to have been released for public comment last October is still languishing in the corridors of power in Brisbane. The many delays in its release defy rational explanation .. The Community Advisory Committee, due to meet to view the Draft Plan on 27 October, last year didn't meet until 2 February. The minutes of the August Meeting took six months to appear. The minutes of the February meeting took only three weeks but with some conspicuous omissions. MOONBI cannot be-delayed while we wait to see if an earlier Draft Plan was modified to take account of the key issues which have been raised. Our concerns are discussed on p 5. Uproar and Upset Over Uprooting - Aliens in the Sandblow: Few actions in the history of FIDO and the fight for Fraser Island have inspired more public comment and controversy that the act of civil disobedience by John Sinclair on 6 March in uprooting a few trees. Incidentally nobcxly did a very good inventory of what was removed. However, the issue, which should have been a minor event has raised some very important matters of principle of both public accountability and Ministerial responsibility. Is it the role of a Minister to defend the Sir Humphreys of this world or would the community be better off if Ministers even occasionally would say, "I am sorry. My Department got it wrong. " What should be a small story has become a saga which looks likely to continue to simmer for some time while the Minister's staff are trying to elicit support from the voluntary conservation movement to have John Sinclair removed from the Community Advisory Committee. (Story pp 2-4) Terry Forced From FIDO Presidency: Terry Hampson, President of FIDO for the past two years, made a statement on the dingoes of Fraser Island after a dingo attack at the end of January. This was to be in potential conflict with his role as a Ministerial adviser. He was asked to consider resigning from the FIDO Presidency. He has. FIDO is most concerned at the treatment of Terry since he stepped down as State ALP Secretary. We believe that Terry is presently underemployed. We believe that this is related to his long support for FIDO. We don't condone this type of treatment of environmental activists. Logging Compensation: The long disputed facts about just how mariy jobs would be lost with the · cessation of logging on Fraser Island has now been resolved. Only 67 workers were retrenched and all have been found alternative employment. In fact, over 200 jobs have been created by the implementation of the economic compensation package. (Story and details p 7) Kingfisher: While some issues continue to be activate, one at least has been settled. The Kingfisher Resort has accepted our apology in the form of words printed on page 4. This means that the threat of this legal action has been dropped. Other briefs are on p 7. International Focus: FIDO has won international recognition through the work of John Sinclair who has won "the Nobel Prize for the environment", the Goldman Environmental Prize, for his efforts. John has been in South Africa helping to activate a conservation campaign against sandmining in Zululand. He has also been able to gain valuable understanding from his observations of the management of major national parks, particular ones with heavy visitor concentrations and how management handles visitors. (Story pp 6-7) Other issues are canvassed in "In Brief' (p 8). · Contents Upping the Stakes ............................................... 2 Changing Arguments ............................................ 3 Government Grant for FIDO? - Apologies ................ .4 GSR Management Plan ......................................... 5 International Recognition ............. .-......................... 6 Parks Study - Logging Compensation ... : .................. 7 Kingfisher Briefly ................................................. 7 Dugongs - In Brief - Making Ends Meet ................... 8

M00NBI 83 2 Upping the Stakes Uprooting "those" trees. On 6 March_ in an unpremeditated action John Sinclair removed more than 100 weeds all less than 1 metre high from a Fraser Island sandblow. (Weeds are plants growing in the wrong place). Had Sinclair removed lantana or cactus nothing would have been made of the matter but because the weeds were Casuarinas planted and watered by the DEH, there was a furore. Documentary: Sinclair was on Fraser Island with an American film crew which was anxious to examine the current problems in managing Fraser Island in association with his awarding of the Goldman Environmental Prize. Sinclair went to the sandblow because this was an area where epitomised the erosion of the World Heritage values. Much has been made of the fact that there was a camera crew present. The removal of weeds was not a media stunt. There were no other witnesses to the events and no media statements by John Sinclair. After the removal of the trees Sinclair informed the duty officer at the DEH Eurong Office which had been watering and maintaining the trees. He told nobody else. There were no contacts or discussions by any DEH officers with Sinclair. However, once the furore of the federal Election was over the incident belatedly grabbed the headlines but not because Sinclair was seeking any sensation. Post Election Headlines: The first the public knew about the matter was the media release by the Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) on 16 March reported by the ABC as follows: "The Queensland Government is seeking legal advice flowing the removal of 113 trees from sand dunes on Fraser Island. Conservationist, John Sinclair, removed the trees claiming they destroyed the island's natural environment. The move has sparked outrage among property owners who have described his action as wanton vandalism. Molly Robson: "There was some discussion, earlier, our volunteers have planted the trees and looked after them So what he's done is literally destroyed the work of a group of volunteers . ... " The "local residents" could have only have been told of the action by DEH officers. If the DEH or the Minister ended up with egg on their face it was entirely their own doing. The issue got hotter as the imminence of a prosecution was canvassed. The DEH had made a serious mistake of trying to equate planting trees with positive conservation and removal of trees as negative and sheer vandalism. The DEH was also trying to defend its decision to encourage the volunteers from the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers to plant the trees instead of removing the weeds growing on Fraser Island particularly in the area immediately adjacent to the sandblow. Background to the Action MOONBI 82 reported on the matter of the trees which had been planted in the sandblow about 60 metres north of the home built by the Sinclair family at Eurong in 1965. FIDO raised the matter with DEH officers in early October as soon as we became aware of the plantation and asked that the trees be removed. We were told that the matter would be investigated and we would be advised of the developments. Subsequently in October, we commented on the matter in the media. The DEH immediately became defensive and then produced an argument that the area had been degraded by campers and need to be rehabilitated. We knew this to be incorrect and advised the DEH. We again raised the matter with Environment and Heritage Minister, Molly Robson, when we met her at our first (and so far only) meeting on 28 October, 1992. No Thanks for "Thanks": Although conservationists are often berated for not thanking politicians, when Fraser lsland was inscribed on the World Heritage List on 10 December we thanked the Goss Government\ and Ms Robson. Unfortunately the he DEH reacted again when we pointed out in the media that introducing weeds would depreciate Fraser Island's World Heritage values. Our appreciation along with our concilatory move regarding the weeds was ignored. We received no reply to our positive and concilatory fax. It had no impact as far as having the trees removed. What we said: Our fax of 16 December said: On behalf of this organization, I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the support of the Goss Government for Fraser Island's World Heritage nomination and for the Premier's publicly expressed support for pursuing the eventual listing for the rest of the Great Sandy Region. We are under no delusions that without the support of the Goss Government, it is extremely doubtful if Fraser Island would be on the World Heritage List at this stage, even though its outstanding World Heritage qualities have been recognized by experts for more than 18 years. We would like to express some alarm however that the World Heritage significance still has not been properly understood and appreciated by all officers of your Department. We refer specifically to the matter of planting an orchard of casuarina trees in the sand blow at Eurong immediately north of the house, "Talinga", which my parents built at Eurong in 1965. A reference to old aerial photographs show that trees have never grown on that particular sand blow on it in living memory. You will recall that we raised this matter with you on 28 October. It was with some concern therefore, that we find that officers of your Department are still trying to defend this indefensible act by advising Carolyn Collins of "The Australian" on 11 December, that "the trees had replaced others that had been destroyed by campers and were not on a natural sand blow. " That statement is demonstrably untrue and reverts to the same unsubstantiated argument which was rejected on 28 October. This area has never been subject to camping pressure and there is no evidence

MOONBI 83 3 that any sand blow on Fraser Island is the result of twentieth century camping. It does not help to establish a basis of trust between the voluntary conservation movement and your Department when these false arguments are trotted out again after we thought that they had been laid to rest. We hope that you will ensure that the trees which have been planted where they are interfering with a natural process which resulted in Fraser Island being listed on the World Heritage will be removed as soon as possible and that in future decisions such as the one to plant the trees in such a sensitive area will be subject to a better process of consultation. Community Advisory Committee: When the Great Sandy Region Community Advisory Committee was finally called together on 2 February, Sinclair again raised the matter. Our position was supported by Angela Burger and nobody spoke against the trees being removed. Curiously though the DEH in the official minutes omitted any mention of our vigorous protest about the trees in the sandblow and about the composition of the Management Committee. At the meeting we did issue an ultimatum to the DEH that the matter would become a major issue if the trees were not removed before the 3 March. We knew Sinclair would be inspecting the site again with Golden Gate Productions camera crew which wanted to focus on the critical issues of management still confronting Fraser Island. Nobody from the DEH discussed any issue with John Sinclair about any issue, let alone the fate of the sandblow weeds after 2 February. Sinclair's removal of the trees was filmed by an American television crew but the removal was no preplanned television stunt. If it had been we would have had plenty of other media from every Queensland television channel and the media bureau present. No Stunt: To avoid perpetuating the debate Sinclair advised the nearby Eurong DEH officer of his actions. He thought that this would avoid any unnecessary "witch-hunts" for the culprit thus focussing needless attention on the issue. Neither FIDO nor Sinclair at any time issued a media release or sought the media on this issue. All of the media releases were issued by either the Minister's office or the DEH itself. To get the maximum exposure they delayed the release until after the Federal Election. Nobody can say that the resulting publicity was any of our making. Changing Arguments What is significant is that from the time that the trees were first planted the DER changed its ground several times. Until 11 December the argument to rationalize the indefensible to the media was that the area had been severely degraded by campers. Sinclair had been familiar with the area since 1963 and could identify the only camper who had ever used the area since 1950 as being Maryborough businessman, Dick Elmer. It certainly had been a sandblow throughout living memory. The Department continued to argue this case in the "Chronicle" on 16 March when it referred to "erosion caused by people driving three wheel drive tricycles and four wheel drive vehicles across the sand dunes." We could clearly refute this. We should point out that the only four wheel drives to enter that particular sandblow has been the DEH fire-fighting truck which has been used to water these alien trees. Molly Robson defended the actions of her department in the media and in Parliament on 17 March by claiming, "Research carried out by the Beach Protection Authority using datafrom as far back as 1879, showed the area was originally the Grouyeah pastoral lease, otherwise stocked with Clydesdale horses and with cattle. There is also a survey plan from about 1880 which describes the area above what is now Eurong as being well vegetated. There is no reference to unstable dune areas at this location. from that time on, the grazing of stock, the burning of dune vegetation and the use of these dune areas particularly to support bullocks used in the timber industry, as well as the drought years of 1902, 1922 and 1946, would have destabilised many dune areas on the pastoral lease." We can rebut all of the nonsensical arguments by pointing out that there were no new sandblows since 1916 and that if there were a sandblow north of Eurong why wasn't there one south of Eurong which was a fenced off "horse paddock" and which was the most heavily grazed of all areas. However, even if the facts were historically correct, four conundrums arise: 1. Why is it that this data which is of undoubted historical and management significance was not presented to the multi million dollar Fitzgerald Commission of Inquiry into the Conservation, Management and Use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region only two years ago? 2. Why was it acted upon unilaterally by the DEH without any consultation and without any discussion with the Community Advisory Committees? 3. Since Fraser Island, to qualify for World Heritage had to satisfy conditions of integrity, why was this evidence of such dramatic degradation not included in the nomination or referred to the World Heritage Committee? 4. Why was all of this done without any reference to the Commonwealth Government which had nominated the area for World Heritage and which has obligations to protect and ensure that the natural integrity of the area is fully preserved? At the time FIDO contacted the Commonwealth Government on 17 March, nobody from the Queensland Government had made them aware of the situation.

MOONBI 83 4 FIDO has a copy of the report which went to the Minister in March when the storm broke. It is dated March 1993, showing that nobody had bothered to address the issues FIDO had first raised five months earlier until it had become a controversial issue. The report is then intended only to provide some grounds for the Minister to defend the position. This is an intolerable way to manage a World Heritage Site and clearly the DEH is getting off on the wrong foot. The alarm FIDO expressed in MOONBI 82 was well justified. However, in informing Parliament on 17 March, that there would be no prosecution, Ms Robson exacerbated the situation by making untrue claims by saying, "We have decided not to prosecute in this case. If it happens again, or if any similar action happens in that area, we will consider prosecution. As for Mr Sinclair - the department has communicated with him, and will continue to communicate with with him to try to resolve this dispute. ... " The only communications between the DEH and Sinclair at the time of writing this MOONBI are documented here. There was no contact between the DEH and Sinclair since the time when the weeds were uprooted until Sinclair rang the DEH on April 7. We do not want to prolong this dispute but we want to know why nobody from the DEH has taken the time to contact us and why the Minister was so misinformed. Just prior to Easter we were finally able to establish that the Beach Protection Authority which has been part of the DEH for the past four years admitted that the tree planting at Eurong was according to a plan which they say was conceived in 1991. This information has never been published or even made known to people like Commissioner Tony Fitzgerald who headed the Commission of Inquiry into the Conservation, Management and Use of Fraser Island and the Great Sandy Region. Apology by FIDO To Kingfisher Resort. The articles "Where Does FIDO go from here?" published in MOONBI 78, "What Future Kingfisher?" and "Duchessing Kingfisher" published in MOONBI 80 and extracts from "Community Advisory Committee" published in MOONBI 81 have caused offence to the owners and promoters of the Kingfisher Resort. FIDO regrets publishing such statements and unreservedly apologises to those owners and promoters. Apology by John Sinclair To Kingfisher Resort The statement made by me referring to Kingfisher Resort as a Bloodsuckers Paradise, made in my interview with Rod Henshaw on ABC Radio on 18 September 1992, and my statement that the resort was almost dead in the water, and that the owners couldn't sell the resort and can't encourage people to go there, made in my interview with Paul Lynham on ABC Radio 29th June 1992, have caused offence to the owners and promoters of the Kingfisher Resort. I regret publishing such statements and I unreservedly apologise to those owners and promoters. Government Grant for FIDO???: FIDO has applied for a part of the $180,000 the Queensland Government is offering to conservation groups this year. This would "help inform students and the wider community about conservation and the environment" according to Molly Robson. She went on to say "Many conservation groups are small, but effective, and a grant of even a few hundred dollars could be a great boost when coupled with their mostly volunteer labour. " Unfortunately, FIDO's application coincided with a bucketing of John Sinclair in the Queensland Parliament by Molly Robson for removing the casuarinas from the sandblow and a call by the ALP backbencher with the narrowest margin, Bill Nunn, Member for Isis, to have Sinclair removed from the GSR Community Advisory Committee. The omens were not good when despite the fact that FIDO was urged to apply for the grant last October by the Minister, the DEH failed to advise FIDO of the availability of the grants when the application forms were forwarded to other conservation groups. In the light of the political climate and the irrational ALP hostility to FIDO, we will be presently surprised if we do in fact receive a reasonable grant. FIDO is , and always has been, a hard hitting organization which is not prepared to play political favourite. We will give credit where credit is due but when we gave credit to the Goss Government over the World heritage nomination it was ignored and unacknowledged. The results for the Goss Government have been particularly uncomfortable. FIDO waits with interest to see if the government is genuinely impartial in its allocation of funds in this offer. One thing is for sure, the grant will not absolve FIDO members and supporters from having to fund the majority of our program ourselves. We cannot afford to compromise our positions purely to receive any government handouts.

New Fraser Stamp Issue It was with some surprise that we discovered that on 3 March Australia Post released a new series of stamps covering World Heritage Areas. The four areas featured in this issue were Kakadu, Uluru, Shark Bay and Fraser Island. The Fraser Island stamp features Wanggoolba Creek and the wonderful rainforest scene with a photograph from Mark Lang.

MOONBI 83 5 GSR Management Plan? The Draft Management Plan for the Great Sandy Region was supposed to be concluded last year. It got behind schedule early and has consistently fallen further behind since indicating that the DEH does not see the same urgency in having a decent plan of management for a World Heritage area as FIDO. One delay was caused by the State Elections in September. Another two delays have resulted from circulating the drafts to other government departments for comment. Little urgency has been shown by any bureaucrat. On 2 February when the Community Advisory Committee viewed a Draft Plan which had been around for months they were told that the plan would be "going to Cabinet on 8th March and would be released in early April". It didn't go to cabinet in April and At the time of going to press FIDO was still not privy to the much delayed final form of the Draft Plan. There has been much anguish and concern about it and the final shape. We did see an earlier draft and we made strenuous representations to have several significant parts changed. Our general impression was that the Draft Management Plan had as its primary objective the running of a tourist resource , not recognition of the World Heritage values of this unique region. We saw three major defects of the earlier Draft: 1. Critical Time Paths for Implementation: The plan identifies a number of quite commendable objectives which must be achieved for the GSR and FT by the year 2010, hut no deadlines are given for when these objectives should be achieved. For example, it states that the feral horses should be removed but gives no indication of when. It seems that if these objectives are achieved by the year 20 l 0 it is irrelevant as to whether this occurs during 1993 or 2009. There needs to be a clearer set of imperatives and time lines for the implementation of each objective in an integrated way. 2. Management Committee Composition: The second objection to the Draft Management Plan flows from the above, the constitution of the Management Committee. When the logging was stopped an Interim Management Committee was set up. It consists of the Director of the DEH and the Manager of the Recreation Areas Management Board, (another DEH employee) together with.the leaders of the four Joca] authorities with jurisdiction in the GSR, Noosa, Widgee, Maryborough, and Hervey Bay. Interim Should Not Become Permanent: At the time of the announcement of the composition of the Interim Management Committee in August 1991, FIDO objected. We were assured that this was only an interim arrangement and that the permanent Management Committee would be more representative of wider community interests. The Conunittee is dominated by representatives of local authorities who have opposed most major conservation initiatives for the region during the last three decades. In some cases the main opposition has been led by the local authorities which seem the be overly representative of real estate, property or business interests. Since the Draft Management Plan leaves almost every decision on the means of implementation of key decisions to the discretion of the Management Committee, we want to ensure that the Committee is constituted by those who will ensure that the World Heritage values have preeminence over commercial exploitation by property and tourist interests. Our anxiety on this issue was heightened by the way in which the land subdivision deals at Orchid Beach were arranged through the Interim Management Committee. FIDO is alarmed at the proposal that the old interim committee will become the pennanent Management Committee for the Region, set in law if the new plan is adopted. Mayors are already busy people with lots of other . responsibilities. Political issues surrounding Council Meetings, agendas for many Council committees and ceremonies dominate their attention. They can't apply clearly focussed and exclusive attention to managing the special values of the Great Sandy Region which is a small part of their jurisdictions. Local Government heads tend only to glance at the issues raised to see how it affects their. particular areas of interest. We need somebody who will re.ally pay a lot of critical attention to some of the deals which might be slipped under their noses. These might include a decision to pay out $6 million for Orchid Beach or allowing the Kingfisher Resort to get away without tertiary sewage treatment or critically examining plans to plant trees in sandblows or endorsing a new subdivision in an area which Fitzgerald said should be a wilderness or approving the running of alien camel safaris on Fraser Island. 3. Issues of Access: Our other objections to the plan are less critical. They concern many specific proposals such as the beach closures to traffic, FIDO's proposal to install a light rail people mover, lifting the quality of the sewage discharge from the Kingfisher Resort, allowing Rainbow Beach t grow exponentially without a clear ceiling on development of that central enclave within the whole region. These though are still relatively minor issues which can be decided or undecided at the discretion ofa Management Committee in which, on the basis of our experience we have little confidence. FIDO will have more to say about the specifics of the Draft Management Plan, but no other issues are as critical as 1 and 2 above. The plan must be predicated by an understanding and appreciation of the World Heritage values and a commitment to protect those values above all else. Aborigines Ignored Calls for a lot of consultation with Fraser Island Aboriginal interests have gone unheeded. It transpires that there has been no consultation with Aborigines yet. They have not yet been invited to the conference table. The DEH regards the settlement of Aboriginal claims on Fraser Island as a very low priority compared with Cape York Peninsula. It may be many years at the present rate. before this urgent issue is even addressed let alone resolved. The fault does not lie with the Aborigines.