Adjournment: Minister ignores independent panel recommendations on Bastian Point

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan) -- My adjournment matter is for the Minister for Planning and concerns his recent decision to ignore the recommendations of the independent panel inquiry which assessed the proposals for an ocean access boat ramp at Bastion Point by approving construction of a new boat ramp approximately 150 metres south of the existing one, a breakwater and an access road along the base of the escarpment.

That the minister could have made this decision in light of the comprehensive findings and recommendations of the panel inquiry is amazing.

In his answer to my question today, the minister claimed that his preferred option would improve safety; however, the panel has serious concerns about the safety of all the proposals in relation to entry to and exit from the facility.

Expert witnesses highlighted the dangers of boaters, especially inexperienced ones, putting to sea in conditions that are or could quickly become dangerous. As a result of the exhibition of the EES (environment effects statement), 482 submissions were received, with 87 per cent objecting to the new ramp proposals and/or supporting an upgrade of the current ramp -- a fact that the minister neglected to mention in his assessment.

The panel found that the economic case for the project is very weak and is likely to have a benefit-cost ratio well below 1. It also found that there is a significant number of uncertainties remaining in the assumptions that further undermine the economic case. The panel recommends that the environment effects of options 1, 2 and 3 as exhibited, options 3a and 3b, which the minister favours, and option LS1 are such that there is no overall societal benefit in progressing these options further and they should be discarded.

The panel considers that to do nothing is not an acceptable option and suggests within its terms of reference that an upgrade of the existing ramp and parking be undertaken. It provides a suggested scope for such works.

The panel goes into considerable detail in outlining the reasons for its findings and recommendations. However, for inexplicable reasons that were not well justified, in his assessment of 10 June the minister chose to ignore the warnings of the panel about the consequences of proceeding with any of the proposals put before it; instead he indicated his support for the preferred long-term objective of Gippsland Ports to separate swimmers and other beach users from boating traffic.

I think many would agree with that aim and with the fact that it can be achieved without the construction of a boat ramp and breakwater. Once again the community has been badly let down by the EES process.

Instead of the minister taking into account the needs of all users and the environment, he is supporting a proposal that caters for one user group while everything else will have to fit in. It is difficult to imagine a clearer finding by an independent panel against the proposals put forward by the proponent. My request to the minister is that he reconsider his decision and instead support the recommendations of the panel for an upgrade of the existing ramp and parking.

ANSWER (given 23 June 2009):

Sue Pennicuik raised a matter for me, as the Minister for Planning, seeking to have me reconsider my decision in relation to Mallacoota. I have made that decision and that decision remains.