No Ship at Avoca

Mr Burke,

I write with concern that reportedly the NSW Land and Property Management Authority is attempting to weaken the recent decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal so as to avoid inspecting all the paint still present on the ex-HMAS Adelaide.

I have been watching this project unravel for the last 6 months, to the point where the LPMA now appears to be adopting a ‘damn the torpedoes’ approach by forcing the scuttling through. In this remarkable turn of events the NSW LPMA appears to be appealing the AAT decision to allow them to scuttle the warship!

I have previously been advised by your department that you do not police people being rude, which is a fair enough comment. I am not complaining about The Hon. Tony Kelly’s department’s communication style.

The Review of Environmental Factors for this project committed that the warship would be prepared in line with a Canadian Clean-up Standard. I believe this was an expectation of the DEWHA when the original Sea Dumping Permit was approved.

The Canadian Clean-up Standard calls for the inspection of the condition of all the painted surfaces that are to remain on the vessel. It is clear to me that the AAT was calling out the LPMA’s lack of due dilligence in this matter when it made complete investigation of the paint an explicit condition on the permit. 

a) I am not clear on where your department stands on this matter. Since DEWHA was a joint party to the AAT proceedings, defending the original granting of the permit in March 2010, I respectfully ask you to clarify whether you support the NSW LPMA action to weaken the AAT decision or whether your department opposes it.  

b) Should you oppose it, I respectfully request detail on what steps are now being taken to apply appropriate DECCW governance to the NSW LPMA management of the remaining clean-up tasks on this project.
In particular, what evidence will be made available as to the level of compliance with the revised Sea Dumping Permit the AAT has authorised?
My concern is that, given a second chance to get this right, the NSW LPMA may once again be failing to meet the commitment made earlier relating to compliance with the Canadian standard. 

c) On a related note, previous correspondence with your department has involved up to 5 months delay in reply. Is there any way you can reduce the latency of response?

I have provided a copy of this email to a number of newspapers who have in the past been publishing articles related to the ups and downs on this project, as well as The Hon. Tony Kelly, as a courtesy. 

Regards,
Adrian Brightmoore
Glenwood  N.S.W. 

Here are references cited in this email for context: 

1) The (Obsolete) Canadian Standard the NSW LPMA committed to use and did not fully implement, according to the AAT evidence and decision, are online at http://web.archive.org/web/20040827103942/http://www.pyr.ec.gc.ca/EN/ocean-disposal/english/cleanupstandard_jul01_e.htm

2) The Canadian Standard that is currently used as a best practise for clean up are online at http://www.artificialreef.bc.ca/Resources/DisposalClean-upStandard_Rev3_Dec2007.pdf

3) The recent AAT decision which is NSW LPMA are reportedly seeking to vary: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2010/702.html 

4) Past correspondence with your department is available for review at: https://sites.google.com/site/whathappenedatavoca/how-did-people-behave/dewha