Executive Director Crown Land Estate

Department of Lands, Planning and Environment

Dear Executive Director,

SUBMISSION OF OBJECTION

Proposed Direct Sale of Crown Land (39ha) to Defence Housing Australia (DHA) – Lee Point

1. Failure to Meet the Principle of “Additionality” and “Conservation Gain”

The proposed direct sale involves transferring 39 hectares of existing Crown land into the private corporate hands of a developer to satisfy a federal environmental offset condition. This fundamentally conflicts with Principle 6 of the Commonwealth Environmental Offsets Policy, which explicitly states that an offset must deliver a conservation gain that is new or additional to what is already required or occurring under standard duty of care.

• The Reality of Additionality: While Commonwealth guidelines allow offsets to protect existing habitat to avert a future loss or improve site quality, this specific proposal achieves neither. The land is already part of the public estate and faces no threat of clearing from the public. Transferring the deed to a corporate entity does not inherently create a single new tree hollow, nor does it secure habitat that was otherwise slated for destruction. It is a “paperwork offset” that results in a net loss of public land asset with zero net gain for biodiversity.
• The Management Failure vs. Principle 1 (No Net Loss): To qualify as a valid offset under Principle 1, the management framework must actively improve or maintain the viability of the protected matter (the Black-footed Tree-rat). DHA’s past track record at Lee Point—marked by unauthorized clearing fines and poorly managed, highly flammable Gamba grass—demonstrates that privatizing this land introduces management risks rather than mitigating them. Public rangers are structurally better equipped to handle the intensive weed abatement and strategic fire control required for this specific habitat.
• The Solution: If this 39-hectare parcel is ecologically vital to the survival of the local Black-footed Tree-rat population, the additionality requirement is best served by keeping the land in public hands. It should be permanently protected from future development risk by being formally incorporated into the adjacent Casuarina Coastal Reserve or the Buffalo Creek Management Area under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.

2. Demand for a Rezoning Pre-Condition (CN – Conservation)

Because Crown land contract conditions are strictly confidential, a standard direct sale leaves the public and the environment with absolutely no transparency or legal recourse if DHA’s offset management fails.

To protect the public interest and ensure statutory oversight, the Northern Territory Government must make any potential sale strictly conditional on the land first being rezoned to CN (Conservation) under the NT Planning Scheme.

• Why this is required: Rezoning is an open, public, and statutory process managed by the NT Planning Commission.
• Permanent Watchdog Mechanism: If the land is rezoned to CN first, any future attempt by DHA to develop or alter the use of that land would legally require public exhibition and ministerial approval. This ensures the community retains a permanent watchdog mechanism over the site.

3. Safeguard Public Access and Community Use

Currently, as Crown land, the public retains the right to access this area adjacent to Buffalo Creek for walking, birdwatching, and nature appreciation. A private sale risks locking the community out of a vital natural space.

• The Argument: The contract of sale must explicitly include a public access easement or an open-access covenant.
• Justification via Principle 7: Under Principle 7 of the Commonwealth Environmental Offsets Policy, offsets must be reasonable. Because this land is a “paperwork offset” consisting of existing habitat that creates no new ecological infrastructure, it is entirely unreasonable that the community should lose its long-standing recreational and cultural access just to satisfy DHA’s regulatory checkboxes.
• Balanced Protection: Public access can and should remain open, provided users adhere to designated walking trails designed to protect the Black-footed Tree-rat population.

4. Absolute Transparency of the Offset Management Plan (OMP)

Principle 8 and Principle 10 of the Commonwealth policy explicitly dictate that offset governance and government decision-making must be conducted in a transparent manner. Furthermore, Principle 8 states that annual compliance reports may be made publicly available to ensure enforcement.

• The Argument: If a direct sale is approved despite community objection, the Offset Management Plan (OMP) must not be treated as a confidential corporate document. It must be a public document appended directly to the Darwin Planning Scheme.
• Why it is Required: To satisfy the transparency mandates of the EPBC Act, the public has a right to review the specific threat abatement strategies, binding funding commitments, and annual ecological audit results. This transparency is the only way to ensure the local Black-footed Tree-rat population does not slide further toward extinction.

5. Liability Dumping and the Failure of Long-Term Vesting Arrangements

A critical flaw in the direct sale proposal is the total ambiguity surrounding who will ultimately hold title to, and hold financial liability for, the 39-hectare offset site once DHA completes the residential estate and exits the precinct.

Standard developer practice involves handing over neighborhood parks and suburban infrastructure to the City of Darwin. However, local government councils are neither funded, equipped, nor contractually bound to manage complex, large-scale threatened species habitats requiring intensive threat-abatement operations (such as ongoing Gamba grass eradication and strategic bushfire management for the Black-footed Tree-rat).

• The Conflict with Principle 1 (Long-term Viability): Under Principle 1 of the Commonwealth Environmental Offsets Policy, an offset must be effectively managed to ensure the conservation outcome is delivered for the duration of the impact. If DHA intends to transfer this land asset onto the City of Darwin without a massive, legally binding, perpetual trust fund to cover management costs, the environmental values of the site will inevitably collapse due to municipal budget constraints.
• The Conflict with Principle 8 (Accountability): Principle 8 explicitly mandates that offsets must have transparent governance arrangements, including being able to be readily measured, monitored, and audited. If the land vests with a local council that was not a party to the original EPBC Act approval conditions, enforcing compliance becomes a legal minefield. The public will have no clear line of sight on who is accountable when the habitat degrades.
• The Demand: The terms of the direct sale must explicitly state that this land cannot be transferred to the City of Darwin as standard public open space. If the sale proceeds, the land must either:
  1. Remain the permanent, non-transferable financial liability of the Commonwealth (via DHA/Department of Defence) in perpetuity; or
  2. Be fully funded by a DHA-provided endowment and vested directly with the NT Parks and Wildlife Commission to be managed professionally as an expansion of the Casuarina Coastal Reserve.