2007-2008 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
melbourne
port
deepen

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page

2008/07: Should the Channel Deepening Project proceed in Port Phillip Bay?<BR>

2008/07: Should the Channel Deepening Project proceed in Port Phillip Bay?

What they said ...
'Fish out of Port Phillip Bay or Western Port Bay are as fresh as you're ever going to get. Now they're going to go dredging and dirtying the water. Will the fish ever come back?'
Mr Kon Giannoukas, manager 'Out of the Blue Seafood', Queen Victoria Market

'A normal part of the dredging process will be the appearance of turbidity plume, or cloudy water. Highly sophisticated dredging technology will keep plume to a minimum although on occasions it will be visible along parts of the shoreline, and at some beaches, but is expected to dissipate fairly quickly'
The Port of Melbourne Corporation

The issue at a glance
At the beginning of February dredging is scheduled to begin at Melbourne's Port Phillip Bay. The dredging is being undertaken by a Dutch company Royal Boskalis Westminster.
It has been estimated that up to 48 million tonnes of sand and silt will be dredged from the seabed and the Yarra River.
There will also be rock removal at the entry to the harbour, The Rip, using hydro-hammering and an approximately 50 tonne drag head to break up and remove rock. When maintenance dredging is added over a 30 year period, a total 78 million tonnes will be dredged.
The dredging is being undertaken to allow Melbourne to service large container vessels, some thirty percent of which can currently not access the port fully loaded.
The main dredge vessel to be used in the Channel Deepening Project is the Queen of the Netherlands.

Background
Involvement of the Environment Protection Authority (Victoria) in the Channel Deepening Project
The channel deepening project will deepen sections of the shipping channels to the Port of Melbourne to accommodate vessels with a draught of up to 14 metres.
The project has received approval from the state of Victoria under the Coastal Management Act 1995, and the Commonwealth under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Works are due to commence works in early 2008.
The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has worked over several years to ensure that key environmental issues associated with the Channel Deepening Project are identified and managed.
EPA has made independent submissions to both the original Environmental Effects Statement (EES) and the more recent Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES) inquiry.
EPA has been monitoring water quality in Port Phillip Bay for 30 years and is expanding its monitoring program for the duration of the dredging and for two years following the completion of the dredge program, by undertaking samples at 11 sites across the Bay. A number of parameters will be tested for, including lead, mercury and arsenic as part of the Baywide monitoring programs outlined in the Environmental Management Plan.
In addition, EPA will undertake other monitoring of the impacts of the project, including monitoring contaminant concentrations in fish.
EPA will provide support to the independent environmental monitor as may be required, and will investigate reports of pollution.
EPA has made the powers it holds under the Environment Protection Act 1970 more widely available, to ensure that all parties involved in the day to day regulation of the project have all relevant powers at their disposal.
The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) administers the Coastal Management Act consent (the main Victorian environmental approval for the project) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment. EPA will support the Secretary in his role of ensuring the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) complies with the terms of its approval.
(The above information comes from the Environmental Protection Authority - Victoria's Internet site. The full text can be found at http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/projects/channel_deepening.asp)

The role of the Blue Wedges Coalition
The Blue Wedges is a coalition of over 65 environmental and bay user groups united under a charter to protect the Melbourne Bays from development such as the Port of Melbourne's Channel Deepening Project.
The Blue Wedges Coalition unites an unusually varied group of recreational angling groups and peak bodies, professional fishing associations, diving and charter operators with the more traditional coastal protection groups and bayside industry sectors.
The Blue Wedges Coalition is also supported in its goal to protect the bays by other environmental entities such as Victorian National Parks Association, Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, The Wilderness Society, Environment Victoria, Port Phillip Conservation Council and Western Region Environment Centre under a recent joint statement demanding the Victorian Government stop this project.
In December 2007 Blue Wedges announced it would take action in the Federal Court against the Commonwealth to stop it signing off on the deepening shipping channels project.
The case was heard in January of 2008. On 15th January 2008 it was announced that Blue Wedges had lost.
(The above information comes from Wikipedia's entry for Blue Wedges. The full text of this entry can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Wedges

Internet Information
The Age has a multimedia information site explaining where the dredging will occur and how it will be done. The site also explains where the dumping of dredged material will occur and how that will be done. It presents a brief overview of the arguments offered in favour of the project. It also supplies links to a range of Age articles that look at different aspects of the project.
This site can be found at http://www.theage.com.au/multimedia/dredge/main.html

A full clickable index of all the environmental effects statements and all submissions made to the two reviews from both supporters and opponents of the Channel Deepening Project can be found at http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/DSE/nrenpl.nsf/LinkView/BDDCAA497E7DA6ADCA256D480003CF2892FBC7C133A6F520CA2572DA007FAB8B

The Port of Melbourne Corporation's (PoMC) Internet site explaining the Channel Deepening Project and giving arguments for it, as well as its history and a regularly updated 'Latest news' section can be found at http://www.channelproject.com/

The PoMC's Channel Deepening Project site also contains a brief explanation of the economic benefits to be gained from the project. This can be found at http://www.channelproject.com.au/global/docs/CDDL03_Economic_Importance.pdf

The PoMC had an independent peer review conducted of the probable impact of the Channel Deepening Project on the Marine Ecology. This was prepared as part of the original Environmental Effects Statement (EES). It claims that effects on the ecology are unlikely to be long term and that the project is designed to minimise these effects. The review can be found at http://www.channelproject.com/global/docs/FinalIPRReport-Mick_Keough.pdf

Blue Wedges is a coalition of over 65 environmental and bay user groups united under a charter to protect the Melbourne Bays from development such as the Port of Melbourne's Channel Deepening Project.
The coalition's home page can be found at http://www.savethebay.info/index.php?title=Main_Page

A detailed criticism of the supposed economic benefits of dredging (prepared for Blue Wedges) can be found at http://www.savethebay.info/index.php?title=Blue_Wedge_Coalition_Economic_Briefing_Notes

In May 2007 Blue Wedges made a submission to the Channel Deepening Supplementary Environmental Effects Panel. The submission was titled, 'Impact on the food chain'. The submission outlines the extent of the harm dredging could cause to the Port Phillip Bay ecosystem. The full text of the submission can be found at http://www.bluewedges.org/index.php?page=chapter-8

Arguments opposing the dredging
1. The project is enormously costly
Critics of the Port Phillip Bay dredging project have argued that the dredging will be enormously costly. They are also concerned that there is no way of knowing exactly how much the project will cost.
As of March, 2007, the Port of Melbourne Corporation had spent $114 million on the project, and a report released on March 21 the Corporation stated it expected to spend some $590 million on the dredging operation itself.
Concern has been expressed about the manner in which the cost of the project has grown. In July 2004, the Port of Melbourne Corporation estimated the cost of the project at $400 million. By September 2006 the estimate had grown to $545 million. By the end of 2006 it reached $580 million. In February 2007 it was unofficially stated by an insider within the Corporation that 'If (the Port of Melbourne) get away with $1 billion they'll do bloody well.'
On December 21, the Victorian Government announced that the cost of the project had risen to $969 million, including its own taxpayer funded $150 million contribution.
Past critics of the costing have noted that the major expense of actually digging the channel will be hiring the monster dredge from overseas. Therefore knowing exactly how long the dredge will be needed is essential in determining how much the project will cost. If dredging time is constrained to limit the plumes of turbidity, costs may blow out further. At this stage it is unclear how much of the cost will be met by the corporation, which would pass it on to shipping companies through higher port levies.

2. The project will damage Port Phillip Bay ecosystems and those beyond the Bay
The project will dredge some 23 million cubic metres of sea bed from the Bay's shipping channels. Monash University ecologist, Simon Roberts, has stated, 'The amount of material to be dredged in the capital phase of the project is more than the equivalent of digging a two-metre deep by 15-metre wide trench from Melbourne to Sydney.'
There has been concern expressed as to the probable impact on marine life of both the dredging and the dumping. Friends of the Earth International have noted, 'The southern waters of Australia, including Port Phillip Bay, have the highest diversity of marine species anywhere in the world. There are 5,000 species in the bay, 90% occur nowhere else on Earth and many have never been fully studied.'
The dredging will cause a dramatic increase in turbidity, that is, the stirring up of mud and sediment in the water.
Neil Blake, who has worked as a park ranger in the northern area of Port Phillip Bay for over a decade, has claimed, 'The additional particles stirred up by the dredge will block sunlight from getting through to allow plants to photosynthesise and grow. Ordinarily, these plants are the start of the food chain. What food the fish can find is likely to be toxic. It's hitting them from all directions and the proposal is to do this for two years in a row.'
Also of concern is that the material dredged from Port Phillip Bay and the mouth of the Yarra will then be dumped back in the Bay at two 'spoil grounds'. One of these is to be in the middle of the Bay, the other near Mount Martha.
Michael Morehead, the lawyer for a group of opponents to the project, the Blue Wedges Coalition, has claimed, 'If it were instead placed on the city of Melbourne (CBD) ... it would cover it to a depth of approximately 23 metres, the equivalent of a typical eight-storey building.'
Of particular concern regarding the dumping is the toxic nature of some of the material to be dumped. It is planned that the area at the mouth of the Yarra will be dredged one-and-a-half metres deeper than ever before. This will stir up mud where contaminants have been settling for the past 150 years. These include mercury used in early gold mining in the upper Yarra catchment, and many toxicants from the highly industrialised parts of western Melbourne. Electroplating industries, for example, are a likely source of cadmium, lead, chromium, copper, and zinc.
Neil Blake has pointed out in relation to this, 'Until the mid-1980s it was still legal for factories to dump their chemical effluents into the storm water system.'
It has also been noted that the original report made in relation to the project did not consider the impact on all threatened species, including the Australian grayling fish, and the extent of the sites to be dredged.
Mr Morehead, the lawyer for a group of opponents to the project, the Blue Wedges Coalition, has noted that the original report made no reference to the disposal of toxic sediment in the Bay or to the plume of sediment created by the dredging that would extend 8.33km into Bass Strait and into a Commonwealth marine area.

3. The project will harm businesses dependent on Port Phillip Bay
Commercial fishermen and those who sell raw and cooked fish are concerned at the impact the dredging is likely to have on their businesses. It is anticipated that the availability of fish will be reduced and that prices will rise accordingly.
In a report published in The Herald Sun on January 19 Mr Kon Giannoukas who manages 'Out of the Blue Seafood' at Queen Victoria Market was reported as saying he expected the price of local fish to climb during initial bay dredging.
Mr Giannoukas stated, 'Once they start dredging the bay I don't think the supply will be there. And we don't know what the quality will be like. Once the local stocks diminish, it could start pushing the price up.'
David Prosser, of Prosser Seafoods, was quoted as saying customers were more concerned than ever about the origins of fresh fish. Restaurateur Richard Masani, of Masani in Carlton, claimed it would be harder for seafood lovers to find fresh fish in Melbourne restaurants. Mr Masani stated, 'Fish out of Port Phillip Bay or Western Port Bay are as fresh as you're ever going to get. Now they're going to go dredging and dirtying the water. Will the fish ever come back?'
The Dive Industry of Victoria Association (DIVA) has expressed concerns about the impact dredging could have on a range of local businesses dependent on the Bay. Diva lists three likely harms the dredging could to diving boat operators in the Bay, but the group's larger concern is the negative impact the dredging could have on the total tourist industry. Ina submission opposing the dredging project, DIVA stated, 'The detrimental effect on tourism to Victoria [is a concern]. The damage inflicted on the bay will result in the destruction of our 10-year program to increase tourism to Victoria. The Marine Parks, which were established in 2003, have played a pivotal role in the diving industry's goal to increase awareness of the beauty our bay has to offer. However, the marine parks may be left barren and too dangerous for the public to visit due to loss of marine life and changes in water flow movement.'
A commentator on the OzPolitics site gave the following summary of the possible damage that dredging could cause to businesses dependent on the Bay, 'Many thousands of jobs in tourism, fishing and diving and their support industries are threatened by this sustained assault on the health of the Bay. Recreational fishing alone currently provides over $350 million annually to the Victorian economy. The Port of Melbourne Corporation admits that fish stocks will be affected for a number of years. This will impact on jobs in recreational and commercial fishing, diving and eco-tourism sectors. Bay related tourism provides around $1 billion per annum in a growing and sustainable industry - and that's just the Mornington Peninsula! You have just approved an outright assault on all sustainable recreational and commercial diving, fishing and Bay wide tourism.'

4. The environmental harm caused by the dredging is likely to be long-lasting
There has been concern expressed that the negative effects of dredging on Port Phillip Bay are likely to be long-lasting. Firstly there is the issue of the need to redredge on a regular basis to ensure that the deepened channels which have been made in the floor of the Bay are not filled by settling sediment and rock.
Don Raisbeck, from Sinclair Knight Merz, has stated that the proposed dredging would cause 8000 cubic metres of rock to fall into deep canyons below the Heads. Over the next decade this rubble would be pushed around by strong currents, damaging the seabed. It could then take up to a further 20 years for the seabed to recover to its present state.
Mr Raisbeck also said that as a result of the greater amount of rock that would be deposited on to the seabed, the corporation would have to complete clean-ups two years after dredging finished, and then again five and 10 years after.
There has also been concerned expressed about medium-term effectiveness the safety measures being taken to ensure that the dredged materials dumped into the Bay do not contaminate it.
It has been estimated that the effective life of the capping to be placed over sediments that include toxic material will be approximately 30 years. After this period there is the clear potential for toxic materials, algal cysts and other dangerous substances to re-enter the water column in the bay. No commitment has been given to monitoring the effectiveness of the capping or to replacing capping material if leakage is detected. There is also concern that any leakage or breakdown of capping which may occur could happen in less than the thirty years which have been predicted.

5. The economic benefits to result from dredging have been exaggerated
It has been claimed that the economic benefits to be gained from the dredging have been exaggerated. Firstly the estimated gains from the dredging have been based on projections of future usage of the Port of Melbourne which have been challenged as unrealistic.
Blue Wedges' 'Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Economic Briefing Notes' states, 'The project benefits are claimed to be a speculative $1.4 billion savings in transport costs over 25 years. This figure appears to be an "overstatement" according to the Independent Panel.' Such a saving in transport costs also relies on two assumptions -
that there will be a quadrupling of trade through the Port of Melbourne by 2030 and that there will be a substantial increase in the percentage of mega ships entering the Port by 2030, from the current figure of zero to 65% of all ships by 2030.
These predictions may well not be met, and if this is the case, the economic benefit will be much smaller.
Even if the assumptions are correct and that benefits do occur, they will flow directly to international shipping companies.
International shipping companies are 'a collection of highly cost driven, highly mobile, multinational companies, all of them based offshore and with legal and taxation structures designed to minimise taxation and to make it difficult for them to be legally brought to task if any environmental damage occurs' according to economist, Michael Barrett. 'Therefore,' Mr Barrett claims, 'these benefits will most likely be repatriated to vessel operators in Panama, Monrovia and Guinea.'
It has also been claimed that any increased usage of the Port of Melbourne by extra large containerships will not necessarily result in reduced prices for Victorian consumers because of a reduction in price of some imported goods. Instead it has been argued the cost of some imported goods is likely to rise. Ports Minister, Tim Pallas, has confirmed the Port of Melbourne Corporation was likely to almost double port user charges to pay for the project.
Mr Pallas has stated, 'Port fees on every international container will increase by approximately $31.67 to $67.' It is anticipated that importers will pass on these increased charges to consumers and so any saving to consumers likely to arise from economies of scale will be more than nullified.

6. There are alternatives to dredging Port Phillip Bay
It has been claimed that there are other alternatives to dredging Port Phillip Bay which would be less expensive and less potentially damaging.
Dr Brain, research director at the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, has claimed that a blow-out in the dredging costs for Port Phillip justified a rethink of Hastings.
In an earlier assessment of the government's dredging plan in 2003, Dr Brain found that channel deepening was a far cheaper alternative than developing Hastings or using Sydney as an alternative port. He concluded it would generate massive economic gains. However, Dr Brain now claims that since the original study was undertaken the estimated costs of the project had risen sharply, making the development of Hastings at Western Port a more attractive option.
It has also been argued that the Government has other options which could prevent the riskiest part of channel deepening - the dredging of the Yarra mouth.
Webb Dock, between Port Melbourne and Williamstown at the Yarra mouth, is an underused wharf now controlled by Asciano and P&O. It currently handles just 20 per cent of port trade including cargo to Tasmania and cars in and out of Melbourne. Port experts have argued that with some redevelopment, Webb could accommodate the largest of the ships now handled at Swanson and Appleton docks. It already has a depth comparable to that which the channels being made in Port Phillip Bay will have when dredging is completed.

Arguments supporting the dredging
1. Melbourne is currently unable to accommodate large container vessels
Around the world there is a trend towards the use of larger and deeper container ships which carry more cargo at less cost. As a result, the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) is proposing to deepen sections of existing main shipping channels in Port Phillip Bay to cater for this trend and provide what it claims is the safest and the most efficient access for these ships.
Currently, the maximum draught (how deep a ship sits in the water) in sections of the shipping channels is 11.6m, and 12.1m at high tide. As a result of these depths, in the 2006-07 financial year, 39% of container ships were potentially affected by channel draught limitations. In the December quarter 2007 it had risen to 44.3%. PoMC proposes to deepen parts of existing shipping channels to accommodate ships of up to 14m draught.
The chief executive of Shipping Australia, Llew Russell, has claimed that shipping lines will be forced to start reducing calls to Melbourne by 2010 if channel deepening does not go ahead.
Mr Russell stated, 'If other states have the capacity to attract bigger ships, and start attracting them, Melbourne in time will be out of the race.'
Mr Russell claimed that as soon as 50 per cent of ships could not enter Port Phillip Bay fully laden, shipping lines would start looking for alternatives.
Mr Russell predicted, 'Eventually, you'll see a gradual but big reduction in services to Melbourne as shipping lines go to Brisbane, Sydney or Adelaide, or a combination of all three.'
It has been claimed it would become uneconomic to service Melbourne because it would not be able to handle the bigger ships that are more cost-effective. Cargo would be fed to and from Melbourne from other ports by ship or rail. Costs would increase for Victorian exporters and they would relocate interstate.
Supporters of the dredging argue that by the time vessels with a deeper draught than 14 metres are calling at Victoria there will be a deepwater port established at Hastings.

2. Dredging Port Phillip Bay is necessary for the long-term prosperity of Victoria
The Port of Melbourne Corporation has argued that once the dredging is complete the project will benefit the Victorian economy in three ways. The Corporation claims that the ability to accommodate the larger container ships will lead to a reduction in freight costs, boosting the incomes of importers and exporters. The Corporation further claims that when this income is spent it will boost the demand for other goods and services produced in Victoria and provide an ongoing stimulus to the state's economy.
The Corporation further claims that the reduction in transport costs will encourage established industries to continue to invest in Victoria and will 'demonstrate the Victorian Government's commitment to maintaining world class infrastructure.'
The Port of Melbourne Corporation has made a number of claims in relation to the economic benefits to be gained from dredging.
The Corporation has stated, 'The well-being of all Victorians is directly affected in one way or another by the Port of Melbourne because it is our trading gateway to the world. Each day on average $90 million worth of exports leave through the port, whilst in turn, everyday goods such as food, clothing, automotive parts, furniture and electronics arrive efficiently from around the world. Having these goods delivered to "our doorstep" reduces transport costs and the final price we all pay.'
The Corporation has also stated, 'Channel Deepening will ensure Melbourne can continue to accommodate the world's growing fleet of larger ships. This will ensure the port remains Australia's largest container and general cargo port and one of Victoria's most important assets. This outcome will strengthen and grow Victoria's economy, keep our exports competitive, protect jobs, generate industry and keep imports affordable.'
Finally the Corporation has argued, 'The economic case for Channel Deepening is very strong. The direct benefits are estimated at almost $2 billion, including more than $1.1 billion in savings for Victorian and interstate exporters and importers. These savings will keep down the cost of doing business in Victoria, meaning savings will flow through to consumers. The project will create 2300 jobs during the construction period.'

3. Efforts will be made to minimise the environmental impacts and possible health risks
It has been claimed that all reasonable efforts will be made to reduce the impact of dredging on the ecology of Port Phillip Bay. Contaminated waste will be left in a containment area and capped with sand in the middle of the bay. Another dump will be near Mt Martha.
The Port of Melbourne Corporation has released a detailed statement explaining how the dredged material will be managed. The statement indicates, 'In the North of Port Phillip Bay dredged material from the Port Melbourne, Williamstown and Yarra River channels and associated docks would be placed in the existing Port of Melbourne dredged material ground (DMG). This existing site covers an area about 9.36km2 (or 0.48% of the 1930km2 of the bay).
It is proposed to extend this site to the south by an area of 2.70km2 (0.14% of the bay) to accommodate the dredged material volumes and provide future capacity for material from maintenance dredging over the next 30 years.
A proportion of the sediments from the Yarra River, Williamstown and Port Melbourne channels, and berth pockets, are contaminated. After dredging, these materials will be placed in an underwater clay containment area known as a bund, at the Port of Melbourne DMG, and then capped with clean dredged sand which will seal them off from any adverse influence on water quality in the bay.
In the South of Port Phillip Bay most of the material dredged from the South of the bay is proposed to be stored in the newer south east dredged material ground. This will occupy an area of about 7.68km2 (0.39% of the bay). This material may be available for future beneficial use such as beach renourishment in and around the bay. Some sediment material will be placed in the Port of Melbourne site, and sand will be used for capping.'
The Corporation has also claimed that the technology being used will keep turbidity at a minimum. It has stated, 'A normal part of the dredging process will be the appearance of turbidity plume, or cloudy water. Highly sophisticated dredging technology will keep the plume to a minimum although on occasions it will be visible along parts of the shoreline, and at some beaches, but is expected to dissipate fairly quickly. During the trial dredge program, turbidity levels dropped at a faster rate than anticipated, and the water cleared normally within three days after dredging ceased.'

4. Efforts will be made to minimise adverse effects on businesses dependent on Port Phillip Bay
It has been claimed that efforts will be made to reduce the impact of the dredging on businesses dependent on Port Phillip Bay. David John Cotterill is an expert witness called before the Port Phillip Chanel Deepening Project Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement Panel Hearing in June 2007. David Cotterill is an economic consultant who specialises in tourism.
Mr Cotterill's judgment was that the Corporation was taking all reasonable pre-cautions to prevent damage to local businesses and that such damage as occurred would be minimal. In his submission to the Hearing, Mr Cotterill stated, 'The current seasonal dredging patterns were developed to minimise any possible adverse effects on all Bay assets and protect the long-term ecology of the Bay that tourism depends on ... [T]he proposed schedules that aim to mitigate the effects on marine ecology and which may flow through to recreational fishing as well as recognising the key summer holiday tourism season in the south of the Bay [are] ... a prudent compromise ...
My conclusion is that there will be at worst only minor impacts on the beaches due to turbidity with some small decrease to visitation to particular beaches during dredging and minor flow-on effects to businesses servicing beach-related custom.
The main family tourism market is unlikely to be significantly effected with the effects limited further by no dredging over the summer school holiday period.
In addition there is also large holiday home and permanent resident markets that are customers of kiosks, caf‚s and other land-based tourism outlets. Given the potential for at worse a small decrease in tourist visitation and the different categories of customers the effect on these businesses is likely to be small. This view was supported by our interviews.'
The Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) has made similar claims. It has stated, 'PoMC recognises that the bay is home to a range of tourism activities relying on its natural beauty and use, and that these activities account for a significant number of jobs.
Dredging has been scheduled mindful of holiday times to cause the least possible disruption to tourism and bay users. The project's dredging schedule will minimise any disruption to the bay to as low practical.'

5. The overall economic benefits to Australia justify the project
It has been argued that the project will have benefits not merely for Victoria but for Australia as a whole. Melbourne is currently Australia's largest port, handling more than $75 billion in trade every year and 39 per cent of the nation's container trade.
The chief executive of Shipping Australia, Llew Russell, has stressed that the contribution of this project is not only to the economy of Victoria but also to the whole of Australia.
The Australian Council for Infrastructure Development rates Melbourne's channel deepening as the Nation's most valuable infrastructure project, with the potential to add $14.8 billion to the national GDP by 2030.
The deepening of channels in Port Phillip Bay has been promoted as part of nation-wide attempts to develop infrastructure to promote Australia's exports and reduce the cost of Australia's imports.
The Victorian Freight and Logistics Council has stated, 'At a more macro-economic/national level, there is an increasing concern being expressed by various industry leaders, industry groups and State governments that Australia's economic growth performance is being significantly constrained by infrastructure deficiencies. Australia's investment in infrastructure, as a share of GDP, can and should be increased to address the growth concerns. Channel deepening investment for Melbourne should be seen in this context.'

6. Alternatives to dredging Port Phillip Bay are prohibitively expensive and come with other disadvantages
It has been claimed that developing the alternative port at Hastings would be significantly more expensive than dredging Port Phillip Bay. The Premier, John Brumby, has stated that detailed cost analyses have been made over years of the costs of the two different sites and the results indicated that the cost of developing Hastings would not be worthwhile for several decades.
The Premier has noted, 'As for the Hastings option, it was considered and dismissed as prohibitively expensive - perhaps as much as $10 billion - until about 2030 to 2050.'
The Government intends a three-stage move to Hastings that could take up until 2055 to complete. Ports Minister Tim Pallas has indicated that the Government wants to develop Hastings, but not immanently. Mr Pallas has explained, 'This requires proper planning, community consultation, environmental studies, land reclamation, improving rail and road connections and building the necessary land and sea infrastructure, which will take years to plan and deliver.'
There are those who argue that the Hastings proposal comes with similar shortcomings to the Port Phillip Bay dredging project.
Sue Pennicuik, the Australian Greens Victorian candidate for the Southern Metropolitan Upper House Region and their spokesperson on Ports and Freight has stated, 'The area targeted is also a Ramsar* wetland and known to be environmentally sensitive. So it does not make a great deal of environmental sense to build more port facilities in this part of the world.
A number of studies over the past 30 years have emphasised the vulnerable nature of the area. So why cause major ecological disturbance by expanding the port, when there is no demonstrated need?
As with the government's proposed channel deepening in Port Phillip Bay, no alternatives to the Western Port project have been put forward for the public to consider. And, as with the channel deepening project, the port authority has learned nothing about proper public consultation. There are no options to consider and less than a month left for the public to comment.'

Further implications
It would appear that the dispute surrounding the Channel Deepening Project in Port Phillip Bay is far from over. In the weeks prior to the arrival of the Queen of the Netherlands and the commencement of dredging there were a number of significant developments.
Firstly, Blue Wedges lost its Federal Court challenge to the Federal Government's approval of the dredging project. (The challenge claimed that various aspects of the project had not been presented within the Environmental Effects Statement.)
Then a week and a half later and days before dredging will begin a number of senior transport experts and economists called for a rethink of Melbourne's controversial bay dredging plan, urging the Brumby Government to accelerate the development of port facilities at Hastings.
Similar criticisms and suggestions had been made days before by trucking magnate Lindsay Fox. Fox stressed the traffic congestion that increased dock operations would cause within the central Melbourne region and also urged that the increased use of Hastings as a major docking facility be brought forward.
The Victorian leader of the Opposition, though apparently supporting the project, has criticised the lack of transparency in the environmental monitoring process. He has called for all environmental monitoring to be made regularly and immediately public. A call the Victorian Government has rejected.
The operation will all but certainly begin. Whether it will be completed remains to be seen. There are critics who have compared it to the damming of the Franklin River which was stopped through federal intervention after work on the dam had begun.
It is impossible to predict whether such a development will occur. However, what seems certain is that the Brumby Government will pay a significant political price for proceeding with the project. It is highly unpopular among many sections of the electorate and once the visible effects of the dredging begin to be seen this unpopularity is only likely to increase. Blue Wedges can be relied upon to draw the attention of the media to undesirable consequences of the dredging operations and the State Opposition will continue to call for maximum disclosure.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age: December 8, Insight section, page 9, comment by Tracee Hutchison, `The bay plan's all dollars, no sense'.
The Herald-Sun: January 10, page 9, news item by Nick Higginbottom, `Beach dredge threat'.
The Age: January 10, page 6, news item by Clay Lucas, `Call for Garrett to halt toxic dumping'.
The Age: January 9, page 3, news item by Clay Lucas, `Channel deepening delay to affect bay beaches for longer'.
The Age: January 9, page 3, news item by Andrea Petrie, `Bay watch reveals swarms of life unknown to Melburnians.
The Age: January 17, page 15, comment (with Spooner cartoon) by Jeremy Loftus-Hills, `Deeply disturbing'.
The Age: January 17, page 5, news item (photo) by Clay Lucas, `Counter-terrorism police want to speak to these people ... who want a bay protection plan'.
The Herald-Sun: January 16, page 18, comments by Wayne Kayler-Thomson, Jenny Warfe, `Big guns win bay battle / Protesters scuttled / We're not sunk yet'.
The Age: January 16, page 3, news item by Clay Lucas, `$1 billion plan ready to begin'.
The Age: January 12, Insight section, page 7, comment by Tracee Hutchison, `Welcome to the Mad Hatter's tea party'.
AUST, January 11, page 6, news item by Mark Davis, `Garrett "wrong" to approve dredging'.
The Age: January 11, page 3, news item by Clay Lucas, `Late court bid to block dredging'.
The Herald-Sun: January 24, page 30, comment by Greg Hunt, `Toxic shocker'.
The Age: January 24, page 13, comment by Victorian Farmers Federation's Simon Ramsay, `Enough debate - let's get on with the task'.
The Age: January 24, page 12, cartoon.
The Herald-Sun: January 23, page 15, news item by Nick Higginbottom and Ellen Whinnett, `Garrett tips a bonanza for bay'.
The Age: January 23, page 6, analysis by Paul Austin, `Brumby to critics: bay dredging debate is over'.
The Age: January 23, page 6, news items by Steven Moynihan and Peter Ker, `Traffic jam fixes put to Premier / Probe widens as new fish caught in health scare'.
The Age: January 23, page 1, news item by David Rood, `"Sinister" state accused on dredging'.
The Herald-Sun: January 22, page 5, news item (ref to Lindsay Fox) `Tycoon damns dredge'.
The Age: January 22, page 12, editorial, `Dredging plan steams ahead, casting away public concern'.
The Age: January 22, page 5, news item (map) by Adam Morton and Nick McKenzie, `Questions remain on dredging waste'.
The Age: January 22, page 1, news item by Josh Gordon, `Bay project to worsen traffic woes'.
The Age: January 21, page 3, news items (with boxed information) by Adam Morton and Nick McKenzie, `Scientists query eco-safety of channel deepening / Toxic silt can be diluted to "safe" levels, says analysis'.
Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google