Case Study: Activism, Industry and Community Interactions in Kurnell

While the main focus of this article is on the theme of activism and the way in which the values held by society, authority and residents can lead to conflict, I have attempted to approach this in an interdisciplinary matter such that the development of industry and community at Kurnell is examined in relation to dominant social movements, legal and scientific developments. In this way the events which occur on the peninsula can be examined in an interdisciplinary fashion which allows more extensive meaning to be drawn than from the simple examination of history or legal or industrial development. This article will proceed chronologically through the history of Kurnell attempting to draw in multiple factors surrounding major events such that we may examine the way in which these factors may influence the future of the peninsula. How different industries have developed in kurnell, and the presence and levels of activism in the community are closely related, but the perceptions and values held about the environment are also a significant part of this complex relationship. The level of success of activism in achieving positive outcomes in Kurnell and potential factors which increase or decrease the perception of success of activism will also be examined. Industry may promote resident activism when the values of the community or certain groups are infringed upon. It is also the influence of changes in the values held by society relating to industry and the environment, and the extent to which these views are concurrent which influences the level to which certain groups may feel that activism is needed to make a difference or have their views incorporated into official discourse.

Kurnell has had a long history of both being valued for its environmental and aesthetic values as well as its economic potential. Prior to the arrival of European colonists, there has been much evidence which supports the theory of extensive use of the area by Indigenous peoples. Following the European settlement at Sydney Bay, the area was considered too wild for human habitation and as such the area began to be considered primarily in terms of its value to the establishment of the colony. 

One of the key things which could influence the way in which the community responds to industry depends on how the way in which the ways in which the area is valued is affected by the development. For example, there was little protest when the original farming of the area began, in 1815, as this use of the land was consistent with the values which were held by both the colonial government at the time, and the majority of the European born population. This was a result of the dominant way in which the environment was valued at the time, as a resource through which human progress can be encouraged. While farming of the area was relatively unsuccessful, the area became valued instead for the wood and sand which it could provide as building materials for the colony. The establishment of a ferry established Kurnell peninsula as a recreational area was really one of the first ways in which area was valued in terms of its natural environment. This aesthetic valuing of the area has continued to the present day, with many of the current residents choosing the area for its natural views and the feeling of remoteness from the city. 

The toxic industry zoning of part of the Kurnell peninsula occurred in the 1950s at a period of time in which the development of the chemical industry was given many benefits as the increased development of pesticides and fertilizers were seen to be the way forward for developed societies. This was prior to the birth of the environmental or sustainability movement. In this way the use of the peninsula reflected the economic priorities of the government at the time. It was also this faith in scientific, particularly chemical, industries which prompted the state government of the time to approve the Kurnell oil refinery. This approval essentially forced the Cumberland County Council, which had already denied the application, to rezone 174 hectares which was then purchased for the oil refinery. It is interesting to consider that this action continued despite community outcry. While it is generally considered that a key benefit of industry is in providing jobs to the local community, most of the workers in the oil refinery were initially Dutch migrants housed separate from the community. So while the refinery did not initially provide employment to locals, the presence of these Dutch workers and their families ultimately changed the character of the local community. 

As with many other areas in Sydney, there was a distinct increase in resident activism in the 1980s and 1990s. This was a reaction, in part to the increased contact between high density residential areas and industry, especially toxic industry. As the city expanded, Kurnell became increasingly identifiable as a part of the Sydney metropolitan area. This subtly influenced the way in which the area was valued as there became an increased idea of a community identity distinct from that of the city proper. This feeling developed despite the increase in population being partially due to the decreased distance between the community and metropolitan facilities. However, the former fishing village identity of the community is still a significant part of the way in which the community is viewed by both residents and outsiders. 

In September 1985, one of the most significant conflicts between industry and residents began. It was at this time that land clearing began for the first development associated with the 4c4 toxic industry zoning which had been given to the area. Despite the fact that this change in zoning had significant ramifications for the Kurnell Peninsula in terms of effects on both the community and environment, there was no community consultation. The inquiry into the effects of the zoning change was discontinued before it was complete and no findings were published before the zoning was changed. 

In response to the huge public outcry, and the consolidation of all concerned citizens and action groups into the Kurnell Action Group a public committee was conducted in 1987 before the AGL petrochemical plant was approved. While this hearing mainly confirmed that the content of an environmental impact statement and “soft” promises can be made to manipulate public approval, it was useful for the group to gain experience. While the AGL plant was approved, the Bayer application for a pesticide plant was approved with much stricter conditons based on a similar hearing in which the Kurnell Action Group took a much harder stance. Through insisting that the environmental and community promises made by Bayer would be kept, and pursuing multiple other cases to ensure compliance, the German chemical company abandoned its already sizable investment as uneconomic in 1988. 

In the most recent decade there have been two significant events which have changed the way in which development can take place and the public can participate which have had significant impacts on the area and the extent to which residents have felt the need to protest. The first of these changes was the introduction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cth) 1999, which changed the way in which environmental responsibilities are handled at both a state and federal level. While in many ways this act did not actually change the approval or building of any particular development, it meant that the perception of the law was that more was being done to protect the environment. While this did not affect the local area, overall perception was that more was being done to protect the environment. This in turn influenced both the prevalence of and amount of participation in activist groups. While in some cases the act may seem ineffectual, it did give a greater emphasis on protection of the environment, especially in circumstances under which international treaties applied, such as the case of Towra point. 

The second major change in legislation was the introduction of Part 3A of the Environment Planning and Assessment Act (NSW) 1979 in 2008, which allowed the removal of public participation for any development deemed to be a “major project”. One of the key developments to which this applied in Kurnell was the desalination plant, which was approved under the 3A amendment by the New South Wales government in 2008 despite both resident and general community disapproval. There was also further ineffectual protest regarding drilling and construction of the desalination pipeline. In this case it is the values held about both the value of the community identity, as well as the ecological and aesthetic value of the natural environment which caused protest of these developments. Since these recent losses, and since the period of increased activism in the late 80s, many of the resident action groups in Kurnell have decreased in activity and participation levels. This is most likely due to a combination of both the perception that both there is no part of Kurnell’s natural environment which remains truly uncorrupted, and the perception that activism has recently had no effect on the outcome of the decision making process. The future outcomes of environmental and community developments likely hinge on whether these perceptions change in the future. 

Sources

Butler, C., Risser, C. & Khavarpour, F., 1999. Factors associated with participation in resident action groups in metropolitan Sydney: a cross-sectional survey. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(6), pp.634-38.

Costello, L. & Dunn, K., 1994. Resident action groups in Sydney: People power or rat-bags. Australian Geographer, 25(1), pp.61-76.

Smith, G.J., 1990. A case study: Kurnell. In Toxic Cities and the fight to save the Kurnell Peninsula. Sydney: New South Wales University Press. pp.117-63.

Sutherland Shire Environment Council, 2008. Industry Intrudes. [Online] Available at:http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/our_bioregion/kurnell/history/industries/index.htm [Accessed 3 October 2010].

Sydney Morning Herald, 2010. Sydney desalination plant opens. [Online] Available at: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/sydney-desalination-plant-opens-20100128-n0jq.html [Accessed 4 October 2010]