By Liz Phelps
The future of Beecroft Peninsula, the spectacular northern arm of Jervis Bay, remains far from certain despite federal environment minister Ros Kelly's recent announcement of plans to establish a Jervis Bay National Park.
While Kelly plans to declare the Commonwealth's Jervis Bay Territory land and waters on the southern side of the bay a national park by the end of the year, whether Beecroft is to be included in this National Park depends on the Department of Defence, which manages and controls the peninsula on the NSW south coast.
Earlier this year, controversy erupted over a military exercise, "Operation Termite Spray", on the peninsula. The three-week exercise, involving 500 troops in loading and unloading manoeuvres — "Logistics Over The Shore (LOTS)" in military terminology — damaged vegetation, wetlands, seagrass beds and an Aboriginal site.
The political fallout included accusations that the government had misled parliament in an attempt to cover up the environmental damage and renewed calls from conservationists for the area to be protected once and for all in a national park.
The bulk of the peninsula is owned by the Commonwealth and managed by the Department of Defence, which uses a portion as a practice range for naval bombardment. Yet the area has also been listed on the Register of the National Estate because of its diverse range of vegetation, rare plant, bird and mammal species and its Aboriginal and historical significance.
The federal government first pledged to establish a national park in March 1990, following abandonment of plans for the relocation of the Naval Fleet Base from Sydney to Jervis Bay. Since then a major obstacle has been the proposed transfer of the Newington Armaments Depot to Jervis Bay, with wharf facilities to be constructed on the western side of Beecroft.
According to Maurice Hermann, a Defence Department liaison officer, this proposal remains firmly on the government's agenda. He says the minister has received a report identifying Jervis Bay as the preferred location.
Conservationists claim the environmental integrity of Beecroft is being jeopardised by the continued operations of the Department of Defence.
John Higgens, secretary of the Jervis Bay Protection Committee, says, "The Defence Department don't have the manpower, the money or the will to manage that area as a conservation resource. It's managed as a military resource, so there's a conflict."
Janet Mayer, from the Australian Conservation Foundation's Shoalhaven branch, expresses alarm at the environmental damage caused by the military, including a bombardment-related fire in January which burnt sula.
"They damage the environment, Aboriginal sacred sites, they cause erosion to land which is on the National Estate", says Mayer. "What's the value of putting something on the National Estate when you can go ahead and treat it like that?"
'Cover-up'
In the Senate, Democrat environment spokesperson John Coulter accused the government of inadequately assessing the exercise's potential environmental impact and of then attempting to cover up evidence of damage, in particular the unnecessary cutting down of trees and clearing of new tracks. Coulter was also concerned that the Australian Heritage Commission had not been consulted prior to the exercise.
Coulter's assertions were based on information in minutes written to naval officers stationed at Jervis Bay from the two ACT Parks and Conservation Service rangers employed on Beecroft under contract to the Defence Department.
The minutes, written between May 13 and June 9, identified "several practices in the ongoing Army LOTS exercise which have the potential to cause serious and long-term environmental damage".
According to the minutes, approximately 20 truck loads of sand were removed from a beach, new tracks were opened, and camp sites were cleared unnecessarily. Trees were felled, several heavy vehicles were driven through a wetland, and a temporary laundry/shower arrangement was erected on an Aboriginal midden.
The CSIRO has since reported damage, sustained during the army exercise, to Jervis Bay's seagrass beds over an area of 2900 square metres.
'Temporary' damage
Commodore Rob Partington, the naval commander in charge of operations at Jervis Bay, issued the environmental certificate of compliance for Termite Spray. According to Partington, there was no requirement for the Australian Heritage Commission to be consulted, because in his assessment the potential environmental damage to Beecroft was likely to be only temporary.
"When I weigh it up I say, well, is it going to be any lasting damage or is it only temporary? Now, if it's only temporary, then because of my other competing priorities I say, well, all right, I'll live with that, and that's what happened here."
He says that the two naval rangers on Beecroft were consulted in this environmental impact assessment.
This is contrary to information in a minute from one of the rangers to three naval officers, including Partington, which clearly states that "the rangers were not involved in assessing of environmental impact before the Environment Certificate of Compliance ... was issued".
Substantial evidence of cleared tracks and felled trees was conveyed to naval officers in ranger minutes dated May 19 and 21.
The rangers stated they had "discovered the remains of a number of tree stumps and foliage ... as all public access has been excluded from this area for the duration of the LOTS exercise, we must only assume that the army has felled these trees."
When questioned in the Senate regarding this damage by Senator Coulter on May 29, Graham Richardson, representing the minister for the environment, replied, "I am advised that Defence did do some temporary environmental damage to Beecroft Peninsula. I am also advised that no trees were cut down and no new tracks were bulldozed."
However, naval officers at Jervis Bay had been alerted over a week earlier to the fact that new tracks were cleared and trees cut down during the defence exercise. This caused Coulter to conclude a cover-up was taking place.
Defence minister Robert Ray subsequently stated in the Senate on June 6 that he obtained no evidence of naval officials' prior knowledge of these matters until May 30, after Richardson's statement. While it was beyond doubt that some trees were cut down, he said, "there is no direct evidence that the Army cut down those trees", although he said the circumstantial evidence certainly pointed in that direction.
Says Commodore Partington, "I recognise that there was a bit of damage done there, and I make no secret of the fact that there were a couple of things go on that I reckon could have been avoided ... cutting a couple of trees down and a truck got lost and drove in a swamp and made a big track in there ... You can't put a bunch of young people of that number around, then watch them 24 hours a day for three or four weeks. It's just impossible."
A role for Defence?
And this is the crux of the matter. If the area is to be included in a national park, can there realistically be a continuing role for Defence on Beecroft?
Speaking on Radio National's weekly environment program Earthworm on September 4, Ros Kelly said that while ideally she would like to see exercises like Termite Spray and the bombardment of Beecroft halted, she believes that the existing bombardment zone can be excluded from a national park covering the peninsula.
Partington certainly sees a continuing role for the navy on Beecroft. "We run that as a national park for over eight months of the year now. Anytime there's Christmas, school holidays, weekends, most of the time, it's open to anybody and I tell you what, there isn't any other gunnery range around this country that is open like that."
John Higgens comments, "I think it's a fairly long stretch of the bow to say that bombardment ranges are one of the compatible uses with a national park. I think you would be creating a world precedent ... The reason it is incompatible was amply demonstrated when 30% of Beecroft was burnt out as a result of an accidental overfiring during naval bombardment."
The peninsula's high environmental value warrants inclusion in a ham Beech of the ACT Parks and Conservation Service. "When you wander around there, you wonder why it isn't a national park. I'm sure I've been in national parks which are of a much lower quality."