![]() “The community will be shocked to hear that our government is blindly relying on port developers’ claims and letting them dump dredge spoil offshore in the reef’s waters.”Īmong 47 new environmental conditions imposed by the authority with the approval to dump the spoil within the park was: “The proponents could well be overstating the cost of disposing of dredge spoil on land but the government doesn’t know because it’s simply relying on the proponent’s word, even though the proponent obviously has a direct conflict of interest,” Waters said. Waters has criticised the department for not undertaking its own analysis saying it was taking a mining company’s word for best practice. Questioned by Greens senator Larissa Waters, he said that the decision was “consistent with the world heritage convention recommendations” and that “there was a world’s best practice environmental assessment undertaken for this port”. ![]() The proponent was in a position where they had undertaken costing estimates as you would expect commercial costings of the various options,” he told Senate estimates. “The department did not undertake costing analysis of individual proposals. ![]() The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) approved the dumping of the soil in the marine park in January with 47 conditions attached.ĭean Knudson, from the department’s compliance division, said the department accepted the port’s own assessment of how much it would cost to dump the spoil on land.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |