Here you will find published letters to the Editors of metropolitan and local papers.

If you have sent a letter to a newspaper and would like to contribute it to this page please send to:

contact@bluewedges.org


The Age 11 January 2008

I got this letter published in The Age today( but not the Herald)   they chopped these bits - Brumby and Iemma talk of their ports being bypassed unless their expansions go ahead.  The Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Anthony Albanese, have first-hand experience of the shortcomings of state government and previous federal government policies in their own electorates as both are heavily impacted by Australia's largest airport and second container port. .................The $billions that Brumby and Iemma will spend destroying parts of Port Phillip Bay and Botany Bay and on the construction of supporting roads and tunnels in Melbourne and Sydney could build the Inland Freight Line.

Call in the feds

STATE governments cannot be trusted to manage Australia's major waterways. We can point to the abysmal mismanagement of the Murray-Darling and now to the reckless proposals to dredge Port Phillip Bay and Botany Bay for massive container trade expansions. Neither Melbourne nor Sydney has the capacity to cope with the infrastructure demands the expansion of their ports will bring. The NSW and Victorian governments are in competition for freight and distribution growth in their capital cities without any consideration for long-term national sustainability.

The Federal Government should stop bowing to parochial state governments and bring a national vision to our freight task. It could start by building the inland rail freight line from Gladstone through Parkes to Melbourne. This line has the potential not only to revitalise regional centres but to reduce congestion and pollution in Melbourne and Sydney.

In this time of global climate crisis we cannot continue "business as usual" with competition and growth at any cost. The Federal Government has to take the lead because only it can do what is best for Australia as a nation.

Lynda Newnam, La Perouse



The Age, September 4, 2007.

DREDGING shipping channels in Port Phillip Bay will affect beachgoers from Williamstown to Albert Park more than previously expected, according to a revised study for the Port of Melbourne.
With channel deepening emerging as a key battleground in this month's state byelections, the Greens have seized on the study showing that plumes of murky water stirred up during dredging are likely to wash ashore at Williamstown, Sandridge, Port Melbourne and Albert Park beaches.
Dredging in the north of the bay is scheduled to run continuously from December 2008 through to mid-2009 , including through the summer and Easter holidays.
The social impacts assessment study found "the plume will reach the shore at various times and in various concentrations and … may somewhat diminish the enjoyment of the affected area", particularly for people in high-rise apartments and those taking part in watersports.
But the study said the plume should dissipate one to two weeks after dredging ended.
Backing the Port of Melbourne's view that the channel deepening will not have a major impact on bay users, consultants Sinclair Knight Merz upgraded the effect on beachgoers from "negligible" to "minor".
A revised version of their assessment was submitted on the final day of a State Government-initiated panel hearing last month, examining the Port of Melbourne's proposal to deepen the shipping channels, which it argues is essential to cut shipping delays and costs.
The State Government is due to decide by the end of the year whether to approve the project.

Liz Minchin and Peter Ker.

The Age April 17, 2007

NO ONE should be surprised that the Bracks Government has ignored the four people who comprised the 2005 review panel, when appointing a new review panel to assess the latest channel deepening environmental report (The Age, 16/4). The original panel showed its independence by being highly critical of several aspects of the Government proposal, and just one example of their work demonstrates why they would now be regarded as unreliable by a Government that is hell-bent on seeing this project proceed regardless.

In their 2005 report the panel said that insufficient attention had been paid to the issue of disposal of the spoil from dredging. The Bracks Government solution to the disposal of the massive quantities of spoil, some of which they admitted is contaminated by heavy metals and the like, is to dump some of it back into the bay at the existing dumping ground off Brighton, and to create a huge new dumping ground off the coast at Mount Martha for the remainder.

The review panel called on the Government to consider disposing of the spoil either on land or out in Bass Strait. This sensible recommendation, which would remove one of the sources of future environmental destruction of the Bay, has been ignored by the Government and it is clear that it has done so because of the additional cost of that alternative. The last thing this Government would now want is for the same four people to reiterate the original criticisms and show them up for the hypocrites that they are on this matter. They mouth platitudes about their commitment to the environment and the importance of Port Phillip Bay, but the reality is that they are determined to proceed with this channel deepening project at the lowest possible cost.

Serious questions certainly need to be asked about many other aspects of this project, such as the outdated methods of the dredging itself, and why dredging companies with world's best practice technology have been studiously ignored, but none of these matters will now come into consideration under the careful management by the Government of the new review process.

Robin Cooper (former state Liberal MP for Mornington), Mount Eliza

Try doing this with a trailer-load of toxic dirt

INCLUDED in the total 26 million cubic metres of material to be dredged as part of the Port of Melbourne Corporations' Channel Deepening Project, 2.11 million cubic metres of sediment is to be excavated from the Yarra River approaches and the river itself. This sediment is to be relocated adjacent to an existing dumping ground in the centre of Port Phillip Bay. It will occupy about seven square kilometres and after dumping will be left for 140 days before being covered with 50 centimetres of sand.

There is a frightening dimension to this aspect of the project: the sediment from the Yarra River approaches and the river itself is contaminated with highly toxic waste. The levels of toxicity in this dredged material are reported in the supplementary environmental effects statement to be so high that it cannot be dumped in open water such as Bass Strait.

Tests have shown that this sediment comprises cadmium, chromium, arsenic, mercury, lead, DDT, dieldrin and PCBs. Medical opinion is on record that when any of these materials enter the food chain there is significant risk of associated health problems such as birth defects and cancer.

If you were to arrive at your local landfill site with a trailer-load of similarly contaminated material it would not be accepted. It is doubtful you would be able to dispose of it anywhere in Victoria. How then can the community allow the Port of Melbourne Corporation to effectively bury such a vast amount of toxic waste in the middle of the bay and put at risk the environment and health of future generations?

Bill Chalkley and Bill Dowling, Mc.Crae.

The Age Saturday 28th April, 2007

Unresolved

IN RELATION to the article "Port, power station strike deal over dredge plans" (The Age, 24/4) there are key statements to correct. While certain matters between the operators of the Newport power station and the Port of Melbourne Corporation are close to resolution after months of negotiation, critical differences remain.

It is not the case that "the power station is prepared to drop any action over dredging". An example of an unresolved issue is agreement sought by the power station from the PMC to meet costs should the power station be unable to satisfy its contracted commitments because of the dredging. Any interruption to power generation would be serious for Victorians dependent on an uninterrupted supply.

Ecogen Energy, the owners of the power station, would be delighted to be "out of the picture" as far as hearings into the supplementary environmental effects statement are concerned, but as matters stand, that is not the case.

It continues to review its legal position and will remain a participant in all public processes for as long as it is necessary to protect its interests and, through it, the interests of all Victorians who are best served by the power station operating efficiently, without interruption.

John Edelsten, general manager, Ecogen Energy.

Emerald Hill Times, Monday 30th April, 2007

BAY MEANS NAY FOR VOTE (Not my title)

I am a member of BlueWedges, a group against the dredging of Port Phillip Bay. Having followed and tried to understand the 15,000 page impact statement (no one could, I am afraid to say) I now read that I will not be allowed to cross examine witnesses in the June public inquiry (the Age April 23). How will I know what flaws there may be?

The State Government and Albert Park MLA John Thwaites, whom I helped to elect, have lost my vote. In fact, I will not vote at all in the next state election.

Lois Daley

Port Melbourne

 

STAR NEWS: WILLIAMSTOWN, ALTONA AND LAVERTON, Tuesday 29th May 2007

 

 

 

Having read the article City Divided (15 May 2007, dated 22 May online), I am compelled to write with a comment about its contents.

 

It is a great pity, and cause for shame, that the City of Hobsons Bay appears to see fit to hide behind the skirts of the Association of Bayside Municipalities (ABM), which itself appears to be taking the mild route, in protest against the Port Phillip Channel Deepening project. One would think that the Council here would be on high alert now that the Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES) is before the public, and giving clear evidence that digging up the toxic sediments in the Yarra poses a direct threat to its residents, beaches, fishing activities and general amenity.

 

Even more of a pity is the level of ignorance of at least one member of Council displayed in the article. To characterise the expert report of Dr Graham Harris, delivered to the ABM who hired him for his highly reputable standing in these matters, as “verging on the hysterical”  must leave anyone even remotely informed gasping in disbelief.

 

Dr Harris’ credentials are easy to research and verify. The mountain of information available on Channel Deepening is not so easy to digest. I urge members of the Council and other thinking citizens to have a go, nonetheless. Too much is riding on this outcome. There is no room for complacency or one line arguments. And if the task does seem daunting in the limited time left for people to form and express an opinion, then for goodness sake do the intelligent thing and consult the experts, who have begun with a suitable background knowledge and have further built their views on five years of intense scrutiny of the issues. What else would a person of moral and intellectual integrity do?

 

Patsy Crotty

Elwood

 

 Channel deepening: Victorians be told the real net benefits,

 as well as all the costs  

 

The Age 9th June 2007

In his article ‘Channel deepening project data doesn’t hold water’, Richard McEncroe (7/6) refers to a cost-benefit analysis of the project. Actually, this is just what the Port of Melbourne’s Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES) lacks. The Statement uses the terms ‘cost-benefit analysis’, ‘benefit-cost analysis’ and ‘benefit-cost ratio’ as though they all basically mean the same thing, which they do not.

    A cost-benefit analysis has been defined in a recent report from the Auditor-General as an estimate of the sum of costs and benefits of a policy

or project for a particular community. Victoria is the particular community which is going to pay for the channel deepening project and take the environmental risks, and Victorians should be provided with a transparent summation of all the costs and the real benefits to them.

   What the Port of Melbourne has provided as the main justification for the project is a benefit-cost ratio, with the benefits stated to be of $1936 million, comprising the gross savings (meaning that all costs have not been taken into into account) to all users of the port, including ship owners, exporters and importers, and overseas, interstate and local interests. The costs of the project are given as $590 million, $173 million less than the actual cost estimate of $763 million.   Dividing 1936 by 590 gives a ratio of 3.3 to 1. This ratio, says the Port of Melbourne, makes the economic case for the project ‘very strong’, and demonstrates that the benefits significantly outweigh the costs. 

     Only by reading beyond the SEES executive summary is it made clear that only one third of the gross savings, $658 million, accrues to Victorian interests. These savings are to be delivered over about 25 years, contributing an insignificant annual increase to the state’s GSP (now $240-250 billion).

    The economic case for Victoria is far from strong, and the channel deepening project should not proceed without an independently executed economic study which clearly defines, in terms understandable by the average citizen, the nature and size of the net benefits to Victoria and takes into account all costs.   

 

Peter Goad

St. Kilda 

 

The Age

Thursday 17th August

VECCI presumes to charm 'Mr Decisive'

 

JOHN Brumby has been Premier for five minutes and the ever predictable Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, aka VECCI, have been all over him like a bad suit, as the saying goes. The opinion and business pages are full of enthusiasm for the wonderful infrastructure our new "Mr Decisive" Premier will deliver and VECCI has been feeding the media with what amounts to a list of demands for him.

VECCI acting chief executive Wayne Kayler-Thomson has used these pages to urge Brumby to get the whip out and act "decisively" on channel deepening, among other projects. VECCI's "front foot" approach presents as enthusiasm to capitalise on Brumby's reputation as a "can do" type; and his reputed "Kennettesque" dreams of ever more "cranes on our skyline". But it looks more like a desperate and ill-timed attempt to "bully" a man unlikely to appreciate it.

VECCI has failed to grasp the fact that Brumby is not a man to be pushed around.

It also seems not to appreciate that the Government, any government, can only make decisions based on sound, reasonable, testable and rational information. The Bracks and now Brumby governments have been entirely responsible to delay the channel deepening project because the project proponent, Port of Melbourne Corporation, has been unable or unwilling to make its case.

What else could a responsible Government do? Does VECCI really want a brand new premier to approve a billion-dollar, environmentally sensitive project that, despite years of assessment processes and reviews, cannot boast a viable business case or economic rationale? Surely VECCI appreciates that a reasonable and sensible government could only approve a project of this environmental sensitivity if it was demonstrably necessary; safe; urgent; and, obviously, financially viable. The paucity of information provided to the Government and the various hearings and inquiries by the port mean this project does not yet meet those criteria.

That the Government is still none the wiser about the details of this project should be worrying for all Victorians. Here we are, at least six years after PoMC came up with the project, and we still do not know how much the project will cost or who will pay for it. PoMC itself acknowledges there is no financing plan for it and no attempt has been made to break down how the various project costs will be met and by whom.

VECCI wants "decisive leadership" from Victoria's new Government. Hear, hear! Decisiveness is great! A premier decisive enough to put a line in the sand and say, "we don't know enough yet about this project to risk our bay", would be refreshing and sound.

Richard McEncroe

Esperanto Consulting and Communications.

An edited version of the letter below appeared in Business Age Saturday 18th August 2007

Dear Editors,

Anna Degotardi ‘Activists tip a bucket on big companies’ (Business Age 16/8) would have struck a chord with many community groups presently going through the hoops at Planning Panels, Ministerial Inquiries and VCAT. Ms. Degotardi’s retailing of the protracted inaction of the Victorian EPA over Shell Geelong breaches of environmental law made alarm bells ring about our experience with the EPA Victoria at the recently concluded Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Inquiry. We have been appalled and frustrated at the lack of involvement shown by the EPA in its advice to the Inquiry, especially in relation to the management of approximately 3 million tonnes of toxic sediments proposed for dredging from the lower reaches of the Yarra River, and which would be dumped again in the Bay in an underwater bunded area.

Based on its performance at the Inquiry, it was hard to see what role the EPA is now prepared to play in the direct protection of our environment, or even its preparedness to assume a proper oversighting and monitoring role in the Channel Deepening project. It seems EPA is prepared to allow the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) to become yet another serial polluter, dumping over several months huge volumes of contaminated sediment judged too toxic for landfill or indeed for ocean disposal outside The Heads, back into the Bay.

We wrote to the EPA on 29th July seeking clarification of several major issues which emerged during the Inquiry, but are yet to receive a reply. Since writing, the PoMC has revealed that since the 2005 Trial Dredge, rock scour and erosion at The Entrance is now predicted to be major and ongoing for 30 years – not the temporary and minor impacts predicted in the Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement (SEES). Yes, that’s right, the SEES which was released in March 2007 and was said by PoMC and government to be the most comprehensive and thorough study ever conducted on the Bay was not the final story after all. New information on toxic and contaminated sediments from the Yarra suggesting that risks to human health have been understated by the PoMC also emerged towards the end of the Inquiry, but based on its performance at the Inquiry on 6th July, we doubt that the EPA is going to bat an eyelid over any of this new, crucial information.

The EPA was brought into being in 1970 in response to community concerns about our environment and the realisation that more needed to be done at a co-ordinated state level to address the state of our waterways. Since then, it has carved out a reputation for excellence, albeit with some determined serial polluters to deal with, as chronicled by Ms. Degotardi. Now in 2007 it doesn’t even rank the status of “paper tiger”.  The EPA is responsible for legislation which was enacted specifically to address the issue of toxic material in the sediments of the Lower Yarra, and is the responsible authority with the designated task of regulating, monitoring and controlling the input of toxicants to the environment. It’s time it did just that or told us why it no longer can fulfil that role.

Jenny Warfe

President

Blue Wedges

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Age 11th January 2008

Call in the feds

STATE governments cannot be trusted to manage Australia's major waterways. We can point to the abysmal mismanagement of the Murray-Darling and now to the reckless proposals to dredge Port Phillip Bay and Botany Bay for massive container trade expansions. Neither Melbourne nor Sydney has the capacity to cope with the infrastructure demands the expansion of their ports will bring. The NSW and Victorian governments are in competition for freight and distribution growth in their capital cities without any consideration for long-term national sustainability.

The Federal Government should stop bowing to parochial state governments and bring a national vision to our freight task. It could start by building the inland rail freight line from Gladstone through Parkes to Melbourne. This line has the potential not only to revitalise regional centres but to reduce congestion and pollution in Melbourne and Sydney.

In this time of global climate crisis we cannot continue "business as usual" with competition and growth at any cost. The Federal Government has to take the lead because only it can do what is best for Australia as a nation.

Lynda Newnam, La Perouse NSW

Note: Lynda says additional text was chopped:   Brumby and Iemma talk of their ports being bypassed unless their expansions go ahead.  The Federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Anthony Albanese, have first-hand experience of the shortcomings of state government and previous federal government policies in their own electorates as both are heavily impacted by Australia's largest airport and second container port. .................The $billions that Brumby and Iemma will spend destroying parts of Port Phillip Bay and Botany Bay and on the construction of supporting roads and tunnels in Melbourne and Sydney could build the Inland Freight Line.

BW Editor

 

An aspect of the Channel Deepening proposal that has had little comment, is the effect it will have on tidal peaks, and hence coastal infrastructure inside the bay.

Tidal flow through the heads is referred to as 'the rip' because of the rapid and turbulent movement of tidal waters through the restrictive channel and partial barrier created by the geological formations between Point Nepean and Point Lonsdale. Consequently, there is not enough time in a six hour tidal influx to equalise the water heights outside and inside the heads. The difference in tidal range is enormous, 2.8 metres outside, and less than 1 metre inside.

Removing at least 550,000 cubic metres of rock from this formation (quoting the SEES figures) in the process of deepening the great shipping channel will allow a huge increase in tidal flow, which could amount to 2% increase in bay volume (quoting Technical Appendix 45, SEES). This is a volume increase of 500 million cubic metres, and I believe this is conservative, as it does not take into account continued erosion (referred to as 'scour' effects in the SEES and associated documents) of the disturbed heads reef structure, that will steadily increase the tidal inflow to the bay for millenia to come. There are indications of softer, unstable substructures beneath the harder sandstone of the Nepean Bank and Rip Bank, which raises concerns about accelerated erosion, once the top layers are removed. It is impossible to put a limit on the extent of this erosion process over time.

We only have to look at Western Port Bay, with a natural tidal range of over 2 metres, to see the potential consequences of opening up the restriction in the heads.

Further, and perhaps more importantly, scientists worldwide are aware of global warming and rising sea levels (see article 'Our endangered coast' The Age 11/01/08). How stupid is it to diminish, if not destroy, the natural protective barrier at the heads that has modulated tidal inflow, and thus protected Port Phillip Bay throughout past eons?

It will be very challenging and expensive in years to come, to build a protective sea wall across the heads, in an attempt to reinstate the natural reef barrier. A barrier that was diminished in the interests of questionable economics, that even in the SEES document sounds like a good reason to reject the CDP.

'The Bay' with its gently modulated tidal rise and fall, is Melbourne's environmental jewel. The prospect of threateningly higher peak tides, storm surges, infrastructure damage and changes to the marine ecosystem, is a grim prospect as a consequence of vast, disruptive, economically driven changes. In addition to these tidal consequences, the CDP will bring even more huge ships into Australia's busiest port - with well known associated pollution risks to our precious bayside environment.

Climate scientists warn that abrupt sea-level changes cannot be ruled out of the equation. We should be united in our determination to deal with this future threat, not proceeding with a 'major project' that will weaken our defenses.

  • Posted by: Bernie Mace on January 17, 2008 5:52 PM

 

 


Sydney Morning Herald 2nd May 2008

Rub out this rubbish


Yesterday I saw the ultimate in useless consumerism. A schoolboy I know made an error in his homework and produced an electric eraser - a small battery-powered plastic gadget which moved an attached rubber to and fro when he held it to the page. It saved him having to move his fingers!

 

Probably, I thought, it had been wired up by a $2-a-day wage slave in some unhealthy factory and then, with container loads of similar junk, transported between continents using expensive fossil fuels pushing out CO2.

I am sure a clever person designed such a thing but, as a world already in trouble, we would be cleverer to reject such trifles which give a week's pleasure and an aeon of pollution.

Diana Evans Lindfield

 

On a wave, but no sea


Did anyone think it odd that the sea is missing from the 40-page summary of the 2020 Summit? There is not a single mention of the words "maritime", "sea", "coastal", "ocean", "marine", "offshore", "continental shelf", "Exclusive Economic Zone", "shipping", "fisheries" or even "defence".

 

How ironic, when Australia has just added 2.5 million square kilometres of continental shelf sea floor, or 30 per cent, to one of the largest maritime Exclusive Economic Zones of any nation. Our maritime areas now exceed the total land mass of Australia.

Clearly we live in a lucky country if the summiteers thought the world beyond the third line of breakers would remain forever benign.

Richard Griffiths Chairman,

Australian Association for Maritime Affairs, Dickson (ACT)

Age Forum

Previous page: Peter Garrett
Next page: Unpublished