THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO:
The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone
(July 2013)
and
The Independent Review of the Bund Wall at the Port
of Gladstone (April 2014)
August 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW AND AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ......................................... 4
PART A: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW OF THE PORT OF GLADSTONE ..................................................................................................... 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT...................................................................................... 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT .................................................................................. 10
RECOMMENDATIONS THAT RELATE TO THE GLADSTONE HEALTHY HARBOUR PARTNERSHIP .......................................... 12
RECOMMENDATION FOR INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................... 12
PART B: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT
REVIEW OF THE BUND WALL AT THE PORT OF GLADSTONE ................................................................... 12
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT.................................................................................... 13
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT .................................................................................. 16
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INDUSTRY ................................................................................................................. 16
ATTACHMENT A: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE PORT OF GLADSTONE RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 18
ATTACHMENT B: SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT – BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES ................. 21
ATTACHMENT C: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE BUND WALL AT THE PORT OF
GLADSTONE - RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 23
1
INTRODUCTION
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Independent
Review of the Port of Gladstone and the Independent Review of the Bund Wall at the
Port of Gladstone and to the concerns raised by the Australian public. The Australian
Government agrees or agrees in principle with all recommendations that fall within its
jurisdiction.
The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone was undertaken in response to the
concerns raised by the World Heritage Committee in 2012 and the community in relation
to the environmental management arrangements and governance of the Port of
Gladstone.
A further review was undertaken in 2013 after concerns were raised regarding the
performance of a reclamation bund wall at the Port of Gladstone. This review focused on
the design, construction and functioning of the bund wall.
The Port of Gladstone has operated since 1955. It is the largest bulk commodity port in
Queensland, the sixth largest in Australia and services a range of industries including
agriculture, bauxite coal and liquefied natural gas.
The port is also located within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The Great
Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 and is one of the natural
wonders of the world. It is also one of Australia’s most iconic tourism assets receiving up
to 2 million visits each year.
Australia’s management system of the Reef is one of the most rigorous and modern in
the world and has ensured the Outstanding Universal Value and integrity of the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area remain largely intact. The Australian Government is
working in partnership with the Queensland Government, industry, non-government
organisations and the community to ensure that the Great Barrier Reef’s ecosystems are
protected. It is important to do that in the context of the range of activities that have been
occurring in the area for over 150 years—activities such as tourism, fishing, shipping,
research, agriculture and defence.
The science tells us that the main contributors to the Great Barrier Reef’s coral loss are
storms and cyclones (48%), outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish (42%) and bleaching
from ocean warming (10%). The impacts from coastal development, including ports is
relatively small, yet is a risk and may be significant locally and over short time periods.
That is why the Australian Government continues to work to ensure coastal development
meets strict environmental standards and follows best practice, delivering a net benefit
to the Reef from every project approved.
Our environment laws provide strict rules and regulations about what activities can take
place in the Great Barrier Reef. For example, activities such as mining, oil drilling and
gas extraction are banned by law in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and this ban is
strictly enforced.
Any development proposal, including a port, will only be approved with the most robust
conditions that ensure high environmental standards are maintained. Only developments
with a net benefit to the Reef and its Outstanding Universal Value have been approved.
2
Where these are port related the developments have only been allowed inside existing
port areas.
When the World Heritage Committee raised concerns in 2011 about the state of
conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Australia was already partway through a comprehensive reform programme to ensure the long-term protection and
management of the Reef. Among the most significant of these reforms was the
completion by both the Australian and Queensland governments of the most complex
and comprehensive strategic assessment of environmental management arrangements
ever undertaken in Australia. The assessment informed development of the Reef 2050
Long-Term Sustainability Plan (Reef 2050 Plan) for protecting the reef and coastal zone.
The Reef 2050 Plan sets out clear and measurable objectives for Australia for protecting
the Reef and its coastal zone.
To this end, ongoing work between the Australian and Queensland government to
streamline environmental assessments includes commitments that the standards of the
EPBC Act for protection of matters of national environmental significance (including the
Outstanding Universal Value of World Heritage properties) will be met. Under the new
Queensland Government's ports policy, there will be no new port development within the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area outside existing long-established port areas.
When the current Australian Government was elected in September 2013 there were
five major capital dredging projects either planned or under active assessment that
proposed to dispose of dredge material in the Marine Park. The Australian and
Queensland governments have reduced that number to zero.
The Australian Government has also developed a regulation under the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to permanently ban dumping of material from capital
dredging projects into the Marine Park.
In May 2014 the Australian Government released referral guidelines on the Outstanding
Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The guidelines promote
a consistent approach to assessing impacts and to provide consistent guidance to
proponents on whether they need to refer their proposal for consideration under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Improving environmental assessments further, the Australian and Queensland
governments concluded an amended assessment bilateral agreement on
18 December 2014. This agreement will improve transparency and public accountability,
and streamline environmental assessment processes. Assessment bilateral agreements
ensure high standards are maintained for the protection of the environment, promote the
conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources and remove
unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment processes of the Australian
and Queensland governments.
The Australian and Queensland governments also support the Gladstone Healthy
Harbour Partnership. The Partnership is a forum to bring together parties to maintain
and, where necessary, improve the health of Gladstone Harbour. The guiding principles
of the partnership are open, honest and accountable management; annual reporting of
3
the health of Gladstone Harbour; and the provision of management recommendations
and actions based on rigorous science and strong stakeholder engagement.
The Queensland Government’s investment of $3 million over two years has been
matched by industry, community, research and local government. The Australian
Government provided $1 million over the first two years and has committed a further
$0.6 million to the Partnership. This Partnership will continue to inform and guide
environmental management and improvement in years to come.
A new Reef Trust, supported by a $140 million contribution from the Australian
Government, is already investing in improving coastal habitats, crown of thorns starfish
culling and improving the quality of water entering the Great Barrier Reef. The Trust is
able to receive and dispense funds from the private and philanthropic sectors, as well as
those derived from the pooling of offset funds that target specific impacts on the Great
Barrier Reef from development activities. The Reef Trust is an innovative mechanism for
aligning this range of investments with the priority challenges facing the Reef.
The current and future initiatives being undertaken by the Australian and Queensland
governments discussed in this response address the findings and recommendations
raised in the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone. These initiatives ensure that
port development at Gladstone, and more broadly within the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area, occurs under the highest environmental standards, while ensuring the
long term protection and management of the Reef.
BACKGROUND TO THE REVIEW AND AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
RESPONSE
In 2012 the World Heritage Committee requested Australia
...undertake an independent review of the management arrangements for
Gladstone Harbour that will result in the optimization of port development
and operation in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island, consistent with the
highest internationally recognised standards for best practice commensurate
with iconic World Heritage status (36 COM 7B.8 Para 9).
This request was reaffirmed by the Committee in 2013 with the additional request to
ensure that:
...these efforts result in the optimization of port development and operation in
Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island, as well as other existing port
developments… (37 COM 7B.10 Para 4) 1.
In response to the World Heritage Committee decision and to community concerns the
Australian Government agreed to conduct an Independent Review of the Port of
Gladstone, which was formally commissioned on February 2013. The Review provided
its initial report to the Australian Government on 30 July 2013 and it was released
publicly on 9 August 2013.
1
Further information on the World Heritage Committee decisions can be found at
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/gbr/more-information
4
The Review found that environmental management and governance within the Port of
Gladstone is generally comprehensive. The three key areas for improvement were:

the need to better incorporate better World Heritage and other environmental
protection considerations in a single, comprehensive and consultative port planning
process;
the need for better assessment and consideration of cumulative impacts; and
the need for more meaningful and ongoing stakeholder engagement to improve
information and community confidence in environmental management and
governance.


This report contained 17 findings and 23 recommendations, directed towards the
Australian and Queensland governments, the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership
and other parties. A summary of the recommendations with the Australian Government
response to each is at Attachment A.
The Review also provided a supplementary report to the Australian Government on
1 November 2013 focussed on port optimisation and which was released publicly on
6 November 2013.
The supplementary report is not a stand-alone document; it builds upon the framework
and recommendations of the initial report. It contains a set of proposed principles to be
considered in future development and operation of ports within the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area (Attachment B). Both reports can be found on the Australian
Government Department of the Environment website at:
www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/great-barrier-reef/port-gladstone-review.
The Review involved extensive consultation with stakeholders, government officials and
relevant experts. It involved a formal submission process as well as numerous meetings,
workshops and follow up discussions. The bibliography of the panel members and
information received during the Review are outlined in the appendices of both reports.
The Minister for the Environment, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, commissioned an addendum
to the Independent Review on 30 January 2014 to examine and report on information
relevant to the design and construction of a reclamation bund wall associated with the
Port of Gladstone Western Basin Dredging Project. The Independent Review of the
Bund Wall at the Port of Gladstone findings were provided to the Australian Government
on 8 May 2014 and publicly released on 9 May 2014. The report contained 37 findings
and 19 recommendations. Attachment C presents the Australian Government response
to each of the recommendations in a summary table.
Information about this Review, including the full terms of reference, a bibliography of
Review Panel members and copies of public submissions received are available on the
web at: www.environment.gov.au/bundwallreview .
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to these Reviews. In
doing so, the recommendations from the reviews have been grouped into the following
categories to allow for a more integrated government response:

Recommendations for the Australian Government.
5

Recommendations for the Queensland Government.

Recommendations that relate to the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.

Recommendations for Industry.
The response to the recommendations contains advice as to whether the Australian
Government agrees, agrees in principle, or notes the recommendations. The meanings
of each statement are included for reference below.
Agree - The Australian Government agrees with the recommendation and has already,
or will in the future, take the recommended (or similar) action. These will be
implemented within existing resources.
Agree in principle - The Australian Government agrees with the recommendations, but
the pace of implementation will be determined by available resources and, where
applicable, the agreement of third parties.
Noted - The Australian Government notes the recommendation. In some cases, the
recommendation relates to state/territory government or industry responsibilities, not
Australian Government responsibilities.
This Australian Government response is also structured in two parts: Part A provides the
Australian Government response to recommendations raised in the Independent Review
of the Port of Gladstone. Part B responds to the Independent Review of the Bund Wall at
the Port of Gladstone.
Finally as noted above, the Supplementary Report includes a set of 21 proposed high
level principles for the development and operation of ports in the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area. These principles are relevant to best port practice with a broader
application beyond Gladstone.
At the 37th meeting of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum on 6 December 2013
Australian and Queensland government ministers responsible for the Great Barrier Reef
agreed to consider the Report’s proposed principles for port optimisation on the planning
for future port development and operations in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area. The Australian Government supports the adoption of these best practice principles
in port planning and development where they can be applied.
PART A: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE PORT OF
GLADSTONE
Recommendations for the Australian Government
Recommendations that have already been accepted
The review recommended that the Australian Government:

release the report on findings and provide opportunity for public comment
(Recommendation 1); and
6

reaffirms its position of prohibiting mining exploration and exploitation within the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Recommendation 5).
The Australian Government agrees with these recommendations and they have been
completed. The initial report on findings was released on 9 August 2013 for a four week
public comment period. Five submissions were received and they have been considered
in formulating this response.
The Australian Government reaffirms its position of prohibiting mining exploration and
exploitation within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. This position is
consistent with the Australian Government’s ongoing commitment in the 2009 Great
Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement to restrict mining in the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area 2 and the existing provisions under the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Act 1975 that prohibits mining in the Marine Park.
Recommendations that can be considered through existing or proposed initiatives
The Review recommended that the Australian Government improve its guidance on the
Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, including
investigating the development of impact thresholds and targets for attributes of
Outstanding Universal Value (Recommendations 2 and 3).
The Australian Government agrees with these recommendations. The Australian
Government is already undertaking initiatives to improve understanding and definition of
the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area to
promote a consistent approach to assessing impacts on the Outstanding Universal
Value and the development of relevant thresholds and targets. This includes the final
referral guidelines on Outstanding Universal Value that provide consistent guidance to
proponents on whether they need to refer their proposal for consideration under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These guidelines can
be found at: www.environment.gov.au/resource/epbc-act-referral-guidelinesoutstanding-universal-value-great-barrier-reef-world-heritage.
The Australian and Queensland governments have undertaken a comprehensive
strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent
coastal zone in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999. The final strategic assessment and programme reports were
endorsed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 by
the Minister for the Environment on 11 August 2014 and made publicly available on
12 August 20143.
The reports provide further information and guidance on the Outstanding Universal
Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The reports also outline a range of
commitments to develop outcomes and targets for Outstanding Universal Value and to
better incorporate guidance on matters of national environmental significance, including
2
Further information on the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement can be found at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/great-barrier-reef/protecting-reef/intergovernmentalagreement
3
Further information on the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment can be found at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/protection/assessments/strategic/great-barrier-reef
7
Outstanding Universal Value into the planning and management processes of the
Queensland Government and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
The Australian and Queensland governments have developed a Reef 2050 Plan for the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area which draws upon the findings of the strategic
assessment. The Reef 2050 Plan includes the following elements:




An overarching Vision for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, to ensure the
Great Barrier Reef continues to improve on its Outstanding Universal Value every
decade between now and 2050 to be a natural wonder for each successive
generation to come.
An Outcomes framework that includes desired outcomes and targets for protection
of the property’s Outstanding Universal Value.
Adaptive management approach to ensure ongoing delivery of the Reef 2050 Plan
is informed by the best available science, experience and performance against
targets and objectives.
Integrated monitoring and reporting program to measure the success of the Reef
2050 Plan.
A collaborative approach between governments, industry and non-government and
community sectors was used in the drafting of the Reef 2050 Plan through a Partnership
Group. Broad community consultation was undertaken through a process of public
comment on the draft Reef 2050 Plan and through targeted engagement with key
stakeholders.
The Reef 2050 Plan provides an overarching framework to guide the protection and
management of the Great Barrier Reef from 2015 to 2050.
The Australian Government Department of the Environment has released a number of
research projects targeted to address key information gaps relating to the future
management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. These reports provided
valuable input to the development of the Reef 2050 Plan. Further information on these
projects can found at: www.environment.gov.au/resource/research-support-greatbarrier-reef-strategic-assessment
Recommendations that relate to improvements in Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act
1981 environmental assessment processes
The Review made several recommendations to the Australian Government regarding:




public availability of Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
approval recommendation reports and confirmed cases of non-compliance
(Recommendations 4, 15);
an information management system for sea dumping permits (Recommendation 6);
a coordinated approach for active engagement in post approval advisory and
technical bodies (Recommendation 20);
support for traditional owners to promote active engagement and involvement in
proposals (Recommendations 21, 22); and
8

the investigation of social, cultural and economic impacts of development in the Port
of Gladstone (Recommendation 23).
The Australian Government agrees in principle to recommendations 4, 6, 15 and 20
relating to improved environmental assessment processes and reporting.
The Australian Government notes the Department of the Environment’s current practice
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of including
standard administrative conditions in approvals relevant to publishing compliance which
require “the person taking the action to publish a report on the website addressing
compliance with each of the conditions of the approval including implementation of any
management plans as specified in the conditions”. Documentary evidence providing
proof of the date of publication and non-compliance with any conditions of the approval
must be provided to the Department at the same time as the compliance report is
published.
The Australian Government notes that in relation to Recommendation 6, there are
existing reporting obligations under the London Protocol4 for permits under the
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, and agrees in principle to the need for
improved information management and transparency for sea dumping permits.
The Australian Government agrees in principle to Recommendations 21, 22 and 23. The
Australian Government also notes that although the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area is not inscribed on the World Heritage List under cultural criteria, the Statement of
Outstanding Universal Value for the property acknowledges the “human interaction with
the natural environment is illustrated by strong ongoing links between Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islanders and their sea-country, and includes numerous shell deposits
(middens) and fish traps, plus the application of story places and marine totems”5.
It is also important to note that many other important natural, cultural and Indigenous
values of the Great Barrier Reef are protected under Australia’s national environmental
law, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, as well as various other Australian and Queensland
government legislation. Cultural heritage values are considered as a value of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park and therefore protected as a matter of national environmental
significance.
The referral guidelines for the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area note the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the property
acknowledges the “strong ongoing links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders
and their sea-country” and that consideration of impacts on this aspect of the property
should be guided by the principle that: Indigenous people are the primary source of
information on the value of their heritage and that active participation of Indigenous
people in identification, assessment, management and use of Indigenous heritage
places and values is integral to the effective protection of Indigenous heritage values.
4
1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and
Other Matter, 1972. Australia is a Party to the London Protocol.
5
The complete Statement of Outstanding Universal value for the GBRWHA can be found at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/heritage/heritage-places/world-heritage-list/gbr/world-heritagevalues
9
The Australian Government has also published Ask First: A guide to respecting
Indigenous heritage places and values which provides a practical guide on effectively
engaging Indigenous people in this kind of process and is available at:
www.environment.gov.au/heritage/ahc/publications/commission/books/ask-first.html.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s strategic assessment and program
reports have committed to developing targets to enhance understanding and protection
of Indigenous and historic heritage values (of the Great Barrier Reef Region) to better
guide and focus the management activities of the Authority and its partners.
The Review also recommended the establishment of a list of offsets for the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area (Recommendation 7). The Australian Government agrees
with this recommendation in principle. The Australian Government Department of the
Environment will work with the Queensland Government and Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority, using the conclusions from the strategic assessments, to enable the
identification of strategic offsets to fulfil statutory obligations and to develop policies to
guide actions required to restore ecosystem health, improve the condition of values and
manage financial contributions to that recovery.
Complementing this work, the Australian Government has established a Reef Trust as
part of its election commitment. This initiative will contribute to the delivery of the Reef
2050 Plan. The Trust will operate to strategically support conservation outcomes within
the Great Barrier Reef, including water quality and coastal habitat improvements. The
Australian Government has committed $140 million to the Trust which will be
supplemented by enabling project proponents to deposit funds into the trust as offsets
under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. There is also
scope for the Trust to accept private and philanthropic contributions.
Recommendations for the Queensland Government
The Review made several recommendations to the Queensland Government regarding
the declaration of State Development Areas, the delineation of port areas, port master
planning, future fish health and environmental studies and stakeholder engagement
(Recommendations 8, 9, 10, and 13).
The Australian Government notes these recommendations and, recognising these as
primarily relevant to the responsibilities of the Queensland Government, will commit to
progress these issues, where feasible, with the Queensland Government through the
strategic assessment, the implementation of the Reef 2050 Plan and other planning and
decision making processes as appropriate. The Australian Government notes that during
the time of the Review, the Queensland Government was undergoing a process of
legislative review.
The Australian Government notes the Queensland Government has recently introduced
the Sustainable Ports Development Bill 2015 to establish a legislative framework for key
port-related Queensland Government commitments in the Reef 2050 Plan. The Bill
restricts port development within and adjoining the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area to within current port limits defined under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994
(Qld).
10
The Bill nominates the strategic bulk ports of Gladstone, Hay Point/Mackay, Abbot Point
and Townsville as priority ports. Along the Great Barrier Reef coast, port-related capital
dredging will be restricted to within the long established port limits of these four priority
ports. Where expansion is necessary within these four priority ports, the Bill mandates
the beneficial reuse of dredged material. If beneficial reuse isn’t possible, the Bill
mandates disposal on land where it is environmentally safe to do so.
The Bill also provides for mandatory master planning for the four priority ports.
Mandatory port master planning for land and marine areas will:




ensure the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area is an intrinsic consideration in future port development, management and
governance
protect greenfield areas by optimising use of the state’s existing port infrastructure in
relation to global supply chains and regional competitive strategies deliver greater
certainty for the ports industry and other stakeholders well into the future
provide for transparent decision making
require meaningful engagement withaffected stakeholders.
The Australian Government welcomes the consideration of Outstanding Universal Value
in decision making by the Queensland Government and also notes the potential benefits
of a single master-plan in terms of the ability to address environmental issues and to
provide greater industry certainty and better economic planning.
The Australian Government notes that the Fitzroy Terminal proposal within the Port of
Rockhampton has been referred to the Australian Government for assessment6. On
5 May 2014, the coordinated project declaration under the Queensland State
Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 for the Fitzroy Terminal proposal
lapsed. On 7 May 2015 the proposal was lapsed under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The proponents of the Balaclava Island proposal,
also within the Port of Rockhampton, have withdrawn the project from the Environmental
Impact Statement process.
The Queensland Government has committed to further protecting the Fitzroy Delta area,
including north Curtis Island and Keppel Bay through extension and strengthened
conservation zoning in the Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park and other measures.
The Australian Government also notes the significant community concern regarding fish
health issues in Gladstone Harbour and agrees in principle that fish health needs to be
an ongoing focus of monitoring and management in the Port of Gladstone. The
Australian Government also notes that the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership could
play a role in this process to ensure that research is relevant and is reported in a
transparent manner to strengthen community confidence in the results.
6
For further information on the Fitzroy Terminal proposal see http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_referral_detail&proposal_id=6069.
11
Recommendations that relate to the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership
The Review made several recommendations regarding:


ongoing Australian Government support for the Gladstone Healthy Harbour
Partnership (Recommendations 16, 17); and
improved research and monitoring within Gladstone, including in relation to key
marine mammal species and dredging impacts (Recommendations 11, 12, 18,19)
The Australian Government agrees with recommendations 16 and 17. The Australian
Government believes the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership is an important
initiative that brings together industry, community and government to monitor and report
on environmental and broader sustainability indicators in the harbour, and will continue
to support its implementation within existing resources.
The Australian Government supports the Partnership’s guiding principles of open and
accountable management, annual reporting on the health of the harbour and action
based on rigorous science and stakeholder engagement. The Australian Government
provided $1 million over 2013-14 and 2014-15 to the Partnership and has committed a
further $0.6 million over 2015-16 and 2016-17. The Australian Government
acknowledges the importance of genuine stakeholder engagement and the need to build
public confidence.
The Australian Government notes the need for coordinated monitoring and reporting
within the Gladstone region and commits to working with the Partnership to progress
these issues in an integrated way with other monitoring and reporting activities.
Recommendation for industry
The Australian Government notes the Review’s finding that voluntary compliance audits
are positive measures and should be encouraged (Recommendation 14). The Australian
Government also notes that the ports industry (through its association, Ports Australia)
has been pro-active in promoting best practice dredging principles, including through a
recent report Dredging and Australian Ports: Subtropical and Tropical Ports7.
PART B: AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE BUND
WALL AT THE PORT OF GLADSTONE
The Independent Review of the Bund Wall at the Port of Gladstone was primarily
focused on events which occurred between June 2011 and July 2012. The Review
made a number of recommendations relevant to the Australian Government’s
compliance and enforcement capacity. Since 2012, the Australian Government
Department of the Environment has been developing a comprehensive business
improvement programme to improve and enhance its compliance and enforcement
capability. A number of these business improvement initiatives are identified in this
response, including:
7
Dredging and Australian Ports: Subtropical and tropical Ports, April 2014,
http://www.portsaustralia.com.au/assets/Publications/Dredge-Report-Low-Res.pdf
12

in 2012, implementing the Compliance and Enforcement Management System to
track and coordinate investigations and intelligence gathering;

in 2013, implementing a risk-based case-prioritisation model, based on the
Australian Crime Commission practice, to focus investigations on highest-risk cases;

in 2014, developing a risk-based prioritisation model, with the assistance of the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and based on the
practice of the Australian Tax Office, to focus the Department’s monitoring activities
on those approved projects posing the highest risk;

in 2014, enhancing the Department’s assessments and approvals database to
enable more accurate monitoring and reporting of approval decisions;

in 2014, updating 63 standard operating procedures to ensure a systematic
approach to the Department’s compliance and enforcement activities

in 2014, published the 2014-15 Annual Compliance Monitoring Plan which informs
the regulated community, co-regulators and other stakeholders of the Department of
the Environment’s achievements in 2013–14, and objectives in 2014–15, for its
compliance monitoring activities;

in 2014, published the Environmental Management Plan Guidelines and the Annual
Compliance Report Guidelines to assist approvals holders to meet their Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 conditional requirements; and

in 2014 progressing bilateral arrangements for improved environmental assessment
processes with the Queensland Government.
Implementation of the Australian Government Department of the Environment’s
comprehensive business improvement programme was completed by July 2014.
Recommendations for the Australian Government
Recommendations that have already been accepted
The Review made a number of recommendations regarding the process for monitoring
major projects approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999. The review recommended that the Australian Government
Department of the Environment’s record-keeping practices should be improved to
ensure the integrity of the compliance and enforcement system, including adequate
written justification for decisions about whether or not a breach of conditions has
occurred (Recommendation 13). It also recommended that internal processes within the
Australian Government Department of the Environment should ensure that the advice of
compliance officers relating to the measurability and enforceability of conditions is fully
considered, with adequate justification being recorded when that advice is not accepted
(Recommendation 15).
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation and is well placed to have
implemented this recommendation within the current Compliance and Enforcement
business improvement programme.
13
The Review recommended that resource levels within the Australian Government
Department of the Environment should be sufficient to ensure adequate monitoring
capacity, including for active participation in post-approval technical committees
(Recommendation 14) and that increased resourcing being applied to monitoring and
compliance in the Department of the Environment should be maintained as a matter of
priority (Recommendation 18).
The Australian Government agrees with these recommendations. Since August 2011,
there has been a significant increase in the Department of the Environment’s approvals
monitoring capacity from 10 to the current level of around 25 staff. Oversight of
approved projects and internal processes within the Department has undergone
significant business improvement measures. During 2014 the monitoring and
compliance of approved projects has moved to a risk-based prioritisation model,
focusing the Department’s monitoring activities on those approved projects posing the
highest risk to Matters of National Environmental Significance. The risk-based model
provides the Department with the capability to develop quantitative risk tools, including
prioritisation matrices, and enables the identification and regular review of relevant risk
factors for approved projects.
Recommendation 17 states that for major projects either currently implemented or under
regulatory assessment, consideration should be given to establishing joint arrangements
across jurisdictions to work cooperatively to ensure seamless compliance monitoring.
The report also recommends the Australian and Queensland governments should
endeavour to align their respective conditions of approval to the maximum extent
possible, particularly in terms of defining the extent, severity and duration of acceptable
impacts and stating where no impacts are acceptable (Recommendation 5).
The Australian Government agrees with these recommendations in principle and is
progressing arrangements for improved environmental assessment processes with the
Queensland Government. The objectives of these arrangements are to:

ensure high standards are maintained for the protection of the environment and, in
particular, Matters of National Environmental Significance;

promote the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources;

ensure an efficient, timely and effective process for environmental assessment of
actions; and

remove unnecessary duplication in the environmental assessment processes of the
Australian and Queensland governments.
An amended assessment bilateral agreement between the Australian Government and
the Queensland Government was signed on 18 December 2014.
For large and complex developments in sensitive marine environments such as
Gladstone Harbour, the Review recommended that governments and proponents should
implement a single integrated monitoring framework that encapsulates reference, longterm and management monitoring sites with clear reporting requirements and decision
pathways (Recommendation 11).
14
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation and undertook a strategic
assessment with the Queensland Government to understand landscape scale impacts
so a much broader set of actions can be considered. The assessment is assisting the
Australian and Queensland governments identify, plan for and manage existing and
emerging risks to ensure ongoing protection and management of the unique
environmental values in the area.
Recommendations that relate to improvements in the environmental assessment
process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Several recommendations in the Review relate to the assessment and approval of
projects under both Queensland legislation and the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These recommendations include that the Australian
and Queensland governments:

Ensure that the status of water quality management plans are effectively and
efficiently managed and communicated to relevant advisory bodies and the general
public (Recommendation 7); and that high-quality background environmental data
should be recognised as critical environmental infrastructure and its acquisition and
maintenance be a high priority (Recommendation 8).

Give consideration to the development of spring and neap tide criteria in tropical
coastal systems, either as a replacement for the seasonal criteria or to provide an
additional level of assurance (Recommendation 9) and that governments and
proponents clearly communicate the location and purpose of water quality
monitoring sites to the general public (Recommendation 10).

Ensure proponents of major projects better inform community understanding of what
conditions of approval mean, what might constitute a breach of conditions and when
enforcement action might be taken (Recommendation 12). The Australian
Government should establish clear protocols to provide greater confidence in
industry-collected data and information for decision making and environmental
oversight (Recommendation 19).
The Review made a further recommendation that project expansion should trigger a
requirement to both reconsider cumulative impacts and avoid regulatory fragmentation,
and noted that relevant powers exist in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 to require referral of a larger action and to reconsider a decision
(Recommendation 16).
The Australian Government agrees with these recommendations, noting that referred
projects vary in nature substantially. The relevant aspects of these recommendations will
be used to inform the assessment of future projects as appropriate.
The increased use of standardised conditions has led to greater transparency and
confidence in industry through mandatory reporting being published on the proponents’
website. Information sharing through regulatory bodies has also been improved through
the memorandum of understanding with the Queensland Government allowing for
consistent assessment criteria and data collection.
15
Technical recommendations that relate specifically to Bund Wall construction
For construction of bund walls in coastal environments with high geological and/or
geomorphic variation, the Review recommended that governments should require
proponents to explicitly assess the risk of piping and implement appropriate controls
(Recommendation 1); and to ensure that potential impacts on sediment transport from
the construction phase of a bund wall be understood prior to final approval
(Recommendation 3).
The Australian Government agrees with these recommendations and recognises their
specificity to projects involving bund walls. While each project referred under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is different, this advice
can be applied to future referrals relevant to construction of reclamation area bund walls
in coastal environments.
Recommendations for the Queensland Government
The Review made a number of recommendations relevant to the Queensland
Government relating to establishing joint regulatory arrangements. The Review
recommended that consideration should be given to establishing joint arrangements
across jurisdictions to work cooperatively to ensure seamless compliance monitoring
(Recommendation 17). The Review also recommended the Australian and Queensland
governments should endeavour to align their respective conditions of approval to the
maximum extent possible, particularly in terms of defining the extent, severity and
duration of acceptable impacts and stating where no impacts are acceptable
(Recommendation 5).
As noted above the Australian Government agrees to these recommendations in
principle and is progressing arrangements for improved environmental assessment
processes with the Queensland Government, including aligning respective conditions of
approval.
The Australian Government is committed to working with the Queensland Government
through this process as well as through the strategic assessment, the Reef 2050 Plan
and other planning processes.
Recommendations for Industry
Recommendation 2 of the Review states that for constructions of bund walls in coastal
environments any geotextile materials designed to filter sediment should: be placed on
the inner bund wall material and then be overlaid and secured by core material; be
keyed into the rock armour material to prevent slippage and deformation from occurring
prior to placement of the core material; and be laid on the bund wall such that no
wrinkles, gaps, folds or deformations occur in the material, with all joints sewn to create
seams and to conform to the requirements of Australian Standards 3706: Geotextiles –
Methods of Test. Overlaps in the fabric should be directed vertically down the slope of
the armour material.
It also recommended future water quality management plans should aim to address all
condition/permit requirements within a single internally consistent document. Where this
is not feasible or practical, plans should explicitly explain the relationships between the
16
different approvals/permits and how and where they are addressed
(Recommendation 6).
Recommendation 4 of the Review states that Gladstone Ports Corporation, its
contractors and the Queensland and Australian governments should publish in the peerreviewed literature the lessons from an engineering perspective on the construction of
the bund wall to inform future design and impact assessment.
The Australian Government notes these recommendations and, where appropriate, will
work closely with industry and their consultants to achieve these. A mechanism for the
Australian Government to influence industry in the implementation of these
recommendations is through the approval of management plans which are often
required by environmental approval conditions.
17
ATTACHMENT A: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE PORT OF GLADSTONE RECOMMENDATIONS
Gladstone Independent Review Recommendations
Category
Recommendation 1. That the Minister publicly releases
this Report on Findings and allow for responses to be
received and considered in formulating the Australian
Government’s response.
Recommendation 2. That the Australian Government
continue to refine and improve guidance and procedural
requirements for protection of the Outstanding Universal
Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area in
response to increased understanding and other advances
in relevant science.
Recommendation 3. That the Australian Government
promote a consistent approach to presenting and assessing
world heritage impact information and investigate the
development of impact thresholds and targets for attributes
of Outstanding Universal Value.
Recommendation 4. That the Australian Government
make EPBC approval recommendation reports publicly
available through the department’s website.
Recommendation 5. That the Australian Government
reaffirm its position against mining exploration and
exploitation within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area.
Recommendation 6. That the Australian Government
implement an effective information management system for
sea dumping permits and subject the information to the
same level of transparency as assessments under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999.
Recommendation 7. That the Australian Government build
on the offsets policy launched in October 2012 and
establish a list of appropriate offsets for the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area.
Recommendation 8. That the Queensland Government not
declare any more State Development Areas within or
adjoining the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
without detailed consideration of impacts to world heritage
values and robust consultation, including with the Australian
Government.
Recommendation 9. That the Queensland Government
and the Gladstone Ports Corporation consistently delineate
between different port areas in their plans (particularly
between the Port of Rockhampton and the Port of
Gladstone) and include greater explanation in their public
consultation processes.
Recommendation 10. That a single master plan be
developed for the whole of the Port of Gladstone, including
strategic port land and the State Development Area, with
full stakeholder engagement and fully considering
18
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Australian
Government
Response
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
Principle
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Queensland
Government.
Noted
Recommendations
for the Queensland
Government.
Noted
Recommendations
for the Queensland
Government.
Noted
Agree
Gladstone Independent Review Recommendations
protection of environment and world heritage values in
identifying areas for future expansion.
Recommendation 11. That the Australian and Queensland
Governments ensure that the health and contaminant levels
in green turtles from Gladstone and suitable control
populations are monitored.
Recommendation 12. That, if the ERMP process does not
collect comprehensive population information for dugong
and dolphins within the sub-region of the southern Great
Barrier Reef that contains the Port of Gladstone, this
information be considered as a priority for the Gladstone
Healthy Harbour Partnership.
Recommendation 13. That the Queensland Government
continue to address and respond to the recommendations
of the Fish Health Panel, specifically that future studies be
undertaken to understand cause-effect relationships of fish
health and environmental factors.
Recommendation 14. That proponents of developments
within the Port of Gladstone ensure that any voluntary
independent audits are conducted consistent with best
practice standards and seek to obtain the department’s
agreement to the criteria.
Recommendation 15. That all confirmed cases of noncompliance be publicly announced on both the
department’s and proponent’s website along with details of
any remedial actions.
Recommendation 16. That the Australian Government
continues to engage in and support the establishment of the
Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.
Recommendation 17. That, if the projected Gladstone
Healthy Harbour Partnership funding arrangements are not
realised and the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership is
unable to form, an alternative community engagement,
monitoring and reporting model be established to address
these functions.
Recommendation 18. That, as dredging operations
transition from capital to maintenance works, monitoring
and reporting be continued in a transparent and consistent
manner.
Recommendation 19. That the Australian Government
review the ERMP to determine whether a revised model
may better meet the intent of the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 approval.
Recommendation 20. That the Australian Government
(including the department and the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority) develop a coordinated approach for
19
Category
Australian
Government
Response
Recommendations
that relate to the
Gladstone Healthy
Harbours
Partnership
Recommendations
that relate to the
Gladstone Healthy
Harbours
Partnership
Noted
Recommendations
for the Queensland
Government.
Noted
Recommendation
for industry
Noted
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
Principle
Recommendations
that relate to the
Gladstone Healthy
Harbours
Partnership
Recommendations
that relate to the
Gladstone Healthy
Harbours
Partnership
Agree
Recommendations
that relate to the
Gladstone Healthy
Harbours
Partnership
Recommendations
that relate to the
Gladstone Healthy
Harbours
Partnership
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Noted
Noted
Agree
Noted
Agree in
principle
Gladstone Independent Review Recommendations
active engagement in post-approval advisory and technical
bodies.
Recommendation 21. That Traditional Owners be
supported to design and conduct a comprehensive study to
identify and register cultural heritage sites within the Port of
Gladstone and surrounds.
Recommendation 22. That the Australian Government
develop clear policy and guidelines for proponents and
decision makers to promote active engagement and
involvement of Traditional Owners and local communities in
proposals that may impact on Outstanding Universal Value.
Recommendation 23. That the Australian Government
inform future decision making by investigating realised
social, cultural and economic impacts of development in the
Port of Gladstone against impacts predicted in EIS
documentation.
20
Category
Australian
Government
Response
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
ATTACHMENT B: SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT – BEST PRACTICE
PRINCIPLES
Gladstone Independent Review Supplementary Report
Category
Overarching
Planning
Environmental
Assessment and
Decision Making
Monitoring and
Reporting
Principle
1. The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area should be an intrinsic consideration in all aspects of environmental
management and governance of ports in the Great Barrier Reef region.
2. Meaningful engagement strategies should be implemented throughout
planning and operational processes so that all stakeholders can be aware of
environmental condition and progress in achieving a shared vision.
3. Relevant information used in decision-making should be freely accessible in
a timely manner.
4. Environmental management and governance should be objective,
transparent and informed by best available knowledge.
5. Port planning and operations should be reviewed and improved regularly,
informed by advances in technology and knowledge.
6. Existing developed footprints within port areas should be optimised to the
greatest extent possible prior to expansion into greenfield sites, including
through the consolidation and sharing of infrastructure.
7. Port plans should specifically identify and address environmental objectives,
including the maintenance of the Outstanding Universal Value of the
GBRWHA, and the plans should be subject to risk-based environmental
assessments.
8. Planning and management solutions should be site specific and fit for
purpose within the local and regional environmental and social context,
including having regard to cumulative pressures.
9. Individual port plans should be consistent with regional, state and national
port and freight logistics plans within a long-term shared vision.
10. Port master plans should encompass the entire extent of port limits and
adjoining land likely to be associated with port development and operation.
11. Planning criteria and option analysis should be risk based, documented
and publicly available, including economic, social and environmental
considerations.
12. Ports should implement incentive schemes to encourage use of the best
available environmental technology and operational practice.
13. A consistent, robust and transparent integrated modelling and decision
support framework should be available to stakeholders and regulators.
14. Environmental assessment and decision-making should be based on a
whole-of-system understanding of the receiving environment and impacts of
cumulative pressures.
15. Environmental offsets should be strategic, measurable and in place prior to
impacts occurring, while aiming for a net environmental gain.
16. Decision-making and development approvals should be consistent with port
planning and a shared vision for the region.
17. Appropriate indicators, thresholds and methods for monitoring ecological
health should be identified through a risk-based whole-of-system approach and
consistent with a regional integrated monitoring framework.
18. Adequate capacity should be maintained in port areas to prevent, detect
and rapidly respond to significant environmental incidents such as marine pest
species incursions and oil spills.
21
Gladstone Independent Review Supplementary Report
Compliance and
Enforcement
19. Compliance with regulatory controls should be monitored and the results
published regularly, including in the event of an infringement.
20. Performance against port planning and environmental objectives should be
regularly assessed and publicly reported.
21. Penalties for non-compliance should be sufficient to deter infringements.
22
ATTACHMENT C: INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE BUND WALL AT THE
PORT OF GLADSTONE - RECOMMENDATIONS
Bund wall Independent Review Recommendations
Category
Australian
Government
Response
Design, Construction and Functioning of the outer bund wall
Recommendation 1. For the construction of bund walls in
coastal environments with high geological and/or geomorphic
variation, governments should require proponents to explicitly
assess the risk of piping and to implement appropriate
controls.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendation 2. For constructions of bund walls in
coastal environments, any geotextile materials designed to
filter sediment should:
• be placed on the inner bund wall material and then be
overlaid and secured by core material
• be keyed into the rock armour material to prevent slippage
and deformation from occurring prior to placement of the core
material
• be laid on the bund wall such that no wrinkles, gaps, folds or
deformations occur in the material, with all joints sewn to
create seams and to conform to the requirements of
Australian Standards 3706: Geotextiles – Methods of Test.
Overlaps in the fabric should be directed vertically down the
slope of the armour material.
Recommendations
for industry
Noted
Recommendation 3. Governments should require
proponents of bund wall structures to ensure that potential
impacts on sediment transport from the construction phase of
a bund wall be understood prior to final approval.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendation 4. Gladstone Ports Corporation, its
contractors and the Queensland and Australian governments
should publish in the peer-reviewed literature the lessons
from an engineering perspective on the construction of the
bund wall to inform future design and impact assessment.
Recommendations
for Industry
Noted
Recommendation 5. The Australian and Queensland
governments should endeavour to align their respective
Conditions of Approval to the maximum extent possible,
particularly in terms of defining the extent, severity and
duration of acceptable impacts and stating where no impacts
are acceptable.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
23
Recommendations
for the Queensland
Government
Bund wall Independent Review Recommendations
Category
Australian
Government
Response
Design, Construction and Functioning of the outer bund wall
Recommendation 6. Future water quality management plans
should aim to address all condition/permit requirements within
a single internally consistent document. Where this is not
feasible or practical, plans should explicitly explain the
relationships between the different approvals/permits and
how and where they are addressed.
Recommendations
for industry
Noted
Recommendation 7. The Australian and Queensland
governments and project proponents should ensure that the
status of water quality management plans and any revisions
therein are effectively and efficiently managed and
communicated to relevant advisory bodies and the general
public.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
Recommendation 8. High-quality background environmental
data should be recognised as critical environmental
infrastructure and its acquisition and maintenance be a high
priority for the Australian and Queensland governments.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendation 9. Consideration should be given by the
Australian and Queensland governments to the development
of spring and neap tide criteria in tropical coastal systems,
either as a replacement for the seasonal criteria or to provide
an additional level of assurance.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendation 10. Governments and proponents should
clearly communicate the location and purpose of water quality
monitoring sites to the general public.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendation 11. For large and complex developments
in sensitive marine environments such as Gladstone Harbour,
governments and proponents should implement a single
integrated monitoring framework that encapsulates reference,
long-term and management monitoring sites with clear
reporting requirements and decision pathways.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendation 12. The Australian Government (and state
governments where relevant) should ensure proponents of
major projects better inform community understanding of
what conditions of approval mean, what might constitute a
breach of conditions and when enforcement action might be
taken.
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
24
Bund wall Independent Review Recommendations
Category
Australian
Government
Response
Design, Construction and Functioning of the outer bund wall
Recommendation 13. Australian Government recordkeeping practices should be improved to ensure the integrity
of the compliance and enforcement system, including
adequate written justification for decisions about whether or
not a breach of conditions has occurred.
Recommendation 14. Resource levels within the
Department of the Environment should be sufficient to ensure
adequate monitoring capacity, including for active
participation in post-approval technical committees.
Recommendation 15. Internal processes within the
Department of the Environment should ensure that the advice
of compliance officers relating to the measurability and
enforceability of conditions is fully considered, with adequate
justification being recorded when that advice is not accepted.
Recommendation 16. Project expansion should trigger a
requirement to both reconsider cumulative impacts and avoid
regulatory fragmentation. Relevant powers exist in the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 to require referral of a larger action and to reconsider a
decision.
Recommendation 17. For major projects either currently
implemented or under regulatory assessment, consideration
should be given to establishing joint arrangements across
jurisdictions to work cooperatively to ensure seamless
compliance monitoring.
Recommendation 18. Increased resourcing being applied to
monitoring and compliance in the Department of the
Environment should be maintained as a matter of priority.
Recommendation 19. The Australian Government should
establish clear protocols to provide greater confidence in
industry-collected data and information for decision making
and environmental oversight, through a process involving
peak industry and professional bodies, publicly funded
research agencies, universities, state governments and
environmental non-government organisations.
25
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle
Recommendations
for the Queensland
Government
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree
Recommendations
for the Australian
Government.
Agree in
principle