Chapter 3

Key issues

3.1 Submissions in response to the bill tended to be polarised either in favour of, or against the bill. Opposition to the bill came primarily from industry groups associated with the ports, shipping and resource industries, along with the Queensland government.[1] Individuals and organisations supporting the bill included the Law Council of Australia, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, conservation organisations, and a number of scientific experts.[2] The Queensland Tourism Industry Council supported 'the spirit' of the bill.[3]

3.2 Key issues raised during the committee's inquiry included:

whether the bill is an appropriate response to the World Heritage Committee's recommendations;
the impacts of ports and associated activities on the health of the Great Barrier Reef;
whether existing legislation is sufficient to protect the Great Barrier Reef;
the need to consider the economic and social implications of the bill; and
the drafting of the bill.

3.3 These are discussed in turn below.

Responding to the World Heritage Committee

3.4 Those who supported the bill believed that it would facilitate the fulfilment of Australia's international commitments to protect the outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and avoid the property being added to the List of World Heritage in Danger.[4] In particular, they believed the bill is an important, efficient, sensible and appropriate way of giving effect to the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.[5] For example, the Law Council of Australia supported the bill as 'an appropriate form of regulatory protection' for an important World Heritage area and an 'appropriate and proportionate response' to the concerns and recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.[6]

3.5 Ms Jo-Anne Bragg from the Environmental Defenders Office Queensland (EDO Qld) agreed that the bill would efficiently implement the UNESCO recommendations because it imposes clear duties on the minister 'to refuse certain types of developments in certain locations that affect the reef'.[7] For example, Ms Bragg told the committee that proposed section 24D is a clear-cut way to implement the World Heritage Committee's request that Australia 'not permit any new port development or associated infrastructure outside of the existing and long-established major port areas'.[8]

3.6 In particular, it was argued that the bill is needed because port development is continuing near the Great Barrier Reef despite the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.[9] For example, Mr Richard Leck from WWF-Australia expressed the view that there has been 'very little progress' from the Queensland or Australian governments in relation to the core concerns of the World Heritage Committee. He explained:

While there has been some progress on some of the recommendations that the committee made in 2012, particularly in relation to the refunding of Reef Rescue to combat the issues of water quality—which is fantastic and should be welcomed—those core issues relating to coastal development really have not been addressed.[10]

3.7 In terms of whether Australia is meeting its international obligations to protect the Great Barrier Reef, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPAC) advised that 'the EPBC Act is the primary mechanism through which Australia discharges its international convention obligations' and that the Great Barrier Reef and world heritage areas are already matters of environmental significance under the EPBC Act. A representative of SEWPAC further advised that one port has been approved since the World Heritage Committee made that its 2012 decision and 'that port was in an existing port area'.[11]

3.8 As to whether Australia has made sufficient progress towards addressing the World Heritage Committee's concerns, the department stated that the Commonwealth government is undertaking a 'range of initiatives' to address the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef, including the strategic assessments.[12] The department also noted that there have been:

....a number of announcements made by the Australian government...including the Prime Minister's announcement of $200 million worth of funding for the additional reef rescue program...the World Heritage Committee have been most concerned about the continuation of that investment. It may be that on further reflection the committee may find that they feel that there has been more than sufficient progress made in this matter.[13]

3.9 The committee was also advised that the department is funding a number of research projects to:

...inform the comprehensive strategic assessment and provide tools and guidance on how best to manage key threats to the Great Barrier Reef World heritage Area, including dredging, shipping, coastal development and improving resilience to threats such as climate change.[14]

3.10 While some pointed out the importance of meeting Australia's international obligations, Ports Australia argued that the UNESCO report findings 'should be treated with considerable caution' and that 'the World Heritage Committee, as much as we like to take their advice, does not set Australian government policy.'[15] Mr David Anderson from Ports Australia concluded that 'we should not totally abrogate our policy making and the way we go about things to an international agency'.[16]

3.11 In contrast, others stressed the importance of the Australian government honouring its international obligations. For example, the Law Council of Australia told the committee that it expects governments will comply with their international legal obligations:

...states must comply with their international legal obligations whether created by treaty or arising under customary international law. The Law Council supports the proposed amendments on the basis that legislation rather than policy and other executive decisions will better enable Australia to honour its international legal obligations. Australia's obligations under the World Heritage convention to lawfully protect World Heritage areas within our jurisdiction warrants the enactment of the proposed bill.[17]

3.12 Those opposed to the bill suggested that it goes further than the UNESCO recommendations by seeking to add far greater restrictions on port development rather than the suggested cessation of port development outside already existing port areas.[18] For example, Gladstone Ports Corporation pointed out that the bill seeks to prohibit port development 'in areas with existing and lawfully established port designation, such as Port Alma, and to place a moratorium on approvals for future port development in areas, such as the Port of Gladstone'. Gladstone Ports Corporation contrasted this with the World Heritage Committee's recommendation that no approval be issued for any new port development or associated infrastructure outside of the existing long‐established major port areas within and adjoining the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.[19]

3.13 Ms Jo-Anne Bragg from the EDO Qld disagreed with this analysis, stating that 'this bill definitely does not go further than UNESCO recommended'. In fact, she argued that the bill does not go as far as UNESCO would prefer in its recommendations, because it sets a date of 20 March 2013, before which actions can be approved. She expressed the view that:

UNESCO would not have wanted that to happen. They would have wanted those development processes stopped pending the completion of the strategic assessment.[20]

3.14 In response to questioning on this issue, Mr Shane Mead from the Law Council of Australia expressed the view that there is a 'correlation between the recommendations made in the reactive monitoring report and the provisions of this bill'.[21]

The bill pre-empts the strategic assessment and other activities

3.15 Those opposed to the bill were also concerned that the bill pre-empts work being done by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to implement and respond to the recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee.[22] As outlined in chapter 2, this work includes strategic assessments currently being undertaken by both State and Commonwealth agencies, and the Independent Review into the Port of Gladstone.[23] Submitters opposed to the bill also pointed to other initiatives, such as the Abbot Point cumulative impact assessment,[24] the development of the Queensland Ports Strategy,[25] and the North East Shipping Management Plan by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.[26] It was suggested that it would be 'prudent to consider the outcomes of this work before implementing any legislative changes'.[27]

3.16 For example, Queensland Ports Association submitted that:

The Strategic Assessment is by far the largest, most wide-ranging and most complex strategic assessment ever undertaken....It will result in a range of recommendations regarding 'appropriateness' of development siting and the need for any amendments to existing regulatory protection measures and governance frameworks for development assessment. It is through this process that any necessary legislative amendments must be based...[28]

3.17 In contrast, others argued that the strategic assessment should be completed before any more port developments that significantly affect the reef are approved, as proposed by the bill.[29] For example, Mr Daniel Gschwind from the Queensland Tourism Industry Council told the committee that:

...logic tells me that we should do a strategic and cumulative assessment before we move ahead with significant projects that have the potential to have a significant impact on the reef. It is logic that dictates that rather than international agencies.[30]

3.18 In terms of the impact of the strategic assessment on existing development proposals in the Great Barrier Reef area, the department stated 'there would be no reason to advise stopping approvals until the strategic assessment was finished'.[31]

3.19 However, the department did advise that it is 'endeavouring to roll existing referrals in Queensland' into the strategic assessment process.[32] At the same time, the department noted that:

The strategic assessment cannot require that those projects restart their assessment processes, but the information that is gathered through the strategic assessment and the work that is done throughout it will inform, necessarily, any decisions that are made between now and its completion.[33]

3.20 The department further explained that proponents who have already referred projects under the EPBC Act 'have the right to have those referrals assessed'. The department advised that whether those projects are ultimately approved depends on their environmental impacts, but that developments that could negatively affect the reef can be refused, or can be approved with 'robust' conditions.[34]

Impacts and pressures on the Great Barrier Reef

3.21 Many submissions expressed concern about the current health of the Great Barrier Reef.[35] Some submissions pointed to scientific reports and studies warning about the health of the reef, including:

a recent study by the Australian Institute of Marine Science which showed that 'in the last 27 years to 2012 the reef has lost a staggering 51% of coral cover';[36] and
the 2009 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, which concluded that 'the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor and catastrophic damage to the ecosystem may not be averted.'[37]

3.22 Indeed, scientific experts told the committee that there has been a decline in the condition of the Great Barrier Reef. Professor Terry Hughes explained that:

That decline is not uniform. The more remote parts of the Great Barrier Reef are still in very good condition, and they still support a very vibrant and economically valuable tourism industry. But south of about Cooktown and inshore along the coastline is being severely degraded...it is very well documented.[38]

3.23 WWF-Australia expressed the view that the reef is at a 'particularly vulnerable stage' and that the issues associated with the recent rapid industrial development along the reef reflect management failures, especially in relation to cumulative impacts.[39]

3.24 A representative of SEPWAC told the committee that:

Australia's management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area is considered to be the best practice in many respects. There are a number of threats facing the Great Barrier Reef, like all reefs around the world, that are caused by a mix of man-made and natural pressures. Climate change, cyclones, floods, crown-of-thorns starfish, coastal development and high levels of nutrients are key concerns. The issues are complex and difficult to manage, and the Commonwealth government is undertaking a range of initiatives to address these pressures...[40]

Impacts of ports

3.25 Discussion about the impacts of ports developments and related activities in the Great Barrier Reef region centred around three areas:

the relative contribution of port-related activities to the decline in the health of the Great Barrier Reef when compared to other pressures;
the impacts of various activities associated with ports, particularly the consequences of dredging, dumping and increased shipping;[41] and
how the impacts of ports can best be managed and minimised.

3.26 These issues are discussed in turn below.

Relative contribution of ports to reef pressures

3.27 Those who opposed the bill argued against the assumption that port activity is a major cause of adverse impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. They pointed out that other major issues have been identified that impact on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, including climate change, declining water quality, loss of coastal habitat from development and some fishing activities. Run off from agricultural practices and the crown of thorns starfish were also mentioned as having a greater detrimental impact on the Great Barrier Reef.[42]

3.28 For example, Mr Michael Roche, Chief Executive of the Queensland Resources Council told the committee:

This bill appears to be based on a false premise that port developments, primarily driven by resource sector growth, have been or will be the cause of decline in the health of the reef. This view is contrary to extensive scientific studies and government pronouncements that make clear that the key issues affecting the reef are crown-of-thorns starfish, water quality and nutrient inflows from coastal rivers and storm damage.[43]

3.29 Those opposed to the bill argued that port development, including associated dredging, is a 'minor risk'. Some cited the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009, which recognised port development and operation as a 'medium risk to the reef'.[44] For example, Mr David Anderson from Ports Australia argued that:

Discussions around the environmental impacts of dredging and shipping in Queensland ports have been exaggerated, whereas scientific research has indicated that the impacts are low or minimal. We reiterate that port developments and shipping activities are not recognised as the primary impacts upon the reef.[45]

3.30 Mr Michael Roche from the Queensland Resources Council further argued that 'there are wildly exaggerated estimates out into the community about the extent of port development' as well as the number of vessels using ports in the Great Barrier Reef.[46]

3.31 GBRMPA advised that, while ports ranked about fourth or fifth on the list of risks in the 2009 Outlook Report:

...in recent years the proposals and scale of harbour development has increased, along with the increase in export demand for our products. Our view is that in a risk based system, climate change and catchment quality and water run-off, remain the two greatest risks to the Great Barrier Reef. Coastal development—by that I mean on the land and things in the waterways—is probably third.[47]

3.32 For those who supported the bill, the key concern was that port and industrial development in and near the Great Barrier Reef is creating additional pressure and negative impacts on the health of the Reef.[48] For example, the North Queensland Conservation Council submitted that the argument about whether ports or other activities are the main contributing factors to the stress on the Great Barrier Reef is 'irrelevant and unhelpful': the reef cannot survive additional stresses.[49] Professor Terry Hughes similarly observed that, in relation to dredging:

Some of the submissions argued that the impact of dredging was comparatively small compared to existing stresses like run-off from agriculture. I do not think there is much scientific validity in that argument when we look at the issue of cumulative impacts, because the extra insult of something like 60 million cubic metres of dredge spoil added to the pre‑existing stresses is something that will simply cause a huge amount of damage.[50]

3.33 It was pointed out that additional pressures are particularly problematic in the context of climate change. For example, Distinguished Professor Helene Marsh expressed the view the developments that are occurring are not only damaging the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef, but also 'the capacity of a reef system that is already under considerable pressure. We need to be concerned about increasing its resilience, not decreasing it'.[51]

3.34 Similarly, Professor Terry Hughes agreed that the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef is a key issue:

...the Great Barrier Reef has evolved for hundreds of thousands of years with recurrent cyclones and floods. It always bounced back before but now it does not. The reason coastal reefs have lost their resilience to those natural events is because of things like the dumping of dredge spoil and run-off from land.[52]

3.35 Professor Terry Hughes summarised his views:

My opinion, based on the science, is that the Great Barrier Reef is in decline. I think that decline will continue unless we reduce the stressors that are currently happening to the Great Barrier Reef, and it is my opinion, based on the science, that large amounts of dredging will simply hasten the ongoing decline of the Great Barrier Reef.[53]

3.36 Several submissions also expressed concern that port developments, expansions, and their associated impacts have the potential to undermine other important initiatives to protect the Great Barrier Reef, such as the Great Barrier Reef Water Quality Plan and Reef Rescue program.[54]

Impacts of dredging, dumping and increased shipping

3.37 The impacts of activities associated with port development, including dredging, dumping and increased shipping, were also outlined during the committee's inquiry. As Mr Scott Wiseman from the Queensland Seafood Industry Association highlighted:

...it is not only the impacts associated with the construction and extension of the infrastructure that need to be considered; it is the impacts associated with ongoing dredging, at-sea spoil dumping, increased vessel traffic and anchorages and a much wider range of ongoing impacts which must be factored into the cumulative impact assessments.[55]

3.38 Mr Richard Leck from WWF-Australia told the committee that 'when you look at the latest science and we look at the current declines that are happening, particularly in the inshore areas of the reef', dredging and dredge disposal 'are now no longer considered acceptable'.[56]

3.39 The committee heard that dredging can cause loss and degradation of habitat, including seagrass beds, which are important as habitat for a range of inshore species, such as turtles, dugongs, dolphins, as well as nurseries of fish.[57]

3.40 Submitters and witnesses also expressed grave concerns, and indeed opposition to dumping of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef region.[58] For example, Professor Terry Hughes called for an outright ban of dumping of dredge spoil within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.[59]As Dr Jeremijenko stated:

The Great Barrier Reef is a world wonder, it is a tourism icon, it is a national treasure and a scientific wonderland, and we should not be treating it like a dump zone.[60]

3.41 The committee heard concerns about the large volumes of dredge spoil from port developments projected be dumped in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area under current proposals. For example, Professor Terry Hughes expressed alarm that:

The volume that is being proposed over the next few years is very, very large...it is actually difficult to get the total number. But my calculation is that it is at least 60 million cubic metres of dredged spoil...it is a huge additional impost on the Great Barrier Reef...[61]

3.42 Professor Terry Hughes explained the known impacts of dredge spoil:

...added sediment to the marine environment is very destructive. It reduces light levels, which kills off seagrass beds. It can kill corals and it can prevent recovery of coral reefs after natural disasters...depending on where those sediments come from, they can be laced with various toxins.[62]

3.43 Professor Hughes added that there is a lot not yet known about dredge spoil, particularly in relation to the transport of dredge spoil during cyclones.[63] Professor Terry Hughes concluded that 'dredged spoil is detrimental to the marine environment'.[64]

3.44 The Queensland Tourism Industry Council described any development involving the dumping of dredge spoil in or near the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a 'red flag issue' for them:

The evidence that has been presented to us over recent months in particular is very compelling and says that deposit of dredge spoils not just in the park but near the park has a very catastrophic impact upon the reef...the Commonwealth is spending $400 million to address that issue by better management on the land, so it seems somewhat inconsistent that we would even contemplate dumping dredge spoil in or near the reef at the same time.[65]

3.45 In response to questioning about offshore dumping, GBRMPA acknowledged that there is a 'demand for bigger ships and deeper channels' and that 'the scale of dredge disposal is now greater' than it has been on average in the past.[66]

3.46 GBRMPA also noted that there is an issue of where, how and whether dredged spoil can be safely disposed of.[67] GBRMPA advised that the national guidelines for dredging[68] state that:

...first choice should be disposal on land, second choice should be beneficial re-use or reclaim, and the third and least favoured option would be disposal at sea.[69]

3.47 Both GBRMPA and SEWPAC further advised that, before sea dumping permits are issued, applicants are required to examine alternatives, and that a number of other issues are examined, including the qualities of the material being dumped, sediment size, contamination source, the degree of disturbance, the location and nature of the proposed dumping site.[70]

3.48 GBRMPA also expressed the view that there is likely to be a re‑evaluation and scientific dissection of the impacts of offshore disposal in the next 12 months.[71] Finally, GBRMPA noted that the effect of sea dumping of spoil will form part of the strategic assessment, and 'will illuminate further our positions on offshore dumping'.[72]

Impacts of increased shipping

3.49 The committee also heard a number of concerns related to the potential impacts of increased shipping associated with port developments and expansions, including:

increased vessel strikes, which mainly affects larger animals, such as dugongs, dolphins, turtles and whales, and 'has the potential to lead to the long-term decline of already depleted populations of long-lived, slow‑breeding species';[73]
noise and lighting from ships–it was argued, for example, that this can disturb habitat and cause damage to turtles through disorientation if they are heading for their breeding grounds;[74]
the risk of ballast water being released from ships moving through the reef, which can carry contaminants and invasive foreign species;[75]
the use of tributyltin (TBT), an antifouling agent used on ships hulls (it was argued that the cumulative impact on the marine environment of this can be quite significant);[76] and
shipping incidents, accidents and collisions with the reef system itself.[77]

3.50 However, submissions opposed to the bill noted that work is being done to minimise the risk of shipping. For example, Australia Pacific LNG submitted that shipping incidents have fallen 'from an average of one a year to one in 10 years and are continuing to decline at the same time as shipping volumes have increased'.[78] Shipping Australia also pointed out that the Australia Maritime Safety Authority has taken 'a number of steps to reduce the risk in the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Straits region', including the development of the North East Shipping Management Plan.[79]

Managing the impacts of ports developments

3.51 It was also suggested that port development can continue in an environmentally responsible manner while ensuring that the values of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are protected.[80] Ports Australia argued ports are 'continually striving to be good environmental citizens', fulfil environmental assessments obligations and are 'willing participants in a clear and transparent process'.[81]

3.52 However, others disagreed that port developments are being well managed. For example, research scientist Mr Jon Brodie argued that 'it is possible to manage these port developments immensely better than what is happening at the moment'.[82]

3.53 Indeed, the committee received a considerable amount of evidence alleging that port development in Gladstone Harbour has been anything but well managed.[83] For example, Mr Jon Brodie described it as 'an absolute environmental management failure with huge ecological effects'.[84] Mr Scott Wiseman from the Queensland Seafood Industry Association agreed that:

Unfortunately, the Gladstone port development provides a case example where many things have gone wrong and highlights how sensitive marine environments can easily and significantly be impacted.[85]

3.54 Dr Matthew Landos argued that dredging in Gladstone harbour was done without any sediment control, which resulted in a 'dredge plume of uncontrolled, re‑suspended, toxic sediment going throughout the harbour'.[86] The committee heard that this had had impacts on human health, fisheries, seagrasses and wildlife such as turtles in Gladstone Harbour.[87]

3.55 The committee heard also about three cases of 'shewenella' in fishermen from Gladstone. Dr Jeremijenko explained that 'shewenella' is a rare bacterium associated with heavy metals, and argued that dredging in Gladstone harbour caused these cases of shewenella.[88] In contrast, Gladstone Ports Corporation argued that 'shewenella' is a common bacterium normally found in healthy marine animals, and that 'the linkage between shewenella and a metal rich environment caused by dredging is unsubstantiated'.[89]

3.56 However, the committee notes that there was debate about whether the issues in Gladstone Harbour could be solely attributed to dredging and port development or recent flood events.[90]

3.57 Gladstone Ports Corporation argued that recent monitoring in Gladstone showed that the impacts of dredging activities are 'not significant in terms of environmental quality and impacts on marine ecology', and are very localised. By comparison, they argued that recent floods in Queensland had 'catastrophic effects on the ecosystem which extended well beyond the immediate harbour'.[91] Gladstone Ports Corporation further explained in response to these concerns:

An extensive environmental monitoring program has run since before dredging commenced and will continue well after the completion of dredging operations. Analysis of the data provided by this monitoring program has been undertaken by both independent scientists and government agencies. None of whom have identified any linkage between dredging activities and fish health or human health.[92]

3.58 Gladstone Ports Corporation argued that the analysis of Drs Landos and Jeremijenko downplays the impacts caused by the significant flood events that occurred in Central Queensland in early 2011:

These events have been shown to have dramatically affected the characteristics of the natural ecosystem of Gladstone Harbour and those effects persisted for a number of months.[93]

3.59 However, Dr Matthew Landos described the idea that the problems in Gladstone Harbour could be due to floods as 'fanciful':

In Gladstone, the fish did not start getting sick until July. The flood was in January...there was actually a bigger flood running down the Fitzroy River than was in Gladstone—substantially bigger...but nothing died in the Fitzroy delta. Nothing got sick. Turtles were not washing up. Hundreds of them washed up in Gladstone. They washed up immediately after the bund wall was being constructed, in high tidal velocities that caused massive scouring and unprecedented levels of sediment resuspension in the harbour. Floods had nothing to do with it. Floods cannot deliver the contaminants into the harbour that we detected in the bloods of turtles. The turtles were full of heavy metals. They did not come down with the flood.[94]

3.60 In response to questioning on this issue, GBRMPA responded that it was aware of the problems in the Gladstone Harbour area and had sought briefings.[95] However, GBRMPA advised that its scientists were 'satisfied', based on the reports, that the issues in Gladstone Harbour were related to 'floods as opposed to the dredging'. GBRMPA acknowledged that 'the dredging could well have had an effect, but it is swamped by the signal from the biggest floods in a hundred years'.[96]

3.61 GBRMPA noted that its records:

...show very clearly a massive increase in dugong and turtle deaths from around 2010-11 and 2011-12—the years of the very big floods...the rate of dugong deaths, appearance of onshore strandings, has now decreased to the long-term average, but turtle deaths are still elevated. They seem to take a longer time to recover, sadly.[97]

3.62 GBRMPA noted that it had conducted monitoring just outside Gladstone harbour, which 'did not show significant exceedances' in terms of water quality. However, GBRMPA further advised that 'it is not our job to monitor and comment on what was happening inside the harbour.' Inside the harbour is 'managed by the port, the Queensland government and the EPBC process.'[98]

3.63 The committee notes that the World Heritage Committee has requested, and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has commissioned, an Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone. The committee notes that there was discussion about the adequacy and transparency of the review process during the committee's hearing in Brisbane.[99] The review will report to the Australian government by 30 June 2013.[100]

Where should ports be located?

3.64 In addition to the importance of good management of ports, the committee heard evidence that ports should be located in the 'right place'.[101] In this context, there was strong support for the bill's proposal (and the World Heritage Committee recommendations) to contain port development to existing port areas. For example, the Queensland Tourism Industry Council expressed the view that:

...port development should be confined to existing ports and, if there is to be expansion of capacity which may be justified, it should be taking place in the three major ports that already exist in Queensland. Any further development should not take place outside those areas.[102]

3.65 Mr Michael McCabe, from the Capricorn Conservation Council, agreed that 'we should definitely not expand ports beyond the existing ones. We need a lot more science to understand what is currently going on.'[103]

3.66 In the same vein, Ms Janelle Allen from the Keppel and Fitzroy Delta Alliance told the committee:

...we should be looking at current infrastructure and expanding that if necessary, rather than developing ports willy-nilly up and down the coast to suit every company that wants to have a port or a facility of its own.[104]

3.67 Professor Terry Hughes explained his view that it would be a 'huge mistake' to develop new ports or 'ports that are currently really tiny':

...because the reef near them, and associated habitats like seagrass beds, are still in good condition. It would be a big mistake to basically spread the decline all the way along the coast rather than containing it.[105]

3.68 Distinguished Professor Helene Marsh agreed that 'we should be very cautious indeed about expanding anything in the northern half of the reef'. She expressed the view that there are parts of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly north of Cooktown, that are still in good condition, and that 'we should be defending that to the hilt'. She also expressed concern about the development of new ports in remote areas and the capacity to deal with accidents in those areas.[106]

3.69 GBRMPA agreed that 'fewer better managed ports gives better outcomes for the sustainability of the ecosystems'.[107] However, some also expressed caution about developing existing ports.[108] Distinguished Professor Helene Marsh commented that we need to be 'very careful' about location of ports:

Just because there are port boundaries in some of these areas—we should be thinking that those port boundaries were drawn a long time ago and we should be looking very carefully at where they are and where subsequent developments occur.[109]

3.70 By way of example, Ms Wendy Tubman expressed the view that:

Cleveland Bay, where Townsville port is situated, is a very shallow bay. It is not an appropriate place for a large commercial port these days. It is not necessarily a case of the number of ports. It is a case of where, it is a case of what are the conditions of the surrounding environments....[110]

3.71 Dr Matthew Landos summed up his views as follows:

Ports are not great for aquatic environments or ecosystems...We have to have them, but we have to have them in areas where we can control them. We should have as few of them as we can get away with. We should make them as efficiently run as possible. And we should ensure that, if we have to undertake dredging, we do so in the safest way that is compatible with the area that we are contemplating dredging.[111]

Is existing legislation adequate?

3.72 The committee was advised by some submitters that existing legislation, particularly the EPBC Act, already comprehensively covers the activities being regulated by the bill.[112] It was suggested that port development and expansion is already subject to a 'stringent approval regime' under the EPBC Act. It was therefore argued that the bill would add another layer of regulation, which could add 'complexity, uncertainty, time delays and unnecessary costs' to development.[113]

3.73 The Queensland government also argued that the bill fails to recognise the 'the robustness and reliability' of Queensland's current environmental assessment, planning and development assessment systems. They concluded that the bill is 'unnecessary and will not lead to better outcomes', but rather would add to the 'regulatory burden faced by proponents of projects in or adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area'.[114]

3.74 Ports Australia argued that 'the Great Barrier Reef is already one of the most highly regulated marine environments in the world'.[115] Similarly, the Queensland Resources Council expressed the view that the existing regulatory framework is 'more than sufficient to ensure that leading practice sustainable development can occur within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area without the need for the extreme proposal of a complete moratorium as drafted in the Bill'.[116]

3.75 Mr Michael Roche of the Queensland Resources Council told the committee:

All port activities, developments and associated shipping are highly managed and conducted in accordance with Queensland and marine park zonings....Where impacts may occur, a rigorous environmental assessment regime and management arrangements are applied to avoid and minimise impacts.[117]

3.76 Another suggestion was that the bill would 'usurp' other plans and strategies, including the National Ports Strategy, the Great Barrier Reef Port Strategy and the Queensland Ports Strategy;[118] as well as state planning legislation, including Port Use Plans under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld).[119] For example, Mr David Anderson from Ports Australia told the committee that:

The bill undermines orderly planning. There is no acknowledgement of the national ports strategy or any policy alignment with the GBR ports strategy, the Queensland government's ports strategy or the national land freight strategy.[120]

3.77 In contrast, those who supported the bill were concerned that current legislation, including the EPBC Act, is insufficient to ensure the protection of the Great Barrier Reef's values.[121] For example, Ms Janelle Allen from the Keppel and Fitzroy Delta Alliance expressed the view that:

The addition of specific special designation of protected areas is required in order to prevent the Queensland government and their associated port corporations from planning, facilitating and approving port development without regard for the protection of Australia's most prized asset, the Great Barrier Reef.[122]

3.78 Ms Jo-Anne Bragg from EDO Qld also described the Queensland state legislative framework under which ports operate as 'inadequate' in terms of providing protection for the Great Barrier Reef. She pointed out that many laws and policies regulating coastal development have recently been weakened in Queensland.[123]

3.79 Others were critical of environmental assessment and approval processes for port developments, including the lack of independence in environmental assessments, insufficient conditions on approvals, and inadequate compliance monitoring programs.[124] Witnesses also expressed concern about the ability of existing legislation to deal with cumulative impacts.[125]

3.80 Several witnesses pointed to the scientific evidence of the deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef as an indication that the current regulatory regime is not providing adequate protection. For example, Professor Terry Hughes expressed the view that the declining condition of the Great Barrier Reef 'demonstrates that the current regulations, policies and management practices are struggling to maintain the Great Barrier Reef in reasonable condition.'[126]

3.81 Similarly, Mr Gschwind from the Queensland Tourism Industry Council noted that the scientific evidence 'clearly demonstrates that the reef has declined over the last 20 years' and therefore suggests that the current regulatory environment may not be adequate:[127]

Whether or not the current system works has to be assessed on the basis of the evidence. The evidence is that the reef is declining in its quality. There could be an argument about why this is taking place, but I think it is irrefutable that some of it is taking place because of the coastal development that has gone on for decades.[128]

3.82 Mr Shane Mead from the Law Council of Australia noted that the strategic assessment currently underway will consider effectiveness of legislation for protecting the values of the Great Barrier Reef. However, he told the committee that the EPBC Act 'does not currently provide sufficient explicit requirements in relation to World Heritage values to preclude approvals outside existing development footprints'.[129]

3.83 SEWPAC responded that the Australian government's position is that 'we have a system with integrity that does protect those values' and that the EPBC Act is comprehensive and:

...underpins the protection of the reef through the very, very cautious consideration of the environmental impacts of projects and, where appropriate, their approval with appropriate conditions.[130]

Need to consider economic and social impacts of the bill

3.84 Submissions opposing the bill were concerned that the economic and social impacts of the bill need to be considered.[131] It was argued that ports help to sustain Australia's economy, and any restrictions on their development could have economic consequences.[132]

3.85 In particular, concern was expressed about the bill's proposed moratorium on any further port development in the Great Barrier Reef region until 2015 (when the strategic assessment will be completed). Adani Mining argued that this was an 'unreasonable restriction on necessary economic development'.[133]

3.86 There were also concerns that there has been a lack of rigorous economic evaluation of the ramifications of the proposed amendments.[134] Mr Anderson from Ports Australia felt that the bill could have a 'highly disruptive effect' on the economy and jobs in Queensland.[135]

3.87 Queensland Ports Association argued that the bill would undermine economic productivity and investment confidence.[136] For example, it was suggested that the bill would create a disincentive for investment, and may negatively impact on Australia and Queensland's risk profile globally and with trading partners and investors in Asia.[137] Mr David Anderson from Ports Australia told the committee that the bill:

...offers the prospect to severely undermine investment confidence in the minerals, resource and agricultural exports sectors not only in Queensland but nationwide.[138]

3.88 Indeed, Adani Mining submitted that when it purchased the existing Terminal 1 at Abbot Point, 'stable policies together with the regulatory regime' followed by Australia 'gave a sense of comfort'.[139] Adani Mining had attached a 'very significant value' to the expansion potential of the Terminal, and is currently planning to expand the capacity of the port. Adani Mining advised that it is 'well advanced in the assessment process under the EPBC Act' for the development of Terminal 0 at Abbot Point.[140] Adani Mining expressed concern that the bill:

...has the potential to seriously jeopardise investment in Queensland and Australia, with substantial consequential impacts on the livelihood of regional coastal communities along the GBR coast.[141]

3.89 In response to questioning on the economic impacts of the bill, SEWPAC noted that the moratorium on certain developments as proposed by the bill would be imposed 'until after the World Heritage Committee has considered the outcome of the strategic assessment, which is scheduled to be in 2015'. The department noted that pausing development along the Queensland coast for that period of time would be expected to 'have quite a negative impact on the economy'.[142]

3.90 The North Queensland Conservation Council noted the importance of ports to Australia's social and economic status, but commented that:

...both the wellbeing of society and financial prosperity are essentially based on a healthy environment. Damage the environment and society and the economy are inevitably diminished.[143]

Impacts of ports on other industries

3.91 In terms of the economic impacts of the bill, it was pointed out that other industries need to be considered. In particular, it was argued that the expansion of ports and associated activities could have a negative impact on other Australian industries, such as tourism and fishing.[144]

3.92 For example, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association expressed support for the bill, observing that:

The fishing industry has undertaken significant work to improve fishing practices, technology and research to ensure fisheries are sustainable into the future. As an industry, our impact is categorised as low impact and low risk to the reef and marine environments. Our ongoing success is, however, directly reliant on a wide range of other industries also doing their parts to ensure their sustainability and neutral impacts.[145]

3.93 The importance of the Great Barrier Reef for Australian tourism was also highlighted by Mr Daniel Gschwind, Chief Executive of the Queensland Tourism Industry Council. He stated that the Great Barrier Reef is a 'key asset' for the tourism industry and is:

...unmatched in its power to attract visitors to Australia and it is consistently pointed out by international visitors that this is the reason they have come to this country.[146]

3.94 He further told the committee that the Great Barrier Reef 'as a tourism attraction generates between $5 billion and $6 billion of economic expenditure annually' and an estimated '50,000 jobs depend on the activities that are generated through tourism'. He also noted that 'the tourism and hospitality industry actually employs about twice as many people as the resource sector in Queensland'. Finally, he pleaded for the tourism industry to be taken into consideration:

...development proposals should take into account the impacts, both positive and negative, on the entire economy including the tourism industry.[147]

3.95 The tourism industry's main concerns about port development related to the impacts of dredging and dumping, and to a lesser extent the impacts on the scenic amenity of the Great Barrier Reef.[148]

3.96 Finally, the committee heard concerns that, if the Great Barrier Reef ends up being placed on the 'World Heritage in Danger' List, that this would cause damage to the tourism industry:

...the perception that would be generated by such a move would be very significant for us and of very grave concern to our industry...it is the very fact that we have such a pristine environment and we have genuinely in the past demonstrated that we can look after it that is one of our greatest assets in remaining competitive in the tourism sector.[149]

Are more or bigger ports needed?

3.97 In the economic context, there was also discussion during the committee's inquiry as to whether more or bigger ports are needed in the Great Barrier Reef region.

3.98 The committee heard that there has been a recent 'rush' of development proposals for new and expanded ports. [150] At the same time, it was suggested that existing ports in Queensland are not running at capacity.[151] For example, Ms Janelle Allen from the Keppel and Fitzroy Delta Alliance told the committee:

...current usage of ports in Queensland is running at between 40 per cent and 65 per cent...what we have been hearing in recent times is that demand more likely than not will not increase too much in the next two to five years...[152]

3.99 It was noted that 'excess port capacity' was cited in the recent decision to withdraw one port development proposal.[153] In response to questioning on this issue, Mr David Anderson from Ports Australia told the committee that a lot of projections in relation to port development are 'aspirational' rather than reality:

I am not quite sure what they mean, to be quite honest, in saying there is 'excess port capacity'...a lot of these proposals just do not depend on port capacity but depend on supply chain capacity, so the rail links, the handling capacity in the port, the depth of water alongside, the number of berths and so on.[154]

3.100 Mr Michael Roche from the Queensland Resources Council agreed that 'there are excess port development proposals', and stated that '...we do not expect, as the Queensland government says, to see development outside the existing ports limits over the next 10 years'.[155]

3.101 Mr Roche also pointed out that the lead times for new port development are quite long and that 'not every single development application will be approved and nor will all proceed to construction'.[156]

3.102 Adani Mining submitted that 'the increase in development proposals occurred at a time of the resources boom', but that market forces are resulting in:

...an increasing number of planned resource developments being deferred or abandoned. Hence, the urgency for reactive management measures does not appear to have been realised and it could be argued that port related development remains no higher than medium risk to the reef.[157]

Drafting of the bill

3.103 Several submissions queried the drafting of the bill.[158] For example, the Queensland Government submitted that the provisions of the bill are 'vague' and 'poorly drafted'. The Queensland government was concerned that it is difficult to understand how the provisions of the bill are intended to operate individually and together. It also pointed out that there are no definitions for key terminology (such as 'port area' or 'cumulatively').[159]

3.104 The drafting of proposed section 24G was thought to be particularly problematic by some submitters. Proposed section 24G prohibits approval of any actions that do not deliver a 'net benefit' for the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area. However, it was suggested that the section is too general and potentially reaches much further than intended: it could cover a wide range of activities, not just proposed port development.[160]

3.105 For example, Mr Colin Trinder, while supporting the intent of the bill, was concerned that proposed section 24G could have 'unintended consequences' as the way it has been framed:

... potentially reaches much further than the expressed intent to simply the control port development. It could be viewed as actually potentially prohibiting approval of any developments that do not deliver a net benefit for the Great Barrier Reef world heritage values.[161]

3.106 He pointed out that most of the EPBC Act refers to 'significant' impact, whereas proposed section 24G does not include any qualifier for the level of impact. He queried, for example, whether the provision could be interpreted to preclude approval of recreational fishing.[162]

3.107 The Queensland government also expressed concern about proposed section 24G, submitting that 'it is unclear how this section is intended to operate in conjunction with other proposed amendments as it seems to contradict the previous sections'.[163]

3.108 In contrast, EDO Qld interpreted 24G as 'an additional provision to the prohibitions and restrictions in the earlier parts of the bill', and as 'giving an extra layer of protection to the reef over those earlier provisions'.[164]

3.109 There was also considerable debate over the term 'net benefit'. For example, it was suggested that 'net benefit' is ambiguous, difficult to define and too general.[165] The Queensland Resources Council submitted that 'the concept of a net benefit is a fundamentally flawed concept'.[166]

3.110 Ms Bragg from the EDO Qld also expressed caution, stating that 'net benefit' needs to be 'very carefully drafted and considered', because it brings to mind the concept of offsets. She explained:

Certainly what springs to mind is the concept of destroying a certain area which has environmental value but allowing money to be contributed to research into ecological issues and so on. That is not an acceptable form of offset if the aim is to properly protect environmental values.[167]

3.111 In response to questioning on the issue, the Law Council of Australia examined the phrase 'net benefit' in detail, and advised that it 'appears not to have been commonly used in Australian legislation', and 'must be construed as having its ordinary meaning'. However, the Law Council also agreed that the term is 'inextricably linked with biodiversity offsets', which have been defined as:

...conservation actions intended to compensate for the residual, unavoidable harm to biodiversity caused by development projects, so as to ensure no net loss of biodiversity.[168]

3.112 Mr Shane Mead from the Law Council of Australia also told the committee that 'the reference to net benefit is consistent with the Commonwealth environmental policy', including the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy released in October 2012.[169]

Committee view

3.113 The committee recognises the fundamental importance of meeting Australia's international obligations to manage and protect the Great Barrier Reef as a World Heritage Area of Outstanding Universal Value. In this regard, Australia has an obligation to address and respond to the concerns of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee.

3.114 The committee notes that there are a number of initiatives being undertaken by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments to address the concerns of the World Heritage Committee, including the strategic assessments. There was debate about whether the bill pre-empts the outcomes of this strategic assessment, or whether approval of any port-related developments in the Great Barrier Reef region should wait until after the strategic assessment is completed.

3.115 However, one of the World Heritage Committee's key requests was to not permit any further port development or associated infrastructure outside existing major port areas in or near the Great Barrier Reef, and to ensure that development is not permitted if it would impact on the values of the Great Barrier Reef. In this regard, the committee acknowledges evidence received that the bill is an appropriate response to the recommendations of the World Heritage Committee.

3.116 The committee notes that port development and related activities are already subject to a range of legislation, particularly the approval regime under the EPBC Act. However, the scientific evidence of the deterioration of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly over the past 20 years, seems to be an indication that the existing regulatory framework may not be sufficient to protect the Reef's outstanding universal values.

3.117 The committee acknowledges that there are a number of factors impacting on and contributing the current decline in the health of the Great Barrier Reef. However, the committee is not convinced by arguments that the contribution of ports and associated activities is minor and localised. The committee cannot ignore the scientific evidence of the considerable direct and cumulative impacts associated with port development and expansion in the Great Barrier Reef region, including the associated dredging, dumping and increased shipping. The committee considers therefore that port development and related activities in the Great Barrier Reef region should be regarded with great caution.

3.118 The committee notes concerns from the resources and ports industry about the potential economic impacts of the bill, but considers that these concerns need to be balanced against the interests of other important industries in the region that are reliant on the health of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly the tourism, fishing and seafood industries. In this regard the committee acknowledges the evidence of the tourism industry of the potentially negative implications for tourism of the World Heritage Committee adding the Great Barrier Reef to the list of 'World Heritage in Danger'.

3.119 In light of all this evidence, the committee agrees with the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and takes the view that port development in the Great Barrier Reef region should be confined to existing major port areas, pending the outcomes of the strategic assessments. That is, port development should be confined to previously developed major port areas, and there should be no new port development outside currently developed major port areas. Further, the approval of any port developments or port-related activities in those existing major port areas should be subject to stringent conditions under the EPBC Act to ensure that any developments meet best practice environmental standards. This should include robust and transparent requirements for independent monitoring and public reporting.

Recommendation 1

3.120 The committee recommends that port development in the Great Barrier Reef region should be confined to existing (already developed) major port areas, pending the outcomes of the strategic assessments currently being conducted by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments.

Recommendation 2

3.121 The committee recommends that, if the minister decides to approve any port developments or port-related activities in existing (already developed) major port areas in the Great Barrier Reef region, these developments and activities should be subject to stringent conditions under the EPBC Act, including robust monitoring and reporting requirements.

3.122 The committee also heard with concern the impacts of port-related activities, particularly the dredging and dumping of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef. The committee notes the evidence from GBRMPA that dumping in the Great Barrier Reef is only used as a last resort. Nevertheless, the committee was persuaded by evidence that sea dumping of dredge spoil should not occur in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

3.123 The committee notes evidence from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority that this issue is being considered under the Great Barrier Reef strategic assessment. However, the committee recommends that the Commonwealth government review the regulatory regime surrounding sea dumping in the Great Barrier Reef region, with a view to ensuring that dumping of any dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is subject to the highest scientific and environmental analysis and taken only as an option of last resort.

Recommendation 3

3.124 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth government review the regulatory regime surrounding sea dumping in the Great Barrier Reef region, with a view to ensuring that dumping of any dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is subject to the highest scientific and environmental analysis and taken only as an option of last resort.

3.125 The committee is not convinced by evidence from the ports industry that ports in the Great Barrier Reef region have been well managed to date from an environmental perspective. The committee particularly noted evidence given about Gladstone Harbour, and the considerable debate as to the causes of impacts on the health of the aquatic environment.

3.126 The committee acknowledges that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Hon Tony Burke MP, has commissioned an independent review of environmental management arrangements and governance of the Port of Gladstone. This independent review is due to report to the minister at the end of June 2013. The committee does not wish to pre-empt the findings of that panel. However, the committee hopes that the inquiry will be conducted in a transparent and impartial manner. In particular, the committee urges the minister to make the review findings public as soon as it is made available to him. This committee will monitor the review's findings with great interest.

Recommendation 4

3.127 The committee recommends that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities publish the report of the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone as soon as it is made available to him.

3.128 The committee upholds the principle of the World Heritage Committee recommendation that development be confined to previously disturbed areas such as existing ports. It is the view of the committee that this principle apply not only as part of the strategic assessment process, but as a permanent general approach to the management of development along the Queensland coastline. Without compelling reasoning to the contrary, this principle is consistent with providing an outcome that promotes the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef.

3.129 In light of the strong evidence as to the negative environmental effects of industrial and shipping activity on the reef, the committee recommends that the precautionary principle be exercised in relation to current and future development. This should include, but not be limited to, a critical analysis of the outcomes of the strategic assessments and independent review, with the Great Barrier Reef being given the benefit of the doubt where there are any concerns as to the environmental impact of industrial and shipping activity. The committee is sympathetic to, and supportive of, the intent of the bill but notes evidence as to the drafting problems with the current bill. On this basis the committee recommends the bill not be passed in its current form and calls on the government to closely examine any additional regulatory and/or legislative safeguards arising from the strategic assessments and independent review.

Recommendation 5

3.130 The committee recommends the bill not be passed in its current form and calls on the government to closely examine any additional safeguards arising from the strategic assessments and independent review with a view to developing robust regulatory and legislative safeguards to protect the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Senator Doug Cameron
Committee Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page