The WA government has greenlit Westport’s business case for a $7 billion container port in Cockburn Sound, to eventually replace Fremantle’s port. Adding $275 million to progress the project, government spending now exceeds half a billion dollars—while investment in the Sound’s environment remains minimal, marked by vague assurances and empty promises.
Although the full business case remains under wraps, the public summary offers scant detail, leaving many Western Australians uneasy. Supporters of the port hail it as an economic boon, but its environmental implications raise serious concerns. The dredging required—35 million cubic meters—will be Australia’s largest ever, equivalent to filling 14,000 Olympic pools or circling the Earth 3.8 times with 44-gallon drums. Despite this, Cockburn Sound, already struggling from decades of industrial damage, has seen little meaningful environmental investment.
Key questions remain unanswered: Can Cockburn Sound survive a project of this magnitude? The business case summary sidesteps this issue, offering no transparent or enforceable environmental safeguards. Greens MP Brad Pettit criticized the lack of environmental assessments, while Recfishwest pointed out the implausibility of claims that the port will have “no net impact” on the environment.
A significant threat to dolphins’ habitat
The new shipping channel could spark a wave of industrial development, with $30–$40 billion in investment planned for Kwinana over the next decade. This threatens Cockburn Sound’s vital seagrass meadows—nurseries for snapper and blue swimmer crabs—and the habitat of bottlenose dolphins, integral to WA’s marine biodiversity and the local community’s connection to the Sound.
Westport’s rhetoric about “working with nature” lacks substance. Without detailed plans for safeguarding seagrass beds or fish nurseries, these promises appear hollow. Genuine commitment would involve binding, transparent protections and robust investment in restoring Cockburn Sound’s health.
The avalanche of further development the new shipping channel will unleash is a significant concern with the CEO of the Kwinana Industry Council publicly stating they “are going to be squeezing a lot of work into that area in a relatively short period of time” estimating “there is $30-$40 billion of investment planned for Kwinana over the next decade or so.
The call for responsible development
Yet, this article isn’t about opposing development—it’s a heartfelt call from all of us in the Save Cockburn Sound Alliance for responsible development. Without enforceable environmental safeguards, the cost of diminished biodiversity, degraded waters, and lost heritage will far exceed the port’s $7 billion price tag. History shows large-scale dredging leaves scars that may take decades—or longer—to heal.
Westport argues economic growth and environmental health can coexist, but where’s the proof? The project’s timeline has already shifted. Initially expected to be operational by the 2030s, it now may not be needed until the 2040s or 2050s. Fremantle Councillor Ben Lawver highlighted on ABC Radio that trade growth predictions have been vastly overstated, with actual trade growth at just 5% since 2017 compared to a predicted 17%. Proven efficiencies have reduced truck traffic, suggesting no urgent need for the port.
With time on our side, rushing into Australia’s largest-ever dredging project without understanding the environmental impacts is reckless. The amount of the $275 million the Premier recently committed that is invested into improving the environment will demonstrate if the government is truly committed to improving the health of Cockburn Sound or if they are simply pretending to care in order to completely industrialise this incredible natural asset.
Western Australians deserve transparency, accountability, and real action to protect Cockburn Sound. There is still time to demand a balanced approach—one that ensures development doesn’t come at the cost of our unique marine environment.
