On this day ten years ago the Federal Government published an invitation for the public to comment on plans for development at Toondah Harbour which had been referred by developer Walker Group for consideration under Australia’s national environment laws known as the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 but generally abbreviated to the EPBC Act.
Clearly unacceptable ???
The public were given the usual period of 10 days to examine a brief description of the proposed project. This was the community’s first opportunity to understand the extent of proposed real estate development activities and the massive harm that this would cause to shorebird habitat in the Moreton Bay Ramsar site.
Usually, within a few weeks of inviting the public to comment, the Federal Environment Department makes a decision to do one of the following:
- Declare the proposed action (project) to be clearly unacceptable; or
- Decide that the proposed action does not need to be controlled by the Federal Government; or
- Decide that the proposed action will be controlled by the Federal Government.
In April 2016, Walker Group was advised that the Environment Department would recommend to the Minister that he declare the project to be “clearly unacceptable”. This would be game over for Walker Group, and the Redland City Council who supported the proposed project.
Following many months of lobbying and some legal threats, in 2017 Walker Group withdrew its original referral then submitted a new referral which was very similar. In 2018, officers submitted a recommendation that the second referral be declared clearly unacceptable but this was not approved by then Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg.
Walker Group submitted a third referral in 2018 which was declared a controlled action, to be assessed by the Federal Government under the EPBC Act. The Government also decided that assessment would be done by Walker Group preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Of the 1,453 actions referred to Canberra under the EPBC Act, only 49 (3.3%) have been required to do an EIS.
The story of the Toondah Harbour referrals was well told by ABC’s Steve Cannane in The Bird and the Businessman, aired in late 2018.
While the 2018 story focuses on Walker Group’s efforts to prevent the Toondah Harbour project from being declared clearly unacceptable it includes this curious response from former Mayor Karen Williams to a question from ABC interviewer Steve Cannane.
Steve Cannane: When you first wanted this development done, did you know this was a Ramsar-listed wetland?
Karen Williams: There are elements of the whole of Moreton Bay that are under Ramsar, I didn’t understand the impacts of Ramsar at that point in time.
Redland City Council had been considering development plans at Toondah Harbour since 2006, two years after Karen Williams was first elected as a local councillor. Expert consultants had explained consistently in various reports to the Council that any development at Toondah Harbour could be constrained by shorebird habitat and impacts on the Moreton Bay Ramsar site.
In 2007, Holland Project Services said: Any proposal to undertake major works in the marine park environment will most likely trigger a Commonwealth Government review of the proposal under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation (EPBC) Act, as the Commonwealth government administers Australia’s obligations under international agreements such as RAMSAR.
In 2008, GHD said: The site for the proposed Harbour facilities lies in a very sensitive marine environment. The site lies within the Moreton Bay Marine Park, an extensive RAMSAR site that is afforded a high level of protection from harmful development or change.
If Karen Williams and her fellow councillors had paid more attention to their consultants, the Toondah story might have been very different.
Environment impact statements
Walker Group spent many years preparing its Draft Toondah Harbour EIS which was put out for public consultation in 2022. Through the Draft EIS consultation process, about 26,000 people made submissions with 86% opposing Walker Group’s proposed development.
On 9th April 2024 the then Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek announced her intention to not approve Walker Group’s Toondah Harbour proposal.
Walker Group withdrew its proposal on 18 April 2024, saying it needed an “appropriate amount of time” to consider the proposed decision and determine “whether an alternative scheme would be viable for the project partners” i.e. the Queensland Government and Redland City Council. That was eighteen months ago.
The experience of Toondah Harbour and Walker Group’s Draft EIS has prompted the Stradbroke Island Management Organisation (SIMO) to submit that environmental impact statements should be done independently, by consultants appointed by the Government.
SIMO’s submission to the Senate inquiry considering the proposed new national environment laws says that the process for preparing EIS reports is “completely flawed” and suggests that all EIS reports are created independently with project proponents paying the cost but the work done by independent consultants appointed by the Government. SIMO’s two-page submission is republished below.
Proposed new National Environment Laws
Following a huge election win in May, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese tasked his new Environment Minister Murray Watt with reforming the national environment laws which were found, five years ago, to be “not fit for purpose” by independent reviewer Professor Graeme Samuel.
Most Australians (96%) want the environment better protected with 75% supporting stronger environment protection laws, according to a demographically representative survey of 3,559 people done this year for the Biodiversity Council.
YouGov polling finds that 68% of all voters agree that national environment laws should protect our environment from climate change. 70% agree that national environment laws should consider the impacts of climate change when assessing fossil fuel projects.
New legislation (the Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills) was passed by the House of Representatives recently and Environment Minister Watt wants the Senate approval next week, the last sitting week before Christmas.
An important consideration should be whether or not the new laws will actually ensure that misconceived projects, such as destroying the Toondah wetlands, are ruled out immediately. At present, the proposed new laws include:
- Provide for projects that are in the national interest to be approved by the Minister, even if they do not meet certain requirements
- Allow project proponents the option to pay for destruction instead of being directly responsible for offsetting project impacts.
- Update provisions for accrediting state and territory governments to do assessments, and approvals.
- Establish the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) to undertake regulatory and implementation functions
- Provide for national environmental standards to be made, varied and revoked by the Environment Minister
- Make it clear that projects with unacceptable impacts on nationally protected matters can no longer be approved.
The Senate Inquiry into the Federal Government’s Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills is due to report back on 24 March 2026. Anyone can make a submission about the proposed new laws. To date, 76 submissions from environment groups, business lobby groups and others have been published on the Inquiry’s website. The deadline for submissions is 5 December 2026.
The Labor Party doesn’t have a majority in the Senate so it needs to do a deal with either The Greens, or some of the Coalition senators.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley says she is open to a deal if the Government will agree to “sensible amendments” wanted by the business sector e.g. reduced powers for the proposed National Environmental Protection Agency, retention of streamlined approval pathways, and lower penalties.
The Greens say they want improved environmental protection, an end to logging native forests, and provisions to deal with climate change. The Greens spokesperson Senator Sarah Hansen-Young slammed the Government’s proposed laws, saying:
We know that the legislation … has big business’s, the miners’ and the loggers’ grubby fingerprints all over it. There are more loopholes. There are more get-out-of-jail-free cards for the business lobby, the miners and the loggers. There are, however, no guaranteed protections for our forests, for our climate. There are no guaranteed protections for our endangered species.
Redlands2030 – 24 November 2025
Update – Government passes new laws with support from The Greens
The Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 and six related bills were passed by the Senate on Thursday 278 November with support from The Greens who negotiated some significant amendments. The amended version of the legislation was then passed in the House of Representatives on 28 November 2025. Here are some news stories about the passing of this legislation:
Labor strikes deal with Greens to end environmental reform stalemate – ABC news 27 November 2025
What a wonderful submission from SIMO! It perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with the system. Developer paying and shopping around for provision of EIS reports by consultants distorts the whole decision-making process. The developers should still pay for reports which should be done by independently chosen consultants. This would stop a lot of the bias and misinformation in the reports. I don’t think the new laws will work if they don’t include this safeguard. And as for the minister being able to override decisions, this is another way that the laws can be circumvented! Very disappointing.
I agree with Lynn Roberts that the criticism of the Walker Corporation Toondah Harbour Proposal by Stradbroke Island Management Authority (SIMO) was very well done. As a marine biologist with a PhD completed in Moreton Bay, I would like to add that the EIS presented by Walker Corporation was lacking or completely false in many areas. First of all, they confused humpback whales with humpback dolphins. The latter do exist but not in Moreton Bay or even south of Fraser Island. So that section was completely false. Secondly, they indicated that the dredging of high sulphate soils would not contaminate important seagrass areas which are the feeding grounds of dugong in the Bay. Even the federal government challenged that statement. Thirdly, they claimed that lights operating throughout the nights over years of construction would have little or no adverse effects on marine life. Yet just up at Baggara near the Mon Repos Turtle egg laying area the local Council ensures that streetlights are dimmed during the months of turtle egg laying. So, it appears that Walker Corporation employed people who would say what they wanted them to say. I wrote five letters to the Federal Environment Minister, Tanya Plibersek, outlining a number of errors with that 5,000-page EIS. Many other people wrote letters to the environment minister criticising a multitude of errors in the EIS. They included people from Birdlife Australia, Australian Conservation Foundation and Redlands 2030.
…Bargara, Mon Repos Turtle egg laying area/time. Yes – this is true and good on the Council for doing this…dimming the street lights during the turtle breeding/egg laying season. I originally come from Bundaberg – and we used to go to the beach at night to ensure the ‘laying’ turtles made it to the soft sand ok….and to ensure the hatchlings made it to the sea waters OK as well. It is sad that ‘you’ have to fight for the welfare of all animals/creatures in your area – while other money hungry “people in high places’ just can’t be bothered. Their interest would seem to be ‘lining’ their own pockets…..Thank You for your well written submission….