Home

 Spooky similarities: Basil, Bracks and Brumby  

Scene I Act II commences at the Channel Deepening Directions Hearing next Tuesday 29^th May at 10 am. See below for details.  

Port of Melbourne Corporation and the state government have been massaging, prodding and now flogging this poor old project along for five long years now, and in a final desperate attempt to drag the rusty old bomb over the finishing line they have turned to high farce to conduct the next scene at Planning Panels Victoria.

Keen observers of this long running production will note some interesting dramatic elements which rival the Forsyth Saga for intrigue, mystery, hidden sub plots and unmitigated embarrassments. Here are just a few which will get an airing starting at next week’s theatre opening (Directions Hearing).

1. State government gave its in principle support for channel deepening in 2001. The support was contingent upon resolution of all technical issues, environmental approvals and a sound financing strategy. The audience has grown old waiting for proof of technical and environmental issues being resolved, and it's common knowledge that a sound financing strategy is not on the table. How do you get industry to agree to pay for something they think government should pay for? Any ideas?? How, we ask has this lame duck waddled so far for so long without even producing evidence of its third essential pillar of existence - Funding?
2. The Panel Hearing is now called an Inquiry.......Note the Orwellian change of language? Note also some other insidious incursions into a process which in 2004 was relatively open, honest and transparent. In 2007 we are left with a highly managed and restrictive event where one can only speak if spoken to.
3. None of the 4 members of the first Panel Hearing were invited to be members of this Inquiry, in spite of earlier assurances from government that continuity of Panel membership would be ‘desirable if practicable’.     
4. There will be no cross examination of expert witnesses. Any questions will be asked by the ‘Inquiry’ members - questions may be submitted to the Inquiry for its consideration! See Terms of Reference below, Section 5 (7). Long standing observers will recall that the first Panel Hearing encouraged extensive cross examination of experts and open dialogue, especially between “expert” submitters and the PoMC’s expert witnesses. It was this open process of cross examination and dialogue which revealed many of the crucial shortcomings in the first EES.
5. Prominent QC Chris Canavan recently declined to represent the PoMC because he does not believe the Government's processes are fair. Liberty Victoria President Julian Burnside QC said the ban on cross-examination was a denial of a fact-finding fundamental, and a senior Victorian planning lawyer described the ban as "appalling" and unprecedented in Australia for public hearings on environmental impacts (The Age April 23^rd 2007). We agree, and see this as an alarming erosion of our community standards and civil liberties. We must protest that this fundamental mechanism to reach the truth has been removed from the Inquiry.
6. Contentious issues may be managed via “discussion sessions” between submitters and/or experts. It is possible these events will not be open to the public and may be staged at the discretion of the Inquiry. (aka. Discrete mumblings Stage Left) See Terms of Reference Sect. 4 (4).
7. Individuals who produced written submissions will not be able to address the Inquiry unless new or emerging issues are raised, and are invited to do so by the Inquiry. How exactly would an individual submitter be able to ascertain whether a new or emerging issue had popped up which affected them, unless they resign from their own jobs and attend the Inquiry every day? Unlike the first EES, individual submitters were welcome to verbally address the Panel, and dialogue between the submitter and the Panel dealt with new and emerging issues.

But best of all…….Stephen Bradford PoMC CEO has sunk his own project admitting that deeper draught vessels are not expected for years anyway!

“ Port of Melbourne Corporation chief executive Stephen Bradford yesterday said current trade volumes were too small to warrant larger vessels. "It's a bit like having a B-double (truck) and only using half the B," Mr. Bradford said. "It doesn't make any sense. The channel deepening is a 30-year project, so will the 14-metre draught vessels arrive on day one? No."

A study by PricewaterhouseCoopers predicts container numbers will be the same whether or not the project goes ahead. Either way, trade is expected to jump from 2.1 million containers in 2010 to 7.1 million by 2035.” (The Age Toxic Plume May reach Docklands The Age 23^rd March 2007)

PoMC’s Channel Deepening Project Manager Nick Easy reportedly also confirmed that deeper draught vessels are not expected for some years during the recent PoMC information sessions in Rosebud.

So: To Messrs. Bracks, Brumby, Bradford and Easy – Whooooaaaaa...take it easy Mr. Easy. What’s the rush?

PoMC has designed a project they say can be implemented in 2 years. Victoria has some rather more pressing issues facing us at the moment which might require our immediate attention: Climate change, preparing for threats to coastal infrastructure, securing our water and renewable energy supplies into the future.

Maybe we won’t need deep draught vessels arriving here in 2030, and even if we did we’ve got plenty of time to organise it. Just sit back and wait for global warming induced sea level rise to do it for us did I hear you say?  Now there’s an idea!

In 2001, government commissioned a study by renowned international shipping consultants Drewry (UK). Drewry found that 75% of the benefits from channel deepening would be obtained in the first 50 cms of deepening! The SEES proposes approximately 2.5 metres deepening in most project areas, and over 4 metres deepening at The Entrance – to 19.1 metres. (We note CSIRO’s recent Infrastructure and Climate Change Risk Assessment for Victoria predicts that sea levels could be 17 cms higher by 2030 as a result of climate change induced Sea level rise.)

Drewry also stated that the projected benefits in 2001 were considerably less than PoMC’s shipping expert Meyrick & Assoc. claimed The difference in benefits at 2030 was overstated by a factor of more than 10 ($30 million Drewry vs. $334 million Meyrick). Of course the costs were considerably less then too!

Needless to say the rigorous, non-biased, encyclopaedic Drewry Report has been scuttled; keelhauled, dropped to the bottom of the deepest shipping channel so that this epic tragi-comedy called channel deepening can proceed. Why oh why we ask is government so wedded to this Marie Celeste of dredging projects?  Is there something nasty lurking in a hidden cupboard – some terrible quid pro quo that cannot be spoken of?

It’s time to fling back the curtain on this sorry tale – if there are any skeletons – let’s have  a look at them and then bury them for good, and get on with the really serious business of preparing for a hotter, drier, thirstier state and Nation.

We hope to see you all at the next instalment of this great farce (Directions Hearing) so that we can show the three bemused members of the Inquiry that it's time to tell the government that we don’t need to commit our beautiful Bay to the risks of deeper, dirty, murky water when the PoMC's plans are looking as silly as Basil Fawlty at his farcical best.  

Terms of Reference are at:

http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F310024B628/0/E85246F2C07FE40FCA2572B30021FF03/$File/Channel+Deepening+SEES+-+TOR.pdf

Directions Hearing details:

Tuesday 29^th May 2007 10.00 AM

Planning Panels Victoria

Hearing Room No. 1

Level 1

8 Nicholson St. East Melbourne (Cnr. Victoria Pde.)

We are advised to allow time to “sign in”.

Cheerio,

Blue Wedges Editor