Lot 7 Cnr Barnes & Brooklands Rds
Gleneagle via Beaudesert
Qld 4285
19 August 1992

Dear Mr Goss,

I am speaking as a private person concerning the application of Davis Australian Co. Pty Ltd to construct a gelatine factory and settling ponds on a site adjacent the Logan River at Josephville near Beaudesert. I am not aware of what knowledge you, personally, have of the matter but considering Davis is a subsidiary of a much larger company Goodman Fielder Wattie I expect you have taken some interest.

Our shire councillors voted, on Tuesday 18 August, six to two against the application. In doing so they represented the sentiments of the electorate as evidenced by the large number of objections lodged against the application, many local meetings, opposition through the media and a large petition to council. There is a some support for the application among local business people but this has been overexaggerated through the influence of their most vocal and prominent adherents - the local newspaper proprietor and one of the shire councillors.

Don Petersen, your candidate for our state seat, has expressed publicly his opposition to the Davis application (Super Southsider August 13) citing their unacceptable waste water treatment system. (Please see attached.) In doing so he accurately reflected the feelings and concerns of the electorate. He is to be congratulated - not for having a political nose, but for thinking critically and for going against what is perceived to be, by many people in our community, a deliberate push by state government to accomodate Davis uncritically. (However I must add that Don Petersen has not criticised the State Government on this issue, and denies the government is involved in any but legitimate processes.)

And where do these perceptions, of a government push, come from?
        1. That the reports on the Davis application from DPI and the Dept of Environment and Heritage were favourable gave rise to a sense of incredulity among local people who know the river both in a practical and technical sense. Rumours concerning political imperatives imposed on these reports, and even alterations made to them, have gained considerable credence. That Davis was forced to a second EIS is seen, in the light of subsequent departmental reports, to have been little more than a sop, on the state government's part, to public opposition.
        2. Your government's intention to resite A.J.Bush to Beaudesert Shire has received much publicity. People of the shire are also aware of the stringent set of environmental guidelines which will ensure that should the Bush application be approved, their factory will incorporate the most modern recycling and waste management technology available, resulting in no impact on any natural water systems and minimal, if not beneficial, impact on surrounding soils. For these reasons, and the open attitude displayed by Bush management, there is little opposition to the proposed Bush development. However this only highlights the stark contrast to what your government, or its departmental organs, seems prepared to accept and encourage on our behalf from a large, politically unknown (in Qld) Southern company.

Davis was not prepared to spend the money to conform to environmental guidelines in NSW, and it is now proposing to use our main waterway to flush away its wastes, amounting to 1200 tonnes of salts a year in drought or flood. Up to this point in time Davis have rejected suggestions they apply to build on another site with modern waste management technology.
I rarely get involved in political issues, but the Davis proposal is so blatantly cynical and destructive of our environment I could not sit idly by. This issue has galvanised many others like me.

On our behalf our councillors have said no to a company that wants to turn back the clock fifty years, environmentally speaking. It is probable Davis will lodge an appeal to Council's decision, especially if they feel they have strong government support. If they do so this could very well turn into a state and national media circus where the whole affair will be put under intense scrutiny - scrutiny that Davis's position will not bear.

Another possibility is that the State Government could use some mechanism to overturn the council decision. Whereas situations may arise where this may be necessary, this is not such a situation and would be politically inadvisable. Shire residents support their councillors strongly on this matter and will not accept outside interference meekly.

A more intelligent course would be for Davis to apply to build on a site in a designated industrial area and spend the necessary money to treat their wastes properly. Whether the government wants them desperately enough to subsidise such a scenario is another matter.

Yours faithfully,

Darcy Moore