"Stop Adani" convoy gets good reception as it passes through the NSW Northern Rivers region

Supporters at Ferry Park, Maclean, on Pacific Highway heading north
Photo: The Daily Examiner online

The Daily Examiner, 22 April 2019, p.4:

Protesters came out in support of the anti-Adani convoy as it made its way through the Clarence Valley yesterday.

Up to 180 cars, many of them electric, decorated in “Stop Adani” paraphernalia made their way along the Pacific Highway as part of a two-week campaign, organised by conservationist Bob Brown, to stop the proposed Carmichael coal mine.

Karen von Ahlefeldt said many in the convoy stopped for a chat and were “boosted” by the show of support.

“A lot of people standing there wished they could be on the convoy, this was a good chance for them to be part of it,” Ms von Ahlefeldt said.

Clarence Valley Councillor and Greens party member Greg Clancy stood at South Grafton waving on the cars as they made their way north.

“Politicians are not listening, and some of the public don’t understand,” Cr Clancy said.

“They think it is jobs, we need coal, but we don’t, we are phasing it out. Coal is not the future, it is the past.”

He said it was unthinkable to “dig up more of the Galilee Basin” and the proposed coal mine would be “contributing to climate change”.

Cr Clancy said movements such as the convoy were important steps to making change.

“Bob Brown has said this is going to be another Franklin River issue,” he said.

“People are not going to stand by. There will be protests, there will be arrests, it will be big.”

“You just have to look at how many vehicles have gone past today to know it’s going to be big.”

Mr Clancy called on politicians to commit to oppose the Queensland mine ahead of the federal election next month.

Listen up @billshortenmp and @ScottMorrisonMP - we’re heading headfirst for climate catastrophe. @BobBrownFndn leads the #stopadaniconvoy up to Galilee Basin. Here we are at #mullumbimby for the 2nd rally of the day, with an incredible turnout. #auspol pic.twitter.com/fYDwOSDHZZ

— Ellen Kirkwood (@Nelled) April 21, 2019

In the face of grave concerns Morrison Government pushes through Adani mining consent ahead of the 18 May general election, CSIRO rolls over & Geoscience lets the cat out of the bag

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) attempts to avoid embarrassing the Morrison Coalition Government on the day it announced a federal election date:

CSIRO Statement, 11 April 2019:

In late 2018 and early 2019 CSIRO and Geoscience Australia wrote two reports for the Federal Government on specific questions on groundwater monitoring, management and modelling planned by Adani Pty Ltd for its Carmichael mine proposal in central Queensland.

This advice was limited to answering discrete inquiries on whether elements of Adani's proposed plans would be adequate to protect nationally significant environmental assets.

CSIRO identified inadequacies in the plans and was subsequently asked to review Adani's response to the recommendations CSIRO made to address the issues raised, as summarised by the Department of the Environment and Energy. Adani had committed to address the modelling limitations identified by the CSIRO and GA review in a groundwater model re-run to be undertaken within two years.

CSIRO considered that this commitment satisfied its recommendations, while also acknowledging there were still some issues that need to be addressed in future approvals, particularly confirming the source of the ecologically-important Doongmabulla Springs.

CSIRO has provided robust, peer-reviewed science on specific groundwater modelling-related questions about the plans. CSIRO's role is to provide scientific advice to inform approval processes, but it does not have any role in making approval decisions.

The public broadcaster reports in greater detail and with less reticence when detailing facts of the matter…….

ABC News, 18 April 2019:

Handwritten documents obtained by the ABC appear to directly contradict the Environment Minister Melissa Price that Adani "accepted in full" changes sought by scientists to limit the impact of its controversial Queensland coal mine.

Announcing her decision to approve Adani's water management plans for its Carmichael mine earlier this month, Ms Price said Adani "accepted in full" advice from the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison also maintained the Government would "make all decisions based on the expert advice from ... Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO".

"We have always been following the advice of the scientists and we'll continue to do that," he said.

The advice was provided in a damning review in February of the company's plans.

But documents provided to the ABC showed Adani refused to accept key scientific findings and recommendations about its water management plans.

The ABC has obtained notes taken by three attendees of a phone hook up on April 5 involving senior officials from the Department of Environment and Energy and staff from Geoscience Australia.

The documents show the government science agency was concerned the water plans could allow Adani's mine to breach the conditions of its environment approval.

However, Adani would not accept the need for corrective action if that occurred.

The notes said that Adani refused to:

• acknowledge the scientists' key finding that the model Adani used to estimate the mine's impacts was not fit for purpose;
• accept that a new model could show that the mine's impacts would breach environmental approvals; and
• commit to corrective action if the new model showed greater impacts on the environment than Adani had claimed would occur.

A separate briefing note from the Department of Environment and Energy shows Adani also refused to consider scaling back its mining operation to minimise its impacts, despite being asked to do so.

The ABC requested the meeting notes under freedom of information (FOI) laws, but Geoscience Australia took the unusual step of releasing the documents immediately instead.

The briefing happened after the Department of Environment and Energy had already advised the Minister to approve the plans, which had been finalised the previous month.

One set of notes was taken by Geoscience Australia chief Dr James Johnson, another by head of environmental geoscience Dr Stuart Minchin, and the third by senior executive Dr Richard Blewett.

A handwritten note by Dr Blewett mentions concerns held by Jane Coram, the head of CSIRO's land and water division.

She complained the science agencies had "not seen the revised plan" set to be approved, and that they were expected to take the summary of it at "face value".

After the meeting, Ms Price published a statement announcing, "Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO have provided written assurances that these steps address their recommendations."

A spokesman for Ms Price said she was not present at the meeting.

"Decisions were made between the department officers, Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO on the proper scientific assessment of the issues and no other factor," the spokesman said.

But the notes show the scientific agencies were asked by the Minister's department to give formal assurances that Adani's commitments met their concerns in language acceptable to the Government.

"Gov[ernment] is keen for assurance," the notes taken by CEO of Geoscience Australia, James Johnson said.

"Ideal for gov[ernment]: letter from me to [Mr Finn Pratt] saying based on extensive briefing from [Department of Environment and Energy] on Adani addresses the concerns raised."

Fin Pratt is the head of the Department of Environment and Energy.

In his handwritten notes of the meeting, Mr Johnson said the Government was keen for an assurance "based on discussion briefing" from the department, but he scribbled that out and changed it to "based on extensive briefing".

The Minister subsequently published a letter from Mr Johnson to Mr Pratt saying: "Thank you for the extensive briefing ... Based on this briefing Geoscience Australia is of the view that Adani have addressed the issues and concerns raised in our recommendations."

Ms Price's spokesman told the ABC no pressure was placed on the science agencies.

"Any suggestion of pressure in that process is rejected in the strongest possible terms and is insulting to the integrity of the experts concerned," he said.

Adani said in a statement it could not comment on the content of the documents.

"Adani was not privy to internal briefing documents or discussions that the Federal Department of Environment and Energy may have provided to Geoscience Australia and CSIRO, consequently we are unable to comment as to their contents."

'Advice to Adani that they refused'

The briefing notes listed in point form the "advice to Adani that they refused".

These included a recommendation Adani acknowledge their modelling "is not fit for purpose" and that a "new model could revise impacts [to be] greater than [what] has been approved".

"So told Adani — if new model shows greater impact than current model, they have to sort it out [with] corrective [actions]", the notes said.

"They refused."

Before the verbal briefing to Geoscience Australia, the Department Environment and Energy prepared a summary of Adani's response to concerns raised by Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO, which was provided to the two agencies.

The summary was published by the Department of Environment and Energy.

That document shows Adani declined to commit to a reduced mine plan, or to cutting back coal extraction, as suggested by the Department Environment and Energy in response to the damning report on its groundwater management model and plans by Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO.

It also shows Adani negotiated compromise outcomes in response to some of the scientists' concerns and rejected other measures that the two agencies sought.

There were gaps between what was included in that document and what was apparently outlined in the verbal briefing to Geoscience Australia staff.

The notes of the verbal briefing the department gave to the scientists said that Adani committed to a "maximum timetable of three months" for conducting an investigation if water use limits were triggered — a demand of both CSIRO and Geoscience Australia.

In fact, the response Adani formally agreed to is less watertight: "If the groundwater level thresholds exceedance is because of authorised mining activities, the investigation will be prioritised and, depending on the nature of the impact, completed within three months."

Adani told the ABC it was not provided directly with the advice by CSIRO and Geoscience Australia until after the Government approved the plans. Instead it responded to summaries made by the Department of Environment and Energy.

Minister faced intense pressure to approve mine

Ms Price faced intense pressure from her own side of politics to approve Adani's water management plans before the federal election was called.

Queensland LNP Senator James McGrath warned he would publicly call for Ms Price's resignation unless she did the "right thing" by Adani, and Queensland's LNP executive condemned what it called her "delay" in approval.

In the wake of the Federal Government's sign-off on the water management plans, Adani is pressing the Queensland Government to complete a series of other, state-based approvals that are needed before mining can commence.

When Ms Price announced that she had approved the water management plans — just one working day after CSIRO and Geoscience Australia were briefed on Adani's responses to their concerns — the Environment Minister said:

"I have accepted the scientific advice and therefore approved the groundwater management plans for the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Infrastructure project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

"Both CSIRO and Geoscience Australia have confirmed the revised plans meet strict scientific requirements."

The Queensland Government is yet to approve construction as it seeks to protect a colony of black-throated finches around the mine site.

Even if construction is fully signed off, the project still requires more approvals to be granted from the Queensland and Commonwealth governments before coal can be dug out of the ground.

In an official statement to the ABC, a spokesperson for Geoscience Australia said it stood by their earlier statement that Adani's actions addressed the concerns raised in their technical advice.

"Adani did not acknowledge our advice that their groundwater model was not fit for purpose, and indicated they would not revise the model in the short term," the spokesperson said.

They said despite that, additional monitoring and mitigation Adani did agree to do satisfied their concerns.

Geoscience Australia said it was not pressured to provide the Government assurance.

The United Nations has taken a position on Adani Group mining consents after the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Council put their case to this international body last year and, it has asked the Australian Government not to proceed with granting consents until after the High Court appeal by this traditional owners group is heard in May 2019. 

A request the Morrison Government saw fit to ignore.

Norway needs to withdraw its majority-owned petroleum mining company from the Great Australian Bight

Plans to drill in the middle of the Great Australian Bight have led to a fierce battle, as a Norwegian Energy giant faces off with Aussie surfers, environmentalists and fishermen. #TheProjectTV pic.twitter.com/2ppO02m0or

— The Project (@theprojecttv) April 8, 2019

 ABC News, 12 March 2019:

A Norwegian MP has called for a state-owned Norwegian oil and gas company not to start drilling in the Great Australian Bight, while a scientist says noise from the project could hurt marine life.

The Norwegian Government has a 67 per cent majority stake in Equinor, which wants to start searching for oil off the coast of South Australia at a depth of almost 2.5 kilometres by the end of 2020.

It needs approval from the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority.

MP Kristoffer Robin Haug addressed the Norwegian Parliament last week and said going ahead with the project could see Norway become the enemy.

"Will the [Petroleum and Energy] Minister use this power as a majority shareholder in Equinor to instruct their company to stop their oil exploration in the Bight?" he asked.

Fight For The Bight, April 2019:

New research from The Australia Institute shows that 60% of Australians are opposed to drilling for oil in the Great Australian Bight, while the rate of opposition amongst South Australians is even higher at 68%.

The first ever national poll on the issue found that only one in five Australians, and 16% of South Australians, support drilling in the Bight, while more than two thirds of Australians want to see the area given World Heritage protection.

The poll also found there is greater support, both nationwide and in SA, for ending coal, gas and oil exploration across Australia than there is for allowing it to continue.

“The Great Australian Bight is a national treasure and now we know that people across the country want to see it protected from exploitation,” said Noah Schultz-Byard, The Australia Institute’s SA projects manager.

“Equinor and the other oil giants looking to drill in the Great Australian Bight are attempting to do so in direct opposition to the wishes of the Australian people.

“We’ve known for some time that the Great Australian Bight holds a special place in the hearts of South Australians, but this research has shown that opposition to exploiting the Bight exists across the country.

The Norwegian Greens Party has also adopted the Australian Greens slogan "Fight for the Bight".

South Australian Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Mr Haug's speech showed the fight was now receiving international attention.

"This is starting to cause problems and waves overseas," Senator Hanson-Young said.

"People are questioning why Australia would put at risk our beautiful pristine areas.

"This is a whale sanctuary. This is an untouched wonderland. Why would we put this at risk?"….

Protesters took to Encounter Bay this morning to protest against oil drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

See https://www.facebook.com/abcadelaide/videos/2538309232876968/

Who will be to blame if Essential Energy cuts down koala trees in Lawrence, NSW?

Koala habitat within Lawrence, NSW

Essential Energy is a NSW state-owned corporation supplying ‘poles and wire’ infrastructure to communities on the North Coast.

One of those communities is the small village of Lawrence on the Lower Clarence River.

An attractive feature of living in this village is that it is one of the ever diminishing small regional/rural urban areas which still have resident koalas.

Koalas like this one sitting in a tree line marked by Essential Energy for felling.

Photograph of Lawrence koala supplied

Koala mid-canopy & circled in black
Photograph supplied

Apparently those surveying the short new route for a section of poles and wires in Lawrence neglected to look up into the trees – what else can explain the fact that known koala trees have been marked for destruction?

So who is it that employs such incredibly blind staff?

Well Essential Energy has a Board of Directors (very comfortably remunerated from $60,600 up to $764,200 pa) and all apparently living far from this particular group of koalas.

These board members are:

Patricia McKenzie – Chair, Non-Executive Director

Robyn Clubb – Non-Executive Director

Jennifer Douglas – Non-Executive Director

John Fletcher – Non-Executive Director

Peter Garling – Non-Executive Director

Patrick Strange – Non-Executive Director

Diane Elert – Non-Executive Director

John Cleland – CEO and Executive Director.

The shareholders are represented by the NSW Treasurer and Minister for Finance, Services and Property. Current Treasurer is MP for Epping Dominic Perrottet.

With the exception of the Treasurer all these people belong to what might be called the professional directors class and, between them are associated with a number of other businesses and a research facility:

APA Group, Health Direct Australia,

Australian Wool Exchange Ltd, Craig Moyston Group Ltd, Elders Ltd, NSW Primary Industries Ministerial Advisory Council, Rice Marketing Board of NSW,
Hansen Technologies Limited, Opticomm Pty Ltd, Peter MacCullum Cancer Foundation,

Charter Hall Funds Management Limited, Charter Hall Limited, Energy Group Limited, Downer EDI Limited, Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Limited, Tellus Holdings Limited,

Auckland International Airport Limited. Chorus Limited, Mercury Energy, NZX Limited.

Annotated image; photograph supplied

A fair number of people in Lawrence have told Essential Energy that they want these koala trees to be left standing and the corporation states it has taken its plan under review.

So if Essential Energy does decide these koala trees are to be cut down in the next few months, don’t blame the men with chainsaws, blame these eight professional directors and the successive NSW Coalition governments who appointed them - from the O'Farrell Government in 2013 through to the Berejiklian Government in 2018.

Because state government is clearly appointing directors who cannot even ensure that Essential Energy’s environmental policy (for which they are responsible) is comprehensive and actually mentions vulnerable and threatened flora and fauna.

It is a policy which (aside from a brief mention of greenhouse gas emission reduction) fails to give clear direction to staff, given there is only a single broadly worded line in its 12 point health, safety & environmental policy to cover all manner of environmental issues ie., "Comply with relevant legislation, regulations, standards, codes, licences and commitments"

These directors appear so divorced from real life that they apparently never thought that their regional/rural staff need to be trained to look up into tree canopies before they decide to mark a tree line for destruction.

The bottom line is that the Koala as a species is at risk of localised extinction across the areas in which populations still survive and, sadly is at risk of total extinction across the entire country by as early as 2050 if  those in positions of power continue to be deliberately blind to the fate of this Australian icon.

More fish kills predicted along the Darling/Barka River

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 March 2019:

Residents at Menindee are bracing for a fourth mass fish kill in the Darling River in about three months, as a new paper finds water savings in the Murray Darling Basin may be just one-tenth the amount modelled.

The NSW Department of Primary Industries has warned the arrival of a cold front after another heatwave in the region this week posed a "high risk" of another bout of widespread fish deaths.

Possibly millions of fish, mostly bony herring but also endangered perch and Murray cod, were killed in the three previous events. A sudden drop in dissolved oxygen levels - as blue-green algae died and began decaying - was the prompt for the previous fish kills.

"They're super-stressed. It takes less [to kill the fish]," Graeme McCrabb, a Menindee resident, said on Tuesday. "The numbers of golden and silver perch and the cods got less [during each die-off]."

Separately, a report published in the Australasian Journal of Water Resources by John Williams and Quentin Grafton from the Australian National University found the $3.5 billion spent on water-saving infrastructure - such as concrete canals - may have saved 70 billion litres a year compared with the federal government's estimate of more than 10 times that figure.

Professor Grafton said their analysis showed the average cost of water recovery could be as much as $50,000 per megalitre returned to the Murray-Darling Basin every year, or about 25 times more expensive than buying the water back from willing sellers.

The key issue is the failure to measure and account for so-called return flows - the leakage of water into aquifer that ceases when irrigation becomes more efficient.

"It's a travesty for all Australians," he said. "You've spent billions of dollars and you've not measured what you've got."….

From September 2019 onwards underwater seismic blasts will rock the Great Australian Bight around the clock over a 30,100 sq kilometre area

ABC News, 15 January 2019:

Oil and gas testing is set to take place in the Great Australian Bight this year, after the national petroleum regulator granted permission to exploration company PGS.

Environmental groups have slammed the decision to allow seismic testing near Kangaroo Island and Port Lincoln, while the tuna industry has questioned whether it is even likely to go ahead.

Seismic testing involves firing soundwaves into the ocean floor to detect the presence of oil or gas reserves….

The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) granted permission for the testing to be done over a 30,100-square-kilometre area, located 80 kilometres from Port Lincoln and 90 kilometres west of Kangaroo Island.

The testing is set to take place between September and November.

The fishing industry has long had reservations about the impact seismic testing would have on the local tuna industry.

PGS has been ordered not to interfere with or displace pygmy blue whales, southern bluefin tuna, and southern right whales…..

The Wilderness Society has slammed the permit, saying the practice can deafen whales and even kill smaller marine animals.

"It's obvious that blasting massive amounts of noise constantly for months on end through a water column in a space where animals communicate and navigate and live by sound and sonar, it is obvious that this is going to have a terrible impact on those animals," the environmental group's Peter Owen said.

"I fail to see how you can actually approve this type of seismic activity in the middle of one of the most significant whale nurseries in the world.

"It's totally unacceptable."

The Greens say the seismic testing is the first step to drilling in the Great Australian Bight.

"Why on Earth would we be wanting to sink oil wells in the Great Australian Bight, put our marine life and beaches at risk and make climate change worse," senator Sarah Hanson-Young said.

"We've got to be getting out of fossil fuels and transitioning to a clean, green economy."

There has been little research into the impact of seismic testing in Australia, but Western Australian researchers have found noise from seismic air guns significantly increased mortality in scallops.

Commencing on or about 1 September 2019 for an initial period of 91 days a fofeign-owned PGS survey vessel will be operating sounding equipment 24/7 in the Bight at a seismic source pressure of est. ~2,000 pounds per square inch (psi) with the two or three arrays firing alternately every 16.67 to 25 m, each with a maximum volume of 3260in. (See Duntroon Multi-client 3D and 2D Marine Seismic Survey Environment Plan at pp.24-25).

This is what happened when such testing went ahead in the Atlantic Ocean……..

https://youtu.be/9CsHz3lesC4

Earthjustice is suing the federal government to prevent seismic testing in the Atlantic Ocean. The process involves the blasting of shockingly powerful seismic airguns every few seconds for hours or even days on end and can cripple or kill marine life in the search of offshore oil or gas deposits.

Earth Justice: because the Earth needs a good lawyer, 20 February 2019:

Earthjustice is challenging the administration’s actions in court, and on Feb. 20, we joined a coalition of other conservation groups asking a federal judge to block the start of seismic airgun blasting in the Atlantic Ocean until our case has been heard.

The tests, harmful in their own right, are just the first step in the administration’s broader plans to open up 90 percent of U.S. federal offshore waters to the fossil fuel industry, despite widespread opposition from Americans across the nation.

Future of the Murray-Darling Basin: “It’s not a political football, it’s life we’re talking about!”

https://youtu.be/R9_H9JbbIjY

Is the Great Barrier Reef not dying quickly enough for the Morrison Government and Australian Environment Minister Melissa Price? Are they trying to hasten its death?

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has been under threat from increased human activity for generations.

Sediment runoff due to land clearing and agrigultual activity, pollutants from commercial shipping, unlawful discharge of waste water from mining operations and coral bleaching due to climate change.

North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation is a port authority responsible for facilities at Weipa, Abbot Point, Mackay and Hay Point trading ports, and the non-trading port of Maryborough.

Three of these ports are in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. One of these, Hay Point is reportedly among the largest coal export points in the world.

This is what the Morrison Government's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has given this corporation permission to do.............

The Guardian, 20 February 2019:

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has approved the dumping of more than 1m tonnes of dredge spoil near the reef, using a loophole in federal laws that were supposed to protect the marine park.

The Greens senator Larissa Waters has called for the permit – which allows maintenance dredging to be carried out over 10 years at Mackay’s Hay Point port and the sludge to be dumped within the marine park’s boundaries – to be revoked.

“The last thing the reef needs is more sludge dumped on it, after being slammed by the floods recently,” Waters said. “One million tonnes of dumping dredged sludge into world heritage waters treats our reef like a rubbish tip.”

Acting on concerns from environmentalists, the federal government banned the disposal of dredge spoil near the reef in 2015. But the ban applied only to capital dredging. Maintenance work at ports – designed to remove sediment from shipping lanes as it accumulates – is not subject to it.

On 29 January the marine park authority granted conditional approval for North Queensland Bulk Ports to continue to dump maintenance dredge spoil within the park’s boundaries. The permit was issued just days before extensive flooding hit north and central Queensland, spilling large amounts of sediment into the marine environment.

Waters said the distinction between capital and maintenance dredging made little difference to the reef…..

North Queensland Bulk Ports, in a statement posted online shortly after the permit was issued, said it had to meet conditions to protect the marine environment. The ports authority said its dumping plan was peer-reviewed and considered best practice.

“Just like roads, shipping channels require maintenance to keep ports operating effectively,” the ports authority said. “Maintenance dredging involves relocating sediment which travels along the coast and accumulates over the years where our shipping operation occurs.

“Importantly, our assessment reports have found the risks to protected areas including the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and sensitive habitats are predominantly low with some temporary, short-term impacts to (bottom-dwelling) habitat possible.

“The permits allow for the long-term, sustainable management of maintenance dredging at the Port and will safeguard the efficient operations of one of Australia’s most critical trading ports.”

Maintenance dredging will begin in late March. Initial dredging will take about 40 days.

BBC, 22 February 2019:

Australia plans to dump one million tonnes of sludge in the Great Barrier Reef.

Despite strict laws on dumping waste, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) gave the go-ahead.

A loophole was found - the laws don't apply to materials generated from port maintenance work.

It comes one week after flood water from Queensland spread into the reef, which scientists say will "smother" the coral.

The industrial residue is dredged from the bottom of the sea floor near Hay Point Port - one of the world's largest coal exports and a substantial economic source for the country....

It's just "another nail in the coffin" for the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef, which is already under stress due to climate change, according to Dr Simon Boxall from the National Oceanography Centre Southampton.

"If they are dumping it over the coral reef itself, it will have quite a devastating effect. The sludge is basically blanketing over the coral.

"The coral relies on the algae, that's what give them their colour and what helps them feed - without this partnership the coral will suffer dramatically."

Dr Boxall says his worries about sludge-dumping are short-term - with the current Australian summer a time for "rapid algae growth".....

Dr Boxall says the impact will be lessened if the sludge is taken far enough offshore, but that it will still contain high amounts of harmful materials such as trace metals.

"If it's put into shallow water it will smother sea life," he says.

"It's important they get it right.

"It'll cost more money but that's not the environment's problem - that's the port authorities' problem."

Last year, Australia pledged A$500 million (£275m) to protect the Great Barrier Reef - which has lost 30% of its coral due to bleaching linked to rising sea temperatures and damage from crown-of-thorns starfish.

One of the threats listed at the time was "large amounts of sediment".