Submission on the Victorian Ports Strategic Study

Contents 1 Submission on the Victorian Ports Strategic Study 1.1 Prelude 1.2 Process 1.3 VPSS document 1.4 Westernport environment 1.5 Privatisation 1.6 Westernport economy 1.7 Interaction with other policy areas 1.8 What to do 1.9 Attachments:

[edit] Submission on the Victorian Ports Strategic Study

by Dr. Brian Cuming for the Western Port Peninsula protection Council Inc.

This document can be downloaded here... or from the Downloads page of this site. It is also reporduced in full below:

[edit] Prelude

"and finally, after the engineer from Alyeska had been pressured enough, he said: 'We knew there was no way we could ever protect your beaches. If we had a major spill, the oil was gonna hit your beaches. You know, let's be realistic.'. And he's probably correct. But when they wanted to put the terminal at Valdez and the Prince William Sound fishermen raised hell, they pulled this same plan and said: 'You are protected.' And the fishermen didn't know enough to ask the right questions."
John Colhoun, Mayor of Homer, Alaska Oil Spill Commission hearing 15/7/89.

The Westernport and Peninsula Protection Council started asking questions about the wisdom of having a port in Westernport Bay in 1970. We have continued to ask questions with increasing understanding and confidence as scientific knowledge of the bay has grown, and we believe we are asking the right questions.

The publication of the VPSS, in the same narrow, uninformed 'economic rationalist' image as the port planning documents of the 60's and early '70s - as if the Shapiro study and all subsequent scientific work on the bay did not exist - indicates that our questions have not just gone unanswered: they have not been heard!

Until 1992 we believe our questions were at least listened to and considered in a number of well established forums, and there was opportunity for debate and for cautions. Since that time, however, forums vanished (or refused to admit port related matters), all planning became secret, and the extraordinary appearance of the VPSS became possible.

And now we ask the question:

How could Maunsell, a consulting firm engaged in Port proposals in Westernport over many years, who must be sharply aware of the controversy arising from the precautionary findings of the Shapiro Study and of subsequent scientific work on the bay, have produced a report which gives only lip service to those findings, which are patently crucial to the investigation they were addressing? How could they, as reputable consultants, presumably in touch with the now globally accepted requirement for sustainability, have acquiesced in the preparation of a 'single bottom line' strategy, knowing the crucial importance in this case of both the environmental and the social components of the task?

[edit] Process

We wish first to comment on the process of which this submission is a part. Carlo Carli's letter of 22 August states '…..the Department of Infrastructure has recently completed an extensive consultation process … to gain the views of interested stakeholders……'.

As we have indicated verbally to Mr Carli we do not regard the process which has taken place a consultation process in the sense we understood that term prior to the election of the Kennett government. Throughout the terms of the Hamer, Thompson, Cain and Kirner governments protocols were developed, for example by the Land Conservation Council and the EPA, which were widely accepted as reasonable ways of accessing community opinion, and which provided for:

• an adequate period of time for distribution and study of information, discussion by organisations, and preparation of submissions;

• well presented initial background documents

• several stages
• considerable care in distribution, ensuring coverage of all interested parties.

In contrast to this, the present process:

• has been too quick

• was not preceded by a balanced background presentation but rather by documents and press releases essentially supporting the VPSS

• does not so far appear to have any further stages to it - how are we to know what happens next?

• in the set meetings there was too little opportunity for detailed examination of issues: each person attending had perhaps three or four minutes to put their case (we acknowledge and appreciate the special opportunity given our Council to present our case to Mr Carli and senior department representatives, but point out that the detailed presentation we made then should properly have been the basis on which all the meetings were conducted.)

• the mailing list was not adequate at the outset, and despite considerable efforts on our part, seems still far from complete. We understand that major peak conservation groups have not been approached as they would normally expect for such a far reaching matter, apart from circular letters.

We believe the so-called 'consultation process' has had the hallmarks of the processes we have become used to in the Kennett years. We all hope for better things from the Bracks government and trust that future consultation will take heed of the earlier standards. Perhaps we could accept that this was a 'preliminary consultation' process - in which case we would expect all contributors, and indeed a 'complete' mailing list of interested citizens and organisations, will be invited to participate in the next stage.

Ironically, an example of a good consultation process was set in the Victorian Ports Land Use Plan 1990-1991 which, though it only reached Draft Final Report status before the change of government, met the criteria outlined above and took into account all points of view - the triple bottom line was catered for. In view of its particular relevance to the VPSS we were surprised to learn from Carlo Carli that he had not been advised of its existence.

[edit] VPSS document

It is not our intention to attempt any critical analysis of the VPSS document. As we stated verbally on a number of occasions, to unravel such a tightly woven document and to verify the data would require a much longer time scale and expert resources comparable with the input effort which we were told cost 'nearly half a million dollars'. The 'key outputs' defined for the study in its terms of reference reveal that it is based only on the narrow consideration of port development within a 'competitiveness' framework. Any consideration of environmental factors, societal factors or alternative economic futures for the various port areas appears to be summed up in the phrase 'identified constraints for individual ports' (our emphasis).

Such a 'single bottom line' approach must in the year 2000 be regarded as very old fashioned, and we believe the study is fundamentally flawed, and its conclusions very likely to be quite wrong. The obvious secrecy with which it was prepared - none of the community groups which have for years expressed close interest in port developments are listed in Appendix A, nor did any of us know about the Study - supports this belief. The inputs are dominated by companies and organisations having clear and often substantial commercial interests, which would be most likely to result in biased conclusions.

We wish to bring to attention also that Maunsell have on two occasions at least acted as consultants for the National Westminster Bank and Dr A J and Mrs J Bond in relation to port proposals for their Port Related zoned coastal land at The Bluff: in 1983 they were associate consultants in respect of 'A Development Proposal for a Public Port facility at The Bluff, Western Port Victoria'; and they are listed in the 'Hastings Port industrial Area Land Use Structure Plan 1996' as having prepared a submission for the same clients. The question arises of potential conflict of interest in the preparation of the VPSS.

Further problems with the scope and approach of the Study emerged from contributors at the Public Meeting at Balnarring held by WPPC on 27 September. Concern was expressed about the concept of competition between ports, when it was thought rational planning and allocation of resources by the government seemed to be a far more fruitful line to follow. Equally, the narrow espousal of Victorian interests was questioned, in favour of a national approach which might lead to better overall solutions. In particular the introduction of new railway systems, notably the Darwin to Alice Springs link were considered to be matters that should have formed an intimate part of the study rather than being dismissed as irrelevant.

The overwhelming sense from the study that the development of a container port in Westernport is almost inevitable is not accepted, and in view of the well documented sensitivities of the bay, simply not acceptable. Nor is any proposal to import crude oil through Westernport for use in Port Phillip Bay refineries, which was discussed in a very public argument in very recent years, likely to succeed if the community is permitted to express its views. It is quite shocking that no reference appears to be made to this major, well publicised proposal by Shell and Mobil, nor of the significant scientific case brought against it by local community groups supported by peak State, National and International conservation groups.

[edit] Westernport environment

We have presented to the public through our Public Meeting and our meeting with Carlo Carli and senior department representatives a graphic presentation of:

• the ecological values of the bay and its coastline (which have led inter alia to its international recognition as a Ramsar site).

• the key tide-dominated hydrodynamic characteristics of the bay

• and the particular risks brought about by shipping, and enhanced by expansion of shipping.

We presented on both occasions a sample of the extensive scientific literature, consultants' reports and other documents upon which our concerns are based, and copies of some of these documents have been made available to the Ports and Marine Division staff. Others are available on request. We do not intend to repeat any of the detail in this submission but simply to summarise the case very succinctly:

Shipping brings three particular threats to the health of the bay

• An increase in suspended fine sediments arising from dredging and disposal of dredge spoil;

• An ever-present risk of an oil spill against which, because of the characteristics of the bay, there would very little chance of adequate response using the most up to date technology;

• The potential introduction and proliferation of detrimental, exotic organisms in ballast water or on hulls;

The massive tidal movements would ensure almost immediate contact of any of these pollutants with sensitive vegetation along the shorelines and their distribution throughout the bay within weeks.

We have placed on record (for example in our submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Communications and Infrastructure: "Is Australia prepared to respond to a major oil spill?" 1995) arguments, substantiated and supported by consultants engaged by both the (former) Shire of Hastings and the (former) Commonwealth EPA, that effective response to even a moderate sized oil spill in Westernport would be very unlikely. At most perhaps 10% is likely to be recovered, and the remaining 90% or so would have potential to cause widespread long term damage to the ecosystem. Whilst oil tankers pose a quite unacceptable threat, it should be noted that even the 500 tonnes of bunker oil which escaped from the Iron Baron (of which only 2% was recovered by the oil spill plan) has recently been estimated to have killed between 7000 and 17000 penguins.

In addition to these pressures on the bay as a whole, the establishment of a new port facility anywhere north of the BHP jetty, where the deep channel is a considerable distance from the land, would be likely to cause significant ecological damage. All of this coastline and the intertidal areas along it are the subject of a number of Botanical, Zoological and Geological Sites of Significance listed by the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands in their 1984 reports.

We believe there would never have been a port in Westernport if the Shapiro work had been done just 10 years earlier. Environmental sensitivities were not well understood in 1963 - but they are now, and there is no excuse for hiding our heads in the sand and exacerbating an already risky situation. There is an excellent opportunity in the run down of the Bass Strait oil field to diminish the exports of ESSO eventually to zero, and should imports be required, to bring them in appropriately sized tankers directly to the refineries at Geelong and Williamstown. We know from Shell that the extra cost to do so compared with using Westernport would be a mere 0.2 cents/litre or thereabouts at the petrol pump.

We say advisedly 'should imports be required', because in our view the time has long passed when our automotive fuel should have started to switch strongly and as rapidly as possible to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), which is abundantly available to us, is very greenhouse friendly (and we are pleased to note the Minister's recent release of the Victorian Greenhouse Strategy Discussion Paper) and has other advantages as Benders Buslines in Geelong and many others will testify. Accompanying this change should be a resolute adoption of other obvious and immediately available technologies, including hybrid vehicles (is this ever discussed with the auto companies when they announce their expansion plans?). The Sarich technology passed us by, presumably at the whim of the car and oil companies. We recommend a close study of the works of Amory Lovins, Director of Research, Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado, who was commissioned by the Victorian Labor Government on 23 March 1990 to provide independent advice on aspects of energy policy. His report to the government on 30.11.90 and his book 'Factor 4 - Doubling Wealth - Halving Resource Use', Allen & Unwin 1997, offer ideas for feasible step jumps in the shaping of our industry and lifestyle, in ways which would profoundly change future requirements for oil and other commodities, and hence the requirements for shipping. Such thinking would also assist in breaking the stranglehold of 'globals' on all of our activities - something we would hope a Labor government would be keen to do.

[edit] Privatisation

We have raised with the Minister our concerns about the privatisation of the Port of Hastings which are twofold:

• incompatibility of the role of a 'private' Harbourmaster with the spirit and the provisions of the Marine Act, and

• the dangerous incentive given to Toll Holdings to expand the size of the port without limit.

We understand that the Marine Act and the Port Services Act are both currently under review. We respectfully submit that the quality of the review might be enhanced by appropriate community input, and we would seek an opportunity to have some involvement.

[edit] Westernport economy

We and others have pointed to the alternative values of Westernport, which quite apart from an inherent ecological value, offers both tourist dollars and very large (if hard to quantify) benefits to the population of Victoria. We have asked for many years for an economic assessment to be made for the bay, and nowadays we would ask that this be done with the triple bottom line as the criterion. Perhaps this would be a good starting point.

[edit] Interaction with other policy areas

We have already indicated that elements of a strategy aimed to reduce greenhouse gases could have significant interactions with port policy. There are many other possible interactions with other areas of policy for example ECC recommendations for coastal and marine protection, and the draft SEPP for Westernport currently on exhibition. The recently proclaimed Commonwealth EPBC Act has chosen Ramsar sites for special consideration; and a proposal has been put forward for listing the Westernport and Peninsula region as a UNESCO Biosphere reserve. We have also alluded to land transport strategies including various railway proposals, all of which should be considered in looking at future port requirements.

Policies relating to recreation and health of the Victorian community are clearly closely related to the health and sustainability of Westernport, as is future potential for eco tourism.

[edit] What to do

1. Start again! We request the Minister to declare the VPSS an invalid document, and to set up a new process (or perhaps series of processes) to examine the issue of future port development in an appropriately broad context, looking at social, environmental and economic aspects from the outset, looking at broad futures for each of the port sites, looking at national as well as Victorian considerations and involving wide and open community participation.
2. Restore a broadly representative body to coordinate management of Westernport Bay for a sustainable future. For more than two decades the importance of the bay as an ecological unit was recognised by the existence of a 'regional' body: first the Westernport Catchment Coordinating Group, and more recently the Westernport Regional Planning and Coordination Committee (WRPCC). The former Minister for Planning, Robert Maclellan, for no expressed reason, closed down the well respected WRPCC in December 1994. After 25 years the community's forum was closed. We strongly recommend the reinstitution of a similar body, focussing on the bay (as distinct from the present catchment oriented bodies which in our view have been set up to distract attention form port development). The WRPCC itself had views on an improved body which it expressed in the Westernport Bay Strategy 1992, and these may be useful to review.
3. Involve community groups in revision of the Marine Act and the Port Services Act , and the terms of the Toll Holdings Management Lease.
4. Review (in conjunction with the Minister for Environment and Conservation) the Port Related zoning of all land north of the BHP jetty in relation to the Sites of Significance (Botanical, Zoological, and Geological and Geomorphological) in the Westernport Region Reports issued by the Department of Conservation Forests and Lands in 1984.

[edit] Attachments:

• WPPC Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport Communications and Infrastructure: 'Is Australia prepared to respond to a major oil spill?' 1995

• WPPC: 'Westernport Bay needs a new millennium rethink - A discussion paper', June 1999

Brian Cuming
Research Coordinator
On behalf of the Committee
15 September 2000