No Ship at Avoca

BETWEEN 750kg and 2.3 tonnes of lead is in the lead-paint primer on the ex-HMAS Adelaide, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) heard yesterday.

The shock news on the hearing’s last day contradicts Government assurances throughout the Sea Dumping assessment process that no lead paint was on the ship.

Government consultants, including a naval expert and project manager, said in tribunal documents that they were unaware there was lead-based paint on the ship.

Barrister Nigel Cotman, SC, said in a submission: “No satisfactory explanation has been proffered why two men with an intimate knowledge of, and exposure to, the ship as part of the scuttling preparation process and one equally experienced man with the responsibility of checking that process, all missed red lead bearing paint as a major component of the ship paint work below the main deck.”

The red-lead paint was discovered by US marine engineer, Werner Hoyt, when he flew to Sydney last week as an expert witness for the No Ship Action Group.

A Government witness, scientist Ross McFarland of AECOM, said he calculated 754 kg of lead aboard the ship, but when questioned by Barrister Cotman, conceded the figure could be three times as high, at about 2.3 tonnes.

Under cross examination, Mr McFarland admitted that the sampling regime he undertook was based on surface areas which were accessible and was therefore flawed, because many inaccessible surface areas had lead-paint primer.

Barrister Cotman said: “You have effectively eliminated from the sample a large proportion of the matter you were testing for.”

“Yes,” said Mr McFarland.

Questions were also raised by Dr Peter deFur, a US based expert about the reliability of the X-ray fluorescence (XRF) machine that was used to calculate the amount of lead in the paint.

Lead-paint primer covers a potential 23,922 sq metres of steel surface of the seven-deck warship with percentages of lead in the paint varying with a high of 40 per cent and an average of 28 per cent.

A tribunal panel of three including President of the AAT, Justice Garry Downes, Mr Peter Wulf and Mr Mark Hyman will consider extensive submissions detailing possible environmental damage, the precautionary principle and recycling options. Justice Downes said the matter raised difficult issues.

The ship had tested positive for PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), the tribunal heard on the first day of the hearing on Monday last week. In the past six weeks the State Government has removed 750kg of electrical cables, some fibreglass and gasket material which were believed to contain PCBs. 

Following the evidence provided by the State with regards to the removal of 750 kg of the electrical cables and other items that tested positive for PCBs, the No Ship Action Group no longer consider PCBs to be an issue in dispute in the matter.

In summary, Barrister Cotman, acting with the Environmental Defender’s Office on behalf of the No Ship group, outlined potential environmental damage and Australia’s commitment to the precautionary principle.

Barrister Cotman said the very possible 2.3 tonnes of lead was a significant amount of a dangerous substance to put in the sea.

“The biological processes are not well understood about how lead tetroxide changes form into the more toxic form of lead.”

Once the lead paint gets into an acidic environment such as a digestive tract of small sea creatures or fish, he said, it transformed to a toxic form of lead. Barrister Cotman said once the ship is on the seabed there was the prospect of an anaerobic environment forming on the surface of the lead paint with the population of marine invertebrates on the surface of the paint.

These biological processes could cause the lead to be released in a form that will have significant environmental impact, he said.

Barrister Cotman said recycling the ship at nearby Garden Island is a definite option to scuttling. He also indicated significant carbon emission savings were achievable from the recycling process and the government should be leading the way with this iniative. The NSW government have estimated costs for recycling at around $2 million dollars after sales of most materials.

The 3500 tonne hull is recyclable steel and the upper three decks are manufactured from high quality aluminium.

According to project manager for the HMAS Adelaide Project David Coyle,  a significant component of the overall recycling cost was the $1 million price tag for removing the 5 tonnes of fibreglass insulation remaining on the ship.

In his final summary, Barrister Cotman said:

“Scuttling of a vessel, as Mr Polglaze observed in oral evidence, is a one way process.  If the vessel is scuttled, and then found to be causing harm, it will not be possible (except at vast expense) to remedy that harm.

“That consideration, together with the precautionary principle set out in the Protocol, dictates that the decision to grant the permit should be set aside if there is reason to believe that it is likely to cause harm to the marine environment.  The time frame that needs to be considered in this respect is the total lifespan of the wreck, which may be hundreds of years (and not its usable life as a dive site, which will be much shorter).

“The presence on the vessel of two known biocides – lead and copper – in unknown quantities provides a strong basis for concluding that harm to the marine environment is likely,” Barrister Cotman said.

Lawyers for the government said the anti-fouling paint will be inert.

“Our community has had to fundraise more than $70,000 to discover the truth about what was on this warship,” NSAG spokesperson Michelle Meares said.

“We were told by the State and Federal Governments and given personal assurances by Minister Tony Kelly that there was no lead paint and no PCBs onboard this ship.

“Well, there were PCBs onboard and there is lead paint. They were wrong.”

No Ship Action Group

MEDIA INQUIRIES
www.noship.com.au

Ben Smith  0409 693 205 
 
Michelle Meares  0439 645 372

NOTE:
Under Article 3 of the London Protocol - an international agreement of which Australia is a signatory - in implementing this Protocol, Contracting Parties shall apply a precautionary approach to environmental protection from dumping of wastes or other matter whereby appropriate preventative measures are taken when there is reason to believe that wastes or other matter introduced into the marine environment are likely to cause harm even when there is no conclusive evidence to prove a causal relation between inputs and their effects.

The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 requires a Sea Dumping Permit to be consistent with the aims of the London Protocol.

Barrister Cotman said the “aims” of the Protocol are to be seen in “the need to protect the marine environment and to promote the sustainable use and conservation of marine resources”, and the urgent need for action to “prevent, reduce and where practicable eliminate pollution of the sea caused by dumping”.

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 [PDF]

WHILE waiting for test results on paint containing a potential 11 tonnes of lead on the ex-HMAS Adelaide, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard about possible effects of lead in the marine environment.
 
The Environmental Defender’s Office, acting for the No Ship Action Group, appealed the Federal Government’s granting of a Sea Dumping Permit in March.
 
The State Government will test the potential red lead-paint primer which could be on up to 21,000 sq m of ship interior and test results will be submitted to the tribunal on Wednesday.
 
US eco toxicologist Dr Peter deFur said the worst common adverse reaction to lead in humans and animals is that it damages the nervous system at incredibly low concentrations.
 
When it came to marine life, Dr deFur said lead caused abnormalities to fish including those to kidney function and gill function, and it particularly affected foetal eggs and larvae.

No Ship Barrister Nigel Cotman SC asked State Government witness and sea dumping permit adviser John Polglaze, about the five naval ships scuttled around Australia since 2001.
 
Barrister Cotman SC asked Mr Polglaze: “is it right to say the Adelaide is closer to the coast than all the other sites we have referred to?”
 
Mr Polglaze said yes, but when asked, said he did not consider the proximity significant.
 
The proposed site is 1.4 km from North Avoca beach and 1.73 km from Avoca Beach.
 
Mr Polglaze said he served at sea on the former HMAS Adelaide, while in his role assessing the Sea Dumping Permit application on behalf of Minister for the Environment Protection Peter Garrett, he boarded the ship four times.
 
Marine engineer Werner Hoyt, who flew out from the US on Monday and discovered the potential lead paint, said if the paint tested positive for lead, a project in terms of monitoring lead leaching into the sediment could need  between 100 and 200 years to see the full effects.
 
The tribunal asked Mr Hoyt, in the event there were high levels of contamination in sediment, what possible remediation was available.
 
Mr Hoyt said a hydraulic dredging process could be used, but most ecotoxicologists would say: “once it’s in the sediments don’t touch it.”
 
State Government evidence by project manager for the HMAS Adelaide Project David Coyle provided a rough cost estimate for recycling the warship, which could physically take place at Garden Island’s dry dock.
 
Conservatively it could cost about $2.85 million, he said, while about $771,200 could be recouped by selling the ship’s steel. This would leave a net cost of just over $2 million, according to Mr Coyle’s estimates.
 
Justice Downes said the hearing resumes Friday July 16 at the AAT, level 5, 55 Market St, Sydney.

 No Ship Action Group
 
 Media Inquiries http://noship.com.au
 
Ben Smith 0409 693 205,
 
Michelle Meares 0439 645 372

The case is now being heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and we URGENTLY need more funds. Once this warship is down there is no turning back, so please help us now if you can by the following methods:

• Direct deposit to NAB bank account ’No Ship Action Group Incorp’ BSB 082 574  Account 170791941 (most preferable as we don’t pay any fees)
• Click on DONATE button top right corner of this website
• Post cheque/money order made out to ‘No Ship Action Group Incorp’ to P.O. Box 212 Avoca Beach NSW 2251
• Email avoca@noship.com.au for other methods

THANK YOU very much to everyone who has donated to the campaign so far. These funds allowed NSAG Inc. to engage the Environmental Defender’s Office to represent us at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on Wednesday March 24 where Justice Garry Downes, President of the AAT, granted a stay on the decision to approve the Sea Dumping Permit.  
Read the judgement here.

Your generous financial contributions also enabled NSAG Inc to hire two barristers and highly respected experts to examine the preparation of exHMAS Adelaide for scuttling and substantiate our demand for a more transparent process.  Read Sydney Morning Herald report about these latest developments http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/new-tests-ordered-for-warship-toxins-20100422-tg21.html

The matter is now being heard with AAT President Justice Garry Downes from July 5 - 8. Throughout the course of this case there have been many additional costs such as appeal application fees, printing, website and business administration fees and the huge cost of legal representation and scientific reporting. Unfortunately our original estimate of $50 000 cost to run the campaign is not enough to cover expenses to date and upcoming ones so we have regrettably had to raise our target fund raising amount to $90 000.

Thanks to the amazing support we have had from individuals and businesses within the community we are well on our way to reaching this target so thank you very much! Please be aware that the No Ship Action Group are working around the clock on a voluntary basis and ALL proceeds will be spent wisely on this case.   

Thank you for your support! Please note if there is any surplus after the court case it will be donated to the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service. 
(There is no affiliation between NSAG and this charity)

THE State Government tried to stop testing of suspected lead paint on the ex-HMAS Adelaide, arguing it was acceptable to dump 28 tonnes of lead off Avoca Beach, at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal this morning.

But Justice Garry Downes, president of the AAT, wanted to make a decision on the case with the full facts to hand.

The State of NSW then agreed to do testing.

Downes said the hearing would not finish on Thursday as planned but would be extended.

State Government witness John Polglaze, who inspected the ship while assessing the Sea Dumping Permit for the Federal Minister for Environment Peter Garrett, offered no explanation as to how a potential 28 tonnes of red lead paint on 21,000 sq m of ship interior were missed.

The suspected lead paint was discovered when the Environmental Defender’s Office, acting for No Ship Action Group, flew out a naval engineer expert from the US.

Mr Werner Hoyt inspected the warship soon after he arrived on Monday.

The State Government barrister argued testing the newly-discovered paint would not yield results before the hearing finished. She proposed the hearing proceed on the assumption there were 28 tonnes of lead paint and the State would attempt to argue the lead would not affect the environment if dumped off Avoca Beach.

Concurrent evidence, in which five witnesses simultaneously gave evidence, took place in the afternoon. It introduced No Ship Action Group’s ecotoxicologist, Dr Peter deFur, via live video link from the United States.

Justice Downes said the tribunal would be guided by the Precautionary Principle, which is part of the London Protocol, and part of an act of law in Australia (When scientific evidence is uncertain, the Precautionary Principle states decision-makers should take action to limit continued environmental damage and should err on the side of caution when evaluating proposals that may seriously or irreversibly impact on the environment http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/1997-98/98rn04.htm).

There would be contamination of the surrounding area if the scuttling went ahead, State Government environmental scientist and scuba diver John Polglaze said.

“There is going to be introduction of contaminants in that environment [where we scuttle a ship],’’ Mr Polglaze said. “The question is what will be the environmental consequences, and are they acceptable or not.”

Dr deFur said lead in water can create toxic levels of lead in fish which are then consumed by people.

“There is some evidence from several regulatory agencies in the US which have set fish consumption criteria for lead [in the same way they already have set criteria] as for mercury and PCBs,” Dr deFur said.

Dr deFur said he had worked on two cases of lead poisoning through fish consumption, one in freshwater and one in seawater.

“There are no known safe exposure levels to lead,” Dr deFur said

The tribunal noted that after previous scuttlings of warships around Australia, and there have been five sunk since 2001, the subsequent sediment testing only took place in the months or year or two after sinking. The tribunal noted there are no long-term studies.

If sunk, the ex-HMAS Adelaide would be the closest ever warship to an Australian shore and popular beach.

Justice Garry Downes asked the State Barrister: “Does anyone take into account, for example, the distant future? These ships will still be there in some form or other in 300 years time.”

Justice Downes asked what if the scuttling were approved, the ship was scuttled, and the sediment later showed lead far exceeded allowable levels.

“What would then happen?” Justice Downes asked the State Barrister.

“There would be some reaction then,” the State’s Barrister said.

“How do you clean it up then?” Justice Downes asked.

The State Government’s Barrister said she would need to take further instructions from her client. She added there was a fishing exclusion zone around the proposed scuttling site, which is believed to be 200 m by 350 m.

Later in proceedings Justice Downes noted “fish can swim”.

The hearing resumes at 9am on Thursday morning.

Greens MP Ian Cohen supports the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision to stop the scuttling of HMAS Adelaide until a more rigorous assessment of the ship is undertaken.
 
“Premier Keneally should publicly reprimand Minister Tony Kelly for his misrepresentation on the removal of PCBs from the ship. The only word to describe Minister Kelly and Minister Garrett’s handling of the proposed scuttling is incompetent,” says Mr Cohen.
 
“Instead of undertaking this project in a transparent and accountable way whereby the community is given an ability to participate and engage in the project planning, the Ministers sought to haphazardly rush through the project ignoring basic checks and balances on environmental and public safety.”
 
“Minister for Land Tony Kelly indicated on 24 February 2010 to the NSW Parliament that ‘all PCBs, lead and other toxic materials have been removed’ even before the ship had been tested or assessed. (The first PCB testing on HMAS Adelaide did not occur until March 5)

Minister Garrett’s department didn’t even apply the correct guidelines to assess the alleged decontamination of the ship. Blunder after bureaucratic blunder has the local community rightly concerned.  
 
“The Department of Lands signed contracts for service relating to the scuttling event, without any contingency provisions, before any State or Federal environmental approvals had been obtained. Minister Kelly was 100% sure he would get approval before the appropriate assessments were done.”
 
“Blame for the wasted funds on the event must fall squarely on Ministers Kelly and Garrett. The local community have been questioning Minister Garrett for over 2 months about the dumping permit. In a bid to deny the local community their legal rights he issued the permit only 2 days before the ship was to be towed to Avoca Beach.”
 
“The No Ship Action Group are simply local community members that deeply care about their local beach. Their challenge in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has highlighted the incompetence of the NSW Government and the Labor Government’s reckless indifference to the environment.”
 
“All the local community wants is the evidence that the scuttling will not have adverse effects on the Avoca Beach environment and health of its residents. When we see photos of viscous yellow substances weeping from the ends of electrical cables, believed to be PCBs, still remaining on the ship and a Minister who gives his word all PCBs have been removed, then the local community has no other choice but to turn to the courts.” 

http://www.iancohen.org.au/

AN INSPECTION of the ex-HMAS Adelaide in Sydney this morning revealed a potential 28 tonnes of toxic lead paint remains on the ship.
 
It took a US expert witness paid for by a community fundraising to discover the unidentified paint.
 
US naval engineer and ship disposal expert Werner Hoyt arrived in Sydney on Monday morning to present evidence to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
 
Mr Hoyt’s potential lead paint discovery adds to the ongoing saga, reminiscent of Australian film The Castle, which began after the State Government planned to dump an obsolete warship at Avoca Beach under the guise of an artificial reef.
 
After his inspection Mr Hoyt said almost all the ship’s interior ship surfaces were painted and remain painted with lead-based primer.
 
There are 21,000 square metres of painted interior surface areas, which, based on experienced observation estimates a potential 28 tonnes of lead paint.
 
Full ship records are being sought from the Department of Defence.

Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett’s barrister, Mr Andras Markus, said: “If there is a real prospect that there’s this amount of lead on the ship then the Tribunal ought to know about it.”
 
No Ship Action Group’s barrister Geoffrey Kennett, working with the Environmental Defender’s Office, said: “We will be advancing the case in relation to chromium and lead [on the ship]”.
 
On ABC television’s Stateline program on March 12, State Minister for Planning Tony Kelly said: (http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/12/2844703.htm
 
Time: 5:20 minutes:seconds:)
 
“The Adelaide is the first, as the Navy put it, their first Environmental Ship. It was painted with different paints and no lead.”  Tony Kelly on ABC televisions Stateline, March 12.
 
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, CoChair of International POPs Elimination Network and advisor to National Toxics Network, said there was no safe level of lead.
 
 ”Lead is a well-known neurotoxic metal that impairs the neurological development of children and can cause cancer in adults. There is no safe level,” she said.
 
“Lead is very persistent in the environment and accumulates in soils, sediments and living organisms including marine mammals and fish.
 
She said the lead content in marine paint is very high, sometimes over 50 per cent.

No Ship Action Group
 
Media Inquiries
 
Ben Smith 0409 693 205,
 
Michelle Meares 0439 645 372
 
Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith +(612) 66815340 / 0413 621557

Note: Following further evidence given by experts at the Tribunal, NSAG is not pressing the issue of chromium.

Tribunal attendees learnt on Day One of the hearing that the State Government has been removing potential PCB-containing electrical cables from the warship for the past month.
 
Evidence pertaining to the electrical cable removal was only submitted to the tribunal on the weekend.
 
PCBs, a flame retardant widely used in warships, are one of most toxic substances known to man and their manufacture was banned by the US Environment Protection Agency in 1979.
 
Ship-cleaning contractor McMahons stated in evidence that the ship had 2100 kg of electrical cables (which are likely to contain PCBs) on March 22, which is when the State Government declared it was clean and PCB-free.
 
In the past month the State Government contractor has removed 500 kg of cables.
 
By July 9 another 250 kg of electrical cables will be removed, the court heard.

This will leave about 1320 kg of electrical cables on the ship.
 
It was a photograph of a “weeping cable” oozing a yellow fluid, likely to be PCBs, which first alerted scientific experts and the media about problems with the cable wiring.
 
No Ship Action Group’s barrister Geoffrey Kennett, acting with the Environmental Defenders’ Office senior solicitor Ian Ratcliff, told the court that dumping the warship could be illegal under international law.
 
Scuttling the ex-HMAS Adelaide could breach international treaties such as the Stockholm Convention and London Protocol which both have strict guidelines about PCBs, Barrister Kennett told three members of the tribunal, AAT president Garry Downes, Mark Hyman and Peter Wulf.
 
Yesterday was the opening day of a four-day hearing which follows the No Ship Action Group’s appeal of Minister Garrett’s signing of the Sea Dumping Permit on Tuesday March 23 this year.
 
The dumping of the ex-HMAS Adelaide should be examined on environmental merits alone by Minister for Environment Protection, Peter Garrett, Barrister Kennett told the hearing.
 
 ”The Minister’s role is an environmental gate-keeper,” he said in his opening address.

“[The Minister is] not a person seeking to balance the environment against other considerations.”
 
“For example, the decisions about social and economic benefits and risk must be taken by other people, such as the State government.’’
  
“The Minister’s task under the Sea Dumping Act is to consider whether the sinking of a vessel is acceptable from the point of view of the London Protocol.”
 
Barrister Kennett argued that the granting of the Sea Dumping Permit was not consistent with the aims of the London Protocol, an international standard to which Australia was a signatory.
 
Recycling the ship was an option which needed to be considered, Barrister Kennett said.
 
The inadequacy of PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) sampling and testing of materials taken from the ship was discussed.
 
The hearing continues on Tuesday.
 
A crowd of about 50 people attended.

Media Inquiries http://noship.com.au
Ben Smith 0409 693 205, Michelle Meares 0439 645 372

Note: Following the evidence provided by the State with regards to the removal of 750 kg of electrical cables, the No Ship Action Group no longer consider PCBs to be an issue in dispute in the matter.

MEDIA RELEASE FROM NO SHIP ACTION GROUP 15/03/2010

MINISTER FOR SPINNING PLANS EPIC FAIL

Tony Kelly Sinks on Stateline
NSW Minister for Planning and Lands Tony Kelly made a mess of the facts when he appeared on ABC Television’s Stateline on Friday March 12.

Mr Kelly is in the spotlight following the bungled planning of the scuttling of the ex-HMAS Adelaide at Avoca Beach, set down for March 27.

He continued the incompetence on Stateline when he said the former warship was an “environmental ship”, testing showed there were “no PCBs anywhere”and the community had “ample opportunity” to respond “over two years.’”
   
Wrong on PCBS:
After stating there were no PCBS on the ship, the Government then tested for PCBs on 1st March 2010.  McMahons Services (the contractor cleaning the ship) took five samples from “soft” sites and gave them to Airsafe for testing.

(so-called “soft” because it was unlikely the sites would have PCBs, they included a sample from a wall of the junior sailors’ dining area www.hmasadelaide.com/enviromental_information)

Areas which would be likely to contain PCBS, such as the engine room, the weapons area and the communications room, were not tested.

Secondly, the report stated that PCB concentrations for the samples were below detection limits for all PCB congeners. There are 209 PCB congeners. 
However, the laboratory only tested for six congeners. The amount that need to be tested can be broken down to a lot less than 209, but certainly not to as few as six.

Thirdly, McMahons cleaned the ship – there was a conflict of interests in them providing the samples which were found to be ‘clean’ – why was there not an independent party collecting the samples?

Lastly, testing five soft sites does not equate to: “we have had tests done to conclude there were no PCBs anywhere else.”

Mr Kelly on Stateline: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/12/2844703.htm
Time: 5:20 minutes:seconds: “The Adelaide is the first, as the Navy put it, their first Environmental Ship. It was painted with different paints and no lead. The only PCBs that could have been there were in switchboards etc. That’s all been removed and in addition to that we have had tests done to conclude there were no PCBs anywhere else.”

Wrong on Environmental Ship
The “different” paint is an anti-fouling paint called 365 ecoloflex. A summary of its toxicity is here http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Product.jsp?REG_NR=00269300188&DIST_NR=002693#Ingredients

An extract from the ex-HMAS Adelaide’s Review of Environmental Factors:
The ship contained items/ substances, (or items containing these) including:
•    polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs used for example in transformers and capacitors)…
•    asbestos …
•    heavy metals: chromate, lead, mercury, copper and zinc.

Environmental Ship? What would it take for the Minister for Planning and Lands to recognise toxicity? If this is his perspective, this could be dangerous for the rest of NSW.
   
Wrong on consultation:
Tony Kelly on Stateline: “The community has been consulted and they have had ample opportunity as I have said. Public meetings, an enormous amount of information put out there. They have had the opportunity to respond for over two years now.  The Worley Parson report responds to a lot of those concerns that were put forward.”

Mr Neil Robinson, a resident of Avoca Beach for 37 years, was at the first public meeting at North Avoca Surf Club on January 29 this year.

Mr Robinson said: “A Leonie Baldwin from NSW Premier and Cabinet Dept introduced herself, stating she would be chairing the meeting and after introductions of herself, Natalie Heist, Project Manager from NSW Lands Dept and Mr. Dan Messitter from Worley Parsons P/L (a Government contracted agency). She then stated “the vessel is going down on 27/03/2010 – regardless!” “The meeting then became hostile. This was first consultation.”

“If there was such comprehensive consultation, why didn’t we know it was off Avoca Beach until early January?,” No Ship Action Group’s (NSAG) Quentin Riley said.

“The truth is, the Government advertised the scuttling at Terrigal, not Avoca, and even the February newsletter from Federal Member for Robertson Belinda Neal, stated the ship would be sunk off Terrigal.”

“We did not have time to respond. The environmental report, the REF (Review of Environmental Factors), was only uploaded on their website on Friday February 5.”

“The Sea Dumping Certificate is illegal if there is no community consultation,” he said. “An extract from the Sea Dumping Permit’s criteria says that all stakeholders must be consulted.”

“Well, we weren’t consulted.”

Mr Kelly was wrong all round.

This wouldn’t happen in Bondi or Maroubra. Why should it happen at Avoca Beach?            

IN scenes reminiscent of classic Australian film The Castle, a Senior Counsel has joined the Environmental Defenders Office to stop the Government dumping a warship at Avoca Beach.

At the 11th hour Nigel Cotman, SC, joins the EDO’s senior solicitor Ian Ratcliff and barrister Geoffrey Kennett at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at 10am tomorrow (Monday July 5) at 55 Market St in the city.

Early this year residents discovered the State Government planned to dump a warship 1.4 km off North Avoca beach: a scenario reminiscent of the big screen’s Kerrigan family which discovered the Government planned to reclaim their home for airport expansion.

No Ship Action Group appealed the ex-HMAS Adelaide’s Sea Dumping Permit in March, the day after it was signed by the Minister for Environment Protection, Peter Garrett.

The Central Coast community has raised $46,000 in four months to stop the dumping of the obsolete warship under the guise of an artificial reef for divers. Billed as a tourism income generator, it is only viable as a dive site for 25 years.

The community has to raise another $50,000 to meet the ever-rising costs of litigation.

“It’s The Castle with a dash of Yes Minister, but there’s nothing funny about it,’’ an NSAG spokesperson said.

“With former ICAC assistant commissioner Senior Counsel Cotman joining our leading Counsel Kennett we know we have the best chance possible on our limited budget.”

“The State Government has supplied 24 witnesses and two boxes of evidence – overkill in a case of this size. Legally we have been advised it is a breach of the Model Litigant policy. We do not have the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars the government have at their disposal to justify their right to dump this warship in our bay.”

The Central Coast community has been fundraising with film nights, concerts and selling raffle tickets.

Many of these residents will question the integrity of the Labor government at the next election, following the Government’s wanton environmental vandalism.

“If this sinking went ahead, not only would our beaches be polluted with toxins and plastics for the next century, but wave refraction off the ship will scour the sand and erode our beach.”

The Keneally Government plans to sink the ship in the middle of the humpback whale migration path in a depth of 32 metres on the largest sandbank along the Central Coast.

Last week at the International Whaling Commission in Agadir, Morocco, a five-year study of 1000 sperm whales showed whales had toxic levels of chromium from the ocean. Sources of chromium include paint and steel.

On Monday an NSAG witness, a naval ship engineer, will fly in from the US to Sydney for the hearing. NSAG has commissioned five reports from experts in the US before the tribunal, which is set down for four days in front of AAT President Garry Downes.

No Ship Action Group

Media Inquiries http://noship.com.au
Ben Smith 0409 693 205,
Michelle Meares 0439 645 372

RESIDENTS of Avoca will have their day in court tomorrow as they attempt to stop the state government sinking an old war ship 1400 metres off the central coast beach.

”We have been working around the clock, there’s been a huge crescendo of activity,” said Ben Smith from the No Ship Action Group.

The HMAS Adelaide was due to be sunk on March 23 to create an artificial reef but was postponed at the 11th hour by the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal because of fears about the effects on tides and water pollution.

Tribunal president Justice Garry Downes criticised the Keneally government for its haste in settling a date for the sinking and organising festivities - including a beach party - without waiting for proper permits or allowing enough time for appeals.


RACHEL OLDING
July 4, 2010

Read full article in the Sun Herald