Home

 BLUE WEDGES MEDIA RELEASE

MONDAY 14^TH AUGUST 2006

WHY WON'T THE BRACKS GOVERNMENT TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMICS OF CHANNEL DEEPENING?

With the state election approaching, it's time to demand that the Bracks government justify its economic assertions about the need for the current channel deepening proposal before we accidentally consent at the ballot box to another budget blow-out and a potential environmental disaster. 

Blue Wedges says the funds presently allocated to the economically and environmentally contentious channel deepening project should be allocated towards further improving rail services across the nation, rather than focusing on a parochial state based response to the national issues of trade, transport and the environment.

Of note, MELBOURNE-based Specialised Container Transport firm SCT Logistics is gearing up to challenge Toll's Pacific National and Queensland Rail in the national rail market business. SCT already offers regular transcontinental container services and Pacific National already 'landbridges' overseas containers between all capital city ports on a daily basis including refrigerated containers. 

 
Photo: Courtesy NT Government

So... “Why is state government so resistant to considering expansion of this existing service provided by a Melbourne based company as an option for dealing with at least some of the expected increase in container trade in Victoria and nationally”? asks Jenny Warfe spokesperson for Blue Wedges. Investing in something that will directly benefit innovative Victorian business and supports a national approach to the growing problem of how to move freight around Australia in an efficient and environmentally responsible way is surely the way forward for Victoria, says Ms. Warfe. “Channel deepening is not worth a crumpet  - it’s old thinking, old technology and offers nothing for local businesses or our environment – Don’t vote for it – vote for any party or independent who opposes it”. 

Why does government allow the Port of Melbourne to continue its scare campaign that many thousands of Melbourne’s households would suffer if channel deepening did not proceed? Why isn't it equally concerned about the Melbourne households that would suffer if channel deepening caused loss of commercial & recreational fishing, diving, and support industries, tourism and hospitality jobs?

PoMC continues to claim that 80,000 households or jobs rely on the port. This is a fallacy - the Channel Deepening Independent Panel established that the Port is responsible for direct employment of 10,000 jobs, and a total of 18,500 direct and indirect jobs (See EES Panel Enquiry papers: Response to Issues Paper 2, 15th November 2004, Freehills Melbourne for PoMC). 

It is true that many more jobs rely on the movement of goods around the state, but these job numbers are surely a function of consumption and population, not whether the goods arrive in Melbourne on a ship or a train. If some of the expected increase in container traffic was moved by train from existing deeper water ports in other states, with the bulk still arriving in Melbourne by ship why would there be any significant shift downwards in port related employment?  And: If the Bracks government invested in interstate rail infrastructure there would be good Aussie jobs in the rail industry as well.

"The Bracks government has realised it had to "re-do the science" in a vain attempt to improve its environmental arguments about channel deepening. It's now time to demand that the Bracks government justify its economic assertions about the need for the current channel deepening proposal - before the election - and before we vote for more damage to the Bay, more imports and less Aussie jobs" says Ms. Warfe.