Minister Murray Watt Interview with 4BC (Transcript)

Transcript: 4BC interview 14/1/26 3.27 PM
Gary Hardgrave and Minister Murray Watt
‘Why Minister Murray Watt rejected the bid to halt Victoria Park construction’

4BC: The environment minister has rejected an urgent application to stop construction work on Brisbane's Olympic Paralympic Stadium at Big Park. The minister is Murray Watts. He has determined that an indigenous group's application for him to issue a stop work notice has not met the required threshold. 
The minister is on the line now. Um, Murray, thank you for your time jumping on. So quickly, what was the indigenous group's argument, and why did you reject it?

 MW: Good afternoon. Yeah, g'day, Ben. Good to be with you, and thanks for the chance to explain this decision. 
Just so your listeners understand, uh, what this is really about is that, uh, there's a federal law which allows the federal environment minister to issue a declaration to stop work on a site if it's to protect a significant aboriginal heritage area. If it's under spread of injury or desecration is the sort of wording of the age. So it's really about allowing a federal minister to step in if there's a risk of some sort of damage to a significant aboriginal site. 

And one example you might remember from a few years ago was when we saw Juukan Gorge in Western Australia, a cave with lots of incredibly important indigenous rock art blown up by a mining company. So the idea is to try to protect those sort of things from happening. And in this case, there has actually been 5 applications filed by different indigenous individuals, seeking those sorts of declarations over part of Victoria Park. 

One of those applications has been withdrawn, and there was one urgent application that was made about some of the preliminary works, the drilling of bore holes and things like that. So what I've done since those applications have been lodged, and particularly the urgent one, is obviously considered the evidence that was provided to me, consult the parties, and what I've found is that the area that concerned does have cultural significance to local indigenous people. Uh, it is, you know, uh, long-term burial sites. 

There's all sorts of ceremonies that continue to occur in particular parts of this park to this day. So I was satisfied that there is cultural significance, but I wasn't satisfied of the 2nd requirement under the act, which was that I had to find, that it was under serious and immediate threat of being damaged. And given that I found that it wasn't under that kind of serious and immediate threat, then there were no grounds to issue that urgent declaration. 
But what I have done is instruct my department to appoint an independent facilitator, to work with the parties, so the Queensland government, the relevant indigenous applicants, to talk through these issues. Because as I say, the evidence does show to me that there is cultural significance in some of these sites to this day. I think probably there can be more discussion between the parties that what's, than what has occurred so far, and I'm sure that there is a way for the issues that people have been raising to be resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties. 

4BC: Minister, there's 2 points here that I want to ask about. One, when I spoke to the architects, the design of the stadium, there still hasn't actually been a place where it's going to go yet. That hasn't been determined. 
They've got an idea, but they don't know exactly where it's going to go. So I know this was about the drilling works, but one, how can you stop work on something that we haven't even decided exactly where it's going to go? And two, and I've heard these questions asked by members of the public before. There's a golf course there. There's a driving range there. There's businesses already there. Where have these cultural concerns been in the past? Why are they just raising their head now?

MW: I understand why people would be asking those questions, Ben. 
That's an area I know well as a Brisbane resident myself. And to answer your 1st question, you're right. The final site of the stadium is still being determined. But what the evidence showed, and what is occurring now, is that there are sort of preliminary works that are being undertaken, partly to determine the final site of Stadium and the Aquatic Centre. So, you know, drilling, getting soil samples, those kinds of things. And the argument that was being made was that even those sorts of preliminary works could damage the cultural heritage that remains in place in Victoria Park. 
And so what I had to decide was whether, 1st of all, whether that cultural significance existed, and secondly, whether that kind of preliminary works, you know, represented an urgent threat of damage, and that's what I did not find was the case, which is why I have an issued that declaration.

In terms of Victoria Park, more broadly, as I say, you know, I recognise that this is an area that's been used for a golf course and other purposes for some time. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is no cultural significance in the area. And without going into an enormous amount of detail, you know, some of the, there are areas there and trees there that remain significant from a cultural perspective to local indigenous people. I think we do need to consider those sorts of things in terms of where buildings are erected, and all I can presume is that the previous work that's occurred at Victoria Park didn't interfere with that kind of thing, but potentially, depending where the stadium exists and is sited, it could interfere with that. But as I say, the whole purpose of appointing that facilitator is to get the different parties together. 

It may well be the case that the design can be done and the site can be found in a way that doesn't interfere with that cultural significance and be a win-win for everyone concerned. Let's type it is a win-win.

4BC: Speaking of, well, let's see, if taxpayers are winning on this, who's paying for the mediator? 

MW: Uh, that will be paid for by my department. You know, of course, if anyone involved wants to chip in, we won't say no.

4BC: Do the groups, do the groups who bring in the applications or actions, have to pay? 
I mean split. You go halves, right?

MW: Well, we're prepared to fund that, because I think it is in everyone's interest to try to bring these issues to a head and to resolve them. As I said, you know, there are now, you know, having made this decision and with one of those applications being withdrawn, there are still 3 applications on foot, um, that I will need to make a decision about. And as I say, if through, you know, funding, a mediation, we can resolve these issues in a way, uh, that satisfies all the parties involved, then I think that's a pretty good investment.