After announcing a fishing closure in Gladstone Harbour on the southern edge of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in mid-September, the Minister has appointed the “Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel” to address the escalating environmental problems in the area, following the deaths of turtles, dugongs and dolphins over the past 18 months, fishermen ill from handling diseased fish and through contact with the water.
As Minister for Main Roads, Fisheries and Marine Infrastructure, Craig Wallace represents departments now in conflict. He is reported as saying that “sample testing” on fish upon which the re-opening of fishing in Gladstone Harbour was based “confirmed that marine life in the harbour was again healthy.”
He then stated in a TV interview that the study had “… caught about 160 fish both in the Boyne River and in the Gladstone Harbour, tested those fish and they’ve shown no signs of the lesions or fluke, which is good news.”
Then, in the same TV news report, professional fishermen Mark McMillan, who caught the fish with the inspectors on board, tells a very different story of landing a variety of fish with rashes and lesions on them. He even supplied photos for the media. There was a rapid correction but the decision to re-open the Gladstone Harbour to fishing on October 7 was made anyway.
Professional fishermen are still suffering with rashes and boils, but now must wait for the findings of the expert panel. Crikey has learnt that 35 professional fishermen have prepared medical reports of the impacts on their health from contact with water and fish in the Gladstone Harbour.
The scientists on such panels are placed in a very difficult position. The problem is huge and they are limited by the research and testing results they are provided with and funded to undertake. Most likely this will be dominated by data from the proponents of the dredging. The catchments that feed into Gladstone Harbour are massive. They likely produce sediment contaminated with everything from industrial waste, mine tailings and agricultural chemicals to sewerage. All of this is mixed with acid sulphate soil and now dispersed by dredging and strong tides.
The approvals for these projects are usually based on “best estimates” of their likely impact. When something goes wrong, however, as it has now, government agencies typically demand “causal links” to prove negative impact. This is likely a very much higher standard of science than was used to approve these projects in the first place.
Headed by Ian Poiner, CEO of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, this panel has been welcomed by the Gladstone Observer with the headline “Community can Trust Panel” — but can it? A similar panel formed to examine the production of two-headed fish in a fish farm adjacent to a macadamia farm, officially found no links with chemical sprays used on macadamias.
According to most locals and professional fishermen, the problem is caused by dredging contaminated sediment from Gladstone Harbour. The development of a massive liquid natural gas plant and associated dredging appears to maintain the “unconditional” support of the state and federal governments. Proposed development of coal port facilities, in the Fitzroy River to the north, will involve similar dredging of sediments that may also be contaminated — and likely have similar government support.
Right now there have never been as many politicians talking more about “saving the environment for our children and our children’s children”. Despite this, it would be a very brave panel indeed if it called for the suspension of dredging in Gladstone Harbour — even to protect the Great Barrier Reef, its marine life and the $5 billion fishing and tourism industries.
This is really a worry as it shows the politicians, both federal and state, falling over themselves to accomodate the mining interests at the expense of its citizens (and voters). One would have to naive to think otherwise and so we should have “Occupy George Street” and make this low life more accountable and open.
mate you need to do some research beyond your google searches. firstly, the professional fishermen are of course claiming that the problem is caused by dredging because they are currently in a compensation process with the port authority. its clearly in their interest to maximise the problem and the link to the dredging.
secondly, the dredge spoil is sampled and tested to the standards of both state and commonwealth governments. it can only be dumped at sea if it passes stringent thresholds.
Blue Bubble, you must have lived a very sheltered life.
Standards went out of fashion in the mid eighties and have yet to return, we now use spin and lies as a substitute.
Given the destruction of prime farming land in Qld in a massive sellout to mining interests and cover up why should it come as a surprise that fishmen have also been given the shaft. Govts around the country of all ilks have made it pretty clear that they have no interest in protecting our sovereignty, our land or our industry. In short they have sold out to the special interests – none of which are our interests.
We are rapidly becoming a vast quarry with skyscrapers around the edge of the pit.
The most shocking thing about this business if the 7.30 story the other night is correct, is that there was no routine data collection on the waters in this region. ie. no baseline, no time series etc. This is not by accident. Billion dollar port projects and no funds for a bit of regular testing? No, it means the scientists will have trouble doing any kind of sensible analysis. It is a piece with “This is likely a very much higher standard of science than was used to approve these projects in the first place.” They don’t want to know.
Now, ok, I don’t want to be a hypocrite since I and all Queenslanders benefit from these developments but there is still no reason why they cannot be done properly and monitored properly. I take Blue Bubble’s point but everything appears as speculation which is unacceptable. The whole thing is redolent of the way one might expect some banana republic to run things. (And the fishermen story about sickness from just touching fish seems unlikely and would not fit simple poisoning; seems to me it indicates infection but then again a single or a few cases of sick fishermen may be completely unrelated.) And Blue B, what do you think they would do if it didn’t meet those “stringent thresholds”? Do you think they’d just shrug their shoulders and cancel the whole port project then the $50 billion mining projects the port is being built to serve?
Then again, if this is due to, say heavy metals from disturbance by the dredging, is it a long-lived effect or just short-term until it all settles again?
Makes one so confident about the thousands of coal seam gas wells being drilled.