The future of an environmentally significant area of land targeted for development rests on the shoulders of the Federal Environment Minister, writes Nicholas Chambers.
THE OMINOUS amber glow of the sky provided shadows at midnight; it was something out of a horror movie, a living nightmare. In fact, it is reflective of a recurring nightmare that persists for me today.
But on the final day of 2019, for myself and the roughly 500 other inhabitants of the small coastal village of Manyana, it was real. I had barely turned 17 years old, but it is an experience that I am sure I will never forget and one that reminded me of the absolute necessity of fighting for our planet.
As the Black Summer bushfires ran rampant throughout the New South Wales South Coast, the ears of developers perked up. In May 2020, a development application that had been sitting dormant for 12 years was brought to light.
Developer Ozy Homes was intending to clear the last 20.23 hectares of remaining unburnt bushland around the Conjola National Park; WWF Australia has quoted the percentage of surrounding bushland that was burnt to be nearly 95 per cent. This bushland has become a sanctuary for wildlife fleeing the fire and provided habitat and food for the diverse ecological community.
Time and time again, ecologists, activists and residents have noted continual flaws in the development and assessment process. There have been reported local sightings of threatened species, including the greater glider, gang-gang cockatoo and critically endangered scrub turpentine.
The NSW Threatened Species Scientific Committee in 2018 acknowledged land clearing as a considerable contribution to the 80 per cent decline in the population of scrub turpentine over recent history. Scrub turpentine was identified as being found within the area, however was not considered by consultants as an adequate reason to prevent development.
Furthermore, the inhumane suggestion that the residents of Manyana should be subject to a war for the survival of their bush, a mere six months after fighting so hard to save it from flames, has caused considerable community outrage. It is clear that the community is strongly against the development, with just two of 983 submissions recorded in 2021 in favour of the project.
Widespread community advocacy founded the Manyana Matters Environmental Association, who, amongst locals, have dubbed the land the Manyana Special Conservation Reserve.
Imploring the services of the Environmental Defenders Office, Manyana Matters advocated for a reassessment of this development proposal. Since 2020, the issue has persevered through the chain of appeal and is now subject to a ministerial decision on its approval or rejection from Federal Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek. Plibersek has already delayed this decision five times and is due to announce her decision on Thursday 22 August.
The list of credible and world-leading environmental organisations to condemn the development is vast, including the Jane Goodall Institute Australia, WWF Australia and the Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales, not to mention that the bushland was listed as an area of significant natural heritage by the National Trust of Australia (NSW) in 2020.
As this challenge has evolved, morphed and persisted over the past four years, and despite the spread of pleas, court hearings and election promises, Australia’s federal environmental policy has undergone very little material change. This is reflected in the attitudes of both federal major parties.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton's recent comments on Australia's commitment to the Paris Agreement and rejection of renewable energy has further ostracised both the Coalition and himself individually from the growing climate concerns persistent amongst my generation.
Dutton also recently proposed his energy policy plans: that Australia’s future energy plans would be spearheaded by nuclear power, creating “an energy mix with renewables and significant amounts of gas”. This proves a stark contrast from the science-backed renewable approach and suggests Dutton is an out-of-touch science-sceptic to Australia’s youth.
Across the chamber, the Federal Government's lacklustre current environmental policy also does little to calm the ascending concern of young Australians towards the sustainable future of our nation. The continual approval of new coal and gas projects despite environmental warnings drives home the message that Australia will struggle to meet its Paris Agreement obligations.
The rejection of Senator David Pocock's proposed Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 by an ALP-directed senate committee has been widely criticised as another example of the Government continuing to neglect the importance of climate welfare.
Pocock echoed these concerns in his dissenting report, writing:
‘By turning their backs to the submissions and public support for a duty of care on climate change, the major parties again show Australians, and particularly young people, how out of touch they are.’
As Anjali Sharma noted, the Government is continuing to foster ‘a generation quickly losing faith in the political system’.
Tanya Plibersek has a key chance to direct this out-of-favour government in the right direction and provide a sliver of hope for both a struggling local community and Australia's future generations. Rejection of the development proposal would also aid the Government politically, working towards clear and decisive action on environmental threats, and hinting to the disillusioned youth that there is hope for meaningful change.
Plibersek would also distance her Government from the recent environmental disregard of the Dutton Opposition. Greens senator David Shoebridge, who has strongly opposed the development since its initial attention, has also continued the call for Plibersek to prioritise the community's wishes and save the Manyana Special Conservation Reserve.
This will not be the last fight for the embattled residents of Manyana, with an additional development application at Inyadda Drive, Manyana inching its way through the appeal system. But it will be the most important. The Minister now holds the chance to set a crucial precedent that the community is being heard and that our environment is being valued.
Manyana is a breathtaking place and perfectly combines the distinct bush and beach that characterise Australia. It is a sanctuary for those seeking comfort in the anxieties of the modern world.
Yet, this environmental anxiety highlights a persistent fear for our future generations. They fear that unless we change our ways, they will be denied clean air, fresh water and a habitable planet. This is a real fear and one reflected in so many of my peers. And it is one that the Minister should not take lightly.
I will finish by making the same plea that I have made in every one of my countless submissions and letters on this issue.
On behalf of Australia’s youth, I call on the decision-makers to exercise their own moral judgement and act for the future of our society, preventing this precious land from destruction. We hold to account the decisions made in this circumstance as influential towards the global health of our planet.
I call on the elected representatives of our country, our state and our local councils to do everything within their power to ensure that this development does not go ahead, and that environmental protection is at the forefront of this decision.
So, Minister Plibersek, it's in your hands.
Nicholas Chambers is an undergraduate student at Macquarie University studying a double degree in environmental science and law.
Related Articles
- Plibersek's plan poor on its promise of positivity
- Plibersek has a golden opportunity to lead on Murray-Darling Basin Plan
- The unpaid bill: Labor and moral equivocation on same sex marriage
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
