Marine environment left unprotected by weak laws

Marine protection is limited under the EPBC Act because its focus is on a narrow range of species and communities, rather than on whole marine ecosystems - such as Port Phillip Bay - and its influence is further diminished because the bay falls within Victorian jurisdiction.

The Act is also reactive, waiting for proposals such as channel deepening to be referred and then assessed. Long-term advance planning for sustainable use is impossible.

Reform of the EPBC Act should be one of Minister Garrett’s early priorities. Its coverage should be extended to include consideration of climate change and other matters of national environmental significance. It needs stronger accountability and assessment standards, improved resources for implementation and enforcement and more effective arrangements for third party enforcement of the Act.

The channel deepening project should have been rejected or substantially modified before reaching this point.

With the Commonwealth largely avoiding involvement in the issue, it has been left to the Victorian Government to choose between channel deepening and protecting the environment.

If the Victorian Government had considered the true social, economic and ecological value of Port Phillip Bay’s natural assets, it would have been far more critical of the flawed arguments of project proponents and would have - at a minimum - insisted on best-practice dredging technology. It might have made a better choice.

If the project proceeds, the State Government should ensure a strong environment management plan and establish a truly independent monitor with the power to immediately stop the project when the bay’s health begins to suffer. It is yet to do that.

In the long run though, Federal Government reform of the EPBC Act and the introduction of an Australian Oceans Act are essential if we are to maintain and improve the health of our oceans and prevent projects such as channel deepening from destroying special places like Port Phillip Bay.