Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority changed mind under pressure

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority was last year against dumping of dredge spoil, documents show

The authority protecting the Great Barrier Reef believed last year that a proposal to dump 3 million cubic metres of dredge spoils in the marine park area should be refused, new documents show.

ABC,

3 March, 2014

In January this year, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) approved the dumping.

Greenpeace's Queensland campaigner, Louise Matthiesson, says the question must be asked - what changed?

"As far as we can see there were no significant changes to the project itself and no circumstances that came to light that would justify them reversing their position," she said.

Three million cubic metres must be dredged as part of the expansion of the Abbot Point coal terminal at Bowen in North Queensland.

The Abbot Point expansion will create one of the world's biggest coal ports, handling exports for companies mining the vast coal reserves of the Galilee Basin.

Various conglomerates, including some owned by Clive Palmer, are negotiating leases for the area.

A draft permit assessment obtained under a Freedom of Information application reveals the authority believed the dredging proposal in its current form represented a "high risk" to the environment and values of the marine park.

Three million cubic metres of dredge spoil is a big number, so picture this: the waste would fill 150,000 dump trucks stretching, end to end, from Brisbane to Melbourne, writes Dermot O'Gorman.

The draft was written some time between August and September last year and recommended refusing the application from the Queensland Government-owned North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation (NQBPC).

"The proposal in its current form does not represent the best environment outcome for the Marine Park," it said.

The thinking is broadly in line with a May 2013 discussion paper from the authority.

Last month, the ABC revealed the authority had made a presentation to the advisers of then environment minister Tony Burke, which showed GBRMPA considered dumping the spoils in the marine park the most risky and least favourable option.

The draft permit assessment details the alternatives the authority considers lower risk, such as extending the jetty or disposing of the spoil on land.

The proponent, NQBPC, said in its Supplementary Public Environment Report that the alternatives were eliminated because they were "disproportionate considering the low environmental impact of offshore disposal".

GBRMPA appeared to be at odds with this assessment.

"The current proposal ... is not consistent with the orderly and proper management of the Marine Park, including the Commonwealth's obligation under the London Protocol when feasible project alternatives exist," the draft permit assessment said.

In a statement, the authority said all the documents released in the Freedom of Information request were working drafts and do not represent the views of the agency.

"The documents released under this FOI ... were never submitted to the delegate, the senior manager responsible for GBRMPA's decision, for consideration," authority chairman Dr Russell Reichelt said.

"The permit assessment does identify concerns raised by our staff as well as fishing and tourism stakeholders - which is why GBRMPA subsequently imposed 47 strict conditions when we approved the application.

"These are by far the strictest conditions that we have ever imposed on such a project."

Hunt advised offshore disposal was 'best option available'

In December, Federal Environment Minister Greg Hunt approved the port's expansion, including the location of the offshore dredging.

But GBRMPA had the final say on whether to approve the dumping location, as it was in the marine park area.

The previous Labor government had twice extended the deadline to make its decision.

The ABC's Sara Phillips takes a look at how World Heritage listing started and why it is important.

"The decision to put forward only one disposal option was made during the life of the previous government," Mr Hunt said.

"Nevertheless, upon coming into government I specifically inquired about all options for dredge disposal.

"I was advised the proposal put forward for offshore disposal was the best option available."

While announcing the expansion in December, Mr Hunt said he was imposing strict environmental conditions on the project.

Mr Hunt said one condition would be that any dredging would be limited to 1.3 million cubic metres of sediment a year and conducted during a "small window" nominated by environmental scientists.

He also said that he would demand "a 150 per cent net benefit requirement for water quality" in the reef area.

On Thursday, environmentalists from the North Queensland Conservation Council launched an appeal against the dumping decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The NQCC argues pollution impacts from the proposed sea dumping were not adequately assessed and that inadequate attention was paid to alternatives to sea dumping.