CHAPTER 5
5.1 Land based activities are responsible for approximately 80 per
cent of pollution of the marine environment. There was overwhelming
agreement among those making submissions to the inquiry or appearing
before the Committee that marine pollution from land based activities,
particularly from diffuse sources, is the most significant issue that
needs to be addressed.
5.2 In his submission to the Committee's inquiry, Mr Nicholas Brunton
stated that:
The importance of coastal zone management in the context of LBMP
lies in the potential for certain land uses to impact on the health
of coastal marine ecosystems through diffuse sources of LBMP, damage
to wetlands, impervious urban surfaces increasing stormwater run-off,
and harmful coastal modifications, such as incidents associated with
acid sulphate soils.[1]
5.3 An important theme of evidence received by the Committee was the
need to deal with land based sources of marine pollution, rather
than attempt to deal with the problem once pollution of the marine environment
had occurred. Ms Caroline Williams of the University of Tasmania argued
that:
We ... need to move away from the concept of managing water and
pollution from land run-off, stormwater and sewage outfalls towards
managing the human activities that generate pollution and have an impact
on the environment ... So long as the focus remains on the medium (water)
and means of transport ... the battle is over and has been lost ...
once pollutants have been released, particularly into the marine environment,
they become very difficult to control and any action is likely to be
remedial rather than anticipatory.[2]
5.4 CSIRO and AIMS argued in a similar vein, stating that whereas the
management of pollution from ocean sources is largely related to controlling
the behaviour of small groups of people, such as ships' crews and the
fishing industry, and is fairly comprehensively regulated by international
treaties and accompanying domestic legislation, the management of land
based sources of coastal pollution is ultimately a social and political
problem, involving the behaviour of the coastal population of Australia.[3]
5.5 It is only when the entire community, from the agricultural and
industrial sectors to individual households, understands and accepts
the importance of altering its behaviour to ensure the minimal likelihood
of polluting the marine environment, that there will be significant
improvements. This will require considerable leadership from governments
and a continuing process of educating the community.
5.6 Land sourced pollution is complex in character, multi-sectoral in
extent and multi-jurisdictional in spatial terms. It also involves problems
of risk assessment, identification and validation of liability and prospectively
heavy remedial costs. Land sourced marine pollution needs to be tackled
at source, minimising impacts rather than engaging in remediation. The
policies need to be proactive, not reactive, with incentives towards moving
to best practice. Little can be attempted in this regard until we have
the appropriate information about needs and priorities.[4]
5.7 According to Ms Williams:
To date [land based marine pollution] has been dealt with in
a piecemeal and desultory fashion in Australia. Current arrangements
are inadequate. The problem, highlighted in the SOMER report findings,
is set to worsen without concerted and prolonged action to combat it.
Therefore, the call ... in the GPA to develop national action plans,
programs and strategies, to prevent and reduce marine degradation caused
by land based activities, should be heeded. Australia's program of action
... should contain a budget, timetable and assigned tasks and responsibilities.[5]
5.8 Ms Williams suggested a number of factors which might explain the
reluctance of governments to confront the issue of land based marine
pollution, including the ramifications for business and the existing
public acceptance of land based marine pollution. LBMP is strongly linked
with industrial growth and economic development and dischargers can
represent major economic interests and constitute powerful lobbies against
regulation.
5.9 In addition, land based marine pollution is intimately related to
all that we do and is derived mainly from daily or low-level but ongoing
operational discharges. The deleterious results of such discharges into
the marine environment are mostly the result of long-term accumulation
and before significant, visible effects occur people have already accepted
that such discharges are normal and natural.[6]
5.10 It is in this context that education, not only of the community
as a whole but particularly programs built into regular school curricula,
will be so important for increasing awareness and changing attitudes.
These matters are discussed in the following chapter.
5.11 Mr Brunton told the Committee that a framework for the control and
regulation of diffuse sources was a particular need. He suggested that
there was no point in trying to implement a top-down approach but that
it was most practical to build on work already done in developing codes
of practice. These could be incorporated into a statutory framework where
a code of practice generated by stakeholders could be commented on by
the community, overseen by the relevant agency and finally gazetted by
the relevant minister.[7]
5.12 Eventually, responsibility for the quality of all water entering
coastal waters at the major cities must be clearly assigned. The Water
Services Association of Australia stated in its submission that integrated
catchment strategies are required in order to achieve environmental goals
but that the current institutional arrangements have so far proven incapable
of producing catchment wide strategies including sewage, urban stormwater
and upland forested and agricultural catchments.[8]
5.13 There seems little dispute that the most serious issues in Australia's
marine environment stem from catchment use. Total Catchment Management
(TCM), or Integrated Catchment Management (ICM), was almost universally
recognised by those making submissions to the inquiry as the most effective
means of attempting to control land based marine pollution, particularly
from diffuse sources. Many of the problems detailed in Chapter 3 of
this report can be addressed through the effective implementation of
catchment management strategies.
5.14 According to SOMER:
Because the major source of marine environmental threats lie
inland in the catchments, strategic, integrated planning and management
in the coastal zone is of paramount importance. Integrated catchment
management is probably almost as important to the sea as it is to the
land.[9]
5.15 States have established catchment management strategies to coordinate
community and government action to implement sustainable agriculture and
industrial and urban development, and environmental management practices.
In 1989, the NSW Catchment Management Act was passed, leading to the establishment
of Catchment Management Committees across the state. These committees
are made up of landholders and land users, environmental, local government
and government agency representatives, with landholders and land users
forming the majority of the committee.[10]
5.16 The Richmond Catchment Management Committee (RCMC), from northern
NSW, defined Total Catchment Management as:
the coordinated and sustainable use of land, water, vegetation
and other natural resources on a catchment basis, so as to balance resource
utilisation and conservation.[11]
5.17 According to the RCMC, TCM seeks to bring together all those involved
in primary production, environmental land use planning, and any other
aspects of natural resource management, so that they can work together
to manage these resources to the benefit of all.[12]
5.18 The RCMC described the process whereby it identified priority
issues through community consultation before drawing up a Draft Strategic
Plan which was then subject to further community input. The issues addressed
are closely interrelated by the functions of the natural processes involved.
This is precisely why an integrated approach is needed to adequately
manage these issues.
5.19 The Strategic Plan includes Water Quality Strategies which identify
the bodies responsible for particular elements of the Plan. These might
be local councils, various State Government departments and agencies
and other groups, who attempt to ensure such steps as the adoption of
best practice in agriculture, urban planning which takes into account
environmental sensitivities, or community education about water efficient
technologies.
5.20 Among the management principles of the RCMC was the view that all
members of the catchment community should have the opportunity to voice
their opinions and concerns, and that change should be achieved through
information, awareness, and consultation rather than through confrontation.[13]
5.21 According to the RCMC, TCM would play a vital role on any Commonwealth
body dealing with coastal management, as catchment management committees
provide a catchment perspective and links to various sectors, the community
in general and environmental groups.[14]
5.22 The Queensland Government's Integrated Catchment Management Strategy
was developed in response to the growing recognition of the interactiveness
of the management of land, water and biological resources, particularly
in a water catchment context. Pilot studies have been used to trial
ICM and the approach is now being followed in eighteen catchments.
5.23 The submission of the Queensland Government stated that:
The ICM initiative aims to bring government and the community
together to work as partners to improve the use and management of land
and other natural resources to achieve environmental protection and
sustainable resource objectives. The strategy relies totally on the
involvement and commitment of government (State and local) and community
groups in coming together to identify and address the key natural resources
management issues and actions in their respective catchments.[15]
5.24 In Victoria the Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 established
ten regional Catchment and Land Protection Boards to develop regional
catchment strategies providing for integrated land, water and vegetation
management. The Boards include representatives of industry, local government,
local communities and stakeholder groups. Public input is actively sought
and considered in the preparation of strategies.[16]
5.25 Programs in place in these and other States include strategies such
as minimum tillage and stubble retention, control of stocking rates, contour
cultivation, improved fertiliser management, revegetation of stream banks'
buffer strips, control of roadside erosion, sewage system upgrades, preservation
of wetlands as nutrient traps and reduction of erosion during urban development.[17]
5.26 However, the establishment by governments of catchment management
structures should not be seen as a universal panacea. Mr Christopher
Davis, Executive Director of the Australian Water and Wastewater Association,
told the Committee that one of the problems with catchment management
committees is that they do not have final authority in their area. Another
is that some committees are perceived to be captured by certain constituencies.
He said that:
Victoria effectively handed catchment management committees to
the rural sector. So you can be quite sure that agrarian interests are
well catered for in a catchment management committee, but other stakeholders
might not be heard. In New South Wales it depends where they are, but
there is a feeling in some catchment management committees that they
have been captured by certain interests and they do not necessarily
serve the broader interests of the community at large.[18]
5.27 Professor Leon Zann stated in his submission to the inquiry that
catchment management groups provide a sound foundation for estuarine and
inshore management. He said that while the focus of catchment management
has tended to be on farmers and other land owners, catchment management
should more overtly include urban dwellers and community groups.[19]
5.28 The Water Services Association called for the principles of the
Murray Darling Basin Initiative to be applied to the major coastal catchments,
including:
- strong ministerial leadership;
- a decision making forum accountable for water quality, bringing
together land, water and environment authorities to develop and
oversee the implementation of catchment wide strategies;
- clear goals based on environmental outcomes;
- an audit of all inputs of the key elements - water, salt, nutrients,
sediments, metals etc; and * community support to implement strategies
at the local level.[20]
5.29 The Committee recognises the central importance of effective
catchment management strategies, involving all sectors of the community,
in addressing both diffuse and point sources of pollution. The Committee
welcomes the Government's announcement of programs under the Coasts
and Clean Seas Initiative and the National Rivercare Initiative.
Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to oversee catchment
management policies from the perspective of their eventual impact on
the marine environment, and to develop strategies to ensure that catchment
management committees are genuinely representative of catchment communities.
5.30 As outlined in Chapter 3, agriculture is responsible for much
of the nutrient and sediment load which finds its way into coastal waters.
Professor Zann states that:
Elevated sediments and nutrients are probably the most serious
issues affecting Australia's rivers, estuaries and inshore marine environment.
The widespread die-back of Australia's globally important seagrass beds
has been catastrophic and the threats to the corals of the inner Great
Barrier Reef are great. Legislation and management to control diffuse
sources of sediments and nutrients are lacking.[21]
5.31 Improved agricultural practices can minimise sediment and nutrient
loss. Soil erosion, which entails other significant costs as well as
the transport of nutrients to the marine environment, can be minimised
by better land practices such as:
- reduced tillage practices which allow stubble and crop residues
to be retained on the surface;
- increased ground cover in pasture coupled with appropriate grazing
management, and retention of tree cover to act as wind-breaks and
a soil binding mechanism;
- maintaining buffer zones, contour banks, grassed waterways and
strip cropping;
- not overgrazing or cultivating close to stream edges, and allowing
a buffer zone of vegetation to act as a nutrient filter and binding
mechanism for the soil; and
- reviewing the use of marginal soils.
5.32 Other agricultural practices which can improve water quality are:
- restricting the access of farm animals to waterways;
- preventing effluent from stock-holding areas entering waterways;
- containing tail water and reusing it in irrigation areas;
- utilising soil and plant analysis techniques to ensure the right
type and quantity of fertiliser are applied at the right times;
- applying fertiliser by appropriate means at times when loss in
surface run-off is less likely to occur and utilisation by crops
and pastures is maximised; and
- avoiding aerial application of fertiliser over and adjacent to
streams.
5.33 The Fertilizer Industry Federation stated that the prudent use of
fertilisers will increase ground cover, and coupled with proper grazing
management will assist in the reduction of soil erosion and therefore
in the improvement of the quality of Australia's waterways. The Federation
also argued that in the case of crops, phosphorus fertilisers are normally
placed into the soil at planting so that they cannot be lost unless the
soil is also eroded.[22]
5.34 As explained in Chapter 3, acid sulphate soils are a potential
problem of major dimensions. The origins of acid sulphate problems relate
to how the land is managed. If there is uninformed management of the
acid soils acid is formed and runs off as a drainage product. The impact
of that mismanagement of the land then spills over into other industries,
generally the aquatic industries.
5.35 A national working party has been formed with representatives from
ANZECC and the Ministerial Council on Fisheries, Forestry and Aquaculture,
to develop a National Strategy for the Management of Acid Sulphate Soils
to provide for the implementation and coordination of a number of management
measures at national, state and local levels to ensure that appropriate
actions are taken to ameliorate existing problems and minimise the occurrence
of future problems.[23]
5.36 In NSW the Acid Sulphate Soils Management Advisory Committee (ASSMAC)
was formed in 1994, comprising representatives from State and local
government, industry and the environment, to liaise with communities
and provide an integrated approach to the problem. In Queensland QASSMAC
performs a similar role.
5.37 Mr John Williams, Chairman of ASSMAC, told the Committee that
undisturbed acid soils need to be left undisturbed and that this requires
a range of strategies such as education, planning controls and community
awareness. If the soils do have to be disturbed for development, it
must be done in a manner which takes into account the presence of the
soils and implements treatments to minimise environmental effects.
5.38 Mr Williams stated that the problem of acid soils has only recently
been understood and that the issue posed a major challenge to government
and the community. He said that a substantial amount of goodwill, cooperation
and education will be needed.[24]
ASSMAC has been working on the development of voluntary planning controls
for local councils, which will require a greater level of on-property
testing in potential acid soil areas before soils are disturbed.[25]
5.39 The Seafood Industry Council, concerned at the impact on fish stocks
of acid run-off, stated that whereas the NSW Government had acted to reduce
the exposure of such soils by developers it has baulked at land use controls
on agricultural land and done little to fix the existing problems.[26]
5.40 Professor Donald Gartside of Southern Cross University also expressed
concern at the lack of regulation of farming practices on acid soils,
and told the Committee that:
if I were to open an aluminium anodising plant on the Richmond
River and discharge raw sulphuric acid into the river, I could expect
to be vigorously prosecuted and pursued for maximum penalties ... up
to $1 million. In contrast, as a cane farmer I can excavate a deep drain
leading to a discharge directly into the river of sulphuric acid water
with a pH below three, and do so apparently with absolute impunity.[27]
5.41 However, Mr Williams of ASSMAC said that the most difficult issue
to address was the rehabilitation of those soils already disturbed. He
said that those soils contain huge quantities of acid beyond the means
of individual landowners to address. Furthermore, the source of the problem
in many cases was previous government drainage schemes and flood mitigation
activities.[28] For these reasons,
it is not unreasonable to expect governments to assist farmers in managing
disturbed soils or in devising alternate strategies for the use of areas
likely to be affected by acid soils.
5.42 Mr Craig Copeland, Conservation Manager, Northern Region, NSW Fisheries,
told the Committee that an economic study conducted of the Tuckean Swamp,
an area of disturbed acid soils in the Richmond River catchment, concluded
that a 2,000 hectare area returned to wetland production, as fish habitat,
could return a profit, conservatively estimated, of $740,000 over a forty
year period. This took into account the cost of the land, the loss of
production from the area's current pattern of use and the cost of returning
the land to its wetland state.[29]
5.43 The Committee believes that the problem of acid soils presents
authorities and land users with very significant challenges. One important
aspect of the problem is that it is relatively unrecognised in the community,
which will make it more difficult to persuade people of its urgency.
The Committee believes that given the past involvement of governments
in encouraging practices which magnified the problem, there is a need
for governments to assist in developing and financing future management
strategies. It is vital that adequate and detailed planning be undertaken
to ensure that further disturbance of affected soils be avoided wherever
possible.
Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to address the issue
of acid sulphate soils and their impact on the marine environment, including
the development of legislation and management strategies to control
activities on areas affected and to rehabilitate those areas already
disturbed.
5.44 Some of the concerns associated with sewage and stormwater outfalls
were outlined in Chapter 3, above. Although appropriately sited offshore
outfalls have had significant benefits in some areas in recent years there
are still problems with the discharge of nitrogen, phosphorus and trade
wastes from outfalls in a number of areas around Australia's coastline.
According to the Surfrider Foundation there are 163 ocean outfalls around
Australia, pumping three billion litres of effluent into the sea each
day, of which thirty-two per cent currently discharge raw sewage.[30]
5.45 The Surfrider Foundation, and Dr John Langford, Executive Director
of the Water Services Association of Australia, cited the outfall at Lorne
in Victoria as an example of a completely unacceptable form of sewage
disposal. Dr Langford told the Committee that: 'at the moment it is raw
sewage across a beach'. [31]
5.46 The Victorian Government's submission to the inquiry stated that
all coastal sewage discharges will have secondary standard treatment by
the end of 1997, and referred to new treatment plants at Lorne and Apollo
Bay which will eliminate the last discharges of raw sewage into Victorian
waters.[32] Sewage will be treated
to almost tertiary standard before it is discharged to the sea, considerably
improving the amenity of local beaches and reducing the impact on the
marine environment.
5.47 In South Australia, SA Water has an environmental improvement program
in place to reduce the impacts of existing coastal treatment plants. This
includes support for a scheme to recycle the majority of treated water
produced from the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant (see 5.62, below).
New plants will achieve total land based reuse.[33]
5.48 The Committee believes that States should aim to eliminate all
discharges of untreated sewage to ocean waters. Major outfalls should
be located in deep water on open and hydrodynamically active coasts
to maximise dilution and dispersion. Where this is not possible treatment
should be to tertiary standard.
Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to set uniform target
dates for the elimination of discharges of untreated sewage to the sea,
and to explore land based treatment strategies wherever environmentally
possible.
5.49 Many witnesses considered stormwater a more serious problem. Reference
has been made to the lack of clear responsibility for stormwater management
(3.91-93, above). Mr Davis of the AWWA said that in most cities 'stormwater
is actually an orphan ... there is no single coherent management system
in place',[34] and Dr Langford
of the Water Services Association, told the Committee that:
When it comes to the management of urban stormwater in this country,
it is really all over the place; there are unlimited variations across
the country. The other point, and the important one, is that the accountability
for the quality of urban stormwater is not assigned to anybody.[35]
5.50 Until there is clear responsibility for the quality of stormwater
and for the maintenance of the relevant infrastructure no significant
progress can be made towards effective management of the problem. The
Committee believes that it is a matter of urgent necessity that State
and local governments work together to assign such responsibility and
to implement uniform strategies to manage stormwater and to reduce the
impact of stormwater on coastal waters.
Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to develop integrated
strategies for dealing with stormwater, including sewage overflows into
stormwater systems, and to develop clear, enforceable guidelines assigning
responsibility for the management of stormwater and the maintenance
of the relevant infrastructure.
5.51 Sewage overflows into stormwater outlets are a significant problem.
There are occasions when sewer overflows constitute a larger pollution
load than run-off or effluent from sewage treatment plants.[36]
However, the management of the issue in major metropolitan centres is
a huge task. Sydney Water estimates that it would cost $5 billion to reduce
sewage overflows to once a decade.[37]
5.52 The Victorian Government referred to significant developments in
stormwater management, including the development of innovative techniques
for trapping litter and other pollutants from stormwater. An example is
a project involving the Pollutec company, Melbourne Water and the Cooperative
Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology, in which a new type of pollutant
trap is being trialed and monitored as part of a research and demonstration
program.[38]
5.53 Dr Brian Robinson, Chairman of the Environment Protection Authority
of Victoria, told the Committee that in relation to catchment management
strategies:
The plan that is being developed now is recognising that stormwater
is not the domain of any one part of the community but requires an integrated
approach from all levels of government and from all sectors of the community.
For example, the development industry has a big part to play in protecting
the quality of stormwater at source.[39]
5.54 Dr Langford of the Water Services Association of Australia told
the Committee that an integrated strategy would be the most effective
for dealing with stormwater:
education; stopping the material at source; gross pollutant traps;
management of the waterways; riparian vegetation; ponds; retarding basins;
and sediment traps ... If you have new urban development, then really
designing the way it is laid out is vital. It is not only vital to stormwater
but to water and sewage as well.[40]
5.55 The Academy of Science noted in its submission that the Australian
public, unlike urban populations in other parts of the world, will not
countenance the reuse of waste water for human consumption. Major Australian
cities practise a 'once through' water use policy which requires large
storage facilities to ensure that adequate supplies are always available.
Water reuse increases the risk of microbiological problems in the water
supply and also increases the salt content with each passage through
the system.
5.56 The Academy stated that better treatment or reuse of large proportions
of water used in cities like Sydney and Melbourne is possible but at great
cost in terms of capital expenditure and other environmental impacts,
such as the need for space for treatment plants.[41]
Similarly, the Australian Water and Wastewater Association argued that
while in a small inland community it is often quite realistic to divert
used water for use in agriculture, for large coastal cities that mechanism
is not achievable, so water has to be returned directly to the water environment,
the ocean.
5.57 According to the Association, there is nothing intrinsically wrong
with that approach, provided that the water has been purified to a standard
which will not degrade the environment.[42]
However, some smaller coastal communities have looked for alternatives
to ocean outfalls. Aireys Inlet in Victoria uses a land based lagoon system
to treat its sewage.[43]
5.58 Whatever use can be made of recycled water for purposes such as
irrigation of parks and golf courses reduces the demand for high quality
water from reservoirs or rivers and the possibility of other problems
resulting from decreased water flow in river systems. In South Australia,
Whyalla City Council has successfully piloted a project to harvest stormwater
for urban irrigation and is currently preparing to expand that project,
with the dual benefits of reducing the demand on other sources of water
and the impact of stormwater outfalls on the marine environment.
5.59 On the subject of water recycling for non-potable uses, an important
submission to the inquiry was made by MFP Australia, which is creating
models of urban development and best practice in ecological sustainability,
currently focussing on recycling stormwater and sewage effluent, treating
them as a resource and developing commercial opportunities. These projects
achieve the multiple benefits of eliminating discharges to the marine
environment while at the same time harnessing scarce resources for economic
and social benefit.[44]
5.60 MFP has constructed a complex of wetland systems covering an area
of 337 hectares on low-lying degraded land ten kilometres north of Adelaide's
city centre. These wetlands, the largest constructed wetlands in an urban
environment anywhere in the world, intercept approximately one third of
metropolitan Adelaide's stormwater run-off for treatment, storage and
reuse. Physical, chemical and biological processes treat the water to
a standard fit for non-potable industrial use, thereby helping to conserve
the city's high quality water supply for higher value use.[45]
5.61 These wetlands will eliminate a major source of pollution of coastal
waters in the Port Adelaide region. Investigations are nearly complete
on aquifer storage and recovery techniques for the storage of cleansed
water for use during times of need.[46]
5.62 MFP has also developed a project to use reclaimed water from South
Australia's largest sewage treatment plant at Bolivar for market gardening
and horticulture at Virginia, fifteen kilometres north of the plant.
Over a period of approximately five years the volume of water discharged
to the marine environment will progressively decrease as irrigators
take up the available water.
5.63 The treatment works at Bolivar currently discharges approximately
50 billion litres of secondary treated effluent each year, contributing
an annual load of 2,260 tonnes of nitrogen and 360 tonnes of phosphorus
to the estuarine environment. The accumulated effect of 30 years of discharge
has contributed to: the destruction of seagrass meadows, the proliferation
of seaweeds, mangrove decline and the occurrence of toxic algal blooms.[47]
(See 3.68, above.)
5.64 SA Water began construction in June 1997 of a filtration plant at
Bolivar to produce water which is suitable for irrigating most crops and
which will not damage seagrass if discharged into the sea. This will be
used in MFP's Virginia pipeline project and further wastewater recycling
schemes are being planned by SA Water.[48]
5.65 The benefits of the Virginia pipeline project include the eventual
elimination of the marine discharge which contributes approximately 95
per cent of the nutrient load to the Barker Inlet estuary system, and
the significant reduction in the use of groundwater, which was being withdrawn
at three times the rate of the natural recharge of the aquifer, an unsustainable
situation.[49]
5.66 Not only do such developments reduce the impact of nutrients of
the marine environment but according to MFP, as much as $100 million in
additional income can be generated by at least doubling the area used
for growing flowers, fruit, nuts and vegetables once the pipeline begins
delivering water to the area in late 1998. Market gardeners also estimate
that 1,300 jobs will be created.[50]
5.67 One of the issues arising from such developments is the question
of cost. Mr Borvin Kracman, MFP's General Manager, Environmental Technology,
told the Committee that there is a need to educate growers about the cost
of a resource such as water. He said that growers, 'like much of the community,
have not yet conceptually put an adequate value on water'. While growers
currently spend four or five cents per kilolitre pumping their allocation
of groundwater, the recycled water from the Bolivar plant will cost at
least nine cents per kilolitre. It is a question of paying a realistic
price for a renewable resource rather than paying an unrealistic price
for a resource that cannot sustain present demands.[51]
5.68 The principle of pricing applies more generally. The Water Services
Association of Australia argued in its submission that:
Effective pricing for water and wastewater services giving customers
the correct economic signals for using the service is vital if sustainable
management is to be achieved. In the past pricing systems based on property
values had little or no pay for use component. Domestic consumers were
often subsidised by commerce or industry giving domestic customers little
or no incentive to use water efficiently. The growth in water consumption
in Australia in the 1960s and 1970s was spectacular.[52]
5.69 MFP has also developed a pilot housing and urban design project
at New Haven Village with the objectives of reuse of urban stormwater
and effluent on site and the reduction of the use of mains water by
at least 50 per cent. Wastewater and stormwater is treated in an underground
community treatment plant and stored for use as toilet flushing water
and for non-potable outside use including garden watering and park irrigation.
The system is designed to achieve zero discharge of wastewater from
the site except in cases of exceptional rainfall, when the system overflows
to the conventional stormwater system.
5.70 Modelling has shown that under this system, infrastructure costs
and environmental pollution are reduced, resulting in reduced water and
energy bills to consumers. These innovations will be implemented in other
MFP developments.[53]
5.71 The Committee applauds initiatives such as those undertaken by
MFP Australia and believes that governments should encourage similar
projects for agriculture and urban development.
5.72 On a much smaller scale, Mr Glen Marshall and Dr Leigh Davison of
Southern Cross University made submissions and presented evidence to the
Committee on the subject of domestic alternatives to septic tanks in unsewered
areas of Australia. Dr Davison told the Committee that in Australia approximately
twelve per cent of the population, or two million people, use on-site
technologies to deal with their domestic wastewater, and that it is thus
an important issue.[54]
5.73 In theory a septic tank accepts household wastewater, settles
out the solids and the water overflows to an absorption trench and soaks
into the soil. In practice, however, under-sized systems and inappropriate
soils lead to clogging of the absorption trench with the result that
wastewater runs overland to the local drainage system. Studies in NSW
have shown that 40 per cent of septic systems are failing for these
reasons. Effluent then contaminates waterways with nutrients and pathogens
which are carried to the marine environment.
5.74 Southern Cross University is researching alternative systems to
the traditional septic tank. Composting toilets are being used very
successfully in many houses in the Richmond River catchment. They use
no water, have no odour and produce a safe compost fertiliser for the
garden. The use of a composting toilet removes 30 per cent of the total
wastewater volume and 70 per cent of the total nutrients in household
wastewater.
5.75 The remaining wastewater, referred to as greywater, can be treated
to safe levels by passing it through a small (eight square metres) wetland
in the backyard, consisting of a sealed gravel bed planted with aquatic
weeds. As the greywater passes through it the reeds absorb nutrients,
organic matter and pathogens from the water.[55]
5.76 According to Dr Davison, more widespread adoption of composting
toilets and other innovative greywater treatments at on-site and neighbourhood
level is hampered by the regulatory framework of the NSW Health Department,
which lags behind current knowledge.[56]
5.77 The Committee believes that on-site technologies such as those
described above offer a valuable means of reducing water use and the
discharge of wastes to the marine environment through conventional large
scale infrastructures. Governments should encourage the development
and adoption of such technologies and facilitate their approvals within
an appropriate regulatory framework which is not unnecessarily committed
to conventional systems.
Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to encourage the development
of effective on-site wastewater technologies, and the necessary standards,
and the treatment and reuse of urban stormwater and household effluent
in new housing developments; and that existing systems be modified to
the maximum extent possible.
Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to explore the desirability
of large-scale reuse of treated effluent and stormwater for industrial
and agricultural purposes.
5.78 One significant source of land based marine pollution is the discharge
of trade waste, direct to water or to sewers. Discharges of industrial
effluents or trade wastes typically make up ten to fifteen per cent of
total sewage flow. These are more tightly regulated than domestic inputs.[57]
In each State and Territory there is legislation regulating the discharge
of trade waste to sewers. The primary method of trade waste regulation
is a general prohibition on discharging trade waste to a sewer unless
there is a trade waste agreement with the water authority or council.
5.79 The standards for the quality and quantity of effluent discharged
to sewer are set by the water authority or council and specified in the
trade waste agreement. It is not common to have the standard set out in
the legislation.[58] In Sydney,
industrial and commercial sources account for more than a third of the
effluent treated at the coastal treatment plants.[59]
There are some 11,000 Trade Waste Agreements in Sydney and 6,200 Agreements
in Melbourne. Agreements limiting the volume and quality of industrial
discharges to sewers have improved the quality of discharges considerably.[60]
5.80 According to Mr Nicholas Brunton, the legislation relating to trade
waste in Australia is outdated and in need of urgent reform. The focus
of most of the Acts is to provide a sewerage service to the community,
and the standards applied to trade waste seek to protect the sewerage
system and its operators rather than the waters receiving the discharge.
The legislation commonly does not give sufficient power to water authorities
to allow them to enforce the legislation in the most efficient manner
and rarely mentions the environment or requires the water authority to
consider the effects on the environment of its operations.[61]
5.81 Mr Brunton argued the need for a new approach by the States and
Territories. He said that industrial discharges to water need to be
converted to sewer where appropriate and a progressive pollution reduction
program implemented. All licences and permits should require applicants
to consider cleaner production methodologies and processes. Pollution
reduction targets would eventually reduce the overall load and quantities
discharged to the marine environment, either through sewers or direct
to water.
5.82 Mr Brunton told the Committee that there is inappropriate pricing
under the constituent trade waste legislation and that there are no incentives
for pollutants to be reduced by the discharger. He also said that there
was a lack of monitoring in many cases, and that there was a need for
more enforcement and for penalties for unacceptable discharges to sewerage
systems equal to those relating to discharges direct to water.[62]
5.83 The Committee believes that sewerage authorities need to consider
the potential for economic instruments to implement cleaner production
and pollution prevention, such as a load based licensing regime where
fees are based on the load and the harm that that load can do to the
environment. However, the Committee believes that avoidance of harmful
discharge to the environment must be a priority and that minimum standards
must be applied in order to ensure that companies cannot simply pay
for a 'licence to pollute'. The notion that pollution is acceptable
if the polluter pays enough is entirely unacceptable to the Committee.
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with the relevant authorities to develop clear, enforceable
guidelines, based on appropriate research, for the quality of discharges
into the marine environment, through sewerage systems or direct to water,
and to develop the necessary legislation to make such guidelines legally
binding.
5.84 As outlined in Chapter 3, above, much of Australia's coast has been
significantly altered by urban, industrial and port development, and by
facilities for tourism and recreation. Coastal shoreline developments
have resulted in changes to foreshore areas, including: destruction of
foreshore vegetation, pollution and sedimentation during construction
works, pollution from urban and industrial waste, dredging and channel
formation and loss of habitat complexity.[63]
5.85 The Academy of Science argued that coastal and marine pollution
arising from major urban centres has to be seen as only one facet of the
entire water cycle in urban areas. The design of water supply, water use,
reuse and waste disposal systems must be integrated into a systems view
of urban developments. According to the Academy, the majority of the drivers
of coastal urban development in the past have been commercial and the
environmental impacts of urban development have not been viewed as part
of the entire package.[64]
5.86 The Australian Seafood Industry Council argued that proper land
use planning helps prevent many pollution problems by appropriately locating
polluting activities and providing the mechanisms whereby pollution reduction
can be achieved.[65]
5.87 According to the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, inappropriate
land use approvals provide the greatest obstacle to achieving good environmental
outcomes in the coastal zone.[66]
Mr Davis of the Association told the Committee that:
It seems to me that one of the major issues is coastal ribbon
development, where tourism and housing developments always want to be
in the most scenic possible location, which is probably the worst possible
place in terms of creating run-off. I would imagine that if you really
took pollution minimisation seriously, you would probably force a lot
of developments well away from waterways so that they could have a buffer
and a fringe of vegetation in there to act as a filter and trap to pollution.[67]
5.88 He also said that:
We have got local government addressing local concerns, generally
quite dollar driven in terms of outcomes for the local community and,
in seeking to attract industry and to attract developments, not necessarily
wanting to force them to be at an appropriate distance from a waterway
or in an appropriate site.[68]
5.89 Ms Cathy Parsons, Assistant Secretary, Regional and Environmental
Tourism, Office of National Tourism, told the Committee that Voluntary
Guidelines for Coastal Tourism Development are in draft form and are currently
subject to public comment. They will be finalised after comment from local
government, industry and other interested parties.[69]
5.90 Among the eleven principal aims of the RAC's proposed National Coastal
Action Program were the reduction of degradation caused by urban sprawl
and activities in the coastal zone, and a more effective and rational
use of land in the zone for building, development, tourism and other uses.[70]
5.91 The Committee believes that it is incumbent on local councils
to address land use issues and the need to integrate the management
of marine pollution with development proposals. While the Committee
acknowledges the pressures on coastal authorities for residential, commercial
and industrial developments, the Committee believes that such developments
must proceed with adequate environmental safeguards. This may entail
the prohibition of developments from certain sensitive coastal and riverine
zones where such developments would impact negatively on the environment.
Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to develop coherent
and effective policies and management practices at local level which
protect the marine environment, including clear guidelines and enforceable
environmental standards for residential, commercial and industrial developments.
5.92 Coastal developments often involve the reclamation or drainage
and filling of coastal wetlands and mangroves. This degrades nurseries
and habitats vital to many species and also affects the transition that
such areas provide between freshwater and marine environments.
5.93 SOMER states that around 8 per cent of Australia's mangroves have
some level of protection. Almost two thirds of that area is in Queensland,
which has the most extensive reserve system. Significant areas lacking
adequate protection include mangrove wetlands abutting the Great Barrier
Reef and the Wet Tropics Rainforest World Heritage Areas, and the arid
zone communities of the Pilbara region which are some of the best representative
areas of undisturbed arid zone mangroves in the world.
5.94 According to SOMER, the main problem facing future conservation
and management of mangroves include the lack of coordination and overlapping
responsibilities of Commonwealth, State and Territory departments and
agencies; alteration of the hydrology of catchments; and lack of knowledge
of most mangrove systems in Australia.[71]
5.95 Mr Borvin Kracman of MFP Australia told the Committee that designed
into the reconstructed wetlands at Port Adelaide (5.60, above), is an
area called a mangrove accession zone. It is an intertidal zone, where
fresh water has an opportunity to mix with salt water before it is discharged
into the main estuary. The topography of that zone has been designed to
enable mangroves to recede back into it, to recruit and ultimately to
flourish.[72]
5.96 The Commonwealth Government has allocated $1.8 million in 1997-98
and $11 million to 2001-02, from the Natural Heritage Trust, for the National
Wetlands Program to support locally based efforts to rehabilitate degraded
wetlands.[73]
5.97 The Committee welcomes the Commonwealth's commitment of funds
to the rehabilitation of wetlands. While acknowledging that much of
Australia's mangroves and wetlands are situated in areas remote from
coastal development, the Committee believes that a greater level of
protection is required and that efforts to rehabilitate areas already
degraded must continue.
Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to extend the protection
of mangrove and wetland areas, especially in areas under threat from
coastal development or harmful discharges, and to rehabilitate degraded
areas wherever possible.
Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to develop strategies
to prevent further damage to seagrass beds from the effects of coastal
development, sewerage and stormwater outfalls and diffuse run-off from
agricultural activity.
5.98 The International Maritime Organisation, based in London, has promoted
the adoption of a number of conventions and protocols and well over 600
codes and recommendations concerning maritime safety, the prevention of
pollution and related matters. There are five conventions which deal specifically
with pollution from ships. Australian domestic legislation which implements
these five Conventions is based on the Offshore Constitutional Settlement.
Much of the Commonwealth legislation in relation to pollution from ships
contains a provision allowing individual States and the Northern Territory
to make legislation in respect of their coastal waters.[74]
5.99 Mr Paul McGrath, Chief Executive of the Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, told the Committee that the relevant conventions are enshrined
in Commonwealth law and that the States then put in place their own parallel
legislation. The aim is that a vessel will be treated the same wherever
it is around Australia. While there may appear to be a great mass of legislation
on certain issues, most of it tends to be based on the same convention
and is consistent around Australia.[75]
5.100 AMSA is responsible for the implementation of these conventions
in Australia. In evidence to the Committee, Mr McGrath said that:
Unlike land based sources of marine pollution, ship sourced pollution
is generally well covered by international treaty activity and domestic
legislation. The issues for AMSA are largely those of effective implementation
and enforcement.[76]
5.101 Professor Leon Zann addressed the same issue when he expressed
the view that Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation to address
ship-sourced pollution is adequate but that enforcement is lacking and
the problems continue.[77] The
amount of litter washed up on Australia's beaches (3.161 above), although
much of it is terrestrial in origin, testifies to the work that still
needs to be done to educate ships' crews and to ensure widespread adherence
to the relevant guidelines.
5.102 Through ANZECC, Australian Governments have developed a Maritime
Accidents and Pollution (MAP) Action Plan, finalised in November 1995.
The objectives of this plan are to enhance the protection of the Australian
and New Zealand marine environment through promoting best practice to
improve waste management and reduce pollution from shipping, and to communicate
effectively with the maritime sectors about environmental values.[78]
5.103 In June 1996, ANZECC launched the National Maritime Accidents
and Pollution Strategy and Action Plan, entitled Working Together
to Reduce Impacts From Shipping Operations: ANZECC Strategy to Protect
the Marine Environment. The strategy aims to reduce pollution from
shipping with a focus on action on the following:
- improving port waste facilities;
- managing marine debris;
- communicating to shipping about areas and values sensitive to
their operations;
- introducing less environmentally damaging anti-fouling practices;
- managing ballast water and marine pests;
- increasing the scale and targeting of research;
- fostering environmental awareness and action by industry;
- increasing community involvement;
- participating in IMO activities; and
- providing a stronger focus on education and outreach by generally
raising awareness of maritime accident and pollution issues.[79]
5.104 According to the Australian Maritime Safety Authority the major
elements in developing measures to prevent oil spills are international
conventions, appropriate domestic legislation, effective and reliable
navigation aids and appropriate surveillance arrangements. AMSA states
that because of the international nature of shipping, action to prevent
ship-sourced marine pollution is more effective if carried out at an international
level rather than by individual countries acting unilaterally.[80]
5.105 There are a number of international conventions and associated
pieces of domestic legislation dealing with the prevention of oil pollution
from ships and with requirements for insurance, compensation and other
matters. In addition, the National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea
by Oil (NATPLAN) exists to maintain a national framework capable of
effective response to oil pollution incidents in the marine environment
and to manage associated funding, equipment and training programs to
support National Plan activities.
5.106 The National Plan was developed and implemented following the grounding
of the Oceanic Grandeur in the Torres Strait in 1970, and came
into formal operation in 1973. It represents a combined effort by Commonwealth
and State and Territory Governments and the oil industry to help provide
a solution to the threat posed to the coastal environment by oil spills
from ships.[81] The National Plan
has been through a number of major changes in recent years in response
to various reviews, most recently following the Iron Baron incident
in 1995.[82]
5.107 In 1991 the oil industry formed the Australian Marine Oil Spill
Centre (AMOSC) at Geelong, representing an investment of approximately
ten million dollars. Mr Don Blackmore, Manager of AMOSC, told the Committee
that AMOSC has three main roles: provision of a response to marine oil
spills with resources and equipment; provision of training for more than
300 people each year from industry and government; and industry coordination.[83]
AMOSC is financed by ten oil companies and carries out its role with an
operating budget of approximately one million dollars per year.[84]
5.108 Historically, major spills occurring in the coastal zone world-wide
have resulted in oil impacting the foreshore. Current oil spill response
technology does not exist to prevent oil spilt in these circumstances
from reaching the coastline. However, strategically placed equipment can
minimise the effects of a spill by protecting sensitive resources such
as mangrove stands, saltmarshes, or bird or other animal breeding sites.[85]
Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to develop and review
standards and procedures relating to the prevention and control of oil
spills in Australian waters, in consultation with the Australian Maritime
Safety Authority and other relevant bodies, including the development
of management plans for fishing vessels and small pleasure craft in
the nearshore zone.
5.109 Mr Nelson Quinn argued in his submission that the sea dumping regime
is effective. Australia's participation in international sea dumping developments
and a Commonwealth law and centrally coordinated administration are important
factors in this. He also said that Australian participation in international
maritime developments and continuing improvements in administration of
the relevant national and international laws have led to a positive approach
to the reduction of shipping impacts.[86]
5.110 A degree of frustration was expressed by those giving evidence
to the Committee at the lack of appropriate facilities for the disposal
of waste in some ports. The Australian Chamber of Shipping stated in its
submission to the inquiry that although MARPOL places an obligation on
signatories to ensure that ports provide reception facilities to dispose
of ships' waste, and although ships are bound to comply, facilities in
many ports around Australia are totally inadequate and ships cannot meet
their obligations. The Chamber suggested that these facilities will not
be provided in the absence of appropriate legislation.[87]
5.111 Commander Chris Oyston, Director of Environmental Management
for the Royal Australian Navy, spoke in a similar vein when he told
the Committee that sailors:
are disappointed at times that we go to the extent of segregation
of materials on board for disposal when we get into a port, and then
the port says, 'Just put it all in the one bin' ... it is difficult
to educate a group and say, 'This is for your own good,' and then they
find that it is not followed through.[88]
5.112 The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships)
Act 1983 implements MARPOL and creates the legislative requirement
for handling marine generated waste in Australian waters. However, provision
of port waste reception facilities is a State and Territory responsibility.
In order to give effect to the legislation port authorities facilitate,
where necessary, the provision of services to remove garbage and other
wastes from ships.[89]
5.113 Information supplied to the Committee by the NSW Office of Marine
Administration indicated that the NSW port corporations do not have any
written policies on waste disposal from ships and do not have a regulatory
requirement to operate or manage quarantine waste collection facilities.
The current practice in the major NSW ports is that shipping agents or
lines arrange for collection of waste with a waste contractor, licensed
by the NSW Environment Protection Authority, who provides a collection,
transport and disposal service approved by AQIS. A similar procedure is
followed in other states.[90]
5.114 The Commonwealth Department of Transport, in its 1995 submission
to the inquiry, said that:
An important consideration for reception facilities is the appropriate
level of pricing. With State Government policies increasingly emphasising
commercialisation of ports, there are pressures on port managers to
fully cost recover such services as are provided. Imposition of significant
costs would encourage irresponsible ship operators to dump garbage and
other wastes at sea. Conversely, 'free' services would encourage ships
to 'import' wastes from regions or ports where charges are imposed and
leave the port authority to cover the costs and problem of final disposal.[91]
The Department noted that compliance monitoring and enforcement is
problematical, particularly when dealing with foreign flag vessels.
5.115 In its 1997 addendum to the earlier submission, the Department
of Transport and Regional Development reported that the ANZECC Working
Group on Waste Management from Shipping and Boating had published its
survey of Waste Reception Facilities in Australian Ports in April
1996, intended to assist ships' operators to comply with MARPOL.
5.116 The Working Group had also circulated a draft Best Practice
Guidelines for the Provision of Waste Reception Facilities, designed
to assist managers of Australian commercial ports, marinas and boat harbours
to provide adequate waste reception facilities. It is anticipated that
the Guidelines will be implemented by State and Territory Governments
and local councils through licensing and approval processes for ports,
boat harbours and marinas. The aim is to establish adequate facilities
which are available for use at fair and reasonable fees.[92]
5.117 Enforcement of technical standards for pollution prevention is
primarily carried out through a system of inspections of foreign ships
visiting ports, a procedure known as port state control. Should a ship
be found not to comply with the necessary requirements, AMSA will retain
it until satisfactory repairs are carried out or remedial action taken.
While much of the publicity attached to port state control is directed
to the physical condition of the vessel, the pollution prevention component
is regarded as being very important.
5.118 During 1996, 2,900 inspections were carried out on ships registered
in some 69 countries. According to Mr McGrath of AMSA, Australia has a
reputation as being one of the most effective nations in terms of policing
quality, with approximately eight per cent of ships being detained, usually
for minor port maintenance. He told the Committee that as a result of
Australia's monitoring processes the quality of shipping in Australian
waters is generally accepted as being better than elsewhere internationally.[93]
5.119 Until recently the focus of pollution prevention in port state
control inspections was oil pollution. From 1 July 1997, amendments to
the MARPOL regulations which deal with the disposal of garbage from ships
will enter into force. Inspections of vessels above a certain size or
capacity will include waste management plans and related equipment.[94]
5.120 The Committee believes that State and Territory authorities need
to work together to ensure uniform national standards for disposal of
ships' waste and a consistent pricing policy which will ensure the appropriate
use of facilities in different jurisdictions.
Recommendation 15: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State and local authorities to develop uniform
national standards and fee structures for the disposal of ships' waste
and to incorporate waste reception fees into general port dues in order
to discourage dumping of waste at sea to avoid waste reception fees.
5.121 The Committee sees the issue of exotic marine pests, outlined
in Chapter 3, above, as one of extreme urgency. Management aims to prevent
entry rather than rely on post-entry eradication or control. There is
no known case of successful eradication of an established exotic marine
species. The current emphasis is on dumping potentially infected waters
at sea and replacement with safer ocean water.
5.122 According to SOMER, the most cost-effective treatment for infected
or suspect tanks is ocean exchange of ballast waters by emptying and refilling
ballast tanks. This is not a safe practice for larger vessels but exchange
by continuous flushing is safe and around 90 per cent effective.[95]
Recent Australian research into methods of using heat generated by ships'
engines to kill marine organisms in ballast water has been promising and
trials are under way.[96]
5.123 AQIS introduced voluntary ballast water management guidelines,
the Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines, in 1990, for
international shipping visiting Australia. Australia is recognised internationally
as leading the world in the management of ballast water issues and in
1991 the IMO introduced voluntary international guidelines modelled on
the Australian guidelines, with minor modifications.[97]
5.124 AQIS is responsible for monitoring compliance with the guidelines
and is also seeking to put in place similar guidelines for coastal shipping
to deal with the domestic translocation of species.[98]
AQIS is responsible for relevant matters relating to international shipping
under the Commonwealth Quarantine Act 1908, but the responsibility
for domestic shipping rests with the states.
5.125 In 1994, the Interim Australian Ballast Water Management Advisory
Council, comprising representatives from AQIS, AMSA, other Commonwealth
agencies, State and Territory Governments, environment interests and
industry, was established to develop an Australian Ballast Water Management
Strategy. In line with the recommendations of the Strategy, the Australian
Ballast Water Management Advisory Council (ABWMAC) was appointed in
June 1996.
5.126 ABWMAC's role is to advise the Commonwealth Government on ballast
water management issues, including the development of effective policies
to minimise the risk of translocation of marine pests, the implementation
of a research and development program and liaison with the Marine Environment
Protection Committee of the IMO.[99]
A Ballast Water Annex to MARPOL is being developed (see 4.62, above),
and will be followed by appropriate Commonwealth and State legislation,
but is several years from introduction.[100]
5.127 A Strategic Ballast Water Research Program has been developed and
is being implemented by ABWMAC. Implementation began in 1996/97, funded
initially by AMSA and the international shipping industry. On 3 March
1997, the Prime Minister announced a further $1 million to fund the program
in 1997/98.[101] ABWMAC has
also agreed to the introduction of a levy on shipping to raise a further
$2 million for the program in 1998/99 and 1999/2000.[102]
5.128 Mr Denis Paterson, Assistant National Operations Manager with AQIS,
told the Committee that there is a highly cooperative arrangement between
the shipping industry, the States and the Commonwealth on the issue of
ballast water and pointed to the voluntary levy the Australian shipping
community had placed on itself to support ABWMAC's research program and
its participation in the development of management programs: 'It is very
much an overall community cooperation process all the way through.' [103]
5.129 AQIS takes the view that any oceans policy must reflect the importance
of addressing the impact of introduced marine pests and disease pathogens
on Australia's marine environment and on its fisheries and aquaculture
industries.[104]
5.130 In Chapter 3, above, the impact of exotic species was discussed
in relation to the northern Pacific seastar and its introduction to the
Derwent estuary in Tasmania. Ms Elizabeth Turner of the Tasmanian Museum
told the Committee that: 'It eats everything, it is indestructible practically
and it has no known predators.' [105]
5.131 Once the scale of the problem represented by the seastar became
clear, intensive research was undertaken. The Tasmanian Museum obtained
a grant from the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, the first grant
towards the study of a marine pest. Further grants were made by other
agencies, totalling $986,000, and the National Seastar Task Force was
formed. Research has been done on a variety of aspects of the seastar,
providing valuable information on a range of matters.[106]
5.132 Unfortunately, the conclusions of the research have not been
encouraging, and only emphasise the importance of proper management
of the relevant issues in order to prevent the initial introduction
of such pests.
Recommendation 16: The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth
Government work with State Governments to negotiate an agreement on
the domestic movement of ballast water and to explore with industry
and other stakeholders the potential for legislation to implement the
Australian Ballast Water Management Guidelines.
Recommendation 17: The Committee recommends continuing Commonwealth
support for strategic ballast water research and for specific programs
such as the research conducted by the National Seastar Task Force.
5.133 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park covers an area of around 344,000
square kilometres, larger than the area of Victoria and Tasmania combined,
and includes 940 islands. It was established under the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and is managed by the Commonwealth's Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, with the Queensland Department of
Environment and Heritage responsible for day to day management.[107]
5.134 GBRMPA, together with over 60 user and interest groups, government
agencies and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, has
recently developed a 25 Year Strategic Plan for the GBR World Heritage
Area. The objectives of the strategic plan are a healthy environment,
sustainable multiple-use, maintenance and enhancement of values, integrated
management, knowledge-based but cautious decision making and an informed,
involved, committed community.
5.135 The Plan was launched in July 1994 by the then Prime Minister,
the Hon Paul Keating, MP. It is believed to be a world first in joint
decision making and is a good example of integrated management and ecologically
sustainable development in action.[108]
5.136 Dr Ian McPhail, Chairman of GBRMPA, cited the GBRMP as a multiple
use model for marine protected areas. Dr Reichelt of AIMS told the Committee
that GBRMPA is 'a fabulous example of two tiers of government working
together over a very large area to look after the Great Barrier Reef'.[109]
5.137 The Marine Park Act, in conjunction with other legislation, both
State and Commonwealth, provides the greatest degree of protection for
the marine environment of anywhere in offshore Australia. In 1981 the
Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List. The 2.5 per cent of the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property outside the Marine Park does
not have the protection of the Marine Park Act but relies instead on the
World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983.[110]
5.138 The Marine Park Act covers a range of matters, including the discharge
of waste, exploration and recovery of minerals, zoning park restrictions,
and compulsory pilotage. Off-park activities are not regulated to any
great extent under the Act, although it does allow for the Governor-General
to make regulations 'regulating or prohibiting acts (whether in the Marine
Park or elsewhere) that may pollute water in a manner harmful to animals
and plants in the Marine Park'. The regulation making power has been used
to prohibit petroleum drilling in the region.[111]
5.139 The GBRMP is not a conventional national park but a multi-use protected
area. Tourism and fishing are the major commercial uses of the marine
park, with a value of approximately $1,000 million per annum. Through
the use of zoning conflicting uses are separated. Levels of protection
range from minimal restrictions to complete exclusion of visitors.[112]
5.140 What is partly and poorly addressed under the legislation is the
impact of land and river sourced pollution on the marine environment.
Constitutional limitations constrain the approaches which may be adopted
by the Commonwealth to remedy this and reliance must be placed on a cooperative
approach involving Queensland legislation and authorities.[113]
5.141 Dr McPhail noted that land based sources of marine pollution have
no respect for the jurisdictional and geographic boundaries that often
separate land and sea, and that the GBRMPA model is effective only in
regulating marine pollution within the Marine Park. It cannot effectively
regulate trans-boundary pollution from terrestrial sources, except through
cooperative programs with State and local authorities and other groups.[114]
5.142 Dr McPhail told the Committee that:
We cannot reach, if you like, up the rivers. We have to work
with the state authorities in relation to land management. We are part
of the catchment management movement in Queensland; we are heavily involved
in that ... We work with the land based authorities in trying to ensure
that the highest possible standards of land management are applied ...
it is probably the case that the long-term risks of the Barrier Reef
are essentially from the land rather than from anywhere else.[115]
5.143 GBRMPA's submission to the inquiry stated that what was needed
was an integrated 'catchment to reef' water quality strategy promoting
sustainable land use practices at local and regional levels, to ensure
sustainable use of water resources across the land and sea boundary. Developing
such a strategy would require a review of the existing legal and policy
frameworks for managing the downstream effects of catchment and coastal
land use practices on water quality, and a process of negotiation and
consultation with all relevant stakeholders.[116]
5.144 Dr McPhail told the Committee that GBRMPA works closely with peak
organisations in Queensland, such as the Cane Growers Association, the
Integrated Catchment Management movement and Landcare, and employs a rural
liaison officer, to help farmers develop the best environmental practice.
He said that it was in the interests of both farmers and the Authority
to keep nutrients on the land and out of the rivers.[117]
5.145 The Authority suggested that any legislative changes should consider
protection for valuable wetland areas, protection of range lands from
overgrazing, obligations for soil specific fertiliser use; and control
of agricultural chemical use.[118]
5.146 The Committee recognises the difficulty of managing diffuse sources
of pollutants entering Reef waters and encourages continuing cooperation
between GBRMPA and the relevant Queensland authorities to develop effective
education and catchment management strategies.
5.147 In relation to shipping in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef,
since 1 January 1997 there has been a mandatory reporting system whereby
all commercial shipping working through the inner route of the GBR is
required to report on entering the Reef and at regular intervals throughout.
Radar systems are also being installed so that vessels can also be monitored
without the need to report.
5.148 It is the first internationally approved system of mandatory
ship reporting. Australia took the issue of the reef to the IMO and
received the first ever approval to introduce a mandatory reporting
system. The reporting system of the GBR is the most onerous internationally.
There is a permanent installation in Hay Point, near Mackay, which monitors
the radio reports. Vessels are monitored from the moment they enter
the Reef to the moment they leave, in whatever direction they are going.
5.149 In addition, any vessel in excess of 70 metres or any loaded tanker
or chemical carrier has to take on board a licensed pilot. AMSA is responsible
for the navigation aid system that is provided to the GBR area.[119]
5.150 In recognition of the sensitivity of the Great Barrier Reef and
the potential impact of an oil spill in reef waters, REEFPLAN was developed
from NATPLAN (5.105, above). It includes a first strike capability centred
in Townsville, and a tiered response philosophy allowing the use of NATPLAN
and other national and international stockpiles of equipment. GBRMPA provides
environmental and scientific advisers.[120]
5.151 The Shoalwater Bay Training Area, located 80 kilometres north
of Rockhampton, is used by Australian and overseas defence forces. The
marine sections of SWBTA fall within the GBRMP and military uses of
these areas are carried out in consultation with GBRMPA and the Queensland
Department of the Environment.
5.152 Some concern was expressed during the course of the inquiry about
the possible effect of the joint Australia-US military exercise Tandem
Thrust 97, held in March 1997, on the environment in general and the
marine environment in particular. Attention was drawn to the possible
impact of amphibious landings on the endangered populations of dugongs
and green turtles in Shoalwater Bay and to the possible discharge of
oil and other wastes in GBRMP waters.
5.153 In evidence to the Committee the Royal Australian Navy stated that
management of the environment had been 'a key aspect of Tandem Thrust
exercise planning since the beginning'. All ships would comply with the
relevant guidelines for the disposal of sewage, greywater, garbage, oily
waste and ballast water, and with RAN policy, which in some cases exceeds
the present marine park requirements. Other precautions would be taken
to minimise the impact of operations on marine life.[121]
5.154 Following the completion of Tandem Thrust 97 the Department of
Defence released an environmental report which stated that no accidents
had occurred and that there had been no dugong related incidents or sightings.
Vessel traffic restrictions had applied to seagrass beds which support
the dugong population. According to the report, there had been no oil
spills or other adverse impacts reported during the exercise.[122]
5.155 In general, naval vessels are specifically exempt from the provisions
of MARPOL, although they are expected to comply with the Convention when
it is operationally practical to do so. It is RAN policy to ensure that
all vessels meet or exceed the requirements of the Convention. By 1999
all ships will have full environmental control equipment.[123]
5.156 The Committee welcomes the Royal Australian Navy's commitment
to ensuring that all its vessels meet or exceed MARPOL requirements
and those of the relevant Commonwealth legislation, although it notes
with concern that permits for exemption from the necessary requirements
were sought from GBRMPA for nine Australian ships participating in Exercise
Tandem Thrust. The Committee encourages the Navy and the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority to continue to work together to minimise
the impact of military exercises on the marine environment, particularly
the effect of such exercises on endangered species. There should be
no military activities in known breeding sites.
5.157 Early in 1997 GBRMPA completed a management plan for protecting
dugongs in Shoalwater Bay, where numbers fell from an estimated 765
in 1987 to 405 in 1994. The plan bans gill nets, which are the biggest
direct cause of dugong deaths, but the Commonwealth does not have jurisdiction
between the high and low tide marks, so fishers still have access.
5.158 According to Ms Janet Slater, GBRMPA's biologist for threatened
species: 'Unless Queensland comes to the party it is going to be very
difficult to enforce it.' [124]
While the issue is not specifically pollution related, it does illustrate
the vital importance of cooperative management of Reef waters by the Commonwealth
and Queensland authorities in order to protect the marine environment
and its biodiversity.
5.159 At the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council in June 1997, the
Queensland Government agreed to introduce complementary legislation
to ensure that the whole area is protected.
5.160 According to the Australian Academy of Science, the ANZECC guidelines
presently in use for the disposal of waste water into the natural environment
are largely inadequate for coastal marine waters.[125]
Most guidelines are for waste disposal into fresh waters and frequently
no guidelines are given for estuarine and coastal marine waters. In particular,
no guidelines are given for key nutrients such as nitrogen, the algal
bloom guidelines are set too high and no adequate sediment toxicity guidelines
are given for such things as heavy metals.
5.161 The present set of ANZECC guidelines is being updated and work
is under way on new sediment guidelines. This will be an important advance.
One problem that must be addressed is the fact that all guidelines are
presently expressed in terms of concentrations. However, it is not the
concentration of toxicant or nutrient that is important but the load.
The true measure of the impact of land based marine pollution on coastal
ecosystems is the relative load, in kilograms per unit area per year,
in relation to what is normally being recycled through the ecosystem.
Concentrations mean very little.
5.162 For advances to be made in our ability to understand and effectively
manage the impacts of land based marine pollution on coastal waters we
must move away from regulations based on concentrations to the kind of
dynamic modelling approach used in the Port Phillip Bay Environmental
Study.[126] Mr Chris Davis,
Executive Director of the Australian Water and Wastewater Association,
said that the study 'threw a completely new light on what happens in that
body of water. Without that study, people would have been flying blind
indefinitely.' [127]
5.163 Management of marine systems has traditionally been accomplished
by the establishment of certain standards, accompanied by monitoring
programs to ensure that these standards are being met. There are emission
standards, which apply to the concentration of pollutant in the discharge,
and water quality standards, which apply to the resultant concentration
of pollutant in the environment. There has been considerable debate
about which of these two is more appropriate.
5.164 Emission standards are easier to enforce, since chemical measurements
of discharges are simpler and less variable than measurements made in
the marine environment. However, emission standards make little allowance
for the varying ability of different environments, and the same environment
at different times, to assimilate pollutants without damage. Further,
emission standards are generally applied to individual discharges in
isolation, so that the additive effect of two neighbouring pollutant
sources on the environment is not taken into account.
5.165 Water quality standards overcome, to some extent, the above objections.
Since the measurements are made in the environment itself, the diluting
ability of the particular water body and the effect of neighbouring
discharges are taken into account.
5.166 However, the assumption that is common to both emission standards
and to water quality standards is that an acceptable measure of the
damaging effect of a pollutant is simply the concentration of that pollutant,
in the discharge or in the environment.
5.167 This assumption may or may not be valid. In the case of a toxic
metal there may be a reasonably universal environmental concentration
below which the ecologically damaging effect will be negligible. In
such cases it is quite appropriate to specify water quality standards
that are uniform at the State level and probably at the Commonwealth
level.
5.168 However, in the case of eutrophication the simple application of
water quality standards is not an appropriate management action. Due to
the complexity of the marine nutrient cycle, there is no simple relationship
between ambient nutrient concentration and environmental health. For example,
it is not possible to predict whether there will be a bloom of plankton
from a measurement of the concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus in
the water.[128]
5.169 In general, the Commonwealth Coastal Policy advocates the water
quality approach, stating that:
The disposal of waste, particularly into rivers, estuaries and
the ocean, should be limited to the quantity and quality that the receiving
environment can assimilate without suffering long-term degradation.[129]
5.170 However, Ms Caroline Williams of the University of Tasmania argued
in her submission to the inquiry that:
This section of the policy is a serious cause for concern for
a number of reasons. To begin with the assimilative capacity model,
popular in the 1970s and 1980s as a method of managing marine pollution,
has been largely replaced by the precautionary principle. Australia
accepted the precautionary principle in signing Agenda 21.[130]
5.171 As a result of this complexity, marine systems can only be properly
described through the use of computer models which integrate the physical,
biogeochemical and ecological processes over the wide range of significant
temporal and spatial scales. The future for marine environmental management
should therefore lie in the gradual replacement of the use of both emission
and water quality standards by management tools that are tailored to particular
marine systems and problems.[131]
5.172 Dr John Hunter of the CSIRO told the Committee that although there
was a need for national standards the complexity of the marine environment
means that these national standards may well have to be variable within
the Australian system, but that such variability would have to be based
on scientifically valid choices rather than ad hoc decisions by different
administrative bodies.[132]
5.173 Mr Peter Marchant of the South Australian Conservation Council
spoke of the need for national standards when he referred to an exemption
granted under the State's Environment Protection Act to the operators
of the Torrens Island and Port Augusta power stations, relating to discharges
exceeding the relevant temperature criteria. He said that the rationale
given for the exemption was that the cost of constructing infrastructure
to reduce the temperature of the discharge would make the power stations
less competitive with interstate power stations.
5.174 Mr Marchant said that national standards were probably the only
way to stop a leap-frogging downwards of environmental standards as industries
tried to compete economically with interstate counterparts and lobbied
State Governments to grant the exemptions necessary to do so.[133]
5.175 The Committee believes that as in so many areas covered by this
report, it is important to ensure uniform standards in different jurisdictions
in order to prevent a move towards the lowest common denominator rather
than efforts to achieve the highest possible standards.
5.176 The Water Services Association of Australia argued that goals
based solely on the promotion of particular technologies such as recycling,
elimination of ocean outfalls or tertiary treatment of sewage, rather
than on recreational and ecosystem protection divert attention from
the importance of controlling pollution at the source. Goals should
be based on the desired environmental outcome for each specific ecosystem
and on comprehensive scientific study of the local marine ecology.
5.177 The Association cited the example of the United States, where
uniform legislation was passed in 1972 for at least secondary treatment
of all sewage. However, the east coast has numerous large enclosed bays
and a shallow continental shelf, whereas the west coast does not have
a continental shelf and most of its coastal discharges are on the edge
of the open ocean. A subsequent review found that the uniform national
approach resulted in underprotection of the marine ecosystems on the
eastern seaboard and overprotection on the west coast.
5.178 The conclusion was reached that uniform national regulations are
not cost effective and don't necessarily achieve the desired goal. On
the basis of comprehensive scientific studies, San Diego in California
won a waiver from the national standard and has saved over $2.5 billion
by using only chemically assisted sedimentation, while adequately protecting
the marine ecosystem and recreational uses.[134]
5.179 The Association called for an audit of the urban water life cycle,
which would describe the source and destination of all water in the cycle
and the source and destination of sediments, nutrients and toxicants relevant
to the marine environment. The audit should also consider transport mechanisms.
Such an audit would ensure that goals of environmental protection are
based on sound ecological knowledge and that all components of the cycle
are considered when options for protecting the environment are considered.[135]
Recommendation 18: The Committee recommends the replacement of discharge
standards based on concentration of pollutants by stronger standards
based on scientific understanding of particular marine ecosystems, and
the negotiation of uniform standards, where appropriate, to avoid competitive
undermining of standards in different jurisdictions.
5.180 Reference was made in Chapter 3, above, to the poor state of
knowledge and the lack of scientific understanding of Australia's marine
environment. According to the Department of Environment, Sport and Territories:
High quality scientific knowledge of the marine environment,
down to the level of individual ecosystems, habitats and species, is
critical in identifying impacts of marine pollution and monitoring the
success of amelioration measures over the longer term.[136]
5.181 However, the lack of adequate scientific understanding of the
marine environment, and the lack of support for research into the area,
were recurrent themes of submissions and evidence presented to the Committee
during the course of the inquiry. This was the case both in terms of
research for the sake of 'pure' scientific knowledge and in terms of
the need for knowledge to enable suitable management of the marine environment
and our uses of it.
5.182 UNCLOS requires Australia to advance knowledge of its EEZ by
undertaking marine scientific research. National coastal and marine
databases and geographic information systems are being established by
CSIRO (the Coastal and Marine Resources Information System, CAMRIS);
by the National Resource Information Centre in the Department of Primary
Industries and Energy (the National Marine Geographic Information System);
and by the Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) in the
Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories (the National Marine
Information System, NATMIS).
5.183 NATMIS was established in the Ocean Rescue 2000 program to provide
information to assist broad-scale regional planning and decision making,
incorporating the principles of ecologically sustainable development
and conservation of biodiversity; to assist with the identification
of marine environmental regions; and to develop a capability for long-term
monitoring and reporting of the condition of Australia's marine environment.
5.184 It will also assist in the coordination and rationalisation of
activities of government agencies with responsibilities in the coastal
zone; identification of polluted areas; coastal surveillance; identification
of areas of demographic pressure; environmental impact assessment and
other activities.[137] It will
be a comprehensive, computerised scientific information base to include
significant data on all aspects of Australia's marine environments and
will draw together information from a number of Commonwealth natural resource
data agencies.[138]
5.185 The complexity of the Australian administrative framework, a constant
element in this report, leads to a requirement that there should be improved
links between agencies at different levels of government in order to provide
for information flowing freely between those levels of government.[139]
5.186 Australia's Report to the UNCSD states that wise decision making
requires a good knowledge base of the resources in the coastal environment
and an understanding of the processes operating on and within that environment.
This requires research, data gathering, collation and assessment, and
the provision of this information to decision makers in an appropriate
form.[140]
5.187 A major issue that was raised with the Committee by a number
of witnesses was the critical state of taxonomy in Australia (3.225-232,
above). Taxonomy, the classification and naming of organisms, is a fundamental
baseline information provider, and is central to the understanding and
maintenance of the marine environment and its biodiversity. Australia
is a very biodiverse region and there is widespread ignorance about
Australian flora and fauna. Lack of taxonomic knowledge is a crucial
impediment to assessing the effects of marine pollution.
5.188 Witnesses made the point that taxonomy is not a science that is
generally attractive to funding. It does not provide a commercial return
or even generate public interest. However, the lack of trained taxonomists
in Australia, and of suitable facilities for storing and preserving collections
is a serious problem that must be addressed. Taxonomy does not require
a lot of money but it does require secure, long-term funding and positions.
There are many animal groups for which there is no specialist in any Australian
museum.[141]
5.189 The Committee acknowledges the serious need for improved taxonomic
research and for secure, long-term funding to support it. The Committee
also acknowledges the importance of training to provide Australian institutions
with appropriately qualified staff to undertake taxonomic research.
The Committee notes the location of the Australian Institute of
Marine Science in Townsville and acknowledges the international responsibility
that Australia has to study the Great Barrier Reef, but also notes the
need for study of species in southern, temperate waters.
Recommendation 19: The Committee recommends the provision in the
National Marine Science and Technology Plan of secure, long-term funding
to support taxonomic research and museum collections.
Recommendation 20: The Committee recommends the establishment of
a system of Commonwealth funded PhD scholarships and research fellowships
attached to particular museums, to ensure the supply of appropriately
trained marine scientists.
Recommendation 21: The Committee recommends that a Commonwealth
funded group of scientists be attached to an existing museum or university
to undertake study of Australia's southern waters.
5.190 In order to be used effectively data has to be accessible in forms
that are comparable. Evidence to the RAC inquiry suggested that information
about coastal zone management issues was fragmented and often not accessible
to those who could use it to advantage. Reasons for this included: data
being collected by agencies for particular purposes and not shared with
others; lack of communication between researchers and managers; proprietorial
sensitivities; lack of communication between disciplines and a move by
some agencies to a more commercial approach to marketing data.[142]
5.191 Dr Russel Reichelt, Director of the Australian Institute of Marine
Science, told the Committee that:
We discuss and lament the multiple tiers of government and ask
whether it is as well coordinated as it should be ... There needs to
be a national approach with national standards and agreed protocols
where local governments, for instance, see the merit in collecting data
according to the national standard that allows comparison up and down
the coast. Unfortunately for the marine environment, the right scale
to do the measurements is not local government nor is it State Government.
It is probably catchment scale or somewhere in between those two layers...
What you would need to do is get together all of the departments of
environment and environment protection and the state agencies and the
federal bodies concerned. You would have to have the legislation they
are administering at the federal level organised into a national program
where the data was meaningfully comparable.[143]
5.192 At the moment, said Dr Reichelt:
What we tend to have is data that are comparable and which, if
taken together collectively, would give us a big picture of large pieces
of the country ... but the bigger job of bringing it together has not
been done.[144]
5.193 The need for integrated management has been a feature of many
aspects of this report. As reported in Chapter 3, above, SOMER stated
that the lack of long-term data on the marine environment reflected
the lack of a strategic approach to coastal zone planning and management
in Australia and specifically the lack of a long-term marine science
strategy. On 9 May 1997, the then Minister for Science and Technology,
Peter McGauran, MP, released a scoping paper for Australia's first National
Marine Science and Technology Plan. The paper acknowledged that:
Marine data management in Australia is generally not well coordinated.
Data management activities are often undertaken at the individual scientist
level rather than at an organisational level or, more specifically,
within a national context to address the increasing marine information
needs generated by UNCLOS obligations ... Without appropriate data management
systems a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the information
held and ready access to it will become difficult, if not impossible,
to attain.[145]
5.194 The Plan will identify agencies that are willing and capable potential
national data managers and the nature and extent of the roles required
of them. The plan will form an integral part of the Government's Oceans
Policy.[146]
5.195 CSIRO and AIMS stated in their submission that there are too many
problems and too few researchers for agencies such as themselves to cover
all marine pollution issues. These organisations are best used by exploiting
their breadth of expertise and infrastructure to engage in long-term strategic
research, generally outside the mandates of State bodies.[147]
Unfortunately, the expertise pool in Australia is not large and the problem
is in delivering the results of that research effectively at a local level
for a specific local problem.
5.196 The strength of organisations like CSIRO and AIMS is that they
can give an independent assessment of problems that may have a number
of conflicting views within any State, from different State agencies and
commercial organisations within that State.[148]
5.197 The Committee welcomes the release of the scoping paper for a
National Marine Science and Technology Plan, and hopes that the Plan
will address the problems facing those attempting to collect and use
data about the marine environment.
Recommendation 22: The Committee recommends the coordination and
standardisation of the collection and management of information relating
to the marine environment, and ease of access to that information.
Footnotes:
[1] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, p. 62.
[2] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 12.
[3] CSIRO and Australian Institute
of Marine Science, Submission No 45, pp 3-4.
[4] Professor Bruce Davis, Submission
No 66, p. 3.
[5] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 13.
[6] Ms Caroline Williams, Submission
No 32, p. 18.
[7] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 399.
[8] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, pp 16-17.
[9] Our Sea, Our Future: Major
Findings of the State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia,
p. 96.
[10] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Richmond Catchment Management Strategy, p. 11.
[11] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Submission No 74, p. 1.
[12] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Submission No 74, p. 1.
[13] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Richmond Catchment Management Strategy, p. 16.
[14] Richmond Catchment Management
Committee, Submission No 74, p. 4.
[15] Government of Queensland,
Submission No 108, p. 2.
[16] Government of Victoria,
Submission No 110, p. 10.
[17] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 244.
[18] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, pp 380-381.
[19] Professor Leon Zann, Submission
No 12, p. 6.
[20] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 17.
[21] Professor Leon Zann, Submission
No 12, p. 6.
[22] Fertilizer Industry Federation
of Australia, Submission No 15, pp 2-3, 10.
[23] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 470.
[24] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, pp 471-473.
[25] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 482.
[26] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 14.
[27] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 489.
[28] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 471.
[29] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 497.
[30] The Byron Shire Echo,
February 18 1997, p. 1.
[31] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 358.
[32] Government of Victoria,
Submission No 108, p. 2.
[33] Government of South Australia,
Submission No 29, p. 10.
[34] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 377.
[35] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 354.
[36] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 4.
[37] Sydney Morning Herald,
15 February 1997, p. 37.
[38] Government of Victoria,
Submission No 110, p. 3.
[39] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 320.
[40] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 359.
[41] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 5.
[42] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 5.
[43] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 367.
[44] Mr Borvin Kracman, General
Manager, Environmental Technology, MFP Australia, letter to the Committee,
15 January 1997.
[45] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix B, p. 5.
[46] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, p. 1.
[47] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix A, p. 2.
[48] Sunday Mail (SA),
1 June 1997, p. 69.
[49] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix A, p. 2; Appendix B, p. 6.
[50] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix A, p. 2.
[51] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 153.
[52] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 11.
[53] MFP Australia, Submission
No 97, Appendix B, p. 7.
[54] Official Hansard Report,
Ballina, 1 May 1997, p. 501.
[55] Mr Glenn Marshall, Submission
No 86, pp 1-2.
[56] Dr Leigh Davison, Submission
No 87, p. 1.
[57] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 13.
[58] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, pp 59-60.
[59] Neale Philip, 'Sewage: Sydney
(NSW) - a case history', in The State of the Marine Environment Report
for Australia: Technical Annex 2, p. 42.
[60] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, p. 13.
[61] Mr Nicholas Brunton, Submission
No 8, p. 60.
[62] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 398.
[63] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 27.
[64] Australian Academy of Science,
Submission No 109, p. 5.
[65] Australian Seafood Industry
Council, Submission No 68, p. 3.
[66] Australian Water and Wastewater
Association, Submission No 28, p. 3.
[67] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 378.
[68] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 378.
[69] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 11 February 1997, p. 126.
[70] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, pp 99-100.
[71] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 38.
[72] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, p. 160.
[73] Investing in our Natural
Heritage, The Commonwealth's Environment Expenditure 1997-98, p. xix.
[74] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, p. 4.
[75] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 411.
[76] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 403.
[77] Professor Leon Zann, Submission
No 12, p. 1.
[78] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia's Report to the UNCSD on the Implementation
of Agenda 21 1996, p. 44.
[79] Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council, Working Together to Reduce Impacts
From Shipping Operations: ANZECC Strategy to Protect the Marine Environment,
1996, p. 10.
[80] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, p. 3.
[81] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, p. 8.
[82] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, March 25 1997, p. 404.
[83] Official Hansard Report,
Melbourne, 7 March 1997, p. 346.
[84] Australian Marine Oil Spill
Centre, Submission No 60, pp 4-5.
[85] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Submission No 13, pp 11-12.
[86] Mr Nelson Quinn, Submission
No 14, pp 1-2.
[87] Australian Chamber of Shipping,
Submission No 3, p. 2.
[88] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 February 1997, pp 261-262.
[89] Department of Transport,
Submission No 67, p. 14.
[90] Office of Marine Administration,
information supplied to the Committee, 23 May 1997.
[91] Department of Transport,
Submission No 67, p. 14.
[92] Department of Transport
and Regional Development, Submission No 67A, pp 5-6.
[93] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, pp 403-404, 406.
[94] Australian Maritime Safety
Authority, Waste Reception Facilities in Australian Ports April 1996,
p. 1.
[95] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 273.
[96] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 416. Also, Daily Commercial News, 7
July 1997, p. 2.
[97] Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service, Submission No 112, p. 2.
[98] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 419.
[99] Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service, Submission No 112, pp 2-3.
[100] Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service, Submission No 112, p. 8.
[101] House of Representatives
Hansard, 3 March 1997, p. 1702.
[102] Australian Quarantine
and Inspection Service, Submission No 112, p. 4.
[103] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 422.
[104] Australian Quarantine
and Inspection Service, Submission No 112, p. 9.
[105] Official Hansard Report,
Hobart, 21 April 1997, p. 453.
[106] Official Hansard Report,
Hobart, 21 April 1997, pp 454-456.
[107] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 416.
[108] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 506.
[109] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 3 November 1995, p. 50.
[110] Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 1.
[111] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, pp 7-11.
[112] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, pp 418, 420.
[113] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 12.
[114] Dr Ian McPhail, letter
to the Committee, 28 September 1995.
[115] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 20 May 1997, p. 542.
[116] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 22.
[117] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 3 November 1995, pp 107-108; 20 May 1997, p. 543.
[118] Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, Submission No 25, p. 22.
[119] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, pp 408-409.
[120] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 224.
[121] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 February 1997, pp 228-229.
[122] Directorate of Environment
and Heritage, Department of Defence, Exercise Tandem Thrust 1997, Environmental
Report, p. 4.
[123] Royal Australian Navy,
Environmental Assessment, Exercise Tandem Thrust 97, p. 53; Official
Hansard Report, Canberra, 25 February 1997, p. 260.
[124] Sydney Morning Herald,
18 June 1997, p. 11.
[125] See also Mr Nicholas
Brunton, 4.82, above.
[126] Australian Academy of
Science, Submission No 109, pp 6-7.
[127] Official Hansard Report,
Canberra, 25 March 1997, p. 380.
[128] CSIRO and Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Submission No 45, pp 10-11.
[129] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Living on the Coast, Commonwealth Coastal
Policy, p. 21.
[130] Ms Caroline Williams,
Submission No 32, p. 30. See also Mr Nicholas Brunton, 4.82, above.
[131] CSIRO and Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Submission No 45, p. 11.
[132] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 3 November 1995, p. 46.
[133] Official Hansard Report,
Glenelg, 14 February 1997, pp 212-213.
[134] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, pp 6-7.
[135] Water Services Association
of Australia, Submission No 51, pp 9-10.
[136] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 12.
[137] The State of the Marine
Environment Report for Australia: Technical Summary, p. 384.
[138] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Submission No 111, p. 13.
[139] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 3 November 1995, p. 46.
[140] Department of the Environment,
Sport and Territories, Australia's Report to The UNCSD on the Implementation
of Agenda 21 1996, p. 31.
[141] South Australian Museum,
Submission No 54, pp 1-2; Official Hansard Report, Glenelg, 14
February 1997, pp 180-182; Official Hansard Report, Melbourne,
7 March 1997, pp 293-294, 327; Official Hansard Report, Hobart,
21 April 1997, p. 441.
[142] Resource Assessment Commission,
Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report, p. 270.
[143] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 20 May 1997, pp 522-523.
[144] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 20 May 1997, p. 532.
[145] The Marine Science and
Technology Working Group, The Proposed Scope of Australia's Marine
Science and Technology Plan, Canberra, April 1997, p. 8.
[146] The Marine Science and
Technology Working Group, The Proposed Scope of Australia's Marine
Science and Technology Plan, p. 8.
[147] CSIRO and Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Submission No 45, p. 13.
[148] Official Hansard Report,
Townsville, 3 November 1995, pp 48-49, 53.