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
31/01/08 Dredging: more heat on Brumby Royce Millar, Clay Lucas and Adam Morton, The Age Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
24/01/08 Garrett to face fresh dredge case The Age Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
23/01/08 Peter Garrett tips a bonanza for bay after dredging Nick Higginbottom and Ellen Whinnett, The Herald Sun Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
22/01/08 Bay project to worsen traffic woes Josh Gordon, The Age Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
22/01/08 Dredging plan steams ahead, casting away public concern The Age , Opinion, Editorial (Good Background ) Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
21/01/08 Scientists question Yarra toxic sediment AAP our highlighting Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
21/01/08 Toxic silt can be diluted to 'safe' levels Adam Morton, The Age our highlighting Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
19/01/08 Baillieu pushes check on bay dredge Clay Lucas, The Age; Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
19/01/08 New call to reveal safeguards Clay Lucas, The Age, Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
19/01/08 Anglers report 'sick' fish as Premier denies risk Matthew Burgess and David Rood, The Age - our highlighting Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
18/01/08 Full steam ahead as the first of the dredging fleet arrives Clay Lucas The Age Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
18/01/08 TOXIC SWILL NO PROBLEM FOR SHIPPERS, BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
17/01/08 Deeply disturbing - Corporate spin should not dictate the future of Port Phillip Bay Jeremy Loftus-Hills, The Age, Opinion Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08 Great Overview of economic imperatives and background -our highlights related
17/01/08 JAPANESE TO RESCUE BAY BIRDS? BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
16/01/08 D-day for bay as last legal hurdle falls Clay Lucas, The Age - our highlighting Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
15/01/08 Recycled water 'keeping Melbourne green' The Age, Melbourne, Jan 08
Water National 15/01/08 Bay dredge gets go-ahead Clay Lucas, The Age with AAP Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
11/10/08 Late court bid to block dredging. Clay Lucas, The Age Melbourne, Jan 08; Port Phillip
09/01/08 Water State 09/01/08 Channel deepening delay to affect bay beaches Clay Lucas, The Age Port Phillip
09/01/08 Oil survey may disturb blue whales Andrew Darby, The Age South West Jan 08
07/10/08 Melbourne water use down 16% ; Peter Ker, The Age Melbourne
07/10/08 CHANNEL DEEPENING IS A BILLION DOLLAR WHITE ELEPHANT! BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
09/01/08 Water State 09/01/08 Channel deepening delay to affect bay beaches Clay Lucas, The Age Port Phillip Jan 08
07/10/08 CHANNEL DEEPENING IS A BILLION DOLLAR WHITE ELEPHANT! BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE Port Phillip Jan 08; Melbourne, Jan 08
Royce Millar, Clay Lucas and Adam Morton, The Age
January 31, 2008
Video Crew welcome cameras aboard the controversial bay dredger. The Age Jan 31st 2008
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."
With the Queen of the Netherlands dredger already in town and awaiting approval to begin channel deepening, Mr Fischer emphasised that he believed the project should go ahead.
But he said its negative impacts should be minimised where possible, and expressed support for upgrading Webb Dock — at the mouth of the Yarra — as a possible way of avoiding the need to dredge toxic silt further upstream.
Mr Fischer also joined calls for the state to fast-track its long-term plans for the transfer of container ship traffic to Hastings.
Mr Fischer, who served as trade minister as well as deputy prime minister in the Howard government, recently reviewed Victoria's rail freight system for the Brumby Government. One of his recommendations was to give priority to a new train line from Hastings to Cranbourne, to open the way for Western Port becoming the main container hub.
Last night, Mr Fischer also called for the restoration and upgrading of rail links to existing Melbourne ports as part of a broader solution to coping with growing container traffic.
"I would not ditch the dredging but if I was a Melburnite, I would be demanding an absolutely adequate rail connection to Webb Dock, and Swanson Dock. And I would also be demanding bringing forward Hastings."
He said that if it was possible to reduce the environmental impacts of dredging and avoid gridlock in Melbourne from a predicted four-fold increase in container traffic, the Government should do so.
While backing this week's call by ANL shipping line chief John Lines for an upgrade of Webb Dock to avoid the need for dredging toxic sediment from the Yarra — one of the most environmentally risky aspects of the project — he said this should occur only with a reinstated rail link to the dock. The rail link was ripped up by the Kennett government in the 1990s to make way for developing Docklands.
Last week, trucking magnate Lindsay Fox also called for a rethink of port planning and the fast-tracking of the Hastings plan. He said Melbourne roads were clogged with container traffic, and that Hastings would allow more freight to go by train.
In developments yesterday:
■Mr Brumby sparked an interstate spat by saying Melbourne would become a "backwater" like Adelaide if channel deepening did not go ahead.
■Port of Melbourne chief executive Stephen Bradford conceded that dredging was unlikely to start on schedule tomorrow. It is believed Environment Minister Peter Garrett is yet to receive advice from his department on the environmental management plan for the project, which must happen before dredging starts.
■Mr Bradford said it would cost the port about $250,000 every day the Dutch-owned Queen of the Netherlands sat idle.
■Anti-dredging group the Blue Wedges Coalition had a minor victory in the Federal Court, securing the right to challenge Mr Garrett's decision last month to approve the project. A hearing is set for February 20, but the port can still start dredging within 24 hours of approval for its environmental plan — unless an injunction is obtained.
■The Association of Bayside Municipalities, comprising 10 councils ringing Port Phillip Bay, demanded the Government allow more time between federal approval of the environmental plan and the start of dredging to allow full public scrutiny of how dredging would be monitored.
Invoking the grand rail planning of Sir John Monash as inspiration, Mr Fischer called for "holistic, lateral-type thinking" to solve Melbourne's port and freight challenges, including an early move to Hastings.
State Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu also said yesterday he supported making better use of Webb Dock if it was practical and meant dredging the Yarra could be avoided.
But Mr Brumby dismissed what he called "simplistic" arguments about upgrading Webb Dock. While not ruling out making better use of it before 2015, he said its proponents did not seem to be factoring in the cost of either a tunnel under the Yarra, which he said would be about $500 million, or bridge over it (more than $100 million) to carry the freight.
He also warned of the likely opposition that a new rail bridge over the river would trigger.
Mr Fischer agreed that a rail bridge adjacent to Bolte Bridge would be opposed by Docklands apartment owners. He said an alternative option — costing less than $50 million— would be a "punt" that could carry groups of train carriages across the river.
Mr Fischer said that, properly planned, the "real joy" of the Hastings option was that it would allow 90% of containers to go by rail. At the moment it is less than 20% at Melbourne.
Mr Fischer stressed his comments on Webb Dock and Hastings were as a private citizen, not as chairman of the freight review.
Adding to pressure on Mr Brumby, a powerful shipping lobby group said yesterday that the decision to dredge millions of tonnes of toxic silt from the Yarra should never have been made.
Shipping Australia chief executive Llew Russell said: "We put it to the Port of Melbourne a few years ago that dredging of the Yarra mouth should not go ahead, and they told us it was just too late."
Asked if the Port of Melbourne had bullied shipping lines into accepting dredging of the Yarra rather than development of Webb Dock, Mr Russell said: "Well, they were rather forceful in their views."
Adam Morton and David Rood
January 24, 2008, The Age
ANTI-DREDGING group Blue Wedges Coalition will take Environment Minister Peter Garrett back to court in a last-ditch bid to stop channel deepening in Port Phillip Bay, arguing it has new evidence his approval of the $1 billion project was unlawful.
The challenge will be based on legal advice that Mr Garrett failed to address several key issues when spelling out his justification for allowing the channel project — planned to allow super-container ships to reach Port Melbourne.
Mr Garrett signed off on the project on December 20, but did not release his legal reasoning until Tuesday. In the meantime, the Federal Court dismissed a Blue Wedges application arguing he had erred in his approval.
In the new application, Blue Wedges' lawyer Michael Morehead will address five alleged holes in Mr Garrett's reasons, including that he failed to properly consider:
■ The impact on social issues such as recreational fishing and swimming.
■ The impact on threatened and migratory species and internationally recognised wetlands.
■ The Port of Melbourne's failure to stop work during trial dredging as required when rocks at the Heads fell below 20 metres onto coral beds.
"We have reasonable prospects of success — we certainly have an arguable case," Mr Morehead said.
The action will also target the port, arguing it has failed to prove that environmental monitoring of dredging would be enough to ensure it was safe.
Port chief executive Stephen Bradford said Blue Wedges was acting within its rights to seek an injunction, but had already failed twice in the courts.
A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said the Federal Court had already confirmed he had met his requirements under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has accused Premier John Brumby of trying to intimidate community groups after one of his staff suggested a group publicly attack critics of channel deepening.
A Brumby adviser and a staffer to Environment Minister Gavin Jennings called community groups suggesting they contact The Age to challenge trucking magnate Lindsay Fox's comment that dredging was stupid.
Mr Baillieu said the Government was embarking on secrecy and intimidating community groups. "They are keeping too much about the channel deepening project secret."
Mr Brumby said he was unaware the advisers had contacted the groups, but no action would be taken against them.
Peter Garrett tips a bonanza for bay after dredging
Nick Higginbottom and Ellen Whinnett, The Herald Sun
January 23, 2008 12:00am
FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has highlighted the economic benefits of the Port Phillip Bay dredging as the main reason for approving the $1 billion project.
Mr Garrett yesterday released his reasons for approving the channel-deepening project saying he found "no economic or social matters to indicate I should decide not to approve the proposed action".
But anti-dredging group Blue Wedges said the comments proved he had relied too heavily on economic issues, and said it was considering fresh legal action.
President Jenny Warfe said Mr Garrett had only considered the economic benefits for the Port of Melbourne Corporation and had not investigated what the bay already offered.
"Quite conservative estimates indicate recreational fishing is worth about $1 billion a year, but that's never been considered," Ms Warfe said.
The anti-dredging group was yesterday seeking legal advice on whether it should pursue further court action against the dredging, which is due to start early next month.
"The preliminary advice is that we do have some (legal) grounds within the reasons he's given," Ms Warfe said.
"It's around the issue of whether or not Garrett was informed about whether the trial dredge environment management plan was breached or not."
The giant dredger Queen of the Netherlands is on its way to Melbourne from Singapore and should arrive on Tuesday.
Work to dredge up to 23 million cubic metres of silt and rock cannot begin until after the Port of Melbourne Corporation has completed its environmental management plan.
An exclusion zone of 1.4sq km has been set up around the Queen of the Netherlands and other dredging equipment, on land and on the bay.
But police do not expect trouble from protesters.
Operations commander Supt Rod Collins said police did not know of anyone planning any illegal protests.
Supt Collins said he respected Blue Wedges' promise to protest peacefully and legally.
"We understand this is a sensitive issue," he said.
Patrolling of the dredging operations on land and in the bay will be carried out by private security personnel employed by the Port of Melbourne Corporation.
But police will become involved if anyone breaches the exclusion zones set around the Queen of the Netherlands or any other dredging vessel.
Ports Minister Tim Pallas said the Ports Corporation was working to ensure Mr Garrett's conditions were built into the environment management plan.
"As soon as the EMP has been approved it will be released," Mr Pallas said.
"Channel deepening works will not commence before the EMP has been released."
Mr Pallas also urged protesters to respect the exclusion zones.
"Project opponents have the right to voice their concerns but I would ask them to stay outside these restricted areas for their own safety and the safety of others," he said.
Josh Gordon, The Age
January 22, 2008
THE State Government has conceded its $1 billion bay channel deepening project will result in increased traffic on the roads — bolstering the case for an east-west tunnel to complete Melbourne's freeway network.
A spokesman for Roads and Ports Minister Tim Pallas yesterday agreed that by expanding the capacity for container traffic into the Port of Melbourne, channel deepening would add to pressure on the road network.
And the spokesman, Matt Nurse, cited the controversial proposal for a new east-west road link as one of a number of projects that could help the city cope with the expected increase in container truck traffic.
The comments came after trucking magnate Lindsay Fox blasted the Port Phillip dredging plan as a short-term fix that would add traffic to an already overcrowded road network.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd also entered the debate over urban traffic congestion yesterday, declaring that gridlock in major cities such as Melbourne was imposing excessive costs on the national economy.
Weeks before bay dredging is due to start, Mr Fox said it would be "stupid" to go ahead with a project that would add to traffic running in and out of the city.
The trucks tycoon said it made more sense to develop the naturally deeper Western Port as a hub, which would draw traffic out of the city, while catering for bigger and more efficient ships.
"In the longer term for Victoria to survive in the container shipping business they need to get the biggest ships. And the best location for that happens to be Hastings," Mr Fox said.
The Port of Melbourne already generates about 1.2 million truck visits a year, contributing to congestion on the roads and fuelling community anger, particularly in the western suburbs.
Container trade through the port is expected to quadruple to 8 million by 2035. But an assessment of Melbourne's roads is believed to have shown they could cope only with a doubling to about 4 million containers.
A senior source told The Age that beyond that figure, a "substantial investment" in traffic infrastructure around Webb Dock would be needed.
Mr Pallas' spokesman said a number of projects would help deal with increased road freight — including an assessment by businessman Sir Rod Eddington of the need for a tunnel linking the Eastern Freeway to CityLink.
"We have a range of projects under way to cater for increased road freight including the $2 billion draft port development plan, our investment in the Monash-West Gate corridor upgrade, the Dynon Port Rail Link and the East West Needs Assessment Study," Mr Nurse said.
Sir Rod's findings are due in late March. The Age revealed late last year that the Department of Infrastructure had sent a senior official to China to examine the latest tunnelling techniques.
Premier John Brumby, Mr Pallas and Transport Minister Lynne Kosky will meet transport bosses today to discuss possible solutions to Melbourne's congestion woes.
Meanwhile, State Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu has hit out at the failure of federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett to conduct a site visit to Port Phillip Bay and meet concerned scientists and locals.
Mr Garrett is yet to approve the final Environmental Management Plan prepared by the Port of Melbourne Corporation.
"If Peter Garrett can take a joy flight to Antarctica to demonstrate his apparent concern for the environment, surely he can visit Port Phillip Bay," he said.
A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said his backing of the channel deepening project, which will not be complete until he signs off on the Environmental Management Plan, would be based on a rigorous scientific analysis.
Mr Baillieu also repeated his criticism of the Brumby Government's failure to make the environment plan public, given it was only 10 days until the project was due to start.
"A secret safeguard is not a safeguard," he said.
Mr Baillieu supports the deepening of the bay, but has called for a continuous online disclosure of all environmental testing of the project.
With NICK McKENZIE, ADAM MORTON, STEPHEN MOYNIHAN
January 22, 2008, The Age , Opinion, Editorial
As the costs and fears for the bay increase, lack of transparency about channel deepening could come back to haunt the Government.
EVER since the deepening of Port Philip Bay shipping channels was mooted in 1993, advocates have insisted the economic benefits greatly outweigh any financial or environmental costs. By 2004, the project looked to be a near certainty to proceed. The State Government seemed to have as much difficulty with any change of course as one of the giant ships that deeper channels are to accommodate. In recent years, the cost-benefit equations have changed dramatically, as have the known environmental risks. Initial estimates in 1997 put the project cost at $50 million. Although this had grown to $550 million by 2004, a study for the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development predicted a boost to GDP of up to $14.8 billion by 2030. These days the net direct benefit is about $2.2 billion, of which $1.3 billion accrues to Victoria, while costs have soared to $969 million (the state committed $150 million in public money last month).
By 2005, as rising costs and the extent of contamination of sediments in the Yarra River mouth and northern channels were revealed, The Age asked whether it was time to look again at advancing the expansion of Webb Dock, scheduled for 2017, or developing a deep-water facility in Western Port Bay, the next step when Melbourne's port reaches capacity within two decades. The Government stuck to its original course, pausing only for the 2006 state election before approving the project, subject to environmental safeguards.
Two review panels, and a recent Federal Court action, have revealed the magnitude of the project and the environmental risks of dredging and containment of contaminated sediments in giant dumps in the bay itself. Lack of transparency about plans to monitor and manage the dispersion of heavy metals, pesticides and other contaminants has not inspired public confidence. The second panel also had no one with the scientific credentials to assess the complex interplay of all impacts in a dynamic bay where tidal levels and flows will change significantly. In approving the project last December, state Environment Minister Gavin Jennings said work would be halted if "environment thresholds" were breached, but the public still does not know the thresholds or other details of the monitoring and management plan. And would the public know of any breaches unless monitoring results are constantly published? The final version of the plan has gone to federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett, who requested more detail but has not taken the trouble even to visit the affected areas, yet managed a flight to Antarctica.
As bayside councils complain, no time is left for public scrutiny before the plan takes effect. A state adviser on channel deepening, Melbourne University professor Michael Keough, rightly says: "As a matter of principle that plan should be public. There were pretty big gaps in the last public version of it that we saw."
Opposition Leader Ted Baillieu accepts the project's economic worth, but is proposing a private member's bill to demand "full and complete public disclosure of all environmental monitoring". The state-appointed monitor, Environment Protection Authority chairman Mick Bourke, must report to Parliament only once a year, so it is a matter of discretion whether the public is left in the dark when any impact is detected — as has happened before with EPA monitoring. Public scrutiny and pressure is the surest way to protect the bay. The Age endorses Mr Baillieu's call for monitoring results to be released immediately, possibly on a website as he suggests. As he says, "The bay is a community asset. There should be no hiding from the community."
If safeguards are adequate and the risks minor, the Government and Port of Melbourne Corporation have nothing to hide. Because of the lack of transparency, the Government will fully deserve any blame for deficiencies in project monitoring and management. It shelved the issue at the last election, but the project runs until early 2010 so its effects will be obvious by the time of the election that year. Labor will not be able to escape the political fallout from any failure to properly protect the bay.
January 21, 2008 - 8:33AM AAP
Testing of the possible effects of dredging toxic silt from the mouth of the Yarra River as part of the controversial $1 billion channel deepening project is inadequate, scientists say.
While the CSIRO was approved the project, senior scientists have told The Age newspaper the Port of Melbourne Corporation had not answered key questions about what might happen when the silt, which contains 150 years of heavy metal and pesticide pollution, is dredged and dumped in the middle of Port Phillip Bay.
The corporation and several experts say the silt removal can be done safely.
Monash University biologist Professor Sam Lake said testing supported by the port corporation did not do enough to analyse levels of toxic substances in the sediment and how they could affect the food chain.
"There could be a serious environmental hazard that may produce unexpected and damaging effects," he said.
Former CSIRO environmental projects office chief Dr Graha Harris said the port's last report on the project's environmental impact was not a true ecological risk assessment that may not give a full indication of contamination levels.
"My best judgement is that this document tends to downplay key risks associated with human and environmental impacts and assumes more rapid recovery of the bay after the project than may be the case," he said.
But Dr Graeme Batley, the director of the CSIRO's Centre for Environmental Contaminants Research, who was contracted by the State government to review the port's testing, told The Age the investigation had been comprehensive and the project could be managed safely.
"The ranges of things they are doing is world's best practice in respect to the impacts of dredging," he said.
"They really put forward all the issues and countered the anti-dredging activists."
Adam Morton, The Age our highlighting
January 21, 2008
THEY are called the northern channels and they may not be the best place to go diving or catch a fish.
That's the picture painted by last year's 15,000-page environmental effects statement into channel deepening — the second examination of the project's likely impact after an independent panel found the first had ignored crucial areas.
Sediment at the bottom of the channels, which take in Webb, Appleton and Swanson docks and parts of the Yarra River and the Williamstown Channel, contains heavy metals, pesticides and other pollution at toxic levels.
This will be no surprise to anyone with even a passing understanding of the history of the area. For 150 years, the channels have acted as a sink, swallowing industrial pollution including copper, lead, mercury, zinc and synthetic pesticides such as DDT. The list of polluters includes abattoirs, tanneries, fertiliser plants, petroleum refineries and the docks themselves.
The sediment lies at the bottom and sides of the channels, but in coming months it will be dredged and dispersed. Of more than 7 million cubic metres of clay and silt to be dredged, about 2 million is considered contaminated. It will be funnelled into a marine disposal ground in the middle of the bay, left to settle for 140 days and then contained with a sifted layer of sand.
Just how nasty is this material? Engineering and environmental consultants acting on behalf of the Port of Melbourne collected 144 samples from the northern channels in three ways: divers collecting by hand and two barge-operated sediment corers.
Numerous samples were found to breach safe levels for heavy metals — mercury chief among them — as set out under national disposal guidelines for dredging.
The next step was elutriation tests, which effectively dilute the samples by a factor of 100 to see how the toxic sediments might behave when dispersed.
And here is the key line from the port's point of view — once diluted, all samples bar one were found to be acceptable under the guidelines.
Another battery of tests exposed juvenile crustaceans to contaminated soft silt for 10 days. Algae were exposed for 24 hours to measure the impact of the silt on enzyme development. And sea urchin and oyster larvae were exposed to contaminated water for three and two days respectively.
Averaged across all tests, the highest level of samples judged toxic were at the side of the Yarra, where two out of three lots of silt harmed or killed the organisms.
The bottom line? Silt at the docks in the Yarra and Williamstown channels is toxic and, under national guidelines, must be contained when disposed. But the analysis found any toxic sediments lost between dredging and moving to the disposal ground would be so few that they would not be a threat.
One other crucial point is that there were two toxic "hot spots" near Webb dock, contaminated with DDT and dieldrin at levels so high they breached the safety guidelines for uncontained ocean disposal without the need for extra testing.
This has led dredging opponents to ask: is it acceptable to use the bay to dispose of toxic sediments when there could be other hot spots not found due to errors in sampling?
According to the independent expert group appointed by the Government last year to review the port's environmental statement, the answer was yes — the technology being used was world's best practice and likely to minimise the escape of toxic material at the disposal zone.
The group said in its report: "All chemicals are toxic to some degree … it is the dose that is important."
Clay Lucas, The Age
January 19, 2008
Ted Baillieu on Lagoon Pier, Port Melbourne.
Photo: Joseph Feil
OPPOSITION Leader Ted Baillieu is to introduce a private member's bill into State Parliament next month aimed at boosting environmental monitoring of the $1 billion plan to dredge Port Phillip Bay.
Mr Baillieu's bill will demand "full and complete public disclosure of all environmental monitoring" of the project's effect on Port Phillip Bay.
It will be the first private member's bill personally introduced by an opposition leader since 1985, and is a sign of growing political unrest over the project.
Mr Baillieu wants a website established that divulges in real-time all research monitoring the impact of dredging 23 million cubic metres of toxic silt, sand and rock from the bay.
"At the first indication of environmental damage we must be able to hit a stop button on this project," Mr Baillieu said. "The bay is a community asset. There should be no hiding from the community."
The Brumby Government has established an independent monitor to report on the Port of Melbourne Corporation's management of the environmental consequences of dredging the bay.
The independent monitor, led by Environment Protection Authority chairman Mick Bourke, will have the authority to compel the corporation to release data and advise the Government to stop the project.
But the independent monitor must report to Parliament only once a year. Its first mandatory public report on the project is scheduled to be released in January 2009 — many months after dredging begins.
"Data will remain locked behind the closed doors of ministerial suites and government agencies," Mr Baillieu said. "Monitoring that takes place in secret is neither transparent nor accountable. We cannot afford to risk environmental damage to Port Phillip Bay." Mr Baillieu's bill has little chance of success, but will place pressure on the Government over the project.
Mr Baillieu said he believed Melbourne's shipping channels needed to be deepened for the good of the economy. But due process had been abused, he said: "The Government has stymied every effort to increase transparent environmental and economic scrutiny and accountability of this project."
Premier John Brumby has said previously that the corporation's plan to dredge the bay has been subject to — and passed — the toughest possible environmental tests.
The corporation has spent $122 million on environmental effects statements to prove it is safe. It insists dredging will not permanently damage the bay.
The Port of Melbourne Corporation has still not made public its latest schedule of dredging works. The last publicly available draft appeared in June 2007, but since then the project has been extended by six months.
It is still unclear on what dates beaches will be affected by the massive plumes of sediment to be stirred up by the dredge, the Queen of the Netherlands. The Government has not compelled the corporation to release its dredge schedule.
As part of the dredging plan, more than 2.1 million cubic metres of contaminated sediment will be dumped in the bay. The toxic sediment includes lead, mercury, zinc, cadmium, DDT and PCBs and other deadly toxins.
The chemicals currently lie on the bed of the Yarra River, left there by 150 years of abattoirs, slaughterhouses, gunpowder and explosives factories, and other heavy industries that poured waste into the river until the 1970s. The pollutants could affect recreational bay use, fish, animals and birdlife.
Once dredged, the toxic materials will be dumped into a specially built clay mound in the middle of the bay and left uncovered for 140 days to settle.
If extreme weather during that time dislodges the material, it could spread into the bay.
Clay Lucas, The Age
January 19, 2008
ONE of Victoria's most respected marine scientists has called for the public release of a final plan to manage the environmental consequences of the $1 billion channel deepening.
Melbourne University's Professor Michael Keough, a key adviser to the State Government on channel deepening, said: "As a matter of principle, that plan should be public.
"There were pretty big gaps in the last public version of it that we saw."
He said the Port of Melbourne Corporation or the state or federal governments should ensure the plan was made public.
His call has been backed by bayside councils as the start of the project approaches.
The Port of Melbourne has consistently blocked access to the plan, saying only that it would be released before the project began on February 1.
The authority only yesterday provided final details to federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett.
Mr Garrett approved the project late last year, subject to a satisfactory environmental management plan.
A spokeswoman for Mr Garrett said the minister was still not satisfied with the plan. He has demanded more information.
The last public version of the plan was released on July 27 last year. It has changed dramatically since then.
The environmental management plan details how water quality, noise and other issues such as seagrass, fish populations and penguins will be monitored during dredging.
Ten Melbourne councils that border Port Phillip Bay joined Professor Keough's call yesterday, saying the State Government must do more to force the port corporation's hand.
The chairman of the Association of Bayside Municipalities, Cr Topsy Petchey, said: "The prolonged delay in the release of the final (plan) will prevent public scrutiny of the environmental safeguards.
"The project must not begin without the (plan) being made publicly available."
Premier John Brumby believes the project can be delivered without serious environmental consequences.
Yesterday he repeated his view that the project would be safe for the bay.
■ TWELVE-YEAR-OLD Elyse Coates will lead a protest swim against the dredging at 10am today. She will swim from Mornington pier to nearby Mills Beach.
The one-kilometre Save Our Bay swim is backed by the Mornington Life Saving Club. The beach at Mornington will be one of the worst hit by dredging, with plumes of contaminated sediment likely to cloud the water for months.
Elyse said yesterday: "We are the future generation, and dredging will spoil marine life and it's going to affect a lot of businesses and lots of things like the fish shops that get their catch locally."
Fisherman Tony Spiteri caught a whiting with blotches on its head. The Environment Protection Authority is investigating reports of seven fish species having lesions.
Photo: Joseph Feil
Matthew Burgess and David Rood, The Age - our highlighting
January 19, 2008
A FISHERMAN hooked a fish with strange blotches a day after authorities warned of lesion-bearing fish being caught in parts of Port Phillip Bay.
Anglers told The Age of some species — including whiting and flathead — that were caught recently that had unusual markings.
Fisherman Tony Spiteri noticed strange blotches on one whiting he caught near Altona yesterday. "It just had a red mark on top of its head, an inch round," Mr Spiteri said. "The edge of it looked a bit white."
On Thursday, the Environment Protection Authority said it was investigating reports of seven species — cobbler, blowfish, flathead, trevally, luderick, whiting and bream — caught with lesions on them in Hobsons Bay and Port Phillip Bay.
The Department of Primary Industries is also investigating.
The fish were caught between Port Melbourne and Werribee South.
The Department of Human Services warned people to avoid touching or eating fish that had lesions.
Mr Brumby said it was "ludicrous" to draw any connection between the fish problem and the planned dredging of Port Phillip Bay to deepen shipping channels.
Fisheries Victoria executive director Peter Appleford said outbreaks of lesions and lethargy among fish occurred every 10 to 15 years and a definitive cause might not be found for this week's reports.
He said tests had shown the lesions were not toxic.
"The bay acts like a big estuary so at the top end it is very dependent on freshwater flows, winds, currents, rainfall and temperature and sometimes you get a mix that stresses the fish out," Mr Appleford said.
"And once they get stressed, they tend to get sick, like we do."
Spiros Foscolos, food quality manager at the Melbourne Fish Market, said he had not seen any affected fish and there had been no complaints.
Mr Foscolos said most of the fish that came through the market was from Bass Strait or the deep waters off South Australia, Victoria and NSW.
"The amount of fish from Port Phillip Bay that comes into this market is negligible," he said.
"I had a look around the Victoria Market this morning and there was nothing there I could identify from the bay."
The Black Marlin ship arriving in Melbourne through Port Phillip Heads.
Photo: Pat Scala
January 18, 2008, Clay Lucas The Age
SLIPPING through Port Phillip Heads late yesterday, the first of a flotilla of dredgers and their support ships arrived in Melbourne to begin gouging the bay 12 days from now.
The 170-metre-long vessel Black Marlin will carry four massive barges. These barges will haul some of the extracted 23 million cubic metres of sand, silt and rock to underwater dumps throughout the two-year project to deepen Melbourne's shipping channels.
In 12 days time the monster Queen of the Netherlands dredge will follow. Environmentalists say the project, intended to let bigger ships enter Melbourne's ports, will irreparably damage the bay.
But Premier John Brumby is satisfied the environment will not suffer irreparably and that all hurdles have been cleared - although a crucial plan to manage the environmental effects of the project is still not public.
CLAY LUCAS
TOXIC SWILL NO PROBLEM FOR SHIPPERS
BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE
FRIDAY18TH JANUARY 2008
(first of 2)"If dredging was to start soon, what we might end up with is a toxic swill, not fit for anything except sailing a supertanker through", says Jenny Warfe Blue Wedges spokesperson.
Recreational and commercial fishermen point to the recent decision to reduce environmental flow from the Yarra to supplement Melbourne’s water supply as a likely contributor to the current outbreak of lesions in several popular fish species. Drought conditions combined with deliberate reduction in environmental flows from the Yarra means higher pollutant and nutrient concentrations have entered the Bay, and then the food chain.
"EPA’s warning not to touch or eat fish found in the north of the Bay following multiple findings of fish - flathead, whiting, trevally and others with obvious lesions is a loud and clear warning call. Mr. Garrett and Mr. Brumby must call a halt to dredging and commission a full study into what might happen to the Bay if dredging, drought and deliberate reduction of environmental flow continues".
The big question is: What might be the outcome if a sustained dredging campaign in the Yarra, (removing 5 kms and 10 million cubic metres of riverbed) releasing the one hundred years of toxins currently trapped and relatively inert deep in the Yarra sediments is added onto the effects from drought and reduced environmental flow?
The Port of Melbourne Corporation has not considered cumulative impacts of drought, deliberately reduced environmental flow, release of toxins and sustained turbidity from dredging the Yarra. Eight months of dredging the Yarra will impose additional stresses on its ecosystems by orders of magnitude to what those ecosystems are already experiencing. Something is already wrong, obviously, and dredging is another stress on top, with unknown consequences, perhaps by orders of magnitude", says Jenny.
What’s more, the human health risk assessment commissioned by the PoMC relied on water samples taken from a minor maintenance dredging campaign, (using a smaller and different type of dredge to what PoMC plans to use in the Yarra) and which went nowhere near the Yarra, where the highest concentrations of toxins are. Even so, their inadequate assessment reveals that 100 people may become ill and 10 may develop a serious illness –which the PoMC rates as a "minor" and acceptable risk. "No-one I know thinks it is acceptable for 10 people to acquire a life threatening illness just so channel deepening can happen. Who would - other than the PoMC?" says Jenny.
Fishermen have commented that fish lesions are seen from time to time, but nothing like this has been seen since the last major drought which also coincided with when scallop dredging was banned in the Bay in the mid 1990's.
Hear it straight from the fishermen. Be at the Fishermen’s Hut, Vancouver Bait Supplies, end of Maddox Rd.
Williamstown North (Mel 55 F8) at 3.00 PM today.PHOTO OPPORTUNITY: Mouth of Kororoit Creek, beautiful old fishing huts, wetlands
Blue Wedges spokespersons: John Willis 0407 053484
Jenny Warfe 0405 825769
Deeply disturbing - Corporate spin should not dictate the future of Port Phillip Bay
Illustration: Spooner
Other related coverage
* D-day for bay as last legal hurdle fallsJeremy Loftus-Hills, The Age, Opinion - Background with our highlighting
January 17, 2008
IT IS now the focus of community anger, public protests and a failed Federal Court challenge, but five years ago Port Phillip Bay's channel deepening project sounded like a great idea. In February 2003, the Australian Council for Infrastructure Development trumpeted the benefits. It argued that spending $200 million on deepening the shipping channel would return $5.4 billion.
The council knew how to get bang for its lobbying buck. It was a well-connected, globally organised pressure group with an exclusive membership including multinational financial companies and the infamous Halliburton KBR.
In January 2005, The Age published an article by Tim Holding, now Minister for Water, in which he wrote: "The Australian Council for Infrastructure Development rates channel deepening as the nation's most valuable infrastructure project, with the potential to add $14.8 billion to GDP by 2030."
The optimism continued this week, when Victorian chamber of commerce head Wayne Kayler-Thomson claimed the project would add up to $2.2 billion to the national economy over coming decades — strangely obscuring the impact on the Victorian economy by quoting figures that also refer to interstate and overseas interests.
While the assertions of those heady days reverberate, the council's claims have never withstood scrutiny. The Port of Melbourne was eventually required to clarify the business case for the project. It commissioned NSW maritime economists Meyrick and Associates to complete a strategic assessment and a cost-benefit analysis, which was published in February 2006.
This identified project costs of $639 million over four years with a gross benefit to Victorians of $638 million over 30 years. Yet Ports Minister Tim Pallas signed off on the project less than 12 months later, despite announcing that costs had increased by half to $969 million.
What had happened to the economic benefits? Section 5.3 of the cost-benefit report shows that they are sensitive to changes in interest and exchange rates.
Since the original calculations the outlook for both had changed significantly. If 8% is the most likely interest rate, and 90 cents the value of the US dollar, then benefits to Victorians had in fact decreased by almost half — to $370 million.Pallas also announced a new surcharge of $33 on each container to pay for the project.
Given the history of such imposts, these new fees will pass immediately to consumers. Therefore, instead of the net benefits originally touted, the channel deepening could end up costing Victorian households $1.6 billion over the life of the project.This comes as no surprise to the world's leading maritime economist, Professor Ernst Frankel. "The larger ships are cheaper to run, and can save $5 or even $7 per tonne in shipping costs," he explained in a recent television interview, "but to justify the considerable investment in the necessary port infrastructure, you must have volumes much greater than you presently have through your ports in Melbourne. And these large volumes should originate in one or two ports, instead of the half a dozen or so that they presently do."
Congestion limits the expansion of the Port of Melbourne to about 6.5 million containers per year. When this volume approaches — in about 15 years — the Government's ports strategy calls for the development of a second port in Western Port Bay. By comparison, container volumes in the ports of Singapore and Hong Kong will exceed 30 million this year. If the Government has no intention of building a single large-scale port in Melbourne, why does it risk the bay's ecology as toxic sediment is flushed into the bay during dredging? Why put unnecessary pressure on tourist industries, recreational amenity and the operations of the Newport power station? Is it possible that it is the bullying tactics of the global shipping companies, not the promise of greater wealth for Victorians, that is really driving the channel deepening?
In their report, Meyrick and Associates cite cases where shipping companies forced governments to agree to deepen shipping lanes by issuing ultimatums: "Deepen your shipping channels or we'll favour a port in another state." In a sign of trouble brewing in Melbourne, says the report, some shipping companies have for some time refused to carry significant volumes of low-value cargo due to supposedly shallow waters.
If the project is to be as profitable as some maintain, then we could afford world's best dredging technologies, generating no turbidity and removing rather then dispersing river-bed contaminants. The fact that it is not, and that Victorians are being asked to carry all the risk while the benefits flow out of the state, is a sorry outcome for Victoria.
Giving the green light to channel deepening has delivered a convincing win to global interests. During his trip to the Middle East last November, Holding enjoyed the hospitality of the world's most powerful water companies. There's a lot of money to be made from a desalination plant on the Bass Coast, and the water barons are circling.
With two major yet unpopular projects on the books — desalination and dredging — let us hope that Holding and his advisers see through the corporate spin. Now in its ninth year in office, the State Government cannot afford to lose the confidence of Victorians. This will be the inevitable price if it loses the objectivity required to successfully balance the interests of powerful corporations with those of their own constituency and the natural environment.
Jeremy Loftus-Hills is a business educator, an author of management texts and an independent filmmaker.
24/12/07 PORT PORKIES To the editor The Age ( not published ) from B&D Robinson Melbourne; Port Phillip Dec 07;
JAPANESE TO RESCUE BAY BIRDS?
BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE
THURSDAY 17TH JANUARY 2008
Blue Wedges has requested that the Japanese government assist them to obtain an independent assessment of potential threats from the channel deepening project to migratory birds covered by the Japanese Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA).
The JAMBA treaty was initiated by the Japanese in 1972 at a time when Latham's Snipe – a migratory bird which relies on the RAMSAR listed wetlands of Port Phillip Bay - were still being legally shot in Australia.
Blue Wedges claims an independent assessment is needed because the Victorian Government, as both proponent and regulator of the channel deepening project, has also done the environmental assessment. The Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement was nobbled by an inadequate process which limited the length of the Inquiry process, disallowed cross examination of the proponent’s expert witnesses, and refusal by the Inquiry to co-operate with requests to call other independent experts.
A condition of Federal Environment Minister Garrett's approval for the project is an environmental management plan to the Minister's satisfaction. Blue Wedges is asking the Japanese government to submit advice to the Minister regarding migratory birds covered by JAMBA. "Let’s see if Mr. Garrett is really committed to protecting all internationally protected species, not just whales" says Jenny Warfe Blue Wedges spokesperson.
JAMBA imposes international obligations on the Australian Federal Government to protect all birds covered by the agreement. Blue Wedges queries whether those internationally binding obligations can be achieved if channel deepening proceeds.
For copies of letter and further details:
Blue Wedges spokespersons: Jim Walker 9527 5601
Jenny Warfe 59871583, 0405 825769
Clay Lucas, The Age - our highlighting
January 16, 2008
The Queen of the Netherlands during a trial dredge in 2005.
Photo: Craig Abraham
THE Queen of the Netherlands dredge will sail into Port Phillip Bay on February 1 to begin the $1 billion channel-deepening project after environmentalists lost a court battle to halt it.
Federal Court judge Peter Heerey yesterday dismissed an application by the Blue Wedges Coalition to overturn Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett's approval of the project.
Last night, the Blue Wedges Coalition vowed to fight on, potentially with a last-minute legal challenge to another aspect of Mr Garrett's approval.
State Environment Minister Gavin Jennings approved the project late last year.
Under the plan, 23 million cubic metres of sand, rock, clay and contaminated silt will be removed from the ocean floor and dumped into two spoil grounds in the bay.
Opponents said Melburnians who had not paid attention to the project until now would be horrified that the environment ministers had allowed it to proceed.
"They will be appalled by this project once they realise that Gavin Jennings and Peter Garrett have allowed a toxic dump in Port Phillip Bay," Blue Wedges spokeswoman Jenny Warfe said.
"This project will be like the Franklin River: once people see the environment being destroyed before their eyes, the political pressure will never let it continue."
The coalition had argued in the Federal Court last week that Mr Garrett's approval, made five days before Christmas, was invalid.
They argued that the project had changed dramatically since it was first referred to the Howard government in 2002, but Mr Garrett had not taken this into account.
The $969 million project initially proposed dredging to a depth of two metres, but the Port of Melbourne's dredging contractor Royal Boskalis will now dredge to more than five metres in parts of the bay.
At the entrance to Port Phillip Bay, there are fears that a 50-tonne draghead attached to the Queen of the Netherlands dredge to gouge rock from the Heads will trigger a disintegration process. That process could see the entrance to Port Phillip Bay deepen from its current 14 metres to 22 metres, the Port of Melbourne has said.
The State Government wants Melbourne's shipping channels deepened so that bigger container ships can enter Port Phillip Bay, boosting the economy.
It has made the Port of Melbourne pay a $100 million bond to guarantee the bay will not be damaged irreparably.
Business groups have been exasperated by delays to the project, first mooted in 1993.
The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the project must go ahead because to keep Victoria competitive.
"We applaud yesterday's decision," said VECCI head Wayne Kayler-Thomson.
The project would add up to $2.2 billion to the national economy over coming decades, he said.
Mr Jennings promised in December, when approving the project, that dredging would be halted immediately if any "environmental thresholds" were breached.
But yesterday — 16 days before the project begins — it was still unclear what those thresholds are.
The Port of Melbourne Corporation has not released a crucial environmental management plan that must be approved before dredging can begin.
Last night, the state and federal environment ministers blamed each other for not forcing the Port of Melbourne to release the plan. State Government sources blamed the the Port for "dragging its heels".
One senior bureaucrat told The Age it was disgraceful that a plan to protect the bay from the potentially devastating environmental consequences was not public.
The Port of Melbourne's channel deepening project director, Nick Easy, would not say when the plan would be released, other than "prior to commencement".
The Age
January 15, 2008 - 12:22PM
Recycled water is playing a big part in keeping Melbourne's suburban parks and sporting grounds green during the drought, Water Minister Tim Holding says.
Since mid-December, more than two million litres of class A recycled water has been used by councils.
Mr Holding said recycled water was a "fantastic solution to water restrictions" across Victoria and kept sporting grounds open to the community.
"It is so important for the fabric of our community that people of all ages have an opportunity to continue playing sport during the ongoing dry conditions," Mr Holding said.
A recent $2.5 million upgrade of Yarra Valley Water's Brushy Creek sewage treatment plant made it possible for Melbourne's eastern and north-eastern suburbs to join other areas of Melbourne to gain access to class A recycled water.
Melbourne's use of recycled water has grown from two per cent in 1999 to more than 14 per cent today.
"Some of our public gardens, which Melbourne is famous for, are starting to look a little weary in terms of the drought," Mr Holding said.
"Those community assets will be able to be revitalised."
Yarra Valley Water managing director Tony Kelly said class A recycled water was of the highest standard and made it ideal for use on public facilities.
"Class A recycled water is being used throughout Victoria and is an excellent resource which frees up our drinking water supplies," Mr Kelly said.
Clay Lucas, The Age
January 11, 2008
FEDERAL Environment Minister Peter Garrett has said for the first time that the $1 billion channel-dredging project he approved last month will cause a permanent rise in Port Phillip Bay's high tides.
Dredging opponents took Mr Garrett to the Federal Court yesterday in their final battle to stop the project going ahead on February 1. They argue the project has changed dramatically since it was first referred to the federal environment minister in 2002, because shipping channels would now be deepened by up to five metres — not the 1.5 metres to two metres first proposed.
Michael Morehead, the lawyer for the dredging's opponents, the Blue Wedges Coalition, argued that approving the project on an old report was like receiving a planning permit for a one-storey house but building a three-storey mansion.
The original application failed to mention "dredging", and the plan to dump 2 million cubic metres of toxic silt within the bay, Mr Morehead said.
Justice Peter Heerey said: "They have rather left out the elephant in the room: that they are going to deepen the channels."
The coalition's lone solicitor was hopelessly outnumbered, with nine lawyers — including four silks — appearing for Mr Garrett, the Port of Melbourne and the State Government.
The well-resourced legal team came prepared, wheeling in two full copies of the huge 12-volume, 15,000-page environmental effects statement.
They argued the Blue Wedges group had misread the act that controls approvals of environmentally damaging projects.
The 2002 application was adequate, and the $114 million spent since on environmental studies proved dredging would not permanently damage the bay, they argued. Any delay would cost the Port of Melbourne $253,000 a day.
Mr Garrett acknowledged that enlarging Port Phillip Bay's entrance would change the bay's tide levels. Enlarging the entrance to the bay will allow more water to pour in and out of the Heads.
Justice Heerey is expected to release his decision next week.
Andrew Darby, The Age
January 9, 2008
SEISMIC exploration for oil and gas is about to start at the peak season in Australia's best-known blue whale feeding ground, despite the concern of scientists.
The survey by oil and gas exploration and production company Woodside was approved by the federal Environment Department late last year after two attempts.
It means a stretch of ocean off Port Campbell in western Victoria, where blue whales are known to feed in high summer, will be subjected to weeks of airgun explosions.
The echoes, caught by hydrophones trailed at the surface, provide vital information on geology under the seabed.
But the noise can harm marine wildlife if it is too close, and there is evidence that blue whales avoid this area, potentially missing out on swarms of shrimp-like krill as food.
Woodside's spokesman, Tony Johnson, said the company took precautions to deal with any blue whales near the survey vessel, including proposing to lower the power of the explosions if any whales were seen within three kilometres of the ship.
He said there were greater safety risks in heavier weather if the survey was shifted to April, as scientists suggested.
It was also possible the company might then run into the annual winter migration of southern right whales to the same waters.
Disclosure of the approval for the seismic work comes with the Rudd Government already under pressure over whale protection. Its Antarctic surveillance mission for Japanese whalers is delayed, and showpiece non-lethal research cancelled for logistical reasons.
Woodside initially sought approval for the 320-square-kilometre survey in early October, then withdrew after the department declared it a controlled action — a rare move for any seismic survey, which would have demanded much closer government scrutiny.
The company resubmitted the proposal three days after the federal election, having narrowed the timing and changed some of the operating conditions.
The survey was then approved on Christmas Eve, according to documents on the department's website.
A spokeswoman for Environment Minister Peter Garrett said the department's decision was based on a policy that employed the world's most conservative measures to ensure protection from seismic surveys.
She said that although the probability of encountering whales was low, the department required Woodside to use strict mitigation measures and to carry a government inspector on board to ensure there was no significant impact on blue whales.
"Decisions made by the department under authority delegated by the minister are not reviewable," she said.
Blue whales, which were ravaged in 20th-century commercial whaling, are drawn to waters off the west coast of Victoria at this time of the year, sometimes by the dozen. Upwelling deep ocean currents there encourage the krill and mean a seasonal feast.
Scientists led by Peter Gill discovered the phenomenon in 1998. "Because of the potential for disturbance to the feeding whales, our advice to Woodside and the Government was that the seismic should not take place during the peak blue whale season," Dr Gill said yesterday.
Peter Ker, The Age
January 7, 2008
CONSUMPTION of water in Melbourne fell significantly last year, prompting the Brumby Government to say its water restrictions have worked.
Annual consumption figures to be announced this morning show that 369 billion litres were used last year — almost 16% less than in 2006, when Melburnians used 438 billion litres.
Reductions were recorded by household users and industry, but experts are divided over whether restrictions will remain the best way to manage Australia's supplies.
Victorian Water Minister Tim Holding said Melbourne's reservoirs now held close to 3 billion litres more than at the same time last year, despite the Bureau of Meteorology confirming that 2007 was Victoria's hottest year since 1910.
"It shows restrictions have been effective and the Government has struck the right balance. The fact that households and industry have responded so positively has allowed us to avoid adopting a more heavy-handed approach," he said.
The result was influenced by marginally higher rainfall. And Melburnians endured only four months of restrictions in 2006, while tougher restrictions were in place throughout 2007. Stage 3a restrictions will remain until at least June 30.
Last year's consumption figures follow criticism of water restrictions from national experts including National Water Commission head Ken Matthews, who described them as a "crude instrument" with economic and social costs.
Mr Holding conceded that water restrictions were not a "long-term solution" to Victoria's water needs.
Melbourne's restrictions target outdoor use, particularly garden use. Professor Peter Cullen, of the National Water Commission, said it was appropriate that outdoor users remained the prime target.
"It's garden watering which is really the discretionary watering," he said. "It's very hard to screw people down on the number of times they flush the toilet or have a shower, so the easy one where people have a choice is with gardens and pools."
Stage 3a was designed to reduce use without devastating the nursery and car-wash industries. Nursery and Garden Industry of Victoria chief executive Steven Potts said he was not aware of a better system.
"Clearly the drought-response plan targets the home gardener," he said. "The sad irony here is what the garden can do — they absorb carbon and a well-planned landscape can save your heating and cooling costs by 15 to 30%."
Brisbane and south-east Queensland endure the toughest rationing, with residents asked to limit consumption to 140 litres a day.
Mr Cullen said this could be introduced in other cities but was more an emergency solution.
State Opposition water spokeswoman Louise Asher said such daily limits were more suited to Third World nations.
"The government's role is to ensure the supply of water. That's not an unreasonable expectation," she said.
Ms Asher said the Victorian Government had been too slow to introduce measures such as desalination and it should not have allowed Melbourne's supplies to get to a stage where restrictions were needed.
"In a civilised, modern society, we should be able to water our gardens," she said.
But Mr Cullen said there would "always be a place" for restrictions in Australia.
"To design it so there's no restrictions is quite possible, but you might be looking at a 10-fold increase in the price of water," he said.
CHANNEL DEEPENING IS A BILLION DOLLAR WHITE ELEPHANT!
BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE
MONDAY 7TH JANUARY 2008
All we trust the Port of Melbourne Corporation to do is deliver us a $1 billion white elephant which is going to ruin fishing forever says John Willis, keen recreational fisherman and Blue Wedges spokesperson.
Return on investment from Channel deepening doesn’t even keep track with inflation. No-one in their right mind would write a cheque for the PoMC on that basis.
If PoMC is let loose in our Bay pretty soon we would be attending a Commission of Inquiry as to how Mr. Garrett could have let it happen, says John.
The Bay Vigil on Tuesday night 8th January is our chance to show Mr. Garrett, Mr. Brumby and the PoMC how wrong they are. Get to a nearby beach, have fish and chips from our beautiful clean Bay with no toxic dump and say NO WAY POMC!
See:
www.bayvigil.org and www.bluewedges.org for more details.Blue Wedges spokesperson: John Willis 0407 053 484
Jenny Warfe 0405 825769, 59871583