The Department found vandalism was the primary cause of the pollution, but reminded Blast Pest Management of its legal duty to prevent environmental harm.

The state environmental investigation into pollution associated with bird netting at Coochiemudlo Jetty has now been closed.

The Department of the Environment, Tourism, Science and Innovation, known as DETSI, began its formal investigation following a community report submitted on 18 June 2026.

The report concerned material from bird netting entering the marine environment. The netting had been installed by Blast Pest Management beyond the high tide mark, raising concerns that it may have caused a “prescribed water contaminant” to enter the water.

In plain English, DETSI was investigating whether material from the installation had polluted the surrounding marine environment and whether the contractor had broken Queensland’s environmental laws.

What did the investigation find?

As part of its investigation, DETSI commenced a Procedural Fairness Letter process.

This gave Blast Pest Management the opportunity to respond to the allegations and evidence before the Department reached a final decision.

On 31 July 2026, DETSI completed that process and closed the case.

Based on the evidence available, the Department determined that vandalism was the primary cause of the pollution. DETSI also noted that commitments were being made to continue cleaning up the affected area.

The Department concluded that Blast Pest Management was not engaged in unlawful activity at that time.

That wording matters. It does not mean the original community concerns were unfounded, nor does it mean that future pollution will be ignored. It means DETSI did not have sufficient evidence to take enforcement action against the company based on the circumstances it investigated.

The contractor has been formally put on notice

Although the case has been closed, DETSI formally advised Blast Pest Management of its General Environmental Duty under section 319 of Queensland’s Environmental Protection Act 1994.

That duty requires a person or business carrying out an activity to take all reasonable and practical steps to prevent or minimise environmental harm.

Put simply, the contractor has now been officially reminded that it is responsible for ensuring its work and materials do not cause environmental damage.

The Department has advised that the matter may be reconsidered if new information shows that pollution has returned, increased or can be linked to Blast Pest Management.

What happens now?

For the moment, the investigation is closed and no enforcement action is being taken against the company.

However, the cleanup commitments remain important, as does continued observation of the jetty and surrounding shoreline.

If further netting, fibres or other materials are found entering the marine environment, clear photographs, dates, locations and eyewitness information could provide the new evidence needed for DETSI to reassess the matter.

This outcome may not answer every question surrounding the bird-deterrent work at the jetty. It does, however, establish something useful: the pollution was formally investigated, the contractor has been reminded of its legal environmental responsibilities, and the door remains open if the problem occurs again.

For now, we keep watching...👀

Just the facts, Miss....sometimes I really want to go to town on injustices, and invariably get pulled back by my AI buddy. Pick your battles...