Randwick's Green Mayor Murray Matson states that both his own Council and the Southern Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils (SSROC) have made submissions critical of the proposed Port Botany expansion EIS.

Clr Murray Matson directly criticised the EIS's clause 26.3.3 that is titled "Implications of the Social Profile".

The EIS states that the social impact assessment is focused on four communities that would potentially be affected by an expansion, these being:

1) Users of Foreshore Beach and the Bay itself for recreational activities such as fishing;

2) The community living close to the expansion area;

3) Randwick City and City of Botany Bay Councils; and

4) The Sydney metropolitan community as a whole.

Clr Matson reports that the SSROC Councils consider that the EIS is focused too much on the third of these communities ie the broader population of the two Councils.

Clr Matson elaborated,

"SSROC has made the point that it considers that the Foreshore Beach and Bay users along with the local community of the area next to the expansion would be impacted on negatively.

"Further more, SSROC's submission states that the broader Sydney community has not been adequately considered given the fact that many authorities have in the recent past pushed for a 'whole of bay' approach.

"The EIS is concentrating too much on just the impact across the two northern Councils and should have made an effort to understand the broader Botany Bay community as well."

Councillor Matson thinks that poorer areas of NSW could have accommodated and benefited from the new port facilities.

On this matter he points out that the SSROC submission clashes with the EIS over its' reference to the socio-demographic characteristics of the two local Councils.

The EIS states in one place that,

"*the social profile indicates that the Port Botany Expansion would not impact significantly on people in the Randwick and Botany LGAs due their socio-economic status."

The SSROC submission responds by stating,

"SSROC assumes that this very brave statement refers to the fact that unemployment levels are low (just over 5%). Such an argument only adds weight to greater consideration being given to the alternative locations, where unemployment is much higher and the development would have a more positive social impact."

The Randwick City Council submission is even more disparaging of the EIS's implied claim in clause 6.3.3.

The SSROC submission politely described the EIS claim that there would be no significant impact on the two Council populations as "very brave".

The Council disputes the comment much more directly and submits that not enough note is taken of the very different nature of the local Matraville suburb to the rest of the Council area. Its submission states,

"The Matraville and surrounding suburbs have characteristics significantly different from the rest of the Randwick LGA. *

* They have a higher proportion of family households in single dwellings. These families also comprise a high proportion of children and teenagers as well as people over 40 and the 70+ age group compared the rest of Randwick LGA. While the income levels in the suburb are at the lower (end) than the Randwick average the unemployment rate is also one of the lowest.

*. In the absence of quantitative social impact assessment or rating criteria it is difficult to ascertain that the social impact 'would not be serious'."

Clr Matson summed up by stating,

"The EIS proposal document has failed to acknowledge the distinct nature the local community that will be effected by erroneously assuming that they are largely identical economically and socially to the rest of the Botany and Randwick Council populations.

"Further more, the EIS is at fault by concentrating too much on the two northern Councils and some what ignoring everyone else living around or near Botany Bay.

"These glaring omissions have led SSROC and Randwick to be highly critical of the EIS's claim that there will be little serious social impact from the planned expansion."