Shine takes on Government in Gladstone dredging fight
Shine Lawyers will this morning lodge legal proceedings against the State Government arguing the Gladstone Ports Corporation has failed to comply with conditions set by the State Government, and must now provide financial compensation to the Gladstone fishing industry.
In a first for Queensland the proceedings will seek declarations the Queensland Government and Gladstone Ports Corporation failed to follow the directions of its own Co-ordinator General by not compensating businesses affected by the $70 billion port development.
Shine Lawyers Partner Rebecca Jancauskas said the time for decisions by the committee was over, the Gladstone fishing industry needed action to safeguard their livelihood.
“The Government’s own environmental impact study flagged the fishing industry would be adversely affected,” said Ms Jancauskas.
“This Government’s Co-ordinator General directed the fishermen should be compensated. So then why has this not happened?”
“We’ve seen posturing, hand-wringing, an inconclusive scientific report and no action from the State Government – the only action being taken is our proceedings to protect the fishermen.”
State food protection legislation prescribes criminal punishment if they harvest fish that might be diseased. Despite this, Gladstone Port Corporation insists they should continue to trawl the harbour.
“It is like playing Russian roulette with our lives and the lives of consumers that eat our catch. It is madness,” said Trevor Falzon the lead applicant in the proceedings.
“It’s now at the point where scores of businesses have closed, and those who remain cannot sell the fish caught because of the unhealthy state of their catch.”
Shine Lawyers met with the Gladstone fishing industry in December 2011 to discuss the potential for compensation and consult with local clients on the best way to take the action forward.
Communications were issued to Premier Anna Bligh, her Ministers and the Gladstone Port Corporation asking for them to honour the Co-ordinators directive. These have been ignored. Now the Fishermen have been forced to litigate.
At a time when the election has been called and job creation is high on the agenda of all Queensland voters the voices of workers in Queensland’s seafood industry about to lose their livelihoods are being drowned in silence from the Labour Government.
Ms Jancauskas said the development has had a clear impact not only on the local industry but on the region as a whole.
“Not only are local fishermen suffering, but so are hundreds of other businesses relying on healthy marine life for sustainable business,” she said.
“The people of Gladstone expect this Government to act on concerns of the fishing industry for the greater economic development of the region.
“There’s the marine industry unable to sell boats, seafood suppliers without any seafood and food retailers who can’t employ locals because of lack of business.
“The Coordinator General’s Report on the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project set mandatory obligations for compensation where the fishing industry suffered commercial losses due to dredging operations in the harbour.
“It is simply unconscionable for businesses to be left high and dry like this.”
Shine Lawyers is a national law firm in Australia. We provide legal help for people who are unable to work now or have simply been mistreated. We take pride in standing up for the little guy! Call 13 11 99 today to find out if you have a case.
Major errors in the government science- point 1. they say tides cause the turbidity, so the levels needed to be lifted to account for high tides.
response. baseline data already was used that included big tides to set the levels of turbidity. it was thought that because there were spikes in the past for short periods, that this must mean that seagrass can tolerate those high levels. this time though, the turbidity is in the water for months at a time. tides lift up the settled sediment from the dredging operations. the dredges leave between 2-5cm of mud that smothers the bottom of the harbour, this is deposited during smaller tides, as current speed increases with spring tides, this material resuspends. tides never caused the turbidity to be this high for so long a period. it is because of the build up in sediment from dredging as well as covering and killing the benthic life.
point 2. they claimed aluminium and metals is not causing sick fish. the fish have not been found with aluminium or abnormal liver that would indicate aluminium toxicity and aluminium was found by CSIRO in 2003 to be at a similar level as found recently. so if aluminium was causing problems then they would have surely died in 2003?
A. this is incorrect. the second round of metal testing showed fish with high levels of iron, aluminium and manganese. metals will compound the effects of other metals and other stresses. it was claimed that fish within the harbour has less metals than outside the harbour. the independant vet report showed a photo with a fish liver with an abnormality indicative of metal toxicity as explained by the government earlier.also the report explained how the fish out the front of the harbour were also exposed to offshore dredge spoil and we all know that barramundi and mullet have tails and are migratory. in 2003 there was dredging occurring as well. the aluminium level that was dissolved was found to be higher than normal. however this time around, there have been increased levels of copper, manganese, iron, lead and chromium. these additional metals coupled with consitant turbidity, never seen before, are why the fish did not get sick in 2003 but are sick now. this time around, dredging is much bigger scale and acid sulphate leaching out metals is on a larger scale.
point 3. the government says just because the water trigger values are being exceeded it does not mean they have to stop the dredging but means they should just test more.
A. this is incorrect, the direction under the ANZECC guidelines stipulate that water should be tested more if levels are breached. also biological testing should occur to see if fish are becoming sick under those levels, if there are indicators that fish are sick, the trigger values should be lowered so fish can recover..
if fish are sick, then remediation should occur. the government seem to think they are back at the stage of metals showing up and turbidity being breached with no sick fish being present so they think they can just do some more water tests. I have news for them, the fish are sick, stop misleading the public about what the guidelines say.
point 4. the government think that there is nothing in the water quality evidence to say it would cause sick fish. except for reduced salinity. they seem to expect the fish to drop dead if the levels are breached.
A. the levels are set at a rate that fish will not all drop dead. fish will however get sick first. there is certainly evidence in the data that the water quality has been degraded. there are sick fish. there is increased turbidity and a number of metals went over what the guidelines levels said are safe. even if the levels never were breached, if sick fish show up, under the ANZECC guidelines this acts as an indicator that the levels were set to high and should then be lowered to suit the specific waterway. if the government can come up with no reasonable reason for the sick fish, then it is most likely that it was because the guidelines were breached.
this is in a high value ecological value area and involving highly sensitive protected species.
It does not take much degradation to occur before these systems will crash and the data shows a series of poor water quality results and reduced numbers of prawns. No other areas that have reduced salinity have ever become sick like this, except to a lesser extent but while acid sulphate soils are present and then disturbed. As has been done in Gladstone.
The water guidelines under the EP act and others tell that waters should not be degraded but only kept the same or improved if they contain species of high ecological important or value.
the government and developer are using the wrong class of water. (class 2) to set the trigger values. they claim that because the harbour is slightly degraded and has a metropolitan area nearby it means they can use class 2. but this is NOT true if the waters are in WHA and not if there are corals and duging and turtles and seagrass etc. all which are protected and known to be high value and highly sensitive. The license holder submitted an EIS that identified the wrong type of water rules to abide by and the government did not make them use the correct levels.
The government says that gladstone harbour has similar water quality to other harbours around the world as a reason to suggest that water quality is not poor.
The other harbours and rivers they use to compare to are degraded, not in a healthy state like Gladstone was two years ago. All of them they are comparing gladstone to have had reduced fish life and increased metals in the food chains. the Scheldt river is one of the most polluted waterways in the world, texas waterways are degraded, sydney harbour is degraded. These waters have much lower quality and does not support abundant sensitive marine life.
Is this ok for your government to compare a world heritage area to polluted waters to suggest that the Gladstone harbour should be seen as having ok water, even when the sick fish indicate the waters are not ok?
Peer review of the science being used shows the government are cooking the analysis of the data to suit their agenda.