The Greens would support such a bill if it is debated in the upper house, as we supported the similar amendments in parliament last November Greens MLC Sue Pennicuik said today. “However, the problem is that the Liberals' position is still to support channel deepening, despite the lack of any credible economic case for it and the acknowledged damage it will cause to small businesses all around Port Phillip Bay.”

“Mr Baillieu says that “more than 3.5 million cubic metres of toxic material, including mercury, lead and various petrochemicals, will be dumped into the middle of our bay. The potential dangers to human health and the aquatic ecosystem are obvious …”

“Why then did the Liberal Party, bar one member, vote against the Greens amendment to, in accordance with the Environment Protection Act, prevent the dumping of toxic material in Port Phillip Bay? If they are so concerned about it, why did they vote with the ALP to allow the dumping of this toxic material in the Bay?

“We don't need channel deepening. The Port of Melbourne used to claim that 27 - 30% of ships could not enter the Bay fully loaded. It has even used a figure as high as 43%. No credible evidence has ever been advanced for these assertions. Instead, the PoMC's own SEES* states that only 3.8 per cent of ships leaving or entering Port Phillip Bay need any sort of tidal assistance. That means that 96% of ships do not require any assistance, or deeper channels, to enter or leave the Bay.

“There is no evidence that fleets of larger ships will be coming to Melbourne, either in the near future or ever.

“The state government and PoMC have been using smoke and mirrors for several years now to try to shore up some sort of economic case for channel deepening. The so called 'conditions' attached to the recent state and federal approvals, that are supposedly going to 'protect' the Bay, by monitoring damge after it has occurred, have meant the official cost is in fact now more than $960 million. The Port can only come up with a paltry $2 billion return over 20 years, or about one hundred million dollars a year!

“Even this is little more than an assertion, based on a cost-benefit analysis by the PoMC's consultants has been roundly criticised by several leading economists for using an inappropriate discount rate.

“No jobs will be lost if the project doesn't proceed. Instead, if better alternatives such as the Brisbane to Melbourne inland rail were implemented, hundreds of sustainable jobs could be created, inland towns rejuvenated and heavy truck traffic reduced,” Ms Pennicuik said.

Further information: Sue Pennicuik 0407 000 270

* SEES, Chapter 6, p.28.