Chapter 9
Conclusions and recommendations
9.1
The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef ecosystem and one of
the most beautiful and diverse natural ecosystems on Earth. It is clearly a
world treasure that is fully deserving of its World Heritage Listing and warrants
strong protection and effective management.
9.2
The committee is deeply concerned that the health of the Great Barrier
Reef has declined and appears to be on a continual downward trajectory. The recent
Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014 concluded that 'the overall
outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is
expected to further deteriorate in the future'.[1]
9.3
The Outlook Report 2014 identified climate change,
poor water quality from land‑based run-off, impacts from coastal
development and some remaining impacts from fishing as the main threats to the
health of Great Barrier Reef ecology. The report noted that a series of major
storms and floods in recent years also affected the ecosystem, which was
already under pressure. These natural events highlighted the fact that the
accumulation of all impacts has the potential to further weaken the resilience
of the Great Barrier Reef, which will affect its capacity to recover from
further serious disturbances.[2]
These issues were also repeatedly identified in evidence to this committee.
9.4
The committee also heard evidence which referred continually to a 2012
study showing that in the past 27 years, the reef has lost around 50 per cent
of its coral cover. The committee was told that same study attributed the
decline in coral cover primarily to three factors: tropical cyclones; predation
by crown-of-thorns starfish; and coral bleaching. However, the committee also
heard that these factors are linked to the key underlying concerns of poor
water quality and climate change, which are impacting upon the reef and its
resilience.
9.5
The committee recognises that the Great Barrier Reef, and its
catchments, support a range of activities and industries, including tourism,
fishing, and shipping. However, the committee considers that greater effort is
required to manage these activities and their impact on the reef; it is not
only the health of the Great Barrier Reef which is at risk but also the
long-term sustainability of economically important industries.
9.6
The committee acknowledges that progress has been made in recent years
in some respects by both the Australian and Queensland Governments. However, it
is clear that there is more that needs to be done. The Great Barrier Reef is facing
pressures from multiple sources, all of which need to be managed effectively
and their impacts minimised, in order to reduce the stress on the reef and
improve its resilience. The committee acknowledges evidence of the importance
of addressing and minimising the cumulative impacts of all activities
occurring in the Great Barrier Reef Region.
9.7
Most submitters and witnesses were in agreement that more needs to be
done to prevent, and indeed, reverse the decline of the Great Barrier Reef. The
committee is concerned that without urgent, concrete action and political will for
change, the reef will be lost to future generations.
9.8
At the same time, the committee recognises the complex and difficult
task of managing the pressures on the Great Barrier Reef. It will require all
stakeholders to work together, to coordinate their efforts to ensure that the
aspirations of those members of parliament who passed the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Bill in 1975 are met:
The long term objective of this legislation is to permit this
Parliament to take such steps as may be within its power to preserve for
posterity the wonders of the Great Barrier Reef and...to preserve not only a
major part of Australia's heritage but also to preserve an important and
valuable part of the heritage of the world.[3]
Dredging and dredge disposal
9.9
The committee recognises the importance of ports and shipping to the
Queensland and Australian economy, and the need to maintain shipping routes
through the Great Barrier Reef. The committee received evidence from ports and
industry groups that the relative contribution of ports and shipping to the
problems in the Great Barrier Reef are minor compared to other impacts. The
committee acknowledges these views, but considers that any additional stress on
the health of the Great Barrier Reef should be avoided wherever possible.
9.10
The committee is also persuaded by the evidence that we should not be
undermining work being done by other sectors (and the government funding being
spent) to improve reef water quality by reducing run‑off in reef
catchments. The committee further notes that the Outlook Report 2014
rated dredging as a 'medium risk' and disposal of dredge material as 'high
risk'. The committee was also persuaded by evidence that some of the long-term
and indirect impacts of dredge spoil disposal are not well understood.
9.11
The committee welcomes, as did the World Heritage Committee, the
commitment in the Queensland Ports Strategy to limit port development to
existing, well-developed port areas. However, the committee notes evidence that
there are still considerable concerns about the development proposals in those
existing port areas.
9.12
The committee recognises the need for dredging, and particularly
maintenance dredging. However, the committee was concerned to hear that there
are numerous proposals for increased dredging, particularly capital dredging,
which would also potentially involve the disposal of large quantities of dredge
spoil in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
9.13
The committee is of the opinion that it is time to reconsider the idea
that it is acceptable to dispose of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area. The committee acknowledges the evidence that toxic
sediments are disposed of on land and that dredge spoil is never dumped on
sensitive ecosystems such as corals or seagrass. Nevertheless, the committee is
concerned by evidence that the large-scale and long-term cumulative impacts of
dredging and dumping are not well understood.
9.14
To this end, the committee was pleased to hear that the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science have
co‑convened an expert Dredging Panel to examine what is known about the
impacts of dredging and dredge disposal and to address knowledge gaps. However,
the committee queries why approvals are continuing to be made prior to this
research being completed. The committee considers that, in light of the
precautionary principle, no further approvals should be given under the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Environment
Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 for the disposal of dredge spoil in the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area until the expert Dredging Panel
finalises its work.
9.15
The committee also suggests that the Minister for the Environment
examine whether a cap or a ban should be introduced on dredge spoil disposal in
the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and if a cap is introduced, the
benefits or otherwise of reducing the amount of dredge spoil that is disposed
in the area over time.
Recommendation 1
9.16
The committee recommends that, in light of the precautionary principle,
no further approvals should be given under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or the Environment Protection (Sea
Dumping) Act 1981 for the disposal of dredge spoil in the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area until the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and
Australian Institute of Marine Science Dredge Panel work is finalised.
Recommendation 2
9.17
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment examine
whether a cap or a ban should be introduced on the disposal of dredge spoil in
the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Gladstone Harbour
9.18
The committee was deeply concerned by the evidence it received in
relation to the significant problems that have occurred in Gladstone Harbour,
which appears to have been an environmental disaster. The committee recognises
that there have been numerous inquiries into this issue, including the
Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone and the more recent Bund Wall
Review. These reviews revealed flaws in the conditions placed on approvals as
well as in compliance and monitoring processes. Indeed, the Bund Wall Review
identified 'deficiencies' in the performance of environmental regulators and
Gladstone Ports Corporation (a state owned corporation).[4]
9.19
The committee notes the evidence that these inquiries could have been
more comprehensive, and this prompted some submitters and witnesses to call for
a Royal Commission into the issues that have occurred in Gladstone Harbour. The
committee acknowledges these calls, but does not consider that a Royal
Commission is warranted. However, the committee does consider that lessons need
to be learned from the Gladstone Harbour experience, and that it is crucial to
ensure that this type of problem never occurs again.
9.20
In particular, the committee considers that there is a need for the
Department of the Environment to ensure that conditions of approval under the
EPBC Act are stringently imposed, monitored and enforced. In addition, the
Department of the Environment needs to maintain strong oversight over the
monitoring of relevant developments. As is discussed further later in this
chapter, the committee also considers that federal approval powers should not
be delegated to the Queensland Government.
Recommendation 3
9.21
The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment ensure
that conditions of approval under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 are stringently worded, monitored and
enforced.
Recommendation 4
9.22
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment ensure
that funding for, and resourcing and staffing levels within, the Department of
the Environment are sufficient to ensure adequate capacity to monitor and
enforce conditions of approval under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Abbot Point
9.23
The committee received a large amount of evidence expressing concerns
about the proposals to develop Abbot Point and, in particular, the recent
approvals by the Environment Minister and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority to dispose of three million cubic metres of dredge spoil in the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The committee recognises that the decisions in
relation to Abbot Point are currently the subject of legal challenges, and
therefore it would not be appropriate for the committee to comment on the
merits or legality of the decisions themselves.
9.24
Nevertheless, the committee is deeply concerned by evidence that the
decision has damaged the reputation of, and community confidence in, the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The committee also agrees with evidence
that it is difficult to be reassured by the so-called 'strict'[5]
conditions on the Abbot Point development when 'strict'[6]
conditions were also placed on projects in the Gladstone Harbour and Curtis Island
region (as discussed further above).
Strategic Assessments and Long-Term Sustainability Plan
9.25
It appears to the committee that there is now a plethora of plans,
strategies and reports relating to the management of the Great Barrier Reef,
but little in the way of concrete action. The most notable exception to this is
the commendable work being done to improve catchment run-off. However, it seems
to the committee that the only other concrete action occurring in the Great
Barrier Reef Region is the approval of more port expansions, including the
associated dredging and dredge spoil disposal.
9.26
The committee notes that the strategic assessments were due to be
completed in 2013, yet the final versions have only just been released. The
committee considers that these delays are regrettable, given the importance of
putting in place the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan as soon as
possible. The committee notes the Department of the Environment's evidence that
the plan will be provided to the World Heritage Committee by February next
year.
9.27
The committee notes that the intention is that the Reef 2050 Plan will
provide an overarching framework to guide the protection and management of the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area from 2015 to 2050. However, the committee
is concerned that this could be yet another plan for more planning. Not only
will this be unlikely to satisfy the concerns of the World Heritage Committee,
but as some witnesses told the committee, governments have now prepared many
reviews, inquiries and plans, which 'total thousands of pages'. The committee
agrees that what is now needed 'is real solutions, not the endless reports that
document the reef's decline'.[7]
9.28
The committee considers that it is vital that the Reef 2050 Plan
contains concrete targets and actions to help stop the decline of the Great
Barrier Reef, and addresses the issue of cumulative impacts of all activities
impacting on the health of the Great Barrier Reef. The committee also considers
that the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan draw on, and bring together,
all existing strategies, plans and reports in relation to the Great Barrier
Reef. The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan should also be subject to a
full community consultation process. Finally, the committee notes that this
chapter identifies a number of issues and contains recommendations which should
also be considered in the development of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability
Plan.
Recommendation 5
9.29
The committee recommends that the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability
Plan be drafted and finalised, subject to full community consultation, as a
matter of high priority.
Recommendation 6
9.30
The committee recommends that the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability
Plan bring together all existing strategies, plans and reports in relation to
the Great Barrier Reef.
Recommendation 7
9.31
The committee recommends that the Australian and Queensland Governments
ensure that the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan contains concrete
targets and actions to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Recommendation 8
9.32
The committee recommends that the Australian and Queensland Governments
ensure that the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan adequately addresses
the cumulative impacts of all activities on the Great Barrier Reef Region and
its world heritage values.
Science underpinning the management of the Great Barrier Reef
9.33
The committee acknowledges the importance of ensuring that management
and decision‑making in relation to the Great Barrier Reef is underpinned
by robust and independent science. In this context, the committee recognises
and commends the research work provided by government agencies such as the Australian
Institute of Marine Sciences and CSIRO, and university researchers. The
committee was also pleased to hear the evidence from the Australian and
Queensland Governments that they have invested in new research to address 'key
information gaps in relation to the future management of the Great Barrier
Reef'.[8]
9.34
However, the committee was concerned by evidence that the science in
relation to the Great Barrier Reef is becoming politicised. The committee also
heard that there are numerous areas where further research is required to
better understand the health of the Great Barrier Reef. A number of these areas
have been identified in the strategic assessments and include, for example, the
need to better understand the large-scale and long-term impacts of dredging and
dumping associated with ports development (as discussed further later in this
chapter).
9.35
The committee is especially concerned about evidence of recent funding
cuts to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, which is one of Australia's
leading authorities on marine science and ecology, including for the Great
Barrier Reef. Given concerns about many matters affecting the Great Barrier
Reef, the committee considers it is an inopportune time to underfund quality
research that is crucial to the management of the Great Barrier Reef. The
committee considers that adequate funding and support for institutions such as
the Australian Institute of Marine Science is needed to ensure that they can
continue to conduct and direct research in an independent and apolitical
manner.
Recommendation 9
9.36
The committee recommends that funding for, and staffing for the Australian
Institute of Marine Science be maintained, and wherever possible, increased, in
order to ensure that they can continue to conduct the important research work
needed to support management and decision-making in relation to the Great
Barrier Reef.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
9.37
The committee recognises the difficulties faced by the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and the complexities of managing a World
Heritage Area of the size and scale of the Great Barrier Reef. In particular,
the committee realises that many of the activities impacting upon the reef
occur on land, in the catchments, over which GBRMPA has no jurisdiction.
9.38
The committee acknowledges that aspects of GBRMPA's management have been
exemplary, including for example, its management of the rezoning within the
marine park. However, the committee is concerned that community confidence in
GBRMPA has been damaged, particularly by the recent Abbot Point decision. Most
disturbingly, evidence to the committee revealed perceptions of bias and
allegations of lack of independence in decision-making. The committee considers
that these views are highly damaging for a government entity, particularly one that
has been entrusted with the protection of one of the world's most significant
and beautiful ecosystems.
9.39
The committee notes with approval that the Australian National Audit
Office (ANAO) has recently commenced an audit to assess the effectiveness of
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's regulation of permits and
approvals within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.[9]
The committee also notes that the ANAO is considering an audit of the
Australian Government Reef Programme (previously known as the Reef Rescue
Initiative), which is jointly administered by the Departments of Environment
and Agriculture.[10]
However, the committee considers that there may be merit in the ANAO expanding
these audits to include a broader audit of the performance of GBRMPA in
executing its functions under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975,
including whether it is acting in a manner that is consistent with the objects
of that Act.
Recommendation 10
9.40
The committee recommends that the Australian National Audit Office expand
its proposed and current audits relating to the Great Barrier Reef to include an
audit of the performance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
9.41
The committee was also concerned by evidence about recent cuts to
funding and staffing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and that
experienced staff have left the Authority in recent months.
Recommendation 11
9.42
The committee recommends that funding and staffing of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority be maintained in order to ensure that it can
concentrate on providing independent, world-class management of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park.
9.43
The committee also acknowledges suggestions that there needs to be
improved access to information, including scientific information, relating to
the Great Barrier Reef. The committee agrees with suggestions that the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority develop a single searchable database of all
reef reports and publications. The committee considers a searchable database
will be of great value to all stakeholders and improve the accessibility of
information.
Recommendation 12
9.44
The committee recommends that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority create a single, searchable database of all relevant reports and
publications relating to the Great Barrier Reef.
Climate change
9.45
The committee recognises that climate change is the major long-term
threat to the Great Barrier Reef. In particular, the committee received
evidence that the Great Barrier Reef is already feeling the effects of climate
change in the form of coral bleaching events, which are likely to increase in
the future, along with ocean acidification. As such, while Australia cannot
ameliorate climate change on its own, the committee considers that Australia
should take strong action and show international leadership on the issue of
climate change.
Recommendation 13
9.46
The committee recommends that the Australian Government take strong
action, and an international leadership role, on the issue of climate change.
Water quality and catchment management
9.47
The committee notes that a great deal of effort has gone into managing
the use of catchment areas to improve the water quality of the Great Barrier
Reef. There has been an ongoing commitment made at all levels to engage in
practices and develop plans to reduce land-based run-off into the Great Barrier
Reef. The continued commitments of investment by the Australian and Queensland
Governments have been supported by the work of regional natural resource
management bodies, industry groups, other organisations and participating
landholders.
9.48
These commitments have resulted in changes to land management practices
which have, in turn, resulted in reduced total pollutant and sediment loads.
However, although the trends towards reduced diffuse source pollution are
encouraging and it is accepted that it will take time for these achievements to
translate into improved conditions in the marine environment, the quality of
water entering the Great Barrier Reef from catchment areas continues to pose a
threat to the health of the reef. The committee considers that further measures
are required to abate the threats to the health of the reef posed by poor water
quality.
Reef Water Quality Protection Plan
9.49
The committee recognises that the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Reef Water Quality Protection Plan is measured through comprehensive monitoring
and evaluation, including progress reporting through Reef Plan Report Cards,
which have been released since 2011.[11]
However, the committee received evidence that the Reef Water Quality Protection
Plan did not specifically quantify the sustainable load targets. These are
required to achieve the overall goal of ensuring that, by 2020, the quality of
water entering the Great Barrier Reef from catchment areas has no detrimental
impact on the health and resilience of the reef. The committee considers that
specific load targets should be included in the Plan.
9.50
The committee also considers that the management strategies incorporated
in the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan need to support the achievement of
the specific load targets.
Recommendation 14
9.51
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment examine the
Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to identify explicit load reduction targets as
well as management strategies to achieve these targets.
Funding
9.52
The committee notes that, in real terms, funding to the Reef Water
Quality Protection Plan has been cut. Not only has $40 million been removed
from the program and placed in the Reef Trust program but also inflation will
affect the real value of the remaining funding over time. The committee notes the
success of the plan in reducing run‑off from broad-scale land use and the
commitment by the agricultural sector in Queensland to reduce run-off and
improve water quality entering reef waters. The committee is therefore
concerned funding cuts will undermine these significant achievements.
Reef Trust
9.53
The committee recognises that Reef Trust has great potential to channel
funds into site-specific projects to improve the quality of water entering the
Great Barrier Reef and provide greater protection to threatened species.
9.54
However, there was evidence that Reef Trust may be a direct recipient of
funds used for environmental offsets for developments impacting on the Great
Barrier Reef. The committee was concerned that this may create a conflict of
interest for GBRMPA, given that these funds could benefit GBRMPA and GBRMPA is
the main authority charged with advising the Australian and Queensland
Governments on the potential impacts of development on the Great Barrier Reef.
Fertilisers and pesticides
9.55
The committee considers that even if the best management practices were universally
adopted by the agricultural sector, damage to the reef would still occur from
fertiliser run-off. The committee notes that the inclusion of nitrification
inhibitors and control release technologies into fertilisers has achieved good
results in reducing fertiliser run-off in other parts of the world. The
committee therefore believes that such technologies should be examined as an
additional means of achieving the goal of improved water quality in the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park.
9.56
The committee notes that these products are currently significantly more
expensive than the standard fertilisers used in Great Barrier Reef catchments.
The committee therefore considers that further research is needed to assess the
potential benefits of these products and whether there are ways to make these
products more cost effective and accessible for the agricultural sector.
9.57
The committee acknowledges that some pesticide use is necessary to
maintain and improve agricultural productivity. Pesticides are used in Great
Barrier Reef catchments and some of these pesticides are washed into the waters
of the Great Barrier Reef. The committee notes that higher concentrations of
pesticides may have negative impacts on the health of the reef.
9.58
Despite this, the committee notes that the Outlook Report 2014
states that the current levels of pesticide run-off pose a low to moderate
threat to the health of the ecology of the Great Barrier Reef and, even then,
generally only to the ecology of inshore reefs.
9.59
The committee acknowledges that a considerable amount of work has already
been done to contribute to our understanding of agriculture and methods to
lessen its footprint on water quality. This includes, for example, scientific
work to improve the efficacy of nitrogen application in the Great Barrier Reef catchments.
The committee also recognises the importance of the Reef Trust and the Reef
Water Quality Protection Plan in this regard.
9.60
Nevertheless, the committee notes that measurement of pesticide
concentrations is usually conducted by reference to modelling and the committee
received evidence suggesting that the modelling could be improved. The committee
considers that it would be beneficial for scientific studies into the effects
of pesticide run-off on the health of the reef to be undertaken. This would
allow a greater appreciation of the effects of pesticides on the heath of the
reef and ensure that the future funding of environmental protection programs is
properly targeted.
Recommendation 15
9.61
The committee recommends that research funding be directed towards
improving farming technologies, such as fertilisers, to make them more cost
effective and less likely to negatively impact on the water quality of the
Great Barrier Reef.
Recommendation 16
9.62
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment commission
a scientific review of the impacts on water quality of farm-related products.
In undertaking such a review, the committee recommends that an assessment be undertaken
of:
-
the potential benefits of new farming technologies, including use
of new types of fertiliser; and
-
mechanisms to decrease the use of pesticides.
Recommendation 17
9.63
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work closely
with stakeholders to deliver enhanced environmental outcomes through the Reef
Trust Programme and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.
Crown-of-thorns starfish
9.64
Outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish have had a devastating effect on
the Great Barrier Reef. The committee notes that research into direct control
mechanisms of starfish populations has resulted in improved control techniques
and a better knowledge of the starfish lifecycle. However, the committee
considers that continued research is required to fully identify the triggers,
including water quality aspects, of an outbreak.
The large-scale development of
Northern Australia
9.65
The committee notes concerns about the large-scale development of
Northern Australia and the evidence received that the health of Great Barrier
Reef could suffer as a result. Of particular concern is large-scale land
clearing, damming of rivers and an intensification of anthropogenic run-off,
especially from previously undeveloped areas. It follows that any proposed
development outside the currently developed areas of the Great Barrier Reef
catchment should only be done with the utmost caution. The committee notes that
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requires
consideration of the precautionary principle, and therefore suggests strict
adherence to this principle when assessing the potential impact of the
development of Northern Australia, especially in previously undeveloped areas
in catchments of the Great Barrier Reef.
Recommendation 18
9.66
The committee recommends that there should be a strict adherence to the
precautionary principle when assessing the potential impact of the development
of Northern Australia, especially in previously undeveloped areas in catchments
of the Great Barrier Reef.
Urban sewage
9.67
The committee received evidence indicating that, over the next two
decades, the population in catchment areas of the Great Barrier Reef is
expected to grow dramatically. This population expansion will result in more
urban sewage discharge into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef and thus
result in detrimental effects on the water quality.
9.68
The committee supports the Queensland Government policy requiring all
coastal sewage treatment plants to meet high ecological tertiary treatment
standards before discharging sewage into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.
However, the committee notes that local government authorities lack adequate
funding for upgrade works. As a consequence, that not all treatment plants in
the catchment areas currently meet the requisite standards.
9.69
The committee therefore recommends that the tertiary treatment standards
should be properly enforced. In addition, the committee considers that the Queensland
Government should allocate funding to assist local government authorities to
undertake the necessary upgrades.
Recommendation 19
9.70
The committee recommends that the Queensland Government provide funding
to local government authorities to assist with the upgrade of sewage treatment
plants in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas.
Sewage originating from vessels
9.71
The committee understands from evidence that in the Great Barrier Reef
and its catchment areas there is a dearth of land-based facilities for the
disposal and treatment of sewage originating from vessels. Existing Queensland
Government legislation is quite specific about where and what can be discharged
into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.
9.72
However, the lack of land-based disposal facilities could encourage the
illegal dumping within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park of sewage from
vessels. The committee therefore recommends that the Queensland Government
improve the enforcement of its Transport Operations (Marine Pollution)
legislation and provide funding to expand facilities for the treatment and
disposal of sewage originating from vessels in and around the Great Barrier
Reef.
Recommendation 20
9.73
The committee recommends that the Queensland Government improve the
enforcement of the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 and
associated regulations prohibiting the discharge of sewage from vessels into
the waters of the Great Barrier Reef.
9.74
Further, the committee recommends that the Queensland Government provide
funding for improved facilities at ports for the effective treatment and
disposal of sewage originating from vessels in and around the Great Barrier
Reef.
National Parks and Protected Areas
9.75
The committee acknowledges evidence that national parks, coastal
wetlands and protected areas act as buffer zones, limiting the extent to which
pollutants can enter riverine systems and the Great Barrier Reef. These areas
provide significant benefits to the overall health of the Great Barrier Reef by
supporting a high level of biodiversity, providing a refuge to different
species, helping to control flood waters, allowing for the discharge of groundwater
and acting as a filter for nutrient rich waters.
9.76
Given the acknowledged benefits derived from those areas already
protected, the committee considers that it important to ensure that all
ecologically significant areas are adequately protected for their own sake and
for the demonstrated benefits on the health of the reef.
9.77
In this context, the committee particularly notes evidence received
expressing concern about proposed developments in the Fitzroy River Delta near
Rockhampton and in the Cape Melville/Bathurst Bay area. The committee notes
that both these areas are of high conservation value. The committee considers
that the Minister for the Environment should undertake an examination of the
conservation values of these areas in order to ascertain whether the level of
protection for these areas should be increased. The committee notes that this
approach would be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Queensland Ports
Strategy.
Recommendation 21
9.78
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment afford
higher levels of environmental protection to areas on, or adjacent to, the
Great Barrier Reef, including the Fitzroy River Delta and the Bathurst Bay
Region.
Coal Particulates
9.79
The committee was also concerned about evidence received and new
research revealing the problem of pollution from coal particulates and its
impact on the Great Barrier Reef. The committee notes evidence from GBRMPA that
it is looking at measures to address this problem, and considers that this
issue should be examined closely.
Recommendation 22
9.80
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment examine
measures to reduce coal particulate pollution in the Great Barrier Reef Region.
Shipping
9.81
In terms of shipping, the committee acknowledges evidence to the
committee that shipping is generally well managed and poses a relatively low
risk to the reef compared to other activities and impacts. The committee also
recognises the excellent work of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and
the REEFVTS system in minimising shipping incidents in the Great Barrier Reef Region.
9.82
The committee notes that the North-East Shipping Management Plan
is currently being developed and aims to address impacts associated with the
projected growth of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef over the coming years. The
committee was advised that the plan will be finalised this year.
9.83
While the committee considers that shipping is generally well managed in
the Great Barrier Reef, the committee also received evidence in relation to shipping
where it appears that some management measures could be improved. For example,
in relation to underwater noise pollution, the committee heard that
consideration should be given to the adoption and implementation of the
International Maritime Organization's Guidelines for the Reduction of
Underwater Noise from Commercial Shipping to Address Adverse Impacts on Marine
Life. In relation to ship strike, the committee welcomes the Department of
the Environment's evidence that there is a proposal to develop a National
Vessel Strike Strategy in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
9.84
The committee also notes that it received evidence indicating a number
of deficiencies in the draft North-East Shipping Management Plan, which
it hopes are addressed in the final plan. The committee therefore recommends
that a further consultation process be undertaken in relation to the draft
North-East Shipping Management Plan, in particular to give greater
consideration to the issues such as extending compulsory pilotage, and underwater
noise pollution.
Recommendation 23
9.85
The committee recommends that the relevant Minister(s) examine whether
the Australian Government should adopt the International Maritime
Organization's Guidelines for the Reduction of Underwater Noise from
Commercial Shipping to Address Adverse Impacts on Marine Life.
Recommendation 24
9.86
The committee recommends that the relevant Minister(s) ensure that further
consultation be undertaken in relation to the draft North-East Shipping
Management Plan.
Governance and decision-making processes
9.87
The committee notes that the Australian and Queensland Governments made
a comprehensive joint submission to the inquiry, which in itself is quite an
unusual occurrence in terms of Senate inquiries. The committee further notes
that a range of agencies from both governments were involved in the preparation
of the joint submission.
9.88
The committee recognises the need for greater consistency and
coordination in the governance arrangements relating to the management of the
Great Barrier Reef. However, the committee has grave concerns about the
Australian Government's 'one stop shop' proposal, particularly in the context
of developments in Queensland where the State Government may be the proponent.
It seems to the committee that it is completely inappropriate for a government
to be regulating itself in this manner. The committee is also concerned that
the one stop shop proposal may further undermine the role and independence of
the Great Barrier Marine Park Authority.
9.89
Finally, the Great Barrier Reef is a World Heritage Area with
international significance, and the committee considers that it is important
for the Commonwealth to retain a significant role in the oversight of the area.
The committee also recognises the World Heritage Committee's comments that the
proposal to transfer decision-making power to Queensland is 'premature' and
'should be postponed to allow further consideration'.[12]
9.90
The committee therefore considers that it is inappropriate for the Commonwealth
to be devolving its responsibilities for matters of national environmental
significance to the states and territories. As such, the committee recommends
that the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment
(Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 currently before the Senate not
be passed.
Recommendation 25
9.91
The committee recommends that the Australian Government not accredit
Queensland development approval processes under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Recommendation 26
9.92
The committee recommends that the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bilateral Agreement Implementation) Bill
2014 not be passed.
Independence of environmental
assessments
9.93
In addition, in terms of regulatory decision-making, the committee heard
concerns about the lack of independence of environmental assessments, whereby
the assessments are commissioned and provided by proponents. The committee notes
that this has been a recurring concern in recent inquiries to the committee,
such as the inquiry into threatened species last year and the inquiry into
environmental offsets earlier this year. The committee suggests that the Minister
for the Environment conduct a review, including a public consultation process, to
examine ways to improve the independence and rigour of the environmental
assessment process.
Recommendation 27
9.94
The committee recommends that the Minister for the Environment, conduct
a review to examine ways to improve the rigour and independence of the
environmental assessment process under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Use of offsets in the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area
9.95
The committee once again heard concerns about the use of offsets as
conditions of approvals for developments significantly impacting on the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. For example, the committee again heard
concerns as to whether the offsets conditions proposed for the Abbot Point
development (of a 150% reduction in fine sediments coming from the Burdekin and
Don catchments) are even achievable. This is similar evidence to that which the
committee heard during its recent inquiry into the issue of environmental
offsets. The committee therefore reiterates the recommendations made in its
report for that inquiry.[13]
9.96
In the offsets inquiry, the committee also recognised the specific concerns
as to the application of offsets in the marine environment. The committee
therefore suggested that the Department of the Environment consider developing
a separate offsets policy in relation to the marine environment, and the
committee wishes to reiterate that specific recommendation. The committee also
recommends again that the existing Offsets Policy be revised to provide greater
guidance on 'red flag' areas where offsets are unacceptable, including World Heritage
areas including in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Recommendation 28
9.97
The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment develop
a separate offsets policy in relation to the marine environment.
Recommendation 29
9.98
The committee recommends that the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy be revised
to provide greater guidance on developments in which offsets are unacceptable, such
as a list of 'red flag' areas, including within the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area.
Senator Anne Urquhart
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page