Developer’s response to objections to an $850 million missile factory in our suburbs

Muloobinba- Newcastle weekly protesting legends outside warmongering MP Pat Conroy’s office

The ruling class wants us to go through the proper processes because they control the proper processes.

The NSW State Government recently published the developer’s response to the 87 public objections to the missile factory at Williamtown to be operated by Norwegian company, Kongsberg’s (more here). The response was prepared by Barr Planning, a local Newcastle consultancy. Barr Planning is living proof that the role of environmental assessors is to (a) make sure the proponent gets what they want by (b) unironically quote inadequate planning regulations that do nothing to protect people or the environment, rather than to inform good planning.

In what is most certainly a tattered cut and paste job cranked out over decades of developer-led development, Barr Planning added the stamp, No modifications required. We recommend that the development be approved. (Barr also assessed the controversial Broadmeadow development and is the consultant of choice for ex-Mayor and developer Geoff McCloy. McCloy infamously appeared before ICAC after giving a former Liberal State MP money in a brown paper bag. That former MP is Tim Owen, now head of Hunter Defence Taskforce. You couldn’t make this stuff up).

Below is a summary of the developer’s response to objections. (Some creative license is used but this is nonetheless accurate)

Our objection: Lack of community consultation

The developer’s response: Thanks for the 87 objections but we don’t need to talk to you because (a) you live outside a 1km radius of the site and (b) we already sent some emails to some computers and put some letters in some letterboxes.

The developer chose to not conduct any further community consultations despite this being a key cause for objection. “No further engagement has been undertaken with the community to respond to issues raised within their submissions. The extent of engagement undertaken in the preparation of the EIS is considered to have been proportionate and appropriate to the impact of the Project.” As noted in the objections, two defence family organisations were contacted, and this may well have involved nothing more than sending an email.

Our objection: Council needs to act ethically

The developer’s response: Council does not need to act ethically

The most sizeable number of reasons for objecting to the development (75%) relate to the need for Councils to act ethically.

Newcastle and Port Stephens Councils’ argument is that the Local Government Act’s requirement for ethical conduct doesn’t apply because they have set up a separate entity to lease land to weapons companies. One of the most astounding sections of the Response states that even under the Local Government Act, ethical conduct is “guiding principles of a general nature [that does not require] Councils to conduct themselves in a particular way... A breach of the principles does not give rise to a cause of action.” 

Having a bob each way, the Councils are telling us that there is no requirement for ethical conduct because (a) they as developers are a corporate entity (presumably where ethics don’t apply) and (b) ethical conduct is discretionary and even when breached the public can’t do anything about it.

Our objection: This is not in the public interest

Developer’s response 1: ‘Public interest’ is non-defined and nebulous (yes, they actually said that)

The Response says that public interest “does not have any fixed meaning…nor, generally speaking, can it be defined. It is not desirable …to prescribe some generally applicable rule [or] give a description”. Sounds as watertight as the concept of “ethical conduct”.

2: The decision maker, aka the war mongering government, will define ‘public interest’

The Response quotes case law stating, “It is largely for the decision-maker…to determine which matters he [sic] regards as relevant and the comparative importance to be accorded to matters”. This is problematic when the decision maker is a state government with a vested interest in and commitment to militarisation (as per NSW Government Defence and Industry Strategy 2017 The Defence Strategy New South Wales: Strong, Smart and Connected [Defence NSW, 2017]). Not to mention the decision maker is of the same party that has super glued us to AUKUS, and which currently has the US breathing down it’s neck to make more weapons and remove export licensing requirements because they are slowing things down.

Developer’s response 3: There are competing views about what is in the public interest

This is despite the fact that all 87 public submissions objected to the development, and the overwhelming international humanitarian law expertise and climate science that tells us making weapons is very, very bad).

Developer’s response 4: Those who object are a small percentage of the population who have “philosophical concerns” with the development.

What can we say? International humanitarian law and the future of the planet are not “philosophical”.

Developer’s response 5: The development is in keeping with the planning frameworks the government (i.e. us) came up with and we’ll ignore all the social, economic and environmental priorities in those plans that it is absolutely not in keeping with.

Our objection: Concerns about the real nature of the development

Developer’s response: We didn’t reveal the operator, we told the public this was for the manufacture of “defence related components” and put this in a zoning category alongside creative industries and artisan food and drinks because we didn’t want to say this is the largest missile factory in the country.

The Response states “Light industry means a building or place used to carry out an industrial activity that does not interfere with the amenity of the neighbourhood by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, vapour, steam, soot, ash, dust, wastewater, waste products, grit or oil, or otherwise”. Yet this development includes an underground waste fuel storage facility on PFAS contaminated land, deliveries made via b-double trucks, and actual missile parts being trucked out.

Our objections: The development is in a bushfire and flood zone, and we’re worried about biodiversity and koala habitat

Developer’s response (SERIOUSLY, DO THEY SEE THE IRONY?): Don’t worry about bushfires because we’ve cleared the vegetation since the zoning was done. You therefore don’t need to worry about biodiversity and koala habitat either because we destroyed that when we cleared the vegetation. We have no idea how to respond to the flood zone issue, so we’ll just ignore it.

We already knew these development processes aren’t established to serve our interests, or the interests of the planet. They are part of the machinery of imperialism and white colonial capitalism. We do demand that this development undergo a public review process, fitting with the seriousness of concerns and the implications for the global community should it go ahead. We will be protesting this development, and should we need to, we will also be disrupting it.