Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
Draft Queensland Ports Strategy
Summary of consultation responses
March 2014
Great state. Great opportunity.
Cover image: Port of Abbot Point, courtesy North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation
The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning is responsible for driving the economic
development of Queensland.
© State of Queensland, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, March 2014, George Street, Brisbane
Qld 4000. (Australia)
Licence: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY 3.0 Australia licence. To view a
copy of this licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. Enquiries about this
licence or any copyright issues can be directed to the Senior Advisor, Governance on telephone (07)
3224 2085 or in writing to PO Box 15009, City East, Queensland 4002
Attribution: The State of Queensland, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.
The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However, copyright
protects this publication. The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or
electronically but only if it is recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains unaltered.
The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders of all cultural and
linguistic backgrounds. If you have difficulty understanding this publication and need a translator, please call the
Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on telephone 131 450 and ask them to telephone the
Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning on telephone (07) 3227 8548.
Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no responsibility for
decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained within. To
the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing.
An electronic copy of this report is available on the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning’s website at
www.dsdip.qld.gov.au To obtain a printed copy of this report, please contact us via the contact details provided at the end of this
report.
D14/16554
Contents
1. Purpose of this report ..................................................................................... 4 2. Consultation overview .................................................................................... 5 Objectives .......................................................................................................... 5 Process ............................................................................................................. 5 Communications and engagement .................................................................... 5 Key consultation statistics ................................................................................. 7 Summary of submissions .................................................................................. 7 3. Consultation outcomes — draft Queensland Ports Strategy themes ........ 9 Strategic use of ports ........................................................................................ 9 Environmental protection ................................................................................. 11 Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 14 Supply chains .................................................................................................. 15 Master planning ............................................................................................... 17 4. Timing and next steps .................................................................................. 21 Appendix 1 – Written submission form (and online survey questions) ............ 22 DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
3
1. Purpose of this report
The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of responses and identify themes that
emerged from public consultation on the draft Queensland Ports Strategy, conducted in late
2013.
A wide range of public responses were received. This report does not present information
and suggestions from individual responses, but rather attempts to capture themes across
respondents. However, individual responses, as well as themes, will inform development of
the final Queensland Ports Strategy, associated legislative frameworks, master planning
materials and other actions which will guide implementation of the final Strategy.
Responses submitted as part of the public consultation process reflected considerable
thought and effort on the part of a wide range of stakeholders. Government recognises the
substantial effort and time taken to prepare these submissions, which provide valuable
information for finalisation of the Queensland Ports Strategy. The purpose of this report is to
acknowledge and share this wealth of information with all respondents and stakeholders.
The opinions expressed in this report are those that were presented by stakeholders during
the public consultation period. They do not reflect the views of the Queensland Government.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
4
2. Consultation overview
Objectives
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy (the draft Strategy) was released for public consultation
on 17 October 2013. Consultation closed on 13 December 2013 after a period of eight
weeks.
The consultation objectives included:

communicating the government’s vision, objectives and proposed key actions under the
draft Strategy

providing the opportunity for key stakeholders, interested parties and the public to
comment on the draft Strategy

identifying considerations that will inform the development of the final Queensland Ports
Strategy and the implementation plan for key actions.
Process
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy was tabled in Parliament on 17 October 2013 by the
Honourable Jeff Seeney MP, Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development,
Infrastructure and Planning.
Following this, the draft Queensland Ports Strategy was made available online at the project
web page www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/qps and through Queensland Parliament’s archive of tabled
papers (http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/tabled-papers/online-tabledpapers).
The consultation process provided the public with the opportunity to provide comment on the
draft Strategy via a number of mechanisms, including:

an online survey which related to the key themes and actions of the draft Queensland
Ports Strategy, accessed via www.dsdsip.qld.gov.au/qps

a written submission form in line with the online survey and also accessed from the
project webpage (Appendix 1)

a submission via email or post.
Communications and engagement
During the consultation period, the Queensland Government conducted communication and
engagement activities to raise awareness of the draft Queensland Ports Strategy and the
opportunity to provide public comment.
The communications and engagement actions included:

media releases issued by the Deputy Premier on 17 October 2013 to announce the
release of the draft Queensland Ports Strategy for public consultation; and on
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
5
10 December 2013 reminding the community of the opportunity to provide comment and
the closing date for public comment

draft Queensland Ports Strategy web page with details on providing submissions and
accessing the online survey (www.dsdsip.qld.gov.au/qps)

landing page on Get Involved, the Queensland Government’s whole of government
consultation portal (https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/)

fact sheet and frequently asked questions document available on the draft Queensland
Ports Strategy web page

article in the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning email
newsletter to external stakeholders (issued on 6 November 2013 in edition ten, 2013)

emails to stakeholders, including those that provided a submission on the Great Barrier
Reef Ports Strategy and had provided email contact details

letters to over 80 regional Indigenous organisations

presentations at the Major Projects Conference 2013 (Brisbane), the Queensland
Transport Infrastructure Summit 2013 (Brisbane) and Regional Ports 2013 (Geelong)

meetings with key stakeholders comprising industry bodies, port authorities and
environmental groups

representation at regional briefings and community information sessions held as part of
the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment public consultation program at Airlie Beach,
Cairns, Gladstone, Mackay, Rockhampton and Townsville

cross-reference to the draft Queensland Ports Strategy public consultation on the Great
Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment public consultation web site
(www.reefhaveyoursay.com.au).
Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment public consultation sessions
The final Queensland Ports Strategy will support the key measures and forward
commitments outlined in the Queensland Government’s Great Barrier Reef Strategic
Assessment draft reports.
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy public consultation period overlapped with the public
consultation period for the draft Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment reports. The
reports making up the strategic assessment look at the Great Barrier Reef’s values and
how these values are being protected now and into the future, while enabling sustainable
development within the adjacent coastal zone.
Queensland Government representatives were available at Great Barrier Reef Strategic
Assessment community information sessions to discuss the draft Queensland Ports
Strategy, given some common stakeholder interests.
Sessions were held in November and December of 2013 in Airlie Beach, Cairns,
Gladstone, Mackay, Rockhampton and Townsville with approximately 250 community
members and stakeholder representatives attending.
The Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment consultation opened on 1 November 2013
and closed on 31 January 2014.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
6
Key consultation statistics
Statistics from the draft Queensland Ports Strategy consultation period include:

Project web page visits: 4720 (unique visits 3481)

Draft strategy downloads: 999 (unique downloads 871)

Written responses submitted: 231 (115 online, 110 email [including campaign submissions],
6 postal)

Campaign responses: 1 (Keppel and Fitzroy Delta Alliance, generated 38 email
submissions via a standard form).
Summary of submissions
A total of 231 responses were submitted as part of the consultation process1. Due to the
nature of the consultation, the submissions generated predominately qualitative data which
was detailed and covered a broad range of port and related issues.
Submissions were accepted through the online survey, email, post and fax. Approximately
half of the submissions were provided via the online survey (see Figure 1).
One campaign was conducted during the consultation. The online campaign was conducted
by the Keppel and Fitzroy Delta Alliance. The organisation’s website featured a letter to the
government seeking for the Fitzroy Delta and Keppel Bay areas to be protected and
excluded from the Port of Gladstone Priority Port Development Area (PPDA). Thirty-eight
responses were received through this campaign website. These responses have been
considered as email submissions in this report.
Figure 1
Submissions by method received
1
A number of users submitted an online survey by providing details such as their name and contact
details, but did not provide any comments on the draft Queensland Ports Strategy. These responses
have not been counted as a submission.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
7
The majority of submissions were from individuals. Local government, ports industry and
environmental groups had the next highest level of representation within the organisation
type category (see Figure 2).
Figure 2
Submissions by organisation type
In terms of location, of the submissions that specified their location the majority were from
Queensland, specifically the South East Queensland region. The interstate submissions
predominately came from New South Wales and Western Australia. A small number of
international submissions were also received (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
Submissions by location
Far North Queensland 5%
North West Queensland less than 1% International 1% Wide Bay Burnett 3% South West Queensland less than 1%
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
8
3. Consultation outcomes — draft
Queensland Ports Strategy themes
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy presented five key themes which shape the
Queensland Government’s approach to reform of the state’s port network. The themes are:

strategic use of ports

environmental protection

efficiency

supply chains

master planning.
This section of the report provides an overview of the responses received as they relate to
each theme.
Strategic use of ports
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy advocates for the strategic use of ports based on their
unique geographic features and comparative advantages. It outlines the government’s plan
to make more strategic use of Queensland’s port network by establishing five Priority Port
Development Areas (PPDAs) at the ports of Brisbane, Gladstone, Hay Point/Mackay, Abbot
Point and Townsville.
Comment was sought on:

opportunities for particular ports to better capitalise on their strategic advantages

factors that should be considered in mapping PPDAs.
Respondent themes
Strategic use of ports
The port, resource and logistics industries emphasised the need for Queensland to have
adequate port areas to deliver efficient port trade services for the state.
Some respondents detailed particular strategic advantages of specific ports and their
contribution to Queensland communities and the economy while other respondents
expressed the view that government should not be prescriptive about the commodity mix of
Queensland’s port network leaving this to market forces.
Respondents from the tourism industry highlighted the need for the strategic use of ports to
ensure that Queensland is able to capitalise on its significant strategic advantage in terms of
its proximity to both the South Pacific and Asian markets.
A common theme raised by respondents was the need for effective demand assessment for
ports. In particular, respondents highlighted the importance of understanding the historical
demand drivers for both import and export of commodities in planning efficient and
productive ports. Respondents also considered that long-term demand forecasts should take
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
9
account of the capacity of the entire supply chain, including rail, road and channel passages,
in addition to port capacity.
A number of respondents specifically expressed the view that there is likely to be a
decreased global demand for coal as a major fuel source. These respondents recommended
that future port planning should ensure sufficient flexibility for ports to transition to alternative
cargo requirements.
From an environmental perspective, respondents advocated for existing port capacity to be
optimised prior to any future expansion. Respondents also recommended that future port
development is informed by independent, scientific understanding of the impacts on the
surrounding environment, uses and amenity.
Some respondents advocated for government not to restrict dredging within the next ten
years for expansion of ports outside PPDAs so they may take advantage of commercial
opportunities. In particular, respondents highlighted potential opportunities at the ports of
Bundaberg, Cairns and Karumba.
Factors to be taken into account in mapping Priority Port Development Areas
A large number of respondents sought clarity on the definition and geographical coverage of
PPDAs. Respondents from the ports industry expressed the view that PPDAs should not be
restricted to existing strategic port land. Generally, respondents considered that setting the
boundaries of PPDAs will be connected with the master planning process. There was a
general view that master planning undertaken in accordance with the proposed statutory
master planning guideline will ensure that ports take into account long term strategic
requirements, including management of environmental values.
Respondents raised a wide range of factors to be considered in mapping PPDAs including:

long term credible demand forecasting

future onshore and offshore operational and supporting infrastructure

access to and connectivity with major supply chains and shipping routes

related planning frameworks

environmental considerations

community interests.
Some respondents recommended that PPDAs be restricted to existing port footprints until
current port capacity is fully utilised and conditions impacting on the Great Barrier Reef are
addressed. Other respondents were concerned that PPDAs should ensure regulatory clarity
and streamlining with the view to assisting securing capital investment for both future port
developments and associated supply chain infrastructure.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
10
Environmental protection
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy articulates the Queensland Government’s commitment
to getting the balance right between economic development and environmental protection.
The strategy preserves and builds on the commitment of the government in the Great Barrier
Reef Ports Strategy to restrict significant port development to within existing port limits until
2022.
Comment was sought on:

how the prohibition on capital dredging will ensure growth is concentrated in PPDAs.

opportunities to improve the quality, availability and sharing of data.
Respondent themes
Prohibition on capital dredging
The submissions presented a wide range of perspectives regarding environmental protection
and the prohibition of capital dredging outside of PPDAs for the next ten years. A frequent
comment made in submissions across sectors was that further clarity is required around the
terminology used in the government commitment to prohibit capital dredging, including
definitions of ‘capital dredging’ and ‘deepwater port facility’. The resources sector also sought
clarity from the government as to whether the primary objective of the prohibition is to restrict
dredging altogether, or address the issue of disposal of dredge spoil.
Generally, the submissions supported a prohibition on dredging outside of PPDAs as a
positive step towards protecting greenfield areas. However, this support was qualified by a
number of common responses from individuals and environmental peak bodies including
that:

the dredging prohibition should extend to 25 years, instead of the proposed 10 year
timeframe, in line with the Great Barrier Reef Strategic Assessment timeframe

the prohibition should apply retrospectively to include projects subject to an active
Environmental Impact Statement process and Queensland Government major projects

the government should prohibit all ports from disposing of dredge spoil in the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Environmental groups also recommend that dredging should be a technique of last resort for
port maintenance and expansion. These respondents recommend that all future port
development should avoid dredging through optimising existing port capacity, and make
better use of alternative technology and design solutions. Overall, environmental groups and
a large number of responses from individuals advocated that protection of the environment,
in particular the Great Barrier Reef, should be of paramount importance. A large number of
these submissions further advocated that ports should not be developed within or adjacent to
the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
The ports and resources industries broadly stated that while the ten year prohibition is
supported as a means of environmental management, it should not apply to ports outside the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Ports industry representatives suggested that the
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
11
process to conduct dredging outside of PPDAs should be based on a port demonstrating
sound environmental management practices.
The ports industry further highlighted a number of operational issues including:

effective maintenance of shipping channels, swing basins and berth pockets is essential
to safe and efficient port and supply chain operation and as such, there is a need for
differentiation between capital and maintenance dredging

minor capital dredging at key ports outside PPDAs may be required to realise incremental
growth opportunities.
Although outside the scope of the draft Queensland Ports Strategy, many individual and
environmental group submissions raised concern around the proposed development at the
Port of Abbot Point.
Data quality and sharing
There was widespread support from respondents for making publicly available data upon
which environmental decisions are based. Environmental groups acknowledged that all
Queensland ports have an accredited Environmental Management System but emphasised
the need to benchmark environmental standards and improve monitoring and reporting
against these benchmarks. Similarly, the ports noted that a level of data not currently
captured by Environmental Impact Statement processes is required. A common data
collection hub was recommended by respondents from the ports and resource industries as
well as environmental groups.
A common theme from respondents was a need to foster strong collaboration between ports,
research institutions, government and communities to enable stronger and more transparent
data collection and sharing in relation to the environmental management of ports. Having
independent third parties collect data on port environmental performance to assist in
improved benchmarking, monitoring and reporting was suggested. Port users recommended
that project proponents may also be in a position to provide case-specific data to
complement higher-level environmental data sets.
Resources industry respondents suggested that the government has a role to play in the
consistent delivery of environmental stewardship programs and the promotion of scientifically
sound environmental decision making processes at ports.
Cumulative Impact Assessment
Although no specific question was posed regarding cumulative impact assessment (CIA), it
was frequently raised in responses, particularly in submissions from environmental groups.
These groups advocated for the Queensland Ports Strategy to introduce a more integrated
level of environmental protection and require each port complete a CIA prior to preparation of
a master plan or land use plan.
Environmental groups also recommended that in terms of scale:

CIAs consider impacts beyond the local port area, with the spatial scale of the CIA to be
determined by the reach of the impact and characteristics of the receiving environment.

A CIA must deal with not only project impacts, but also cumulative and combined impacts
of other pressures on the environment.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
12
Furthermore, environmental groups stated that it is important that a CIA is supported by
ongoing monitoring and reporting.
The resources industry submissions expressed a preference for CIAs at a project scale, on
the grounds that individual proponents cannot effectively undertake CIAs at a scale beyond
their control or knowledge.
The ports industry acknowledged a need for CIA through the preparation of environmental
management frameworks as part of the port master plan, but recommended that guidelines
as to the expected scale and methodology are required from the Australian Government.
Keppel Bay and Fitzroy Delta areas
A large number of submissions raised concerns about port development within the Fitzroy
Delta and Keppel Bay region, including concerns regarding whether the Fitzroy Delta and
Keppel Bay areas would be included within the proposed PPDA at the Port of Gladstone. A
major contributor was the Keppel and Fitzroy Delta Alliance whose campaign generated 38
submissions.
During consultation, the government responded to this issue through an update to the
project’s frequently asked questions document to confirm that the Fitzroy Delta area and the
Keppel Bay area will not be declared as part of the Port of Gladstone PPDA. The areas are
located within the port limits of Port Alma (Port of Rockhampton) which will not be a PPDA.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
13
Efficiency
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy outlines the government’s approach to increasing the
productivity of Queensland’s port network, including:

reviewing the governance of port Government Owned Corporations (GOCs)

facilitating commercial arrangements that support access to port infrastructure by multiple
users

monitoring port performance.
Comment was sought on performance measurement standards that should be used across
Queensland’s port network.
Respondent themes
Respondents were generally supportive of reviewing the governance of port GOCs. In
particular, ports industry respondents noted that regardless of whether ports are publicly or
privately owned, ports need to operate in a commercial environment free from unnecessary
constraints and bureaucratic processes. While outside the scope of the draft Queensland
Ports Strategy, a small number of respondents expressed support for the private leasing of
certain ports, such as the ports of Townsville and Gladstone. Other respondents expressed
concern about port privatisation.
Respondents were supportive of monitoring port performance. In particular, the ports industry
expressed support for performance monitoring to drive efficiency gains and productivity of
port operations. However, some respondents recommended careful consideration be given
to ensure performance indicators reflect the unique operating environments of each port.
From a ports industry perspective, respondents indicated that port performance monitoring
would be useful in communicating the contribution of each port to delivering import and
export services to Queensland.
Most respondents recommended that performance measurement extend to whole of supply
chains given port performance relies on the integration of and efficiency of supply chain
connections. Respondents suggested that extending performance measurements to non-port
based supply chain infrastructure, for example, rail and road capacity will assist in identifying
supply chain bottlenecks. There was general agreement that monitoring port and supply
chain performance would optimise port efficiency including optimal use of existing port
capacity.
Respondents suggested a range of port performance measures and recommended that
measures include a full range of indicators that encompass the economic contribution of
ports. There was broad support for the inclusion of environmental benchmarks. Some
respondents suggested inclusion of environmental benchmarks would assist in continuing to
improve the effectiveness of environmental management.
A number of respondents advocated that the final Queensland Port Strategy specifically
address the questions raised by the Centre for Policy Development in November 2013 (Too
Many Ports in a Storm: The risks of Queensland’s port duplication) in relation to improving
port utilisation; forecasting; improving supply chain efficiency and environmental outcomes;
facilitation of efficient investment in ports and addressing environmental costs.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
14
Supply chains
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy recognises that ports are a critical node in the supply
chains that support the state’s economy. The draft Strategy outlines the Queensland
Government’s focus on:

improving coordination between supply chain participants

making more efficient use of supply chain infrastructure, by identifying opportunities to
make better use of existing infrastructure before considering options for the delivery of
new infrastructure

facilitating private sector investment in supply chain infrastructure.
Comment was sought on opportunities to improve the efficiency of port-related supply chains.
Respondent themes
Respondents were generally supportive of optimising the use of existing infrastructure prior
to the delivery of new infrastructure. However, some respondents indicated the need to
assess the viability of current supply chain infrastructure in addressing longer term projected
trade demand and associated account financial, social and environmental implications.
Many responses reinforced the view that improved supply chain coordination is a prerequisite
to increase and optimise the use of existing infrastructure. There was general support for a
more holistic approach to supply network development. Some respondents indicated that
optimising port operations relies on aligning the interests of supply chain participants,
including government and industry (port operators, railway infrastructure managers and
operators) as well as producers and consumers, while acknowledging that this presents
challenges. Respondents suggested that close involvement of local communities is essential.
Submissions also raised the issue of integrated supply chains and the development of
monopolies with the potential to disadvantage third party supply chain users.
While some respondents agreed that the most successful supply coordination models rely on
a collaborative approach of supply chain participants and strong involvement of informed
stakeholders, they acknowledge that how this is achieved will require considerable effort on
the part of all segments of the supply chain.
Respondents considered that long-term port master planning provided an opportunity to
improve supply chain coordination. Long-term certainty was also highlighted as necessary for
private sector investment. Greater direct involvement of ports in transport and land use
planning in relation to logistics chains was advocated. Long-term planning beyond the port
boundaries was seen as an important mechanism for improving both landside access and
supply chains.
Port master planning was identified by respondents as an opportunity for ports to engage
with supply chain participants. The need to consider and balance both land and marinebased logistics was highlighted, particularly in relation to those ports that will be PPDAs.
Additionally, some respondents recommended the need to protect critical supply chain
corridors to accommodate port capacity.
To optimise the effectiveness of each PPDA, respondents strongly advocated for the
development of landside supply chain infrastructure strategies for each PPDA to identify and
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
15
protect existing and future road and rail corridors as well as buffers to ports. With port master
planning to consider land uses beyond port boundaries, respondents raised the issue of the
interaction and impact of port master planning with other planning instruments or schemes
such as local government planning schemes.
While respondents indicated support for allowing market forces to determine trading
passages rather than dictating cargo flows through one port over another, they noted that
achieving improvements in supply chain efficiencies will require detailed work including future
scenario development and examining coordination of other supply chain initiatives. Local
government respondents supported investigating and promoting productivity through supply
chain coordination and delivery and expressed an interest in future involvement in these
discussions.
More specific suggestions from respondents to improve the efficiency of port-related supply
chains included:

exploring the learnings and extrapolating principles from specific models such as the
Hunter Valley Coal Chain Coordinator, Port Botany Landside Improvement Strategy, and
Mount Isa Townsville Economic Zone Study

achieving strong coordination between participants at an operational level; contractual
alignment between various participants; and whole-of-supply chain planning

monitoring port performance which would include monitoring supply chain efficiency and
consideration of the approaches of other jurisdictions towards improving and measuring
supply chain coordination and efficiency

ports managing, funding and pricing of access infrastructure to ensure access
infrastructure is used efficiently

improving the efficiency of rail networks servicing ports to improve overall land-based
supply chain connections

exploring the potential of coastal shipping to improve supply chain linkages and relieve
pressures on road and rail networks.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
16
Master planning
The draft Queensland Ports Strategy proposes that ports to be declared PPDAs will be
required to prepare leading practice master plans in accordance with a statutory master
planning guideline.
Port master plans will take into account areas beyond traditional port boundaries, and
consider the interaction of ports and port facilities with the surrounding environment,
including the marine environment. PPDAs will be required to include a comprehensive
Environmental Management Framework in their master plans that meets both state and
federal government standards, including assessment of cumulative and marine impacts of
proposed port development activities.
Public consultation on the draft Queensland Ports Strategy will inform the development of a
statutory guideline for port master planning. As such, comment was sought on a broad range
of issues related to port master planning, including:

the planning support currently given to ports

how long it would take to prepare a port master plan

how planning assists ports to identify and manage environmental impacts

opportunities to ensure the benefits of port master planning are maximised

specific issues that should be considered in the preparation of master plans

information that should be included or excluded from publicly available master plans

opportunities to improve engagement with communities in the port planning process.
Respondent themes
General comments
There was broad based support for the concept of port master planning across all sectors,
however a number of critical success factors were repeatedly raised by respondents:

The ports industry considers that master plans based on regularly updated demand
forecasts must facilitate a streamlined approvals process along the supply chain and
within the port, and thus must interact productively with local government planning
schemes

The resources industry highlighted the need for master planning to ensure consistency
between Queensland and Australian Government approvals processes

Environmental groups emphasised the need for a higher and more integrated level of
protection for the Queensland coastline, based on rigorous scientific and economic data
and analysis

The tourism industry considers that a critical component will be ensuring that cruise ships
can be accommodated at ports

Port users highlighted the need for master planning to streamline approvals along the
supply chain, providing greatest investment certainty and transparency, as required for
forward business planning.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
17
Planning supports
No information was received from consultation in relation to planning support currently
offered to ports. The ports industry has recommended that master planning will benefit from
guidelines to address Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) and Outstanding Universal
Value, as well as from data sharing arrangements.
Preparation time
It was considered essential by the ports industry that any prescribed timeframe for
developing master plans must consider the time required to gather robust data on a range of
issues, including demand forecasts.
Generally, it was suggested that a port master plan may take at least one to two years to
develop and implement effectively. It was also highlighted that the master planning review
timeframe should align with the current port land use planning review timeframe.
Planning for identifying and managing environmental impacts
Consultation responses generally supported improved identification and management of
environmental impacts at ports. The ports industry highlighted that Environmental
Management Frameworks to be developed as part of port master plans should be
complementary to existing Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) accredited under
international standard ISO14001. Environmental groups highlighted the need for ports to
improve on existing EMSs, particularly in terms of benchmarking, monitoring and reporting
systems. Both the ports industry and environmental groups agreed that adaptive
management frameworks should feature strongly in port environmental regulation.
Resources bodies advocated for risk and evidence based regulation, which does not limit
industry innovation, where there is a low risk of environmental impacts.
Maximising the benefits of master planning
Across all sectors there was considerable interest in ensuring that master planning is
implemented in such a way as to benefit related industry sectors and the environment. There
was also agreement that a 30-year outlook for master plans encourages and accommodates
a strategic view of infrastructure planning and approval, and environmental protection.
Ports and resources industry respondents agreed that alignment of the Queensland approval
processes with those of the Australian Government is essential to realise the full benefits of
master planning through regulatory savings for project approvals. Respondents representing
these two industries, together with logistics peak bodies, also agreed that the benefits of
master planning would assist in maximising coordination of infrastructure delivery within a
port and along the supply chain (including shipping channels). Port operators and users
agreed that master plans present a real opportunity to align policy, planning and approvals
outcomes.
The logistics industry respondents advocated for master plans to incorporate buffer land and
surface transport corridors to optimise efficient movement of freight.
Both ports and resources industry respondents agreed broadly on appropriate foundations
for master planning—master plans should be built on a foundation of agreed and updated
demand forecasts, representing an industry-driven focus. This preference for industry-driven
master plans was also supported by port operators and users who suggested the process of
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
18
master planning presents the opportunity for more integrated approaches to planning for
terminal operators, supply chain operators and service providers.
Some environmental group and port user respondents expressed a view that master
planning provides an opportunity for increased transparency of port-related operations.
Through their submissions, some environmental groups advocated that the master planning
process should provide the opportunity for broad, strategic public consultation, thus giving
the community more certainty about port operations. Some environmental groups suggested
that master planning will allow industries impacted by port development (including tourism
and fishing) a greater degree of certainty. Port user respondents suggested that port master
planning provides increased transparency regarding port operations to business and
industry, allowing more accurate forward planning to take place.
Specific issues to be considered
There was broad agreement across all sectors on a number of issues to be addressed within
master plans. These included:

Supply chain connections and functionality—ports are an integral node in supply
chains, and the connections (both land and sea side) should be a central consideration in
master planning.

Strategic planning for landside infrastructure—landside infrastructure should be, in so
far as possible, strategically and methodically planned for, with regard to environmental
considerations and future demand. This will ensure increased certainty for the community
but also for potential investors. Some respondents representing environmental groups
highlighted a preference for immediate efficiency assessments of existing and approved
expansions, and better use of latent port capacity before further expansions are
approved.

Performance indicators—there should be performance indicators and measurement
methodologies agreed upon for use across the port network, and within individual ports.
However any performance measures need to take account of unique port circumstances.
Data sets will be critical for identifying standardised indicators.

Cumulative impact assessment (CIA)—resources industry respondents supported CIA
in master plans at the port scale (used to determined how and where certain activities
should occur), as well as CIA for specific projects by port users. Some environmental
group respondents recommended that the scale of the CIA undertaken by port authorities
should extend beyond the port scale and consider combined environmental impacts from
all development. Ports industry respondents highlighted the need for CIA guidelines to be
delivered by the Australian Government to support a consistent approach to CIA across
ports.
Resources industry respondents emphasised the need for master plans to take a risk-based
approach and focus on industry as the users of the port, with the objectives of supporting port
growth and facilitating innovation associated with market and industry changes. Resources
industry respondents also acknowledged that master plans must contain mechanisms for
community and industry review and consultation.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
19
Some environmental group respondents emphasised the need for master plans to focus on
outcomes for Matters of National Environmental Significance and Outstanding Universal
Value, and expressed a preference for published environmental baselines and benchmarks
to monitor environmental performance.
Improving engagement through master planning and publicly available information
Increased transparency of port operations and forward planning through the master planning
process was supported across sectors. It was agreed that port master planning will require
strong collaboration between all stakeholders, including supply chain participants as well as
port users. Ports industry respondents acknowledged that the master planning process would
lead to increased transparency.
Common responses included support for the following:

Community consultation on draft master plans—port industry respondents
recommended that engagement on port master plans should align with consultation on
land use plans. Some environmental group respondents recommended that a longer
period for submissions would enhance the quality of information to be developed and
conveyed to ports.

Engagement with local industry—there was agreement that engagement on master
planning should be broad-based, targeting not only the local community, but also local
industries including fishing and tourism, and the port workforce. Some port user
respondents also recommended that consultation should target the industries that use
the ports in order to accurately identify bottlenecks and approval issues in the
development process.

Great transparency in the master planning process—respondents across all sectors
supported maximising the detail that can be publicly released in port master plans,
cognisant that there may be special requirements around commercially sensitive
information. Port user respondents recommended that details such as port layout,
infrastructure details, expected port performance measures as well as environmental
management and protection measures could and should be made public.
Environmental groups advocated for improved dissemination of environmental baseline and
monitoring data, and a more transparent process for port expansions. This sector also
strongly suggested that the engagement of professional, independent experts would ensure
the production of high quality peer reviewed reports and increased public confidence. Some
environmental group respondents also sought assurances that public comments will be
considered and utilised in the master planning process.
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
20
4. Timing and next steps
Feedback from public consultation on the draft Queensland Ports Strategy will inform the
development of the final Queensland Ports Strategy.
The final Queensland Ports Strategy will include an action plan for implementation of the
strategy. This action plan will include major reforms informed by the public consultation
process, such as:

development of a framework to achieve regulatory reform including development of a
Port Master Plan Guideline (2014)

development of new ports legislation that will mandate the port master planning
requirements for Priority Port Development Areas (PPDAs) and regulate port
development outside these PPDAs (2014).
It is anticipated that the final Queensland Ports Strategy will be released in mid-2014.
The finalisation of the Queensland Ports Strategy will have regard to relevant activities,
including the Queensland and Australian Governments’ Great Barrier Reef Strategic
Assessment and the delivery of a One Stop Shop for Queensland and Australian
Government environmental approvals pursuant to the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
21
Appendix 1 – Written submission form
(and online survey questions)
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
22
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
23
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
24
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
25
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
26
DRAFT QUEENSLAND PORTS STRATEGY — SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES
NOT GOVERNMENT POLICY
27
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
PO Box 15009 City East Qld 4002 Australia
tel +61 7 3227 8548 or 13 QGOV (13 74 68)
[email protected]
www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/qps