Coal ship threat to reef revived
The Queensland Labor government has flagged breaking a 2015 election promise by allowing the loading of coal ships at sea in the Great Barrier Reef marine park.
Labor vowed to ban so-called ‘‘trans-shipping’’ in reef waters after the United Nations’ peak scientific body raised concerns about a proposal off Hay Point near Mackay in 2014.
But the Palaszczuk government has released a proposal that would allow trans-shipping off Hay Point and three other ‘‘priority ports’’, including miner Adani’s port at Abbot Point.
The plan, announced by Environment and Reef Minister Steven Miles, would mean stricter protections overall, with bans in the rest of the reef’s waters and new regulation of trans-shipping under environmental protection laws. ‘‘A big part of this will be making sure bulk commodities are trans-shipped well away from the Great Barrier Reef,’’ Miles said.
However, an environment department consultation paper inviting public comment reveals that trans-shipping would be allowed in the Great Barrier Reef marine park when it is ‘‘in association with a declared port’’. This proviso would not apply to existing operations in reef waters.
These would also avoid mandatory refusal applying to new proposals deemed to pose a high risk of ships striking marine mammals or turtles, or ‘‘significant adverse effect’’ on threatened species or coral and seagrass through water pollution or seabed disturbance.
This would be at odds with a promise in Labor’s 2015 ‘‘Saving the Great Barrier Reef’’ plan, which said: ‘‘A Labor Government will also prohibit trans-shipping
Trans-shipping ... increases the risk of a major accident such as a massive coal spill, and increases the risk of regular, chronic contamination. Imogen Zethoven, Australian Marine Conservation Society
operations within the Great Barrier Reef marine park.’’
Australian Marine Conservation Society campaigner Imogen Zethoven said the government was ‘‘retreating from that promise’’, and called on it to honour fully its election commitment.
‘‘Trans-shipping is risky,’’ she said. ‘‘It increases the risk of a major accident such as a massive coal spill, and increases the risk of regular, chronic contamination from, for example, coal dust and small coal spills.
‘‘It will increase ship movements, meaning more noise, more light, more likelihood of ship strikes of marine animals. It increases the risk of damage to seagrass meadows, home to turtles and dugongs and corals – through dredging and anchoring to establish the trans-shipping site.’’
Zethoven said only a ban would ensure that the government met a target in its reef 2050 conservation plan to ensure ‘‘shipping within our reef is safe, risks are minimised, and incidents are reduced to as close to zero as possible’’.
Miles said he welcomed the views of environmental organisations in public consultation on the proposal by October 20.
He said requiring trans-shipping operations to be licensed as an ‘‘environmentally relevant activity’’ for the first time meant stricter rules for ‘‘protecting the Great Barrier Reef’’.
Unesco’s Fanny Douvere told the ABC in 2014 that a major transshipping proposal by Queensland operator Mitchell Ports, off Hay Point, could be referred to the UN’s world heritage committee over the threat of impacts on the reef.
It came as Unesco was considering whether to declare the world heritage-listed reef as ‘‘in danger’’. Australia avoided this through its conservation plan, bolstered at the last minute by the incoming state Labor government.
Mitchell Ports argued that its offshore loading plan of up to 15 million tonnes of coal a year would have a minimal impact and would avoid harmful seabed dredging from coastal port expansion.
The environmental department draft policy noted that there were ‘‘some existing proposals to carry out trans-shipping, many of which have not progressed beyond the initial stages of their approvals process’’. These would need to be licensed before they began.
Existing operators would have a year to apply for a licence, and could not load ships in reef waters unless ‘‘the activity cannot be accommodated within existing port limits’’.
Environmental officials would also approve only locations where dust or air emissions ‘‘will not settle on a sensitive marine community’’, where operators avoided environmentally harmful discharges to waters or noise, had contingency plans for ‘‘unplanned’’ contamination, and operated as close as possible to the coast.