"Our federal and state environmental laws need a complete overhaul," Ms Pennicuik said

"It's clear from this decision that, when put to any sort of real test, the former Howard government's EPBC Act is incapable of protecting our significant ecological assets - in this case the threatened species,
international wetlands and the unique marine environment of Port Phillip Bay, from the threats of channel deepening," Ms Pennicuik said.

"How will Minister Garrett explain his decision, when rising sea levels, caused by channel deepening and climate change, swamp the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula wetland?" she asked.

"This comes on top of the debacle of the EES and SEES processes, which failed to consider alternatives or the true costs of channel deepening, where the Port overpowered its critics in the community in terms of
financial resources and legal firepower, and where the state government was hopelessly compromised in being the proponent and advocate for the project, as well its assessor under the Environmental Effects Act.

"The public can have no confidence that our environmental laws actually protect the environment: They are just a rubber stamp process for the pet projects of governments and big business," she said.

Justice North made it clear that his decision was not about whether channel deepening is harmful to the environment or not, but that the court could only determine whether the Minister acted in accordance with the law.

"Justice North also reminded us of the value of the right of citizens to challenge the decisions of Ministers in the courts," she said.


For Further Information: Sue Pennicuik 0407 000 270