Wednesday, 16 October 2024

Petitions

Little River freight terminal

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (17:42): I rise to speak on the petition before the house, and I move:

That the Council take note of the petition presented by me on 27 August 2024.

The fight to halt the Little River freight terminal had all the hallmarks of an epic battle: a corporate giant up against the plucky little community and environmental groups trying to save the highly sensitive grasslands that surround them. It has been a thrilling ride so far.

Little River is located south of Werribee in a green wedge zone. It adjoins the renowned Ramsar wetlands of Werribee South, which has a greater diversity of birdlife than Kakadu National Park. Crucially, it is surrounded by the critically endangered Western Plains grasslands, the last 1 per cent of volcanic plains grassland in Victoria. The Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action describes the area as an:

… irreplaceable grassland ecosystem …

which was once:

… filled with delicate orchids, wildflowers, birds, reptiles, insects and marsupials, some of which were found nowhere else in Australia …

which have:

… almost disappeared due to clearing for agriculture, grazing, and urban development.

The initial plan was to acquire the land and restore the Western Grassland Reserve. I will talk about that later, but let us return to the fight at Little River and the petition before this place.

In 2021 Pacific National announced plans to develop a mammoth freight storage facility on this highly sensitive land, which is home to hundreds of native species, including the critically endangered growling grass frog, striped legless lizard and the golden sun moth, to name a few. On top of the direct damage to the grasslands, this ill-conceived project would have resulted in an estimated 2 million shipping containers a year passing through the site and thousands of truck movements through the area on a weekly basis. It was an environmental disaster waiting to happen, and the proposal was condemned by stakeholders across the board, including the City of Wyndham, who rejected Pacific National’s planning application. Hats off to the council for their courage and vision.

Then in 2023 the Minister for Planning invited Pacific National to prepare an environment effects statement. We met with the Little River Action Group around this time to start to work on a strategy for a campaign. I have rarely seen a community take to organising with such focus and flair. I speak for myself and my fantastic staff when I say it has been an honour and a privilege to work with the Little River Action Group. The community gathered almost 5000 signatures for the petition before us, and to put that in some perspective, that is about three times the size of the township itself. And then last month Pacific National announced that it was withdrawing its VCAT action to overturn Wyndham council’s decision.

However, Pacific National appear to have not so much abandoned the project as to have shelved it for the time being. So the battle was won but not the war – which brings me back to the Western Grassland Reserve. In 2006 the Victorian and Commonwealth governments endorsed the Melbourne Strategic Assessment to acquire, remediate and preserve 15,000 hectares of Western Plains grassland in recognition of the importance of preserving this fragile ecosystem. The MSA identified 43 sites of preservation and gave developers permission to clear the rest. Developers pay an offset fee to be used to fund the purchase of the Western Grassland Reserve, but the whole endeavour has gone the way of so many of these well-intentioned but underscrutinised projects, where the environment carries all the risk and the property developers reap all the rewards. Irreplaceable remnant native grassland is being bulldozed and traded for grassland of inferior environmental value, and the land acquisition program after 18 years is only 20 per cent complete.

But this little win in Little River is worth considering in the wider context of the MSA. I call on the government to continue to acquire, remediate and preserve more land for the Western Grassland Reserve and to include the Little River freight terminal site.

This battle against Pacific National is an example of what communities achieve when they mobilise and fight for what they believe in. Now all we need is for the government to step up and demonstrate its commitment to the community and the environment by acquiring this strategic and precious site.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (17:47): I would like to begin by thanking my colleague Mr Ettershank for bringing a voice for those residents into this chamber. This process is an important part of our democracy and has directly resulted in today’s debate. I also want to acknowledge the people that signed the petition and expressed their concern about the proposal. I think it is safe to say the energy has been taken out of this debate before it even began, with the news of this project no longer proceeding, so I also want to acknowledge the Little River Action Group, which you mentioned, Mr Ettershank.

I did want to share a little bit about the planning process and how we got to this result from the government’s perspective. Under the Environment Effects Act 1978 a planning authority can refer a project to the Minister for Planning if it has determined that the environmental effects of a project need to be further understood. The minister may then direct the proponent to prepare an EES, or environment effects statement. The Minister for Planning decided in December 2023 that an EES was needed for the Little River logistics precinct project application. On 19 September 2024 Pacific National advised the Minister for Planning that the Little River logistics precinct project will not proceed for a range of reasons, and instead they will focus their efforts on their operations at South Dynon. As a result the EES no longer needs to go ahead.

For those interested in the history of this matter, in 2021 the Victorian government recommended development of a new interstate freight terminal in Truganina in Melbourne’s west, known as the WIFT, the western interstate freight terminal. This terminal would be needed to ensure Melbourne continued to have the interstate rail freight terminal capacity it needed into the future. Since then a few things have changed. The Commonwealth have endorsed the recommendations of an independent review of the inland rail project, which prioritised delivery of a new terminal in Beveridge in Melbourne’s north ahead of the delivery of the WIFT. Work is now underway by the Commonwealth on progressing the Beveridge interstate freight terminal. The role of these new terminals will be primarily to handle interstate freight but also to import and export containers. These Commonwealth and private sector terminals will provide sufficient capacity to handle forecast interstate freight volumes in Melbourne over the next medium term. To provide certainty the Victorian government extended the lease at South Dynon in Melbourne’s west until 2051 in May this year.

Whilst the WIFT remains a priority for the Victorian government, its delivery will be deferred until when it is needed. The government will now look at protecting land at Truganina for WIFT. This process may also help unlock land not required for the WIFT for industrial development in the short term. The department will continue working with key stakeholders as the planning process is determined to enable the protection of the land at WIFT. Again, I would like to thank those who signed the petition and all those involved in the advocacy of that community.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:51): I rise to speak to Mr Ettershank’s petition. As Ms Ermacora said, this is part of our process to be able to have communities have a say. I was just looking at some of the information that has been on it, and I do not know if you were at the rally, but there was a crane – and you are nodding, yes, you were there and obviously speaking to the community. There were concerns by that action group, the Little River Action Group, around the freight terminal and the impacts to that town. Those people of that township have spoken about their concerns and about their extent, and I think they had a 25-metre crane. I was just thinking we have just had the activity centre debate, and 25 metres is, yes, quite an imposing distance, but in terms of the planning approvals that are going on and the government not consulting with communities again around their concerns, I think those towers that are going to go right across Melbourne are a massive concern.

Nevertheless, to get back to Mr Ettershank’s important petition, there are concerns around how it will impact on that local community, with various aspects around the agricultural and environmental areas as well as the impacts to road traffic et cetera and the freight terminal itself. We do need trade in this state. We need a lot of trade given the debt that the state is facing, and there are important projects, but they need to be considered, and communities need to be taken into consideration or have their considerations heard by government and those making these decisions. This is, as I said, an important issue for those people in that area. Mr Ettershank has called on the state Minister for Environment, Mr Dimopoulos, to intervene, and good luck with that, I say. But again, good on you for raising these concerns in the Parliament on behalf of your community.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (17:54): I am really heartened to speak on this petition today, knowing that the community have successfully shown us the strength of their united voice and that the proposal has been withdrawn by the proponent. The fact that this project was ever on the table, though, highlights several problems that the state government has failed to address.

Firstly, the Labor government has no cohesive strategic vision for transport and freight movements specifically in this state. Getting freight off trucks and onto rail is important for reducing transport emissions, improving road safety and mitigating road damage, but without a statewide plan for intermodal terminals, private interests will drive the location of these terminals, often to inappropriate places.

Secondly, it highlights the failure of the government to genuinely protect the little that remains of our incredible native grasslands, as Mr Ettershank has outlined. While this has been a win for the Little River community, it also grants a reprieve for our grassland and the many species that call it home. Grasslands may not have the ability to capture the imagination as readily as a marine or forest landscape, but they are no less beautiful or important. For example, recently the earless dragon, once thought extinct, was discovered again in the Western Plains. Then there are the golden sun moth and the growling grass frog, also endangered species that live in our western grasslands. Less than 1 per cent of Victoria’s grasslands remain intact and in diverse condition, and the Victorian volcanic plain where this proposal was to be built is already the most cleared region in Victoria. They have been destroyed through agriculture, industrial and housing development as well as weeds and competition from introduced species.

Grasslands like this are often misidentified as empty spaces, perfect for development of both housing and major infrastructure projects. Before identifying so-called green corridors for development, industrial or residential, it is important to understand the location of these grasslands, especially those that are habitats for vulnerable species. This proposal has highlighted the flaws in the Melbourne Strategic Assessment approach, which has failed to ensure adequate public ownership of grasslands as well as adequate enforcement of conservation measures on private land. There has also been a failure to include environmental protections in the Victorian planning scheme. This was highlighted really well a couple of years ago when conservation area 9 in Truganina was destroyed by a developer who cited uncertainty in the state planning laws.

While there is short-term comfort in knowing that this proposal will not be proceeding for now, the threats to our grasslands remain and a comprehensive transport and freight plan remains elusive. This saga should serve as a wake-up call for the Labor government on both critical issues. In the interim, however, I would really congratulate all of those in the Little River community for their incredible campaign. I would like to thank the community and Mr Ettershank for their advocacy. It has been a huge win, but there is plenty more work to do.

Rachel PAYNE (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:57): I rise to make a contribution to this petition sponsored by my colleague David Ettershank. Firstly, I would like to thank the almost 5000 Victorians who signed this petition and acknowledge the extraordinary effort of the Little River Action Group. As a direct result of your advocacy, Pacific National have decided not to proceed with the Little River logistics precinct project. The way that your community came together to protest, to form an action group and to spread your story across Victoria was so impressive. It was a testament to how seriously you understood the harms of this proposed development on your community.

I would also like to congratulate my colleague David Ettershank and his team on their involvement with this incredibly successful campaign. As both your colleague and your neighbour here in Parliament, I got to see and hear about your advocacy right from the start. Your passion was clear, as was your determination to elevate the voices of the Little River community. Thanks to your work and that of the local community, we have prevented 75 football fields of destruction. We have stopped traffic, noise and light pollution, and we have stopped the threat to critically endangered wildlife and rare grasslands.

But it is regrettable that we are even here and getting to that point. As the president of the Little River Action Group aptly pointed out:

It makes no sense that residential development is banned on the green wedge, but they are proposing an industrial freight monolith in … a fragile and threatened ecosystem.

These wedges were put aside for a reason: to keep the city’s air clean and buffer western Victoria’s farmland from contaminants. These wedges are for the health and wellbeing of all Victorians. With this in mind, the announcement that the Little River logistics precinct project will not proceed is a welcome one, but as my colleague David Ettershank noted, we have won the battle but not the war. As it stands, this land will be land banked indefinitely until Pacific National decides on a future development, so we are stuck here in limbo. There is a real risk that the same plans for development emerge over time, or perhaps there will be plans for an entirely new industrial development. Again, we do not believe this will be appropriate for Little River. As my colleague has highlighted, this green wedge is a sensitive environmental site, and any development would threaten critically endangered native animals and could destroy rare grasslands. There is unanimous support from the federal and state governments to preserve these grasslands, but support is one thing, action is another. This environment must be protected through land acquisition, something this government says it is doing but which is a process that is incredibly slow. There is a need for a network of conservation reserve areas and management programs. We call on this government to act on this need before we lose any more of our irreplaceable native environments. This is the only way we can prevent a Little River 2.0.

I would like to conclude by again thanking the people of Little River and all those across Victoria who made their voices heard and prevented this development. When a community act, they can make change.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (18:01): Firstly, may I thank the other speakers on this motion. I would also like to thank the council offices and the government advisers who assisted us in shaping such a good outcome. I would like to take this opportunity also to say how delighted we all were to see the Little River Action Group and the campaigners at the Grassy Plains Network awarded an Environment Victoria 2024 community environment recognition award for their outstanding work.

I noted in my contribution the fact that Pacific National have shelved their plans to build a freight terminal in Little River, but they have not abandoned them. I also touched briefly on the Melbourne Strategic Assessment and the Western Grasslands Reserve, noting that only 20 per cent of the land has been acquired since the project’s inception in 2006. Almost 20 years after it began, the Western Grasslands Reserve project has not significantly progressed. The notional 15,000 hectares of those grasslands make up the last 1 per cent of Victoria’s volcanic grasslands, as Dr Mansfield quite correctly identified. This incredibly sensitive area is highly valued by the people of the west.

In my members statement this morning I spoke on the question of public transport and how many residents in the west feel unheard and underappreciated. They may well feel the same when it comes to tree coverage, open space and clean air. While the residents may have saved the grasslands this time, it is only a matter of time before the next act of approved environmental vandalism is dumped upon them. So I reiterate my call on the government to take further action to protect Melbourne’s green wedges and the western grasslands and to acquire this precious site at Little River in particular.

Motion agreed to.