Updated

The Queensland Environment Minister Andrew Powell and Greens Senator Larissa Waters go toe to toe in the studio over the reef and the decision to dump dredge spoil in the World Heritage Area.

Source: 7.30 Queensland | Duration: 10min 34sec

Topics: great-barrier-reef, states-and-territories, environmental-impact, brisbane-4000

Transcript

MATT WORDSWORTH: The stampede to unlock one of the world's richest coal seams has stirred up an almighty debate over the future of the Great Barrier Reef. The coal terminal at Abbot Point, near Bowen, will need a large-scale dredging program to accommodate more ships. And it's that dredge spoil that's caused outrage. It'll be dumped in the World Heritage area. To try to get to the bottom of the issue I was joined earlier by Environment Minister Andrew Powell and Greens Senator Larissa Waters.

(MATT WORDSWORTH SPEAKING TO ANDREW POWELL AND LARISSA WATERS)

MATT WORDSWORTH: Minister, the Government say it wants to protect the Reef but at a time when UNESCO is thinking about declaring it "in danger" why would you approve a dredging program at Abbot Point?

ANDREW POWELL, ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: Well thanks Matt. The Reef is precious. It's what Queensland is known for. It's a national, it's an international icon and we as a Government are certainly committed to protecting it. We also want our Queensland economy to grow and if I put it this way I've got a tribe of kids, I want them to inherit a better State than the one I inherited. And I also want them to have a job so it's about balance. And we looked at the Abbot Point proposal of the previous Government and they were looking at approving 38 million cubic metres of dredging, creating a new island in the Reef and having an extensively large multi-cargo facility. To put that balance into perspective, we then looked at the plans and scaled it right back to a three million cubic metre project, based on science, with significant conditions that offset any environmental aspect that is of concern.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Senator Waters I might bring you in here. The science do you contest any of that?

LARISSA WATERS, GREENS SENATOR: Well the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority contests the science and what we saw was they prepared a report mid last year that found that when you dump this sludge that you've dredged up to make your ports big enough for massive ships for coal and for gas. If you dump that in world heritage waters it doesn't just sit where you dump it, it actually travels much further than they'd previously thought and it can smother corals, can smother seagrass beds, it gets in the gills of wildlife. It's actually not how you should be treating a world heritage icon simply like a rubbish tip. And the reason that they do that is that's the cheapest option.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Minister what do you say to that?

ANDREW POWELL: Well first of all a very emotive use of a word sludge. What we're actually talking about is sand and mud. It makes up 75% of what will be dredged and it's important to point out that that will be being disposed of 40km away from the nearest Reef. Now 75% of what is dredged will simply sink to the bottom of the sea where it will mix with the sand and the mud that is on the bottom of the sea, 25% will disperse. But if we put that in comparison to what comes down the Fitzroy, the Burdekin, the Don rivers each and every year, nearly 40 million cubic metres, our key focus, the science says the biggest concerns for the Reef is what's coming down the river systems our focus needs to be on that and as I said we've made sure the conditions ensure we get a net benefit for the Reef.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Yeah these conditions of a net benefit this was where Greg Hunt, the Federal Minister, was saying there's a 150% increase in water quality that's written into the conditions. Do you believe that?

LARISSA WATERS: Well look I think that's ridiculous. You can't put five million tonnes of sludge, call it what you will, into the water and say that you're going to make the water cleaner. I'm afraid it's magic pudding stuff and I don't accept that you can somehow mitigate the damage of adding five million tonnes of sludge into the water where as I've said it doesn't sit there, it travels. I think that the Minister would like that to be the case but we need to be guided by the science here. Unfortunately at the Federal level we don't have a Science Minister any more. We have the Environment Department who good work but a lot of their people have lost their jobs. We just found out this week that whilst the land-based disposal of dredge spoil was considered the department federally didn't actually look at the costs properly, they didn't scrutinise the claims that were made. So the big mining companies just say "oh yeah that's prohibitive, we can't afford that" but nobody challenges them, nobody actually checks whether that's the case and it comes down to: is the Reef simply a rubbish tip for dumping dredge sludge? Or is a world heritage icon that provides far more jobs than the mining industry does? Let's hope that your kids have that option in future as I'd like my child.

ANDREW POWELL: If I may just respond to a couple of the things. First of all I think some of the statements the Senator's just made are a slap in the face to the scientists that do an extensive amount of work along the Great Barrier Reef and produce report cards each and every year. But more importantly a slap in the face to the farmers who over the last decade have been working tirelessly with Governments of both persuasions to improve their practices and we've seen that, the science is demonstrating that. We've seen a 13% reduction in dissolvable nitrogen on the Reef because of our efforts in the catchments adjacent the Reef. So to suggest you can't get a net benefit by working upstream in the catchments is not true because the science has demonstrated that you can.

LARISSA WATERS: Look on that very point, and I'm sorry to butt in, that reef rescue program, the amount of sediment that it's stopped from entering into the reef, which we support, is dwarfed by what's now being dumped by the ports for the mining companies. So yes it's been a successful program but it's now being completely undermined by offshore dumping. We simply can't have the left hand working against the right hand. The Reef needs to be at the forefront and we shouldn't' be insulting those farmers by undoing their good work and allowing the big mining companies a blank cheque whilst the farmers have to tighten their belts.

ANDREW POWELL: Matt I think the Senator's being a bit loose with the statistics around that. This is not undoing all that great work that the farmers have done and will continue to do. And we're also looking for future port developments to look at on-land disposal as a first priority.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Now in 2006 there was a far bigger dredging program at Hay Point near Mackay so Abbot Point's three million cubic metres Hay Point was nine million cubic metres. Any evidence of what happened to the Reef after that?

ANDREW POWELL: Well again I think this goes to the point that if you look at the Australian Institute of Marine Science that the real impacts on the Reef are cyclones and crown of thorns starfish. Port development fits in the 1% of the non-crown-of-thorns-cyclones-and-bleaching, the 1%. So when you had the dredging program at Hay Point you saw very little cumulative impact on the Reef from that aspect.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Senator would you argue with that?

LARISSA WATERS: What I think a better example is Gladstone where we had 46 million cubic metres dredged there from that harbour where people have gotten sick and the fishing industry has had to close because the harbour is so toxic. Eleven million cubic metres of that was then dumped offshore in the Reef's waters and you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that says something didn't go terribly wrong.

ANDREW POWELL: Matthew again the science says a very different story around Gladstone Harbour. There have been independent reviews, there have been scientific studies done. What the Senator hasn't alluded that the reason there were sick fish in the harbour was because of the extreme weather events of 2011 and the amount of fish that came over the Yawonga Dam into the harbour, the fact that the harbour, that is a poorly flushed harbour was basically fresh water for an extended period of time and that a large amount of fish in a small area, with low food stock, meant that some of them got sick. That is what the science tells us and I think the Senator needs to be clear and factual with the people of Queensland around what is the true impacts on the Reef and how we need to resolve them.

LARISSA WATERS: Minister, with respect, the science that you're referring to was paid for by both your Government or the ports corporation and the science that I'm referring to...

ANDREW POWELL: And so the Senator is now calling into question the CSIRO which is a fairly game call.

LARISSA WATERS: If you would just allow me to finish. The only independent science that's been done in Gladstone Harbour has found that the floods were sure a contributing factor but dredging was also a big factor. So I think sadly you're selectively quoting the science whilst accusing me of doing the same.

ANDREW POWELL: I think we'll find there's a number of independent reviews, as required by UNESCO that have demonstrated that there are things we can improve in Gladstone Harbour. That's why this Government has invested money in the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Well perhaps I could put this to both of you. Minister are you confident that you'll retain World Heritage and avoid it being put in danger at that UNESCO meeting?

ANDREW POWELL: Extremely. What have they asked us to do? Plan for the future. They've asked for a strategic assessment. They've asked for a long-term plan for the Great Barrier Reef. We've delivered a draft strategic assessment. We're delivering the plan through to 2050. They've asked us to invest in water quality improvements. We're doing that through our $35m investment working with farmers. They've asked us to have an independent review of Gladstone. We've done multiple independent reviews of Gladstone. We've set up the Gladstone Health Harbour Partnership.

LARISSA WATERS: Not using independent data an important point using the data that the ports corporation themselves gave. Independent?

ANDREW POWELL: Again the Senator wants to challenge the authority of the CSIRO.

LARISSA WATERS: Well it's all about the independent data.

ALEX POWELL: If I could just finish. They have also asked us to consolidate our port development in the existing ports. We've put out our draft port strategy that does just that. We are putting master plans around each of those ports. We're consolidating and maximising our port development in those areas and I'm confident we'll meet the recommendations of UNESCO.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Senator to you if UNESCO comes back and does what the Minister's so confident of it doing will you then drop your opposition to Abbot Point?

LARISSA WATERS: No. I don't think we should be building

MATT WORDSWORTH: Because if they're the umpire and they decide it's okay would you follow suit?

LARISSA WATERS: I don't think it's appropriate to build the world's largest coal port in a world heritage area. And not just any world heritage area the Great Barrier Reef, one of the seven natural wonders of the world. To me that will never be safe. I hope that the Government between now and then will do enough to avert that world heritage in danger listing to save the tourism industry and to save the Reef itself. There have been some steps made and I recognise that. Sadly there's still a long way to go. We still have mass dredging, mass offshore dumping and this proliferation of ports. We have 12 ports in the Great Barrier Reef.

ANDREW POWELL: And Matt if I can just add. Larissa no I'm sorry I've listened long enough Senator.

LARISSA WATERS: Excuse me Minister. No you've been interrupting me all interview.

ANDREW POWELL: What we were asked to do consolidate. We've consolidated into five ports, four in the Great Barrier Reef.

LARISSA WATERS: Those ports are not actually being used to their full capacity so we don't need any new ports. When you've got 12 ports already there not being used we don't need to destroy the Reef to build another one.

ANDREW POWELL: And again very loose with the facts, very emotive language not scientifically based and certainly not factually based. As I said our ports strategy is consolidating into four ports in the Great Barrie Reef Marine Park Authority.

LARISSA WATERS: I'm afraid it's the industry themselves. Xstrata, Rio, BHP, they've all said excess port capacity. I'm afraid the facts speak for themselves.

MATT WORDSWORTH: Well it looks like the debate's going to continue. Thank you very much Senator thank you Minister for coming in.

ANDREW POWELL: You're welcome.

LARISSA WATERS: Thanks Matt.