if you oppose the dredging please cut and paste the email below after the double lines to the address provide before monday, it takes 5min.


For those of you considering sending a submission to the Parliamentary Committee on Finance and Public Administration, but have not yet done so, please use the version below, rather than the one sent last night. An error in the benefits claimed by the PoMC has been corrected in the version below.

Cheers,
Blue Wedges Editor



Dear Supporters,

We can stop this outrageous project if we give the PoMC's economic argument a good firm kick. We have a great opportunity to do that in the recently convened Parliamentary Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which is seeking submissions from the public.

All you have to do is cut and paste the letter below into an email to the Secretary of the committee, by closing date Monday 28th April richard.willis@parliament.vic.gov.au
Please do it and help stop the dredge.

Cheers,

Blue Wedges Editor


______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The Secretary
Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration
Legislative Council
Parliament of Victoria
Spring St.
Melbourne 3000
richard.willis@parliament.vic.gov.au

Re: Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening

As shareholders of the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC), taxpayers are entitled to a more rigorous analysis of the case for channel deepening (CDP) than provided by PoMC. The business case should include a realistic examination of the costs/benefits for all taxpayers but PoMC’s business case relies on an outmoded economic framework which is no longer applicable in the 21st Century.

The costs of losing or damaging the range of services presently provided by the Bay for free have been excluded from the economic modelling and decision making. PoMC has relied on a ‘business as usual’ mindset, projecting steady growth into the future. There is no lack of learned opinion that we can no longer subscribe to the business as usual mindset.

Estimating ‘net present value’ (NPV) in 2007, PoMC used a cost figure of $590m. Costs are now almost $1 billion so the claimed benefits must have diminished substantially. PoMC is advocating benefits based on cost reductions flowing to end users, whilst also introducing a container levy. End users will not benefit as importers and exporters costs have already increased via the levy, leaving no savings to pass on.

To achieve its benefit/cost ratio of 3.3, PoMC used the gross benefit figure of $1.936 billion not the net benefit, and divided it by the total cost estimate less the ‘sunk’ costs already spent. PoMC also fails to point out that only one third of the economic benefit flows to Victorian interests.

Using the more conservative and realistic assumptions below the NPV is reduced to minus $540 million:

· Cost of around $1 billion,
· Project valuation over 10 years with a terminal value
· 12% discount rate not the 6% used by PoMC
· Conservative estimate of future shipping fleet composition

On these figures, this is a dis-benefit to Victorians. Clearly the project is already unjustifiable, even before any more costs blow-outs occur.

I also have grave concerns about the Alliance between PoMC and Boskalis. During the SEES Inquiry Boskalis executives said they are now very aware of their responsibilities and had never breached any standards, claiming “zero incidents with environmental impact”. Boskalis failed to mention incidents where standards MUST have been breached, such as the sinking of a Boskalis dredge in Ponte Noir, Republic of Congo in 2006, where 3 people lost their lives, and the collision of Boskalis dredge Fairway in the port of Tianjin China in March 2007, resulting in the dredge being written off. Boskalis is also a joint venture partner in the controversial Jurong Islands project where sand has been illegally taken from Indonesia for land reclamation projects in Singapore .

The secrecy surrounding the Alliance between Boskalis and PoMC must be investigated, otherwise Victorian taxpayers may be exposed to unlimited loss and our priceless Bay may be damaged irretrievably. It is noteworthy that both Boskalis and James Hardie Industries have their headquarters in The Netherlands, so in the event of any compensation claims against Boskalis, like the asbestos victims, many Victorians may face insurmountable difficulties in obtaining justice.

Yours sincerely,


Name:
Address:

Date:

Badger, your going to love this one.

You know how the channel deepening is for our own economic benifit so we can buy even more cheap Chinese plastic, well our THIEVING goverment has imposed a channel deepening surcharge on our latest import of Picasso gear.

I have talked to other importers and as small business we are used to bullshit taxes but FARRRK.....How does that make imports cheaper? The BASTARDS have made me a financier in the destruction of my beloved Bay!

mate, that is in-BLOODY-sane! so as taxpayers you and i are funding this rubbish, and as a man who imports products your being wacked with extra levies to somehow raise more money to push the project on....erhhhh! unlucky you, but hey at least we can have more '2 dollar shops'.

I think the sh%t will really hit the fan over the next 2 snapper seasons when the fishing goes tits up.This year was a blinder for a lot of line fishos.Everyone is talking about how its been the best season for 20+ years and the older guys saying its the best they can remember.I would like to know(if anyone knows) what impact this will have on snapper coming to spawn in the bay.Is it possible that it could change there migratory pattern as we are seeing with SBT and dolphin fish.If the snapper stop spawning here then a lot of people are going to suffer.How many years after dredging would it take for the water to return to its original clarity?Also with that toxic dump sight(underwater) is it possible that with tidal flow over decades it could reopen?

the manner in which the dredging will affect snapper spawning is debatable depending which scientist you ask. in my opinion, science is based on funding and assumptions, rather than raw data, which also if prone to be interpreted in a bias manner. asking an independent ecologist, he said that obviously fish require sea grass to lay eggs in and provide cover for juveniles, the dredging is expected (even internal admission) that it will kill a lot of the grass beds. which is not good for any fish life.

how long will it take for the bay to clear up is also debatable, government and PoMc estimates are low 5 years+ with some yahoos claiming that it wont even make the bay murky at all, while on the otherside of the spectrum environmentalist are saying dangerously long, if compared to similar projects around the world that were smaller scale.

the continuing maintenance of such an enormous channel is just mind blowing.

Is it possible that it could change there migratory pattern- ask the lino's how many snapper they were catching when the scallop dredging was happening....once they stopped dredging and the bay slowly recovered, what happened-snapper caught consistently. the scallop dredging was miniscule compared to this project.

You may find that the snapper could have the majority moving into western port bay for spawning... but how well would the spawn handle the intense tidal currents?

My Opinion

I can't start to claim that I know the difference in clarity of the water in Port Phillip Bay as I have only begun diving in the last two months. However, I do have an opinion on the dredging of the bay as an Australian Citizen, and a resident of Victoria.

The dredging of the bay can be seen in two ways. It can be seen to be beneficial to Australian trade, and a form of infrastructure that had to happen. Over the past ten years in Australia, we have had no investment in infrastructure for the future, and this has really damaged our chances of maintaining out sustainable economic growth which has been so strong for this period of time.

However, the dredging of the bay is also environmentally damaging. Where do we draw the line on an issue such as the dredging of our beloved bay? When does something that will be good for Australian industry and economic sustainability for our future become damaging and dangerous to our future.

I believe that the dredging of the bay, although necessary to a certain extent, has crossed this line. In terms of the way it could shape our future, we need to be very careful. Although I am staunch Labour supporter, as a person I am very dissapointed in the way this whole issue has been dealt with.

For one, the vast majority of Victorians believe that the negative impacts of dredging the bay have the potential of far outweighing it's positive spin-offs. I find it very disheartening to hear people say that they feel their opinion does not matter on dredging, and I am afraid that I agree. In a democracy such as Australia, the government (as elected by the Victorian community) should have listened to our point of view. It seems as if they have ignored us, and thought towards the future without thinking about the present.

Unfortunatey, the present is something that we have been caught up in for the last decade, and as a result we have gone the other way to compensate.

I certainly did not want Port Phillip Bay to become the worlds benchmark on whether or not mass dredging works and is sustainable. Unfortunately the whole world will look at our "little experiment" and the after-effects as a possible solution to their shipping problems. I wish the decision had of been easier.

Tom Fraser

Why dredge when we have deeper ports elsewhere along Victorias coastline? Westernport or along the West coast!!! Why clog up a great city for the percieved cost benefit which is not actually there all imports have to now pay a surcharge for the use of the port pushing inflation higher.... what a cock up!

Why not build infrustructure where it wont choke up one of the worlds most liveable cities and relieve housing stress. Out west it would create real estate opportunities and pump money into an area that can sustain growth unlike here in Melbourne and provide better incomes and jobs which would improve the overall health of the rural population. In addition a population shift from Melbourne area would come as a relief and help minimise the exraordinary property price growth and housing shortage.

Increased shipping means increased pollution, and more chance for ballast water to further contaminate our waters. Look at the pests that have already been introduced and the potential for more pests to be added to the mix.

Its no experiment, its a blood disgrace!

I agree Ivor.

The reason it is in Port Phillip Bay is because they already have the docklands built and it is in the heart of the city which makes it easy to access all of Victoria. I think if Westernport is deep enough it would have been a much more viable place to do it. Even if dredging had to happen there, at least Westernport vis is already fucked up, easpecially towards the south where it is all mud anyway.

They are obviously using the surcharge on imports to pay off the dredging that they are carrying out. Do you or Badger know exactly how much it is costing the government and taxpayer? I would be interested to know this.

In closing, I certainly didnt call it an experiment mate. I was saying that the government is doing it regardless, and for other countries out situation is seen as an experiment. The whole world will use Port Phillip bay as a benchmark as to whether this will work in other areas.

I thought I explained clearly in my post that I disagree whole-heartedly with the dredging of Port Phillip Bay. I disagree with the way it has been handled by the government, and the way in which the voices of Melbournians and Victorians were ignored.

Tom

tom, nobody knows this. the project started at half a billion taxpayer dollars, and quickly mushroomed to 1 billion, this figure is just guess work, miscalculating 500,000,000.00 is not encouraging. the maintenance, how much will this cost??? at the moment i have heard from the Maritime Union that the project will not be any less than a billion dollars.

a 3% increase of port trade over 20 years is hardly beneficial in my opinion. Melbourne's ports are busy enough as they are, the howard government wasnt pleased about the strikes and quickly set up de-unionized stations in the docklands, this is why the project cant really go else where. the government want full control of workers and wont risk anymore strikes if they dont have to.

westernport vis can be good at times, i have seen it with at least 6-7m approx half way up the bay. it has only just recovered from the destruction of the mangrove system which is crucial to fish spawning, this occurred many moons ago and has taken ages to come back to it former glory. additionally, westernport has also been dredged in the pass, i believe it may have been the late 70's or 80's not sure, but the affects were felt in the fishing community which still talk about it today. unfortunately, i hear on the grapevine that their are plans to do a smaller dredging project in westernport now as well.

everyone is entitled to their opinion on the dredging, i am still to meet more than 3 people that believe it is a good idea, everyone else says do not fuck the bay

the project makes no economical sense, environmental sense or common sense in that case!!!