Environmental groups and advocates for cultural heritage have raised serious concerns about the integrity of information provided on the NSW Planning Department website regarding proposed development by the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council (DLALC) at Kariong.
The groups say that the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) section on the website misrepresents the true scope of the development’s impact, downplaying potential risks to the environment, cultural heritage, local wildlife and human life.
Concerns are heightened by the recent proposal to amend legislation to combat misinformation and disinformation, which aims to prevent the dissemination of falsehoods on digital platforms that could cause harm, they say.
Coast Environmental Alliance (CEA) spokesperson Lisa Bellamy, who is also President of the Kariong Progress Association, said information presented on government websites needed fact checking.
“I couldn’t believe what I was reading when I saw what the government agency had written on its website,” she said.
“It’s like they had taken all our valid and genuine arguments and created responses designed to make it look like the conservationist groups are being dishonest.
“Instead of offering non-biased information on its FAQ section, the Planning Department comes across as openly advocating for the developer.”
Bellamy said the groups were concerned that the FAQ section says the rezoning required to make way for the development “avoids impacts on known items of Aboriginal cultural heritage”.
“Cultural heritage reports have fully acknowledged that there are known and registered sites in and around the development footprint, and there are also likely sites that cannot be located due to the heavy undergrowth,” she said.
“The developers intend to barricade known sites and this development will literally have a walking track straight to engravings in the adjoining National Park, a site officially listed as a Sacred Aboriginal Place.
“There’s certainly a huge difference between there being ‘no impacts’ on cultural heritage and ‘avoiding impacts’ on these ancient and irreplaceable cultural sites.”
Bellamy said the government website also suggested the proposed development would not have any impacts on koalas due to the fact that none were located at the time of the survey.
“Then the Department acknowledges that the area is indeed an Area of Regional Koala Significance (ARKS),” she said.
“How can they say in full confidence that there will be no impacts on koalas, when this development will destroy the specific trees that koalas rely on to survive?”
Sarah Blakeway, from community group Coasties Who Care, also has concerns.
“The FAQ says the endangered wetlands will remain unaffected but then admits the plan is to use these extremely sensitive water courses for urban stormwater detention,” she said.
“This will have far-reaching consequences for the ecological balance of the area and for the primary industries such as the oyster and fishing industries in Brisbane Water, totally contradicting the claim of ‘no impact’.”
Blakeway said the website says the current stage of planning does not involve approval for “cut and fill” development, but complete plans indicate that extensive land clearing, tree removal and rock excavation will be necessary to accommodate housing.
Bellamy said “a complex mass of words and legislation talking about biodiversity offsets” muddies the waters.
“Basically, the developer will remove the native vegetation and native wildlife habitat but will use the highly controversial biodiversity offset scheme to rationalise this irreparable damage,” she said.
“These so-called facts on the FAQ downplay the real extent of destruction to the landscape.”
She said the proposal had also reignited debates over fire-prone land management for Kariong and that it could “risk human lives”.
“The FAQ acknowledges that the site is classified as ‘bushfire prone’ by the local council and yet the risks are being totally understated,” she said.
“The contradictions and omissions in the FAQ are concerning because they obscure the true environmental and cultural implications of this project.
“We have a responsibility to protect our cultural heritage, endangered species and sensitive ecosystems and it’s crucial that the public receives clear and truthful information.”
Bellamy said there was no guarantee that that there would be no impact on endangered ecological communities and cultural heritage in Kariong Sacred Lands as the government website suggested.
“We are calling on the government to retract the misinformation and disinformation on this public website and offer a truly unbiased account of the impacts this proposed development will have on our precious local environment,” she said.
You can see the FAQ section at https://www.planning.nsw.gov.au/policy-and-legislation/aboriginal-land-use-planning/darkinjung-local-aboriginal-land-council/kariong-planning-proposal
Thank you for covering this Coast Community News. The submissions process was a travesty of environmental justice and apparently it’s happened in other areas in NSW
Good on you Lisa and Sarah.
When I read what they wrote I was absolutely gobsmacked. Blatant dishonesty on a public funded website.
One of the ironies in this is that if there any Aboriginal carvings covered by vegetation, the only real way to preserve them is to clear the vegetation so they can be maintained in perpetuity. If that does not happen the carvings will erode away over time and never seen again. The land owners are tasked with protecting all sites that are found.
I can’t believe anyone could think for one second that building in this area wouldn’t have a huge, negative impact.