Back to -
Teachers for Forests | State ; National; Interstate ; Overseas ; Regional News - Water | Newspaper Reports - Forests | News Reports Index |Otways ; | Wombat; | Gippsland; | East Gippsland and Goolengook ; | Central Uplands | Central Highlands; | Cobbobonnee; | Mallee; | Box Ironbark; | Bunyip State Forest; | Melbourne; |North East Highlands; |Murray Basin | South West ; | Strezlecki's | Wimmera | Port Phillip
Please scroll down for the articles
28/02/08 Brumby sticks his head in the sand on water Kenneth Davidson, The Age
26/02/08 The Snowy – some light at the end of the tunnel? Juliet Le Feuvre, Environment Victoria East Gippsland and Goolengook
16/02/08 Erosion, flooding... the high price of sea views Royce Millar, The Age
10/02/08 Dredging opponents to rally MARK RUSSELL The Age
06/02/08 Abalone worth $230,000 stolen http://www.news.com.au/ South West
09/02/08 Protesters fined as dredging begins Clay Lucas and Andrea Petrie, The Age
06/02/08 Federal Court orders Blue Wedges and PoMC into mediation Norrie Ross, TheHerald Sun
05/02/08 Toxic sludge hits the fan Blue Wedges Newsletter
05/02/08 Peter Garrett gives go-ahead on Port Phillip Bay dredging Herald Sun .com.au
05/02/08 Garrett gives dredging final go-ahead, The Age
05/02/08 Victorias water under seige video The Age
05/02/08 Protesters vent anger at Premier Brumby AAP
04/02/08 Protestors set to blockade Goulburn pipeline AAP
Water National 04/02/08 Port body still facing two clean-up orders Adam Morton, The Age our highlighting link
02/02/08 Options abound but easy choices are few Royce Millar, The Age , Analysis
02/02/08 State 'bullied over port' Cameron Houston and Royce Millar, The Age
02/02/08 Garrett to burn midnight oil over bay dredging decision Michelle Grattan and Adam Morton, The Age
The Premier refuses to examine better ways to secure water supply.
DO WE want to save the Murray, provide Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo with a secure supply of potable water? And do we want to make Tasmania financially viable and pay for all this by scrapping the $4 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi and the north-south pipeline from the Goulburn Valley? Given the benefits all round, the answer should be yes. The only question should be is — can it be done?
In December, I wrote about a proposal by a Melbourne engineer, Geoff Croker, to pipe water from Tasmania to Victoria, which could supplement Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat's urban water supplies, obviating the need for a desalination plant and the Goulburn Valley pipeline.
I also quoted correspondence between Croker and his partners from Tasmanian Water Minister David Llewellyn, who expressed interest in the project and said his Government had a policy covering the export of surplus water in return for a payment of royalties by the end user. The response from the Victorian Government has been silence except for announcing that the desal plant would go ahead (after saying it wouldn't during the last state election). The Government has refused to look at the alternatives even though, on paper, the water produced would cost about a sixth of the desalinated water, and the electricity consumed would belch additional greenhouse gases into the environment equal to putting another 240,000 cars on Melbourne's roads.
But the proposal to pipe water to Victoria has been treated sufficiently seriously in Tasmania to cause a split in its cabinet. (It would only take two years to build a pipeline across Bass Strait compared with six years to build the desal plant. This does not take into account the possibility of a rearguard action by environmentalists against the desal plant and civil disobedience by farmers who are violently opposed to the pipeline.)
Last week Tasmanian Treasurer Michael Aird "all but ruled out" selling water to the mainland, according to The Mercury. The Hobart paper also said that four companies had approached the Government to ship water to the mainland, including Bass Pipelines, which could build a small pipeline to the mainland for about $500 million by 2010.
With this debate going on across Bass Strait, serious questions have to be asked as to why the Brumby Government is going to such lengths to close down the debate in Victoria. And why isn't the Opposition — which has been briefed on one of the pipeline options — screaming blue murder about the wilful determination of the Government to put Victoria into hock for the unforeseeable future to a foreign company to get a desal plant? Isn't there anybody in State Parliament with the gumption to ask questions about the fascination of the major parties with public private partnerships especially when there are cheaper, more effective and less environmentally damaging alternatives available?
But in the spirit of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's 2020 Summit, let's look at the big picture. According to Tas Hydro, measured run-off into rivers and out to sea once it has been used to generate electricity is at least three times the usable flow of the Murray-Darling basin. The water used by Tas Hydro returns about $30 a megalitre. A Melbourne household pays $900 a megalitre. Even Victorian farmers pay more than $30 a megalitre. The Victorian Government and Melbourne Water has a policy of no new dams. So if new dams are bad (although better than the options canvassed) why not use the water from Tasmania's dams after the water has been used to produce electricity?
Piping the water to Victoria is financially, economically and environmentally the best option available for Tasmania because the state does not have a climate suitable for extensive irrigation. Aird's opposition to selling the water to Victoria is as irrational as the West Australian Government refusing to sell iron ore to Japan on the grounds that WA industry might need the ore to make steel in the future. If WA refused to allow the sale of the ore it would have to become a claimant state as Tasmania is now.
Rudd could force the issue by threatening to cut financial assistance to the same per capita level as NSW and Victoria. Tas Hydro could use the additional revenue to pay off its debt of $1.1 billion and increase its dividends to the Tasmanian Government. This project would require much bigger pipes than the original proposal to pipe water from north-west Tasmania to supplement Melbourne, Geelong and Ballarat water supplies.
Diverting water to the mainland on this scale would allow water from Melbourne's main catchments to be fed by gravity into the Eildon Weir. A tunnel through the great divide would add to the supply of water flowing into the Murray-Goulburn basin. It would also increase environmental flows, save irrigation towns such as Mildura from economic decline, help secure Adelaide's water supply and, in good water-flow years, provide the opportunity for the irrigation of crops for the manufacture of bio-diesel fuel.
The cost of the larger project might be about $4 billion. Even so, the additional water would still cost a fraction of the desal plus pipeline alternative.
It is at least worth a serious evaluation before the Brumby Government locks future generations of Victorians into its preferred option.
Kenneth Davidson is a senior columnist.
The Snowy – some light at the end of the tunnel?
Ever since the completion of the Snowy Hydro-Electric Scheme in the 1960s, the Snowy River has been in trouble.
Tuesday Feb 26, 2008: Environment Victoria
99% of this famous river’s water was diverted through the scheme’s turbines and into the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers, and used to supply irrigators. Below the Jindabyne dam (the Hydro scheme’s main storage), the Snowy has been transformed into a small, weed infested drain lying at the bottom of an otherwise-empty river channel. While other tributaries add to this flow as the river travels downstream through Victoria, the ecology, hydrology and physical structure of the Snowy have been dramatically affected. Sand and silt has been deposited throughout the river bed and sea water now intrudes many kilometres upstream from the river’s mouth in East Gippsland.
Years of grassroots campaigning by the Snowy River Alliance, supported by Environment Victoria and Australian Conservation Foundation, eventually lead to the establishment of an Expert Panel. This Panel recommended returning 28% of the river’s natural flow and was followed by a Snowy Inquiry as part of the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act. The turning point in the campaign came with the election of the Bracks government in 1999 with a commitment to return the 28% flow. The new government reached an agreement with the NSW and federal governments to fund the resotration of 15% of the river’s natural flow by 2009 and 21% by 2012, with a view to eventually returning the full 28%. On 29 August 2002 the Premiers of Victoria and NSW had the pleasure of acting on their agreement and pulled the levers that release water from the Mowamba River into the Snowy, rather than diverting it to the Jindabyne dam, providing the river with around 4% of its natural flow.
This was a much celebrated moment, but since then it’s been all downhill for the Snowy. Premiers Carr and Bracks have moved on and the Mowamba aqueduct was re-opened in 2006, once again cutting off the Snowy from its headwaters. At the same time Snowy Hydro was being readied for private sale. Fortunately the sale was averted at the last minute but this has not resulted in improved conditions for the Snowy. This year (2007/08), the NSW government threatened to halt environmental flows altogether. Pressure from the Victorian government prevented this, but the river has been allocated just 3.5% of its natural flow.
Mowamba weir looking upstream after Mowamba Aqueduct was re-diverted back into Jindabyne dam. Mowamba River below the weir then received only 1% flow! This river had provided the Snowy with a surrogate montane headwaters between Aug 28 2002 and Jan 31 2006.
Water for Rivers, the body set up by the Victorian and NSW governments to source the water to provide environmental flows to the Snowy, is well behind schedule to meet its 2009 target of 15% of natural flows The infrastructure projects which are the government’s preferred option for returning water to rivers are becoming increasingly expensive, and competition for the savings achieved is hotting up. There has been a lot of discussion over whether water savings created by the Victorian Government’s $1 billion Food Bowl Modernisation Project in the Goulburn Valley will be used to meet Snowy targets or not. The Government has decided, however, that some of the existing water savings secured by Water for Rivers for the Snowy will be redirected to Melbourne for the first 2 years of the controversial North-South pipeline’s operation, as Food Bowl Project water savings are not due to be realized until 2012.
Perhaps the sorriest saga of all has been the long failure to appoint the Snowy Scientific Committee. This Committee was established in by law in 2002 to provide advice on environmental flows and make annual reports on progress towards achieving the agreed objectives, but members were not appointed till January 2008. Without a committee there has been a lack of transparency in the management of the small portion of water reserved for the environment and of the continued use of this water to meet the needs of Snowy Hydro and its irrigator customers rather than the needs of the river.
Now, finally, after the end of the first five year review period of the Snowy Water License and the absence of five consecutive annual reports, the Snowy Scientific Committee has been appointed. Victoria’s nominees are Prof Sam Lake of Monash University and Dr Arlene Buchan of the Australian Conservation Foundation, both staunch advocates for the return of environmental flows to the Snowy. They join four nominees form NSW and hopefully will be able to provide some much needed scrutiny of what’s happening on the Snowy and begin to make progress towards meeting that magic figure of 28% of natural flows.
Snowy River below Guthega dam (topmost dam on the river) and just below Guthega power station. Between Guthega power station and the next dam downstream at Island Bend the Snowy riverbed can be empty when the power station isn't generating.
Story by Juliet Le Feuvre, February 2008. Photos provided by Louise Crisp.
Royce Millar, The Age
February 16, 2008
SOME of Victoria's favourite seaside getaways and most sought-after beachside suburbs will have to be abandoned or relocated over the coming decades as climate change leads to rising sea levels, storm surges and floods.
Low-lying settlements from Lakes Entrance in Gippsland to Elwood, Brighton and Werribee on Port Phillip Bay and Apollo Bay and Port Fairy on the western coast have been identified as vulnerable to flood and erosion by senior scientists, coastal experts and researchers working for the State Government.
Through the State Government's Future Coasts project, new digital mapping is being done and modelling for sea level rises finalised. The Government wants to use the information to help planners identify places where development can go ahead.
But other studies including a detailed survey of the Gippsland coast are more advanced and are painting a worrying picture.
Based on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the CSIRO, the researchers are assuming sea levels will rise by somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8 of a metre.
Leading European scientists now argue a rise of 1.4 metres over the next 100 years is more realistic. The Government is under pressure to nominate a figure and looks likely to accept the IPCC's upper limit of 0.8 of a metre.
Superimpose that over the Victorian coast and the consequences are serious for existing and future urban development, as well as marine flora and fauna.
The research is complex and seeks to combine the likely impact of sea level rises through thermal expansion and melting ice caps and glaciers, with the increased storm surges and bursts of high rainfall.
CSIRO climate change scientist Kathy McInnes, who is assisting the Government with its work, said the combination of events could have serious consequences for low-lying areas, including Port Phillip Bay. "It's high rainfall with storm surges that make low-lying suburbs like Elwood, St Kilda and parts of South Melbourne particularly vulnerable," she said.
The experts say Governments now face the choice in coming decades between spending multimillions on sea walls in the - probably vain - hope of holding back swelling seas, or accepting that Victoria's coastline is receding at an ever faster rate.
Detail of the research findings on climate change and the Victorian coast comes in the same week as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd called on local councils to start planning for sea level rises.
Gippsland's coast -75% of which consists of highly erodable, low-lying sandy beaches - is especially vulnerable. Research being finalised by the government-appointed Gippsland Coastal Board has identified 30 settlements at risk. They include most of the towns and hamlets through the Gippsland Lakes, including Lakes Entrance, Metung and Paynesville, and those along Ninety Mile Beach from Loch Sport to Seaspray.
Gippsland Coastal Board chairman Duncan Malcolm said it was likely popular holiday spots such as Seaspray and Lakes Entrance would eventually have to be relocated to higher ground. "I think it's a case of when, not if. We might be looking at a 50 to 100 years horizon."
A village like Seaspray on Ninety Mile Beach presents a real dilemma. Now sewered and attracting developer interest, it is nestled behind a single dune near Merriman Creek, with Lake Reeves nearby making it vulnerable to flooding from rising seas and storms.
Wellington Shire, which covers much of the Corner Inlet and lakes area, is also completing a study of the Ninety Mile Beach area.
It has mapped the area, factoring in a 0.8-of-a-metre sea level rise. The study shows that settlements like the Honeysuckles are under threat.
"We asked the council to draw a climate change boundary and asked them 'what's left?', said Mr Malcolm. "The answer is, not much."
He said that at towns like Lakes Entrance, governments would eventually have to decide between spending millions on walls and probably blocking drainage and sewerage pipes to prevent backfill - or moving the town to higher ground.
The small fishing villages of Port Albert, Port Welshpool and Port Franklin on Corner Inlet are also highly vulnerable. Port Albert - one of the oldest ports and towns in Victoria, and built on mangrove swamp, is especially so.
But South Gippsland faces the double whammy of climate change and widespread land subsidence.
Port Albert is at the heart of all this and also faces high tidal ranges. Mr Malcolm doubted that higher sea walls were a long-term solution for Port Albert.
"I suppose it depends whether we think we can hold back nature. Realistically, is there anyway to protect a Port Albert? The short answer would seem to be "not very easily".
Dr McInnes agrees. "You couldn't really say let's migrate to the higher part of town because there isn't really any."
Mr Malcolm said his board was not opposed to all investment on the coast, but that from now on, all development needed to factor in climate change.
"I think we should have our eyes wide open to where we're investing, how long we're investing for, and what we're investing in."
A series of proposed development projects in Gippsland, including a canal housing development at Port Albert, now look questionable. Ditto, major and controversial developments at Point Lonsdale and Port Fairy.
The reality of climate change has started to sink in at State Government level, with Planning Minister Justin Madden this month seizing control in a controversial 28-lot subdivision at East Beach, Port Fairy. Mr Madden also placed an emergency ban on new development between settlements on a stretch of the Ninety Mile Beach.
The Government also faces headaches with major housing developments proposed for sites such as the flood plain at Marengo, which would effectively double the size of Apollo Bay, and the similarly contentious scheme by developer Stockland at Point Lonsdale.
Local government planners, in particular, are keen for the Government to lay down clear guidelines - preferably they say, lines on maps - to mark where development is not appropriate.
That is tough for the Brumby Government, mindful of the property industry's interests. Just as tough, however, is what to do about existing properties.
In the case of Ninety Mile Beach, there is already talk of buying back subdivided lots on vulnerable dunes. What about Port Albert? Lakes Entrance? Or even more troubling, the prized beachside properties at Brighton and Elwood?
In a written statement to The Age, Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said the Government's "cutting edge" Future Coasts project would help with an accurate understanding of how climate change was likely to affect the coastline.
He said that the project was at the halfway stage. "It will provide more certainty to coastal planners and managers in their decisions related to whether or not development has adequately taken a precautionary approach in relation to climate change."
NO PART of the Victorian coast is more vulnerable to climate change and rising seas than the sandy dunes around Corner Inlet. Researchers for both the State Government and the Gippsland Coastal Board have identified the fishing villages of Port Albert, Welshpool and Franklin as especially susceptible to the potential ravages of high seas, storm and erosion. Coastal experts fear that Port Albert in its current guise may not survive the century. It was built on mangrove swamp and is affected by widespread subsidence. Debate will soon rage over the wisdom of spending big money on new sea walls.
FORTY years ago a strip of dunes at Ninety Mile Beach was inappropriately subdivided and sold in one of Victoria's most bizarre development scams. Decades later, state and local governments are still struggling to find a solution to the dilemma of 12,000 housing lots in a totally inappropriate place. But what once looked weird is increasingly looking downright dangerous as the scientists begin to acknowledge the possibility of the sand dunes eroding and homes being caught between swelling seas to one side and rising levels in the Gippsland lakes to the other. The future of popular holiday hamlet Seaspray looks very uncertain. Experts say it may have to be relocated.
ONLY two years ago the Great Ocean Green housing project looked an almost certain starter on the flood plain at Marengo. The controversial $300 million housing scheme is consistent with the State Government's Coastal Spaces policy and, after all, some development had to be accepted along the western coast. But the climate change debate is moving so fast, that building on such a site now looks questionable. There is concern that, once complete, taxpayers may be forced to pay for ongoing fortification of a housing estate built at the wrong time in the wrong location.
THE prospect of fast-rising sea levels looks set to resolve the long-running battle between property interests and environmentalists over a proposed 28-lot subdivision on the sand dune at East Beach in Port Fairy. Although mysteriously zoned residential some years ago, the site now looks highly vulnerable to a surging sea. At the request of Environment Minister Gavin Jennings, Planning Minister Justin Madden has intervened, calling in the development application. Some locals fear he is doing the bidding of powerful business forces; it is more likely that he will conclude that building houses on sand dunes at Port Fairy is no longer sensible, if it ever was.
February 10, 2008, MARK RUSSELL The Age
A PROTEST rally targeting the controversial $1 billion channel-deepening project will be held next Sunday on Rosebud Beach.
Blue Wedges Coalition spokeswoman Jenny Warfe said she hoped the rally would draw a large crowd to show the State Government the opposition to the project.
The giant Queen of the Netherlands resumed dredging of the southern shipping channel off Rosebud for the second day yesterday but there was no sign of any protest boats or protesters.
Police spokesman Senior Constable David Fitzgerald said: "Maybe protesters only work Monday to Friday."
Ms Warfe said opponents of the project were "too busy working our backsides off to get ready for court" to be out on the water.
The coalition will take their case to the Federal Court on February 20 to try to overturn federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's approval of the project.
MARK RUSSELL
Article from: http://www.news.com.au/
February 06, 2008 03:02pm
THIEVES have escaped with $230,000 worth of abalone from a truck stolen from a factory in Victoria's southwest.
Detectives believe the white Hino refrigerated truck, carrying 4.5 tonnes of abalone, was stolen between 6pm (AEDT) yesterday and 8am today at SouWest Seafoods' factory in Gipps Street, Port Fairy.
The thieves are believed to have cut through security gates of the processing factory to steal the truck.
It was found abandoned on Port Fairy-Hamilton Road 6km north of Port Fairy at 10am (AEDT) today.
"The abalone had been removed from the vehicle," said police spokeswoman Senior Constable Wendy Willingham.
Police want anyone with information on the theft to phone Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
Clay Lucas and Andrea Petrie, The Age
February 9, 2008
Video Kayakers take on dredger
Video Police anger as kayakers paddle across the bow of dredging ship.
AFTER more than a decade of planning by the Port of Melbourne Corporation, the controversial $1 billion dredging of Port Phillip Bay has begun.
Fifteen anti-dredging protesters who breached 200-metre exclusion zones around the Queen of the Netherlands dredge were fined yesterday, and two were stopped in the sea by water police in wetsuits and flippers.
Tourism and green groups called for the project to be halted, branding its environmental management plan "hopelessly inadequate". But a chorus of relief rang out from unions and business groups that the project had finally started.
Port chief executive Stephen Bradford described it as a "historic day", reiterating that environmental controls on the project would be stringent and comprehensive. But the Blue Wedges Coalition — which will take on the port in the Federal Court on February 20 in a bid to overturn federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's approval of the project — said it was economically stupid and an environmental disaster. "We will use any legitimate and peaceful means available to stop this damaging and economically stupid project," spokeswoman Jo Samuel-King said.
The $969 million project will bring an estimated benefit to Victoria of $1.36 billion over the next 22 years, according to a PricewaterhouseCoopers study. Opponents claim it will harm the bay irreparably, damaging businesses relying on it for income.
Mr Bradford said he expected the project to come in on budget. "We (will) achieve this project by December 31, 2009, and within the $969 million allowed for it," he said. In 2003, the projected budget was $380 million.
The Australian Conservation Foundation yesterday published an assessment of the project's environmental management plan on its website (www.acfonline.org.au). It branded the monitoring of the environmental effects as "completely inadequate", after assessing monitoring of dredging against best-practice models. The environmental management plan would do little to protect Port Phillip Bay from the severe impacts of dredging, the foundation's marine campaigner Chris Smyth said. "Overall, (it) lacks transparency, oversight and control," Mr Smyth said.
Protesters paddled out to meet the giant Queen of the Netherlands dredge as it started work yesterday.
Victoria Police Superintendent Rod Collins said 15 protesters breached exclusion zones around the dredge. Ten protesters on surfboards and five on kayaks each received a $176 fine for disobeying an order. In one incident, search and rescue police entered the water to stop two protesters who had slipped off their surfboards and begun swimming towards the vessel. "The ship is moving and dredging at the same time so it is very, very dangerous," Superintendent Collins said. Protesters said the dredge was not working at the time they left their surfboards.
Trades Hall secretary Brian Boyd welcomed the start to dredging, as did the Victorian Farmers Federation. But the Tourism Alliance said urgent action was required to support operators on the bay.
Federal Court orders Blue Wedges and PoMC into mediation
Norrie Ross, The Herald Sun
February 06, 2008 10:41am
THE Federal Court has ordered the Port of Melbourne Corporation and the Blue Wedges Coalition into mediation to resolve a dispute over bay dredging.
The PoMC wants to start dredging in Port Phillip bay tomorrow after Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett granted his final approval of the project yesterday.
The legal battle over the dredging in Port Phillip Bay intensified today with environmentalists desperately fighting to have the $1billion channel deepening project stalled.
The Port of Melbourne, armed with yesterday's ministerial approval of an evironment management plan (EMP), told a Federal Court judge they wanted to commence dredging as soon as possible.
The Blue Wedges anti-dredging group was seeking an interlocutory injunction to stop the channel deepening until its challenge to federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's decision to sign off on the project is determined.
The parties slugged it out before Justice Tony North who said the court's job was to ensure that all parties were given a fair hearing and nothing was done to prejudice their position.
After the first round today Justice North sent the Port of Melbourne and Blue Wedges anti-dredging group to mediation with the court's District Registrar to try to resolve their differences pending a final outcome.
They are due back in court at 2.15pm.
In its main action Blue Wedges claims federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett failed to comply with the legal requirements under environment protection laws when making a decision to sign off on the project last December, or he improperly exercised his powers.
Mr P. Hayes, barrister for Blue Wedges, told Justice North today that as well as seeking an injunction they has subpoenas for a number of media companies to gain access to quotes made by Port of Melbourne CEO Stephen Bradford.
He did not indicate why they wanted the subpoenas.
Greg Garde QC, for the Port of Melbourne, said that since they had received approval of the EMP from Mr Garrett they wanted to start dredging tomorrow.
Mr Garde said that the delay was costing the Port $250,0000 a day and there was no serious issue before the court because the Blue Wedges challenge to the minister's decision had no merit.
"The balance of convenience is all one way," Mr Garde said.
Justice North urged the parties to reach an agreement without the need for an injunction and he made a number of orders that fast-tracked the final hearing of the challenge to Mr Garrett's December decision.
This hearing was due to go before the court on February 20 but the judge said the court could be ready to hear it next Tuesday.
Justice North indicated to the Port's lawyers that he might make a "fairly conventional" order to stop dredging until a final outcome but said he was reluctant.
It would look to the public like the Federal Court had said dredging should not proceed when in reality it might well find that the minister's decision was correct.
Mr Garrett yesterday signed off on the project's 127-page environment management plan, clearing the way for dredging to start at 7am tomorrow.
He said he was confident 16 extra conditions he had demanded in a revised environmental management plan would protect the bay.
"As a result of this extensive monitoring and public reporting, the people of Victoria will know more about the environmental health of Port Phillip Bay than ever before," he said.
Blue Wedges lawyer Michael Morehead lodged an application for an injunction against the dredging in court today in a last-ditch appeal to stop the project.
But Federal Court justice Tony North ordered the parties to meet with the court district registrar this morning and urged them to come to an agreement.
Justice North also brought forward the Blue Wedges' Federal Court challenge to the $1 billion project from February 20 to February 12.
Environment Minister Peter Garrett yesterday said he was confident 16 extra conditions he had demanded in a revised environmental management plan would protect the bay.
"As a result of this extensive monitoring and public reporting, the people of Victoria will know more about the environmental health of Port Phillip Bay than ever before," he said.
Blue Wedges lawyer Michael Morehead said Mr Garrett's decision was outrageous.
"What he has done is approve a toxic aquatic disposal facility 60 times bigger than the abandoned toxic land dump at Nowingi," he said.
The State Government abandoned plans to build a toxic dump site at Nowingi, near Mildura, after protests by locals.
Mr Morehead refused to discuss his next move, preferring to "keep my powder dry".
Port CEO Stephen Bradford said the giant Queen of the Netherlands would begin dredging clay from the channel off St Kilda and Brighton.
The clay will be used to build a 6 sq km underwater containment facility to hold toxin-contaminated sediment dredged from the Yarra mouth.
Mr Bradford said the environmental monitoring program was the most stringent applied to a dredging project anywhere in the world.
"People can have full confidence in the levels of environmental compliance and the significant public review process the Port of Melbourne is obligated to comply with."
The new plan requires:
PUBLIC release of quarterly and annual reports by the Port of Melbourne on the achievement of set standards.
MONITORING of water and tidal currents at the containment area to assure the public that contaminated sediment dredged from the Yarra River mouth remained secure.
THE dredge to operate in non-overflow mode so that no contaminated sediment can escape the dredge hopper.
Mr Garrett said he was satisfied the plan would protect matters of national environmental significance, including Ramsar wetlands and migratory and threatened species.
"If at any time the strict environmental limits required by the EMP are triggered, the port must report to me and dredging must stop," he said.
Opposition environment spokesman and local MP Greg Hunt said channel deepening was inevitable but dumping two million tonnes of toxic waste from the Yarra mouth in the middle of the bay was not.
Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu said quarterly reporting -- up to three months after any environmental breaches -- was inadequate.
A network of fixed monitoring buoys will take turbidity (water clarity) readings at fixed locations around the bay during the two-year project.
Other programs will monitor bay fish stocks, water quality, little penguins, nutrient cycling, plume intensity, contaminants in fish, algal bloom, Ramsar wetlands and seagrass.
The state Greens yesterday moved to refer the project to the new Upper House standing committee on finance and public administration.
The revised environmental management plan is on the Port of Melbourne website at www.channelproject.com
Toxic sludge hits the fan
Blue Wedges Newsletter 5th Feb 2008
Dear Supporters,
Another Big Week in the news!
Bad for Mr. Brumby and his mates at the PoMC but pretty good for us in spite of being called terrorists.
Monday 28th:
Apparently, the Blue Wedges Coalition has joined Somali pirates, Peruvian raiders and Gulf terrorists on the US Office of Naval Intelligence's international threat list. How sad it is (or is that funny) that now in Australia a diverse, peaceful and legitimate group such as Blue Wedges has come to be on the US list of Naval intelligence...and since 2005 what's more. See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/investigations/blue-wedges-tagged-with-sea-pirates/2008/01/27/1201368944836.htmlLindsay Fox is reported again as saying that dredging Port Phillip Bay was a short-term fix that would add to an already congested road network and that "dredging the bay and still having all of the traffic running in and out of the city is stupid … " Although we don't agree with Mr. Fox's assertions about Westernport, his words send ripples or is that shudders through Mr. Brumby's stable.
Port's Minister Tim Pallas rebuffed criticism of bay dredging — declaring that the time for talk was over. "It makes sense for Victoria that we don't lose our nerve because … the jobs of all our kids depend upon it." he says. Really? Every kid in Victoria is going to be dependent on the Port for a living?....well maybe not the ones whose parents run a Dive business, fishing charter or accommodation on the Mornington or Bellarine Peninsula to name just a few. The reality is that thousands of jobs will be lost if our Bay is damaged.
Tuesday 29th:
The Queen arrives, amid peaceful protests. The Age continues asking questions; today it is Is it worth changing channels? See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/is-it-worth-changing-channels/2008/01/25/1201157667811.html ABC On-Line blows the lid on all that silly secrecy about how much the dredging contact is worth. Although the PoMC have been trilling away about "Commercial in Confidence" for the last 4 years, apparently it's all over the place on the European Stock Exchange. It's $500 million to go to Boskalis. What's the bet it would be twice that if they ever got started?Wednesday 30th
: Blue Wedges win delays dredging reports The Age. On the day we head to the Federal Court to challenge Mr. Garrett’s reasons for approving the project, The Age headlines say: Don't dredge the Yarra: ships chief breaks ranks. A MAJOR shipping company calls for the channel deepening project to be scaled back, saying the controversial plan to dredge toxic sediment from the Yarra River can be avoided. Delicious!ANL chief executive John Lines has said that instead of dredging the Yarra, the Brumby Government should be upgrading Webb Dock at the river's mouth. Yes well we have been saying that toxic time bomb was about to go off some time soon. It has now gone off in Brumby’s lap.
Mr. Lines, whose company is one of the port's biggest clients and is owned by the world's fourth largest shipping line, CMA CGM of France said that shifting the international container trade to Webb Dock would eliminate the need to dredge 4 million tonnes of toxic sediment from the Yarra — one of the riskiest and most contentious parts of the project.
He topped it off by saying: "If you look around internationally there are very few river ports left" Correct! No-one in their right mind could think it was the way to go to dredge 7 million tonnes of contaminated spoil from the Yarra just so we can continue to squeeze bigger and bigger ships right up to the Bolte Bridge. See: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/29/1201369135946.html
By 3 PM that day Blue Wedges Coalition had won the right to challenge Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's decision to approve the project in the Federal Court which could delay the dredging plan until February 20. Of course we say the plan should be a dead duck after 20th February!
Our claims include that the project will have an effect on sea levels, which means Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong should have also been involved in the approval process. Mr. Garrett’s background reading for his 20th December approval included up to 50,000 pages of material. In the two days he had he couldn’t have given it proper consideration by 20th December. We say he has not brought an independent mind to the project and that he had pre-determined his decision.
Even later that day: Brumby becomes a bit agitated about a few more wheels falling off his pet project. He dumps on Adelaide, saying Melbourne risks becoming 'a backwater like Adelaide'. "If you want Melbourne eventually to be an Adelaide, as someone described it the other day, well, don't do this project, and Melbourne will just die a slow death" says Mr. B. And, we are still talking about it days later! Oh dear, does Mr. B seriously think we will believe that we will all die here if we don’t get a few more containers though the Port even faster than now? Thursday 31st The Age says: Dredging: more heat on Brumby and Opposition grows on toxic issues reports: PRESSURE on John Brumby to review the billion-dollar channel deepening project is intensifying, with former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer last night weighing into the debate and warning the Premier not to ignore the project's critics.
Mr. Fischer, a freight expert who is well regarded on both sides of politics, said concern was growing within Melbourne's business community, as well as in upper levels of the Labor Party, over the impacts of dredging and its political fallout.
"I sense there is movement at the station in the key power circles in Melbourne on this issue," Mr. Fischer said. "There are many good people deeply troubled by the dredging … and they're not cottage economy, candle-powered types."
And why not have a read of these too?
Saturday 2nd February.
The toxic sludge really hits the propeller today! The Age reports: State 'bullied over port' and says: Australian International Container Terminals chairman Richard Setchell, former global boss of P&O Ports and one of Australia’s most senior port executives said channel deepening would not have a significant benefit for container trade at Swanson Dock, which, he said, was already close to full capacity.He went on to slam the decision to dredge Port Phillip Bay and accused the nation's two dominant stevedores of bullying the State Government and the Port of Melbourne Corporation.
See also:
And today Tuesday 5th
, a delegation of groups with water interests went to Parliament house to deliver one message that:1. The Brumby Government has stopped listening to the people.
We couldn't agree more. Poor old Mr. B is not going to have a good week. Well, fair's fair. With his poisonous plans for the Bay, he is more than happy to ruin more than just a few weeks in the lives of all Bay lovers.
Tuesday 5th also sees the The Age report Dredging raises bay erosion fears spells out export opinion that global warming induced sea level rise combined with the project related increased tide heights could be disastrous for our bays die beaches. See: http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/heads-dredging-raises-erosion-fears-for-beaches/2008/02/04/1202090323372.html
The project is on the skids from The Heads in the south to the toxic dump in the north. We need your help to ensure the project never gets started because the very first thing on the agenda is to build a toxic aquatic facility 60 times the size of the defeated rejected Nowingi toxic dump in Mildura.
Here’s something you can do to help us ensure we don’t get a massive 6 sq. km underwater toxic dump in our Bay, and could land you a fantastic work of art:
Mornington Peninsula artist Joy Fry has donated one of her fantastic sea life paintings a beautifully framed Leafy Seadragon to raise money for our fighting fund. For your chance to win purchase one or more $10 tickets. We are selling only 200 in total – so you have a good chance of winning this beautiful work. Ticket details on the website. The image and ticket details are on our homepage www.bluewedges.org
We will be planning a Big Rally in future weeks, joining with like minded groups to ram that message home even harder. We will keep you informed.
Stop Press: Mr. Garrett has just approved the EMP this afternoon (Tuesday 5th February). See:
http://www.channelproject.com/environment/management.aspPoMC's comments in the media this evening are that they intend to start dredging on Thursday morning (7th Feb). We await the 24 hour notice that the Court required PoMC provide to Blue Wedges before commencing to dredge. PoMC seems prepared to commence dredging prior to our Full Hearing on 20th February, despite the Court making it very clear last week that it would be "silly" for the Port to commence works before then. It would not be in their best interests, and there would be consequences said the Court. Nevertheless, if the PoMC is prepared to act with such disregard for the Federal Court, we have no option but to seek an injunction to stop the works and Save the Bay. The PoMC’s attitude is not a good sign for their future management of the Bay if they ever did get started is it?
If this project starts, first up would be Boskalis constructing a 6 sq. km aquatic toxic facility off shore from our premier beaches. That toxic dump would be 60 times the size of the Nowingi toxic dump which was rejected by the community in 2006. Why should we have a toxic dump in our Bay with 7 million tonnes of toxic and contaminated sludge dumped in it?
Keep making a noise about it. It just MUST not happen!
Cheers,
Blue Wedges Editor
Peter Garrett gives go-ahead on Port Phillip Bay dredging
February 05, 2008 04:20pm
Herald Sun .com.au
FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has given his final approval for a $1 billion channel-deepening project in Port Phillip Bay.
The project to dredge the bay can start as early as tomorrow after Mr Garrett today signed off on an environmental management plan (EMP).
The approval was the final hurdle holding up the $969-million project, which was due to start last Friday.
The Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) has paid Dutch dredging company Royal Boskalis Westminster $250,000 for each day the project has been delayed.
"I have today approved a strengthened Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for the Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening project,'' Mr Garrett said.
"Following extensive consultation, the Port of Melbourne Corporation has revised its plan to meet the 16 conditions of my approval on 20 December last year.
"I am satisfied that my approval will give the protection required to the matters for which I am responsible, those of national environmental significance, including Ramsar wetlands, migratory and threatened species and Commonwealth land.
"If at any time the strict environmental limits required by the EMP are triggered, the Port must report to me and dredging must stop.''
Mr Garrett said he required in the EMP new monitoring of water and tidal currents at the toxic dumping sites, to ensure that the contaminants remained secure.
He said the dredge must operate in non-overflow mode so that no contaminated sediment could escape from the hopper.
The EMP also includes a requirement for more monitoring, more often and that the results be made publicly available.
"The EMP stipulates that the Port of Melbourne must report both quarterly and annually against the standards set out in the plan. These reports will now be made public.''
The EMP will be published on the port's website before dredging begins.
Under a Federal Court order, the port must give dredging opponents, the Blue Wedges Coalition, 24 hours notice before dredging starts.
If that occurs today, dredging is likely to start tomorrow afternoon.
Blue Wedges spokeswoman Jo Samuel-King said earlier today the group was considering a stay in the courts to delay the project ahead of a Federal Court challenge on February 20.
"If we are unsuccessful what we'll see is the beginning of the building of the biggest toxic dump in Victorian history, it will be starting within days,'' she said.
"We're looking at a toxic dump 60 times the size of the proposed Mildura dump that was rejected ... it can end up in the food web and on our dinner plates and in the environment.''
The port will dredge 23 million cubic metres of rock, sand and toxic silt from the bay to allow large ships to enter Melbourne.
The Queen of the Netherlands dredger, which arrived in Melbourne last week, will operate around the clock, seven days a week.
Dredging is expected to be completed by the end of next year and will allow container ships with a draught of 14m to enter the bay at all tides, up from a maximum of 12.1m now.
The Victorian government and the PoMC say the project is vital for the state's economy and will ensure the port's long term viability as Australia's largest container port.
PoMC chief Stephen Bradford is expected to speak to media later today.
February 5, 2008 - 4:16PM, The Age
Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett has given his final approval for a $1 billion channel deepening project in Melbourne's Port Phillip Bay.
The project to dredge the bay can start as early as tomorrow after Mr Garrett today signed off on an environmental management plan (EMP).
The approval was the final hurdle holding up the $969 million project, which was due to start last Friday.
The Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) has paid Dutch dredging company Royal Boskalis Westminster $250,000 for each day the project has been delayed.
05/02/08 Victorias water under seige video The Age
Photo - printed in the Herald Sun - Shows Robyn Convenor of Teachers for Forests - centre - with the Save the Bay placard among other protestors under the Article Taking steps to have a say
February 5, 2008 - 3:17PM, AAP
The Victorian government felt the wrath of public dissent today when community groups took their protest over three of the state's largest infrastructure projects to state parliament.
The joint rally coincided with the first day of parliament for 2008 and protesters were determined to make their views heard.
About 100 people lined the steps of parliament waving placards and chanting: "You're not listening Brumby".
The most vocal protests came from opponents of the north-south pipeline, channel deepening project and $3.1 billion desalination plant.
Protest spokesman Mike Dalmau said the government had stopped listening to the people over policies and infrastructure projects that were highly damaging to the environment and had treated community groups with contempt.
"Decisions being taken by the government reflect a backlog of inadequate future planning and a steamrolling agenda of so-called progress which caters to the demands of the influential at the expense of the environment, the community and the wishes of the people," he said.
"Brumby is not listening to community representative groups, this is democracy being ignored."
The groups were quick to point out they did not necessarily support each others' causes but were united in the view they had not been given a fair go.
Blue Wedges Coalition spokeswoman Jo Samuel-King said Premier John Brumby had got water management wrong.
She warned the channel deepening project would turn Port Phillip Bay into "the biggest toxic dump in Victorian history" and was just days away.
"Blue Wedges say that Mr Brumby has never listened to us and we doubt he ever will," Dr Samuel-King said.
Anti-desalination protester, Mike Neighbour, said a planned desalination plant would turn a beautiful stretch of coastline into a massive producer of greenhouse gases which would only contribute to climate change.
He joined Plug the Pipe protesters in urging the government to consider more sustainable alternatives.
Pipe spokesman Ken Pattison said pumping water from the state's north to Melbourne would be "environmentally disastrous".
"The energy required to pump this water across the divide is absolutely horrific," he said.
Nationals leader Peter Ryan said the groups were far from the "quasi terrorists", they were branded by Water Minister Tim Holding last year.
"Rather it's a gathering of people who justifiably have come together on the steps of what is the most public forum in this state to make sure they send the message to Mr Brumby - there ought to be a proper process for dealing with these things and you've made an absolute mockery of it."
AAP
February 4, 2008 - 10:26AM AAP
Country Victorians are preparing widespread property blockades in a bid to stop the government pumping water from the Goulburn River to Melbourne.
Plug the Pipe spokeswoman Jan Beer said today people across the state were angry about the Victorian government's $1 billion plan to modernise the Goulburn-Murray irrigation system, including building a pipeline to pump up to 75 gigalitres of water to Melbourne each year.
About 100 protesters last night held a "symbolic blockade" of the Sugarloaf Reservoir near Yarra Glen, east of Melbourne, where the proposed pipeline will discharge.
When Parliament resumes tomorrow, the group will protest on the steps of Parliament House.
But Ms Beer said the real fight will begin when protesters start blockading more than 100 private properties across the state through which the pipeline is set to be laid.
"Our plan from here is ... to mainly be prepared to blockade properties, so if the Pipeline Alliance try to enter properties to try and start any further work or construction we will stop them," Ms Beers said.
"And it will be serious blockading, they will not be allowed to enter no matter what.
"We're going to stand there on our private land shoulder-to-shoulder and say 'no you're not coming on'."
Ms Beer said people were prepared to be arrested and there were thousands of people, including whole communities across the Goulburn River system from Mansfield to Mildura, prepared for action.
Farmers aged up to 80-years-old, "dyed-in-the-wool" Labor voters, Liberal and National voters, acreage holders and townspeople were all joining the fight, Ms Beer said.
She called on Premier John Brumby and Minister for Water Tim Holding to meet with protesters and halt their plans for the pipeline.
The government, which plans to start building the pipeline in May, says it will create a world-class irrigation delivery system that will help save about 800 gigalitres of water a year.
AAP
Royce Millar, The Age , Analysis
February 2, 2008
ONE day on from its scheduled start, the $1 billion bay dredging project is highlighting more problems for Victoria's transport planning, and its environment, than it looks like resolving.
Following much fanfare, the Queen of the Netherlands and its flotilla is sitting idle. After four years of plans, tests and reports, Canberra is still to give the green light.
The Port of Melbourne Corporation insists it is safe, that the environmental assessment is the most thorough ever. Maybe. But there are no guarantees, and plenty of unknowns, including around the dangers of stirring up the toxic mess at the bed of the Yarra River.
Over the past two weeks seasoned freight commentators such as former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer, Melbourne University's Professor Bill Russell, ANL shipping line chief John Lines and trucking magnate Lindsay Fox have called for a rethink of planning for Victoria's ports.
Suggestions include the fast-tracking of Hastings on the deeper Western Port Bay as a major container terminal, and of Webb Dock on the bay side of the docks at the mouth of the Yarra River. Such a shuffle could allow smaller ships to continue using Swanson Dock up-river and larger ships to load and unload at Webb. It could avert the dredging of the Yarra.
The response from the State Government has been confounding. Premier John Brumby and Ports Minister Tim Pallas stressed the high costs of developing both Hastings and Webb Dock. Yet the Government's own port plans envisage precisely this in the long-term.
There were two questions asked this week. Firstly, why not bring these projects forward if the worst of the dredging, the need to constantly redredge, and a traffic nightmare in the heart of Melbourne, can be avoided? And secondly, why keep throwing good money after bad on dredging if the move to Hastings is going to happen anyway?
Brumby dismissed the alternatives as "simplistic", and warned that Melbourne could become a "backwater" like Adelaide without dredging. Tough talk, but dismissing the ideas of Fischer, Fox, Lines and Russell as "simplistic" is, well, a little simplistic.
What isn't simplistic are the concerns of these and other experts — including senior Government insiders — about whether Victoria is doing the big picture transport planning needed in the face of a global environmental crisis.
Fischer, for one, says that at Hastings 90% of container traffic could be carried by train. At Swanson Dock, by contrast, the Government is hoping for 30% at best. Not surprisingly, residents around Western Port are not keen on Hastings as a major port in any time frame.
It seems the only parties fully satisfied with the Port of Melbourne's plan to stay tight at Swanson Dock until full capacity, and then develop Hastings, are the two stevedores that very profitably dominate Australian ports. It is in their interests to maximise use of existing terminals at Swanson Dock before moving on.
Freight logistics and the finances of stevedoring companies don't normally rate a mention in the news pages of this paper. But, as Sir Humphrey Appleby was fond of reminding his minister, everything is joined to everything else. The furore over dredging has brought into focus questions about who runs our ports and our bays and on whose behalf.
Maybe it's time for a rethink on our ports and related transport, planning, environment and financial issues. After channel deepening, such a review is likely to attract considerably more public interest, and scrutiny, than previous attempts.
Cameron Houston and Royce Millar, The Age
February 2, 2008
ONE of Australia's most senior port executives has slammed the decision to dredge Port Phillip Bay and accused the nation's two dominant stevedores of bullying the State Government and the Port of Melbourne Corporation.
Australian International Container Terminals chairman Richard Setchell said channel deepening would not have a significant benefit for container trade at Swanson Dock, which, he said, was already close to full capacity.
"I think the money would be far better spent on developing Hastings (on Western Port) and the dredging project is simply delaying the inevitable," Mr Setchell, a former global boss of P&O Ports said.
His warning comes as federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett promised to work through the weekend to finalise his decision on the controversial bay dredging. "I expect to make a decision early next week," he told The Age.
But he made it clear he would not be rushed into signing off on the project's environmental management plan, even though it is costing the port about $250,000 for each day lost before dredging starts.
Mr Setchell said Hastings was the "perfect alternative" to the shallow Port Phillip Bay because of its deep 15-metre channel and existing rail corridor to Dandenong.
He said he believed a Government decision to develop Hastings had been deferred after intense lobbying from duopoly operators, DP World (formerly P&O) and Asciano Group's Patrick.
Mr Setchell, who ran P&O's port operation in Melbourne through the 1990s before branching out on his own, said he offered to purchase 50% of the existing Hastings port in 2005 and to build a new container terminal as part of a bid to establish a national network of container terminals.
Port of Hastings Corporation chief executive Ralph Kenyon confirmed that he had discussed the proposal with then treasurer John Brumby and former transport minister Peter Batchelor, who both refused to meet Mr Setchell.
Mr Kenyon said the proposal had "merit" but the timing was wrong.
George Svigos, a spokesman for Mr Brumby, said Mr Setchell's Hastings proposal had been assessed by departmental officials.
"It would have been irresponsible for the Government to sell control of development of the port of Hastings at a bargain-basement price. This will be a multibillion-dollar freight hub."
The Government would not reveal how much Mr Setchell had offered.
Mr Setchell's comments follow those of a string of prominent experts and analysts including former trade minister Tim Fischer and ANL shipping line chief John Lines, who have called for a rethink and the fast-tracking of Hastings and/or Webb Dock as a container terminal.
Under its existing port strategy, the Government plans to develop Hastings in three stages over 50 years.
Mr Setchell said the Asciano Group, which operates existing ports at Hastings and Geelong and 50% of Melbourne, had most investment in Swanson Dock at the Port of Melbourne. "So why in hell would they want to fast-track development in Hastings or allow anyone else to get involved?"
Asciano Group chief executive Mark Rowsthorn dismissed criticism of duopoly power in the national stevedore industry as a "total misnomer". "The port operates independently of the stevedores."
He said the state's current port plan, which envisages the long-term development of Hastings after Melbourne is at full capacity, took into account everyone's opinions, not just the two stevedores.
He said any change in course from the current Victorian port strategy would be "insane".
DP World managing director Jack Williams also denied the stevedores had an unhealthy influence over port planning. He said the two companies were "extremely keen competitors".
Mr Williams said proposed developments at Webb Dock and Hastings should not shift attention away from channel deepening and its economic importance to Victoria.
Michelle Grattan and Adam Morton, The Age
February 2, 2008
PETER Garrett last night promised to work through the weekend to finalise his decision on the controversial bay dredging.
"I expect to make a decision early next week," he told The Age. But he made it clear he would not be rushed on such an important matter, even though each day lost before dredging starts costs the project some $250,000.
Mr Garrett has a lot of reading in front of him as he studies the environment management plan he only received on Thursday. "This is a complex legal document — more than 800 pages in all — and it has to be right. This is a major project and the people of Melbourne expect no less of a federal minister than proper scrutiny — and that's exactly what I'm doing," he said.
Sources said Mr Garrett was acutely aware that the Port of Melbourne Corporation hoped for an early February start date. But that was its commercial decision, and it knew the federal minister would need to carefully consider the final environment management plan.
Port chief executive Stephen Bradford said the final plan, responding to the 16 conditions Mr Garrett set out when he approved the channel deepening project on December 20, last year, went to the minister's department on Thursday last week. The port was then asked to make changes, and submitted its final information to Canberra on Wednesday morning, he said.
Mr Bradford denied that the delay was an inconvenience, despite the giant dredge, the Queen of the Netherlands, sitting idle at South Wharf until the plan is approved. The minister was just doing his job. "I can have no complaint about that at all," he said.
"The decision to bring the dredge was a commercial decision of the Port of Melbourne Corporation, and we make our decisions based on our best available information and our judgement," he said.
"Organising large items of mobile equipment is not an easy task. You have to project into the future and you make sensible decisions based on the best available information. So far, we're one day out.
"I don't think we're going too badly, just quietly."
Despite calls from dredging opponents — including the 10 councils ringing Port Phillip Bay — for greater public scrutiny of the final environmental plan, Mr Bradford said it was unreasonable to expect the port to publicly release it before it was approved.
"We have said we will publicly release this comprehensive plan when we have the requisite approval," he said.