Des Hougton: Waste fight reveals lobbying tactics

The case surrounding a proposed $200 million South East Queensland recycling and waste disposal plant provides a fascinating dig into the entrails of the lobbying industry, writes Des Houghton.

A $200M recycling and waste disposal plant at Ipswich is a step closer after opponents failed comprehensively to block it in the Supreme Court.

Justice Paul Freeburn dismissed all five of the main objections raised by the opponents.

At one stage he said there was “something quite unrealistic in this submission by the joint applicants”.

To my mind the decision was good news for Brisbane – and Ipswich. A new plant will avert a potential environmental catastrophe as Brisbane runs out of landfill sites.

The Wanless Recycling Park at Ebenezer seeks to recycle half of all the waste it receives.

The court case could not have been more timely, with Queensland shown this week to be the worst-performing mainland state for resource recovery and diverting waste from landfill.

Ipswich to the rescue. With proper safeguards, the abandoned open cut and underground coal mines at Ipswich offer the ideal landfill sites, and have done so for decades.

Shamefully, it has taken five years of misinformation and what I call “lawfare” to get Wanless Recycling Park up to the starting line.

Dean Wanlessm who proposes a $50m waste disposal and recycling plant at Ipswich on the site of an abandoned open-cut mine. Picture: Des Houghton

The opposition to the project was led by waste disposal majors Austin BMI and Veolia, who no doubt saw Wanless as a rival. A community group known as “Ashwood and others” joined the action maintaining the Wanless project was “incompatible” with their human rights. They, too, were rebuffed by Freeburn.

In court, the objectors challenged the authority of the Deputy Premier and Minister for Planning Steven Miles to call-in an application made by Wanless for the project to proceed. They lost on all counts.

Last week in the Supreme Court the opponents sought an injunction preventing Miles from making a call-in decision. It, too, was dismissed.

The case was seen in legal circles as a substantial political and legal victory for Miles, confirming the rights of planning ministers to “call in” projects in the public interest.

The decision effectively takes the approvals out of the hands of Ipswich City Council that had only partially approved the large project.

The challengers claimed the call-in was unreasonable because Miles showed “apprehended bias” towards Wanless.

Freeburn said he was “not satisfied” that the office of the Deputy Premier gave any special treatment to Wanless’s call-in request.

The case provided a fascinating dig into the entrails of the lobbying industry, with the Freeburn decision providing a most comprehensive checklist on the legalities and potential pitfalls.

An aerial map showing the proposed Wanless recycling park.

That drama centred on contacts with the State Government by Anacta Strategies for Wanless and by former Brisbane Lord Mayor Jim Soorley, who held office from 1991 to 2003. Soorley is the project manager for Wanless park. Anacta and Soorley were cleared of wrongdoing.

“Two of Anacta’s directors, David Nelson and Evan Moorhead, were directly involved in that firm’s lobbying activities,” Freeburn noted.

“Both played a substantial role in the ALP’s successful campaign in the 2020 state election. Mr Moorhead was the State Secretary of the ALP.”

In September 2021 after Ipswich Council’s partial refusal of Wanless’s application, Nelson phoned the Deputy Premier’s chief of staff, Danielle Cohen to say Wanless would be making a call-in request of Miles, the court heard.

“Mr Nelson and Ms Cohen had each other’s mobile telephone number because they had known each other for many years,” Freeburn said.

“Ms Cohen’s mobile phone number was on the signature block for her emails, and so anybody who had received an email from Ms Cohen would have her mobile phone number.”

Freeburn didn’t have a problem with any of this.

“It is true that ordinary citizens do not have such easy access to a Minister’s chief of staff,” he said.

“But any reasonable observer looking at this situation would be realistic enough to recognise that the halls of politics are not occupied by people who are strangers to each other.

“Relationships, and continuing relationships, are a part of the political process. Importantly, though, the fact that Mr Nelson and Ms Cohen knew each other merely led to Mr Nelson making this courtesy call. It did not lead to any substantive advantage. No barriers have been shown to have been evaded by reason of the personal relationship.”

The judge added: “There is no evidence, and no reasonable inference available, that Ms Cohen was influenced by something communicated to her in these calls, and it was not put to her that she was influenced by something substantive communicated to her by Mr Nelson.”

The Ashworth parties had criticised Miles’s office for its willingness to entertain “favourable relations” with Nelson and Soorley.

“However, the evidence does not establish anything that could be characterised as ‘favourable relations’ or the receipt of lobbying. In short, nothing substantive appears to have been communicated in any of the three phone calls,” Freeburn said.

In October 2021 Soorley telephoned State Planner Kerry Doss, the Deputy Director-General of the Department of Local Government and Planning to tell him Wanless would request a call-in. Doss “relayed” the news to a liaison officer in Miles’s department.

“The call can also be characterised as a courtesy call,” Freeburn said.

Nelson was grilled at one hearing by Saul Holt KC for the opponents.

Anacta’s donations to the ALP were revealed but were of no relevance to the Wanless application.

Freeburn said “donations and lobbying are part of the political process”.

“There is nothing in the legislation that prohibits donations by a lobbyist. Whether desirable or not, the legislative context makes clear that, subject to appropriate regulation, parties are entitled to make donations to political parties.

“They are entitled to lobby decision-makers.”

He said he expected lobbyists “to make representations and donations to political decision-makers”.

The court heard Wanless requested the call-in on October 1, 2021.

Four weeks later, on October 28, Anacta made a $30,000 donation to the ALP. A further donation of $5,500 was made by Anacta on November 17.

Twelve days later Miles approved the recommendation to issue a proposed call-in notice.

Anacta made “frequent but irregular donations” to the ALP between from 2019 to 2022.

“Those donations comprise 38 irregular amounts totalling $129,248, with a range from $100 to $30,000, and an average of just over $3,400,” Freeburn noted.

“The two largest amounts, $28,950 on 30 May 2021 and $30,000 on 28 October 2021.”

He pointed out that Wanless was just one of many Anacta clients including the Downer Group, Football Queensland, Glencore, Griffith University, Lion Beer Spirits, Queensland Motorways, and Tabcorp.

Critically, “there is no evidence of any connection between the Anacta donations and Wanless”.

The court also heard that lobbying became a focal point of the Coaldrake Report which found a lack of openness and accountability.

Later, State Cabinet banned Nelson and Moorhead from lobbying the Queensland Government for the remainder of the Government’s term.