[Greens-Media] Auditor General finds Port of Melbourne doesn't even measure whether key channel deepening objectives are being met

Michelle.Panayi at parliament.vic.gov.au Michelle.Panayi at parliament.vic.gov.au
Thu Nov 15 11:11:52 EST 2012


Media Release

15 November 2012 

Auditor General finds Port of Melbourne doesn't even measure whether key 
channel deepening objectives are being met

Greens MP and spokesperson on channel deepening, Sue Pennicuik MLC, said 
the Victorian Auditor General's report: Port of Melbourne Channel 
Deepening Project: Achievement of Objectives tabled in state parliament 
yesterday confirms many of the questions that critics have raised about 
channel deepening since its inception.

"The report released by the Auditor General today concluded that the due 
to the GFC, the Port will need to review the assumptions underpinning the 
long term 'benefits' of channel deepening", Ms Pennicuik said. "Many 
economists and others questioned those assumptions (encapsulated in the 
graph on p30, of the Report) from the start."
 
"The report concludes that the 'construction' phase of channel deepening 
was delivered ahead of time and under budget, however despite the huge 
cost of the project ($717 million), it doesn't have a 'benefits management 
plan' in place to 'monitor and manage the realisation of benefits' despite 
the Treasury recommending this since 2004", Ms Pennicuik said.

"Disappointingly, no mention is made of monitoring any of the ongoing 
costs of channel deepening to the Port or to the community", Ms Pennicuik 
said. "The Port has issued several notices to mariners over the last two 
years warning of shoaling in the South Channel, the Great Ship Channel and 
at Port Phillip Heads. Wasn't channel deepening meant to end this?"

"The report also found that the Port has given up trying to measure 
whether channel deepening has resulted in more private investment in port 
facilities, which was part of its business case and it doesn't even bother 
to collect data on whether channel deepening has reduced delays for ships 
with a draft more than 11.6 metres despite that being one of the key 
rationales for the project."

"It is simply unbelievable that one of the key reasons - stated over and 
over - and always overstated by the Port, isn't even being measured", Ms 
Pennicuik said.

"Finally, the Report concludes that the Port complied with the 
Environmental Management Plan (which has been widely condemned for being 
too narrow and not addressing the major risks), and that the Office of the 
Environmental Monitor actively scrutinised that compliance, however, since 
channel deepening, the beach at Portsea has disappeared and other beaches 
have experienced erosion due to exposure to ocean swells and stronger 
currents and tidal movements not seen before Port Phillip Heads was 
deepened by five metres."

"The damage being caused by the changes to the hydrology in the south of 
Port Phillip Bay is likely to be ongoing and irreversible and is not being 
paid for by the Port", Ms Pennicuik said. "And what was it all for?" 

"Port Phillip Bay has been damaged all for a few 'large' ships coming, 
most not fully laden, so it didn't need channel deepening and many ships 
have been delayed due to shoaling and faster tides caused by the channel 
deepening."

For further comment contact Sue Pennicuik on 03 9530 8399



///////************************************************************///////////////

Parliament of Victoria                                                                                                                    . 
Important Disclaimer Notice:


The information contained in this email  including any attachments, may be 
confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please 
notify the sender and delete it from  your system. Any unauthorised 
disclosure, copying or dissemination of all or part of this email, including 
any attachments, is not permitted. This email, including any attachments, should 
be dealt with in accordance with copyright and  privacy legislation. 
Except where otherwise stated, views expressed are those of the individual sender.


More information about the Media mailing list