BY TIM STEWART
BRISBANE In a last-ditch attempt to save Brisbane's inner-city bushland from a private developer, activists led by the Gully Action Group launched daily occupations and pickets of Highgate Hill Gully on October 21, when earth-moving equipment was moved in.
On November 5, the last tree-sitter was removed by the police. He was attempting to protect a Moreton Bay fig tree, which had initially been protected by a court order.
In order to stall work on site, locals have held week long tree-sits 15 metres above the ground; slept with hammocks in dense bush; locked their feet into concrete blocks; and replanted cleared vegetation with mini-gardens overnight. Each day, on rocks to the entrance of the site, the protesters displayed native animals killed by the development, which will include 40 inner-city units on the five-acre site. Signs such as trees don't grow on money and animals need homes too dotted the site.
The campaign to save the Gully began in the 1970s after the Brisbane City Council re-zoned the land for medium density development. Originally the land was publicly owned, but it had been sold in the 1950s. Since re-zoning, the site has been subject to numerous development applications, all vigorously opposed by local residents.
The current campaign initiated by the Highgate Hill Protection Society and now led by the Gully Action Group has run a frustrating course of legal and consultative processes through planning and environmental courts and Brisbane City Council.
Home to native species and rainforest trees up to 35 metres tall, the waterway and wildlife corridor could have easily been maintained as a nature reserve or modeled into a city farm community project, like other areas of Brisbane. But the insatiable appetite for destruction of the developer has driven a successful dodge and weave through various government by-laws and environmental protection and heritage legislation. Even the use of Brisbane City Council's Bushland preservation levy to preserve the land for community use has been deemed inappropriate.
Local corporate media have recently taken a keen interest in the pitched battle between activists and police. While protesters' tactics have been described as sinister and ugly, the Police Safety Response Team allowed security dogs to bite protesters. The worst injuries sustained by police were when logged trees fell on top of them.
The developer hoped to clear the site in two days, but protesters' actions have stalled it for nearly two weeks. At one point, delegates from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union called for a work ban on the site, due to safety concerns.
Site developer Clembury Pty Ltd claimed the protests are an enormous waste of taxpayers' dollars in the October 23 Courier Mail.
The Gully Action Group, however, has pointed out the frustrations of opposing unbridled development through official channels. The Save the Gully campaign, it argues, is not just an ecological issue but an issue of local democracy and consultation, which has been sadly lacking in this and other development issues.
The group has asked supporters to call on the state and local government to review the Integrated Planning Act as it is a farce and does not allow for community control over important issues facing local communities, such as the Gully, which is symbolic of the need for greater control by communities over their future to ensure social and environmental sustainability.
Ironically, one of the key decision makers in approving the development, local Councillor Tim Quinn, now Brisbane City Council (BCC) chief of local government planning, stated in April 1990: Even the briefest glance at aerial photography of the suburb reveals the importance of this large piece of green undeveloped space to the highly developed suburbs of the inner southside.
In a submission to BCC in 1990 he stated, I would suggest that council most seriously consider acquiring this land for public and environmental purposes. Although this may involve considerable initial outlay, future generations in Brisbane would praise the foresight of such a move.
Around 70 members of the Gully Action Group stormed the city council chambers on October 29, chanting and demanding an audience. In order to keep the protesters from the public gallery, BCC Mayor Jim Soorley held a private audience with a delegation of the activists. Their request that the BCC offer $1.5 million to buy back the Gully was rejected outright by Soorley, who said no funds were available.
By November 8, the tree sitters were being forcibly removed. However, a committee with local MP and Queensland education minister Anna Bligh, councillor Tim Quinn and federal member Arch Bevis, all Labor Party members, is considering the possibility of siting a joint community/government educational project at the Gully.
This proposal is a no more than a face-saving attempt for the ALP, which is under pressure from the popular campaign. While the bulldozers move in, due process and appeals to the political decision makers are painstakingly played out. The pace at which a natural habitat for 60 species of flora and fauna has been turned into bare earth has been as breathtaking as the ALP's attempt to portray itself as a defender of community interests.
Gully Action Group spokesperson Brendan Radford told Green Left Weekly of some of the more unbelievable moments in the Gully campaign, including an outburst from Quinn declaring that Gully had been saved because the bottom 25% of the site had not been totally cleared.
As shaun wrote on the Brisbane Indymedia web site on November 1, This event has brought to a head many issues and will be remembered for a long time as a turning point of historical and political significance in Brisbane. Government impotency, police powers and corruption, double standards in occupational health and safety law, media sensationalism and bias and general apathy all contributed.
Fundraisers, including parties and film nights, in support of this spirited campaign are continuing. To get in touch with the campaign email <gullyactiongroup@yahoo.com.au>.
From Green Left Weekly, November 13, 2002.
Visit the Green Left Weekly
home page.