Showing posts with label Berejiklian Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Berejiklian Government. Show all posts
Wednesday 27 June 2018
Council for Civil Liberties condemns regulations allowing for bans on public gatherings on public land
Excerpt from New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties post, 20 June 2018:
NSW Civil Liberties
Council (CCL) is appalled to learn that in 12 days, the NSW State Government
will have incredibly wide powers to disperse or ban protests, rallies, and
virtually any public gathering across about half of all land across the state.
On 16 March this year,
the NSW State Government published the Crown
Land Management Regulation 2018(NSW). Included was a provision which provided
that public officials would have broad power to “direct a person” to stop
“Taking part in any gathering, meeting or assembly”. The only exception
provided for is “in the case of a cemetery, for the purpose of a religious or
other ceremony of burial or commemoration”. Alternatively, public officials
have broad discretion to affix a conspicuous sign prohibiting any gathering,
meeting or assembly – again, unless the public gathering was a funeral.
Police, Local Council
officials, and even so-far unspecified categories of people or government
employees could soon have the power to ban people from holding public
gatherings on public land. The territory where these incredibly broad powers
would apply are called Crown Land - land owned by the State Government. This
includes town squares, parks, roads, beaches, community halls and more.
These powers will come
into effect from 1 July. If these regulations are allowed to stand, the effect
will not just be that protests, rallies and demonstrations can only occur at
the sufferance of police and other officials. It will be that virtually all public
events will only occur with the tolerance of public officials. Our right to
assemble on public land will become something less than a license. That right
may temporarily be granted by public officials, but it may just as easily be
withdrawn, at any time, for any reason. The penalty for defying such a ban or
order to stop meeting in public could be up to $11 000……
The time to speak out
against these regulations is now. CCL objects to these regulations in the
strongest possible terms, and urges their immediate and unconditional repeal……
Excerpts from
Crown Land
Management Regulation 2018 under the Crown Land Management Act 2016:
9 Conduct prohibited in
dedicated or reserved Crown land
(1) A person must not do
any of the following on dedicated or reserved Crown land:
(e) remain in or on the land or any part of the
land or any structure or enclosure in or on the land when reasonably requested
to leave by an authorised person,
Maximum penalty: 50
penalty units.
13 Activities that can
be prohibited on Crown land by direction or notice under Part 9 of Act (1) Each
of the activities specified in the following Table is prescribed for the
purposes of sections 9.4 (1) (b), 9.5 (1) (b) and 9.5 (2) of the Act:
3 Holding a meeting or performance or conducting
entertainment for money or consideration of any kind, or in a manner likely to
cause a nuisance to any person
4 Taking part in any gathering, meeting or assembly
(except, in the case of a cemetery, for the purpose of a religious or other
ceremony of burial or commemoration)
6 Displaying or causing any sign or notice to be
displayed
7 Distributing any circular,
Excerpt from Crown
Land Management Act 2016 No 58:
1.7 Definition
of “Crown land”
Subject to this
Division, each of the following is Crown land for the purposes of
this Act:
(a) land that
was Crown land as defined in the Crown Lands Act
1989 immediately before the Act’s repeal,
(b) land that
becomes Crown land because of the operation of a provision of this Act or a
declaration made under section 4.4,
(c) land
vested, on and from the repeal of the Crown Lands Act
1989, in the Crown (including when it is vested in the name of the State).
Note.
Clause
6 of Schedule 7 provides for certain land under Acts repealed by Schedule 8 to
become Crown land under this Act. Section 1.10 then provides for this land to
be vested in the Crown.
Land that will become Crown land under
this Act includes land vested in the Crown that is dedicated for a public
purpose. This land was previously excluded from
the definition of Crown land in the Crown Lands Act
1989. See also section 1.8 (2).
Wednesday 30 May 2018
Berejiklian Government stacks the deck ahead of next NSW state election
Echo
NetDaily, 29
May 2018:
Nationals MLC Ben
Franklin has defended new political donation laws after being accused by the
Greens of ramming it through last Thursday night and providing only a week for
the opposition to digest.
The new rules, say the
Greens, will see ‘third party’ groups like unions, GetUp, Sea Shepherd and
World Wildlife Fund see their spending caps halved to $500,000.
Additionally the new
laws apply to local councils, where some will be able to spend more per voter
than others, the party says.
Yet the Electoral
Funding Bill 2018 ‘includes some positive measures’, including ‘the definition
of prohibited donors, increased transparency and some spending caps in local
government election’.
Ballina Greens MP Tamara
Smith described the new laws as ‘the most undemocratic ever seen in the state’.
‘Community groups like
GetUp, Sea Shepherd, World Wildlife Fund and Marriage Equality have had their
funding caps slashed while the old parties have given themselves a massive
windfall in both money to run elections and money received after elections,’ Ms
Smith told The Echo.
‘The Greens have led the
charge when it comes to supporting caps on electoral expenditure but we say
that if third party environmental and social justice groups have had their
spending halved why haven’t political parties?’ she added.
The
Guardian, 23
May 2018:
The legislation would
cap campaign spending by an advocacy group at $500,000 during the lead-up to an
election, down from the current limit of up to $1.288m, which applies to both
major political parties and third-party groups.
Major parties would keep
the higher cap on communications spending. The caps operate from 1 October in
the year before an election until election day.
The 22 Liberal, Nationals, Shooters,
Fishers and Farmers and Christian Democratic
party members
of the NSW Legislative Council
voting for NSW Electoral Funding Bill 2018 on 23 May 2018 were as follows:
Amato,
L
|
Blair,
N
|
Borsak,
R
|
Brown,
R
|
Clarke,
D
|
Colless,
R
|
Cusack,
C
|
Fang,
W
|
Farlow,
S
|
Franklin,
B
|
Green,
P
|
Harwin,
D
|
Khan,
T
|
MacDonald,
S
|
Maclaren-Jones,
N
|
Mallard,
S
|
Martin,
T
|
Mason-Cox,
M
|
Mitchell,
|
Nile,
F
|
Phelps,
P
|
Ward,
P
|
Which resulted in the bill officially passing in both houses of the NSW Parliament on 24 May 2018.
Monday 14 May 2018
Aboriginal elders calling for NSW Berejiklian Government to commit to expanding the youth Koori court program
The Guardian, 7 May 2018:
Aboriginal
elders have called for the NSW government to commit to expanding the youth
Koori court program after an evaluation found it halved the amount of time
young people spent in detention. The court began as a pilot project at
Parramatta children’s court in February 2015 but has not received ongoing
funding. A University of Western Sydney evaluation has found it cut the average
number of days spent in youth detention, as well as helping address underlying
issues such as unstable accommodation, lack of engagement in education and employment, and disconnection from Aboriginal
culture. Elders said it reached children who had little family
support and were isolated from the community.
Thursday 26 April 2018
Everytime someone buys a bottle of water in Australia it has consequences for a community somewhere in the world
By November 2017 Tweed Shire's est. 93,458 residents faced a water security trifecta.
Floods in the first quarter of the year had affected water quality and local infrastructure, a tidal anomaly in August had caused saltwater to enter the Bray Park Weir, the following month Terranora Lagoon was contaminated by raw sewerage from the treatment plant and the walls of Clarrie Hall dam still needed raising to cope with urban water needs.
Water sustainability still remains an issue in 2018.
In this case it appears to be Black Mount Pty Ltd and Mt. Warning Spring Water Company's commercial water supply needs which are the main culprit.......
Echo
NetDaily, 13
April 2018:
A call for the halt of
water mining in the Tweed Valley has been made by NSW Greens MP and North
Coast spokesperson, Dawn Walker in state parliament this week and is
supported by the Tweed Water Alliance. Concerns over the
impact on underground water resources, alleged poor compliance with
extraction licenses and the damage caused by heavy vehicles have all been
raised.
‘Water is our most
precious resource and gigalitres of water beneath Tweed Valley are being sucked
up and bottled for commercial profit, leaving the community high and dry with
the impacts. Water mining licences are being handed out by the government without
adequate monitoring and in many cases, water meters haven’t even been
installed,’ said Ms Walker.
Water mining licences
are controlled by the state government while work on the property and
permission for truck movements are controlled by the local council.
‘We certainly support
the ban,’ said Jeremy Tager, spokesperson for the Tweed
water alliance
who believes the water extraction companies are ‘operating lawlessly’.
‘Extracting water is a
lose lose prospect for here and most other places. Water is taken away from
local users; it creates little or no employment as most of the operators are
water transporters. That means the trucks come in and get filled up and then
are taken away to be bottled elsewhere.
‘They only pay a a small
road contribution to drive these big trucks on rural roads that were never
designed for them.’
In December 2017 the
Tweed council voted to amend their LEP (local environment plan) 2014 to remove
the clause that the previous council had put in to allow water extraction for
bottling water in the Tweed shire. This has been sent to the state government
for approval as part of the Gateway process. If the state government decide
that the change can proceed then Tweed council will be able to put the LEP
amendment on public display.
The state government can
also request that a ‘savings clause’ be put in that would allow current
applications that are waring to be assessed to be allowed.
Echonetdaily asked
the state government what the time frame for responding to the Tweeds request
for removing the water mining clause from the LEP was and if they would request
the inclusion of a ‘savings clause’.
A spokesperson for the
department of planning and environment responded stating that; ‘The department
is currently in the early stages of assessing a proposal from Tweed Shire
council to remove the water extraction and bottling clause to the Tweed Shire
2014 LEP.
Local extractor takes
council to court
Larry Karlos, a local
water extractor, is currently taking the Tweed Council to the Land and
Environment court to appeal their decision not to allow them to increase the
size of the trucks they use to transport water from six meters to nineteen
meters.
‘The council refused the
application for 19m trucks because they felt that the road was no suitable for
that size truck,’ said Tweed Mayor Katie Milne.
‘Urlip Road is really
narrow and in some places it is only one lane. There are also areas where it is
very steep on one side and has a steep drop off on the other.
ABC
News, 21
March 2018:
It's the new battle in
the bush — the bottled water wars.
On one side is
Australia's $800-million-a-year bottled water industry and its suppliers, on
the other, rural residents who fear their most precious resource, groundwater,
is being squandered.
"It's dividing the
local community," said Larry Karlos, one of half a dozen water extractors
in the Tweed Valley in northern New South Wales.
He's been pumping water
from an aquifer beneath his property for 16 years.
But his recent bid to
increase the amount he sells to bottling companies has ignited local
opposition.
Fourth-generation farmer
Patrick O'Brien fears his children's future is being jeopardised for the profit
of the water industry.
"If they don't stop
this type of thing then, you know, what's going to be left?" he told 7.30.
“What's going to left
for future generations? No-one was really worried when they were trucking the
water out in small amounts, but then they want more, they want more trips, they
want bigger trucks."
Tuesday 13 March 2018
Only a handful of NSW landowners to face court over Murray-Darling Basin water theft allegations?
ABC News, 8 March 2018:
The NSW Government will
prosecute several people over alleged water theft on the Barwon-Darling, eight
months after Four Corners investigated the issue.
WaterNSW has named the
people it is taking to the Land and Environment Court over alleged breaches of
water management rules.
They are prominent
irrigator Peter Harris and his wife Jane Harris, who own a major cotton farm
near Brewarrina in the state's north-west and were named in the Four
Corners story.
The couple have been
accused of taking water when the flow conditions did not permit it, and
breaching licence and approval conditions.
Three members of another
prominent family are also facing charges: cotton grower Anthony Barlow from
Mungindi near Moree and Frederick and Margaret Barlow.
The Barlows have been
accused of pumping during an embargo and pumping while metering equipment was
not working.
WaterNSW gave false
figures: Ombudsman
WaterNSW announced the
prosecutions an hour before the NSW Ombudsman released a scathing report saying
the agency had given the Government incorrect figures on its enforcement
actions.
The state's ombudsman,
Michael Barnes, found WaterNSW gave incorrect figures when it provided
statistics that showed there had been a significant increase in enforcements
between July 2016 and November 2017.
"The information
provided to us indicated that the updated statistical information from WaterNSW
that we'd published was significantly incorrect," he said.
"There had, in
fact, been no referrals for prosecutions and no penalty infringement notices
issued in the relevant period."
Mr Barnes said he
initiated a separate investigation after his office received complaints about
the figures, and he found WaterNSW had inflated the statistics.
"As part of our
investigation, we confirmed with Revenue NSW that no penalty infringement
notices were issued by WaterNSW in the relevant period," he said.
The ombudsman said he
raised the issue with WaterNSW, which has admitted to the mistake and
apologised.
Mr Barnes also said he
believed the error was unintentional.
The agency's CEO, David
Harris, said staff have now manually reviewed all actions taken.
"Some of the detail
WaterNSW provided was incorrect and, although it was revised, it is not
acceptable and we are acting to ensure it does not happen again," he said……
NSW
Ombudsman, Correcting the record: Investigation
into water compliance and enforcement 2007-17: A special report to Parliament
under sections 26 and 31 of the Ombudsman Act 1974, 8 March 2018, Amended enforcement outcome
statistics:
Sunday 11 March 2018
A brief respite in the NSW Berejiklian Government's war on the natural world
"Clearing under the Code may threaten the viability of certain threatened species at property and local landscape scale. The risk highest in overcleared landscapes where most clearing is likely to occur under the Code." [NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, "Concurrene on Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code", August 2017, p. 3]
Sometime in 2017 a document was prepared for the NSW Minister for Environment & Heritage and Liberal MP for Vaucluse Gabrielle Upton to sign in order for increased clearing of native vegetation across New South Wales to occur.
This new land clearing policy came into effect in August of that year but faced a legal challenge.
The
Coffs Coast Advocate,
9 March 2018:
THE Land and Environment
Court has delivered a massive blow to the NSW Government by ruling its land
clearing laws invalid because they were made unlawfully.
The Nature Conservation
Council (NCC) launched a legal challenge to the codes last November arguing
Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair failed to obtain concurrence from
Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton before making the codes, as is required by
law.
This morning the
government conceded this was the case and NCC chief executive Kate Smolski was
was quick to pounce.
"Today's ruling is
an embarrassing admission of failure by the government and a great victory for
the rule of law and the thousands of people who have supported us in taking
this action,” she said.
"It is
deeply troubling that the government disregarded the important oversight role
of the Environment Minister when making environmental laws but we are even more
concerned about the harmful content of the laws themselves.
"By
the government's own assessment they will lead to a spike in clearing of up to
45 per cent and expose threatened wildlife habitat to destruction including 99
per cent of identified koala habitat on private land.
"Premier Berejiklian
must act now to prevent further plundering of our forests, woodlands and water
supplies by scrapping these laws and making new ones that actually protect the
environment.”…..
The NSW Government is
yet to issue a statement on the decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nature Conservation Council (NCC)
Media Release, 9 March 2017:
Media Release, 2 March 2018:
Media Release, 9 March 2017:
Court finds NSW
Government land-clearing laws invalid
The Land and Environment
Court today ruled the NSW Government’s land-clearing laws invalid because they
were made unlawfully.
“The government has
bungled the introduction of one of its signature pieces of legislation, and in
the process demonstrates its careless disregard for nature in NSW,” Nature
Conservation Council CEO Kate Smolski said.
“Today’s ruling is an
embarrassing admission of failure by the Berejiklian government and a great
victory for the rule of law and the thousands of people who have supported us
in taking this action.”
The Nature Conservation
Council, represented by public interest environmental lawyers EDO NSW, launched
legal challenge against the government’s land-clearing codes last November.
NCC had argued through
its barristers Jeremy Kirk SC and David Hume the codes were invalid because the
Primary Industries Minister failed to obtain concurrence of the Environment
Minister before making the codes, as is required by law. The government today
has conceded this was indeed the case.
“It is deeply troubling
that the government disregarded the important oversight role of the Environment
Minister when making environmental laws, but we are even more concerned about
the harmful content of the laws themselves,” Ms Smolski said.
“By the government’s own
assessment, they will lead to a spike in clearing of up to 45% and expose
threaten wildlife habitat to destruction, including 99% of identified koala
habitat on private land.
“These laws were made
against the advice of the scientific community and against the wishes of the
vast majority of the many thousands of people who made submissions.
“It would
be completely cynical for the government to immediately remake these laws
without first correcting their many flaws and including environmental
protections the community wants and the science says we need.
“Premier Berejiklian
must act now to prevent further plundering of our forests, woodlands and water
supplies by scrapping these laws and making new ones that actually protect the
environment.”
Ms Smolski pledged to
continue the campaign to overturn weak land-clearing laws.
“As the state’s peak
environment organization, we will do everything we can to expose the damage of
land clearing and will not stop until we have laws that protect nature,” she
said.
“These laws are a matter
of life or death for wildlife. More than 1000 plant and animal species are at
risk of extinction in this state, including the koala and 60 per cent of all
our native mammals.
“Land clearing is the
main threat to many of these animals, and the laws this government introduced
unlawfully are pushing them closer to the brink.
“It is regrettable that
we had to take the government to court to make it abide by its own laws, but it
demonstrates the critical role organisations like ours play in our democracy.”
Environment Minister
knew 99% of koala habitat would be exposed to land clearing by contentious new
laws, FIO document shows
A document obtained
under freedom of information laws shows the Berejiklian government knew its new
land clearing laws would cause extensive harm to wildlife habitat but pressed
ahead with the changes anyway.
“This is damning
evidence that the Environment Minister approved these new laws knowing they
would expose 99% of identified koala habitat on private land to clearing,” NCC
CEO Kate Smolski said.
“The document also shows
the Minister was warned the laws could cause a 45% spike in land clearing and
that they would mostly benefit very large agribusinesses that could clear land
on a massive scale, not smaller enterprises and farming communities across the
state.
“It shows what we have
suspected all along – environment policy in NSW is being dictated by the
National Party and the powerful agribusiness interests the party represents.
“Minister Upton knew
these laws were very bad for threatened species and bushland, yet she approved
them anyway. This is a disgrace.”
The document, obtained
by EDO NSW for the Nature Conservation Council, was prepared by the Office of
Environment and Heritage for the Environment Minister and outlined the
consequences of Ms Upton agreeing to land-clearing codes proposed by Primary
Industries Minister Niall Blair.
Key warnings in the
document include:
*
“The regulatory changes will further increase agricultural clearing by between
8% and 45% annually.” (Page 3)
*
Clearing under the code risks: “Removing key habitat for threatened species,
including koala habitat (less than 1% of identified koala habitat in NSW is
protected from clearing under the Code)” and “Increasing vulnerability of
threatened ecological communities”. (Page 6)
*
If unchecked “such clearing could destroy habitats, cause soil and water
quality impacts”. (Page 5)
*
“The main benefits are likely to be private benefits for large farming
operations which broadscale clear under the Code.” (Page 6)
“These are terrible laws
that put our wildlife at risk,” Ms Smolski said. “Premier Berejiklian should
act immediately to protect the thousands of hectares of koala habitat at risk
by exempting sensitive areas from code-based clearing. “In the longer term, she
should go back to the drawing board and draft new laws that protect our
precious wildlife and bushland.”
Snapshots from NSW Office of
Environment & Heritage, "Concurrence
on Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code", August 2017:
UPDATE
The respite
ended before it really began………
The
Guardian, 11
March 2018:
But the government made
no delay remaking the laws, announcing
on Saturday it had been completed.
“The remade code is
identical to the previous one and is an integral part of the new land
management framework which gives landowners the tools and certainty they need,”
said David Witherdin, the CEO of Local Land Services, which oversees clearing
under the codes.
The move was condemned
by the NCC.
Monday 4 December 2017
FACT CHECK: Port of Yamba-Clarence River cruise ship and international cruise ship terminal proposal
In online debates concerning the NSW Government's proposal to make the Port of Yamba an official cruise ship destination and possibly build an international cruise ship terminal I have noticed a few misconceptions creeping in - so this post is a brief fact check.
The misconceptions are coloured red.
* The “MV Caledonian Sky” cruise ship is smaller than the “Island Trader” cargo ship and not much bigger than the Manly Ferry.
“Caledonian Sky” at 4,200 gross tonnage, dead weight of 645t, 90.6m length, 15.3m width, 4.25 maximum draft is over twice the size of the “Island Trader” which is 485 gross tonnage, dead weight of 242t, 38.8m long, 9m wide and maximum draft of 2.8m.
The four Manly ferries are 70 metres in length, 12.5 metres wide, with draughts of 3.3 metres and displace 1,140 tonnes and, only operate in a deep water harbour.
* Cruise ships already come into the Clarence River.
There hasn’t been an ocean-going cruise ship carrying passengers enter the Clarence River in a good many years. There is some anecdotal information that one small cruise ship of indeterminate size entered the Clarence River sometime in the 1990s, but that appears to have been both the first and the last time that a local resident can recall its passage which ended with this vessel scraping its bottom on "Dirrangun" reef as it left.
The last regular passenger service from Sydney to Port of Yamba ended in the mid to late 1950s when the small steamers operating on the NSW North Coast run were withdrawn.
The last regular passenger service from Sydney to Port of Yamba ended in the mid to late 1950s when the small steamers operating on the NSW North Coast run were withdrawn.
Despite local media reports to the contrary, the “Caledonian Sky” has not entered the Port of Yamba in the past – this cruise ship’s scheduled visit in October 2018 will be her maiden voyage into the Clarence.
* There is not going to be any dredging of the Clarence River entrance or estuary if Port of Yamba becomes a cruise ship destination and an international cruise ship terminal is built.
A representative of the NSW Dept. of Transport raised eyebrows in apparent astonishment when I mentioned that particular belief. Although diplomatically silent the implication was clear - dredging would have to occur.
* Medium to small cruise ships will not have a problem entering the Clarence River because they will have a pilot on board.
In 2015-16 there were 18 ship visits to Port of Yamba, none were cruise ships and the majority of vessels piloted into the Clarence River came in for ship repair at Harwood Island.
However, even with a pilot on board a cruise ship may ground in a relatively narrow navigation channel. The “Regal Princess” grounded in Cairns Harbour in March 2001 as it sailed a 90m wide & est. 8.3 m deep navigation channel with a pilot aboard. The subsequent official investigation found that the dimensions of the Cairns port channel were too restrictive for the 32.25 m wide “Regal Princess”.
Because the Clarence River estuary is strongly tidal the position and width of its main navigation channel can vary and the Yamba-Iluka bar at the river entrance is problematic.
The bar crossing appears to have been last dredged in 2004.
An Australian Navy tug 29m long, 8m wide with a draft of est. 3.4m grounded on the bar at the river mouth in October 1946 and from time to time cargo ships entering or leaving the Clarence have temporarily grounded when sand builds up outside the river entrance.
The bar crossing appears to have been last dredged in 2004.
An Australian Navy tug 29m long, 8m wide with a draft of est. 3.4m grounded on the bar at the river mouth in October 1946 and from time to time cargo ships entering or leaving the Clarence have temporarily grounded when sand builds up outside the river entrance.
* Having cruise ships and a cruise terminal will raise personal incomes in the Lower Clarence Valley.
This argument is often put forward by governments pushing coastal development proposals.
St. John's (population over 108,000) - a regional port in Canada popular with small cruise ships - is currently conducting its own investigation into economic returns from cruise ship visits, because it was told this year that the average amount of money spent onshore by a cruise passenger can be as low as $28.20 and for a crew member as low as $20.79. Note: The Canadian dollar is roughly on par with the Australian dollar.
St. John's (population over 108,000) - a regional port in Canada popular with small cruise ships - is currently conducting its own investigation into economic returns from cruise ship visits, because it was told this year that the average amount of money spent onshore by a cruise passenger can be as low as $28.20 and for a crew member as low as $20.79. Note: The Canadian dollar is roughly on par with the Australian dollar.
International cruise lines are usually the source of any financial information on passenger spending and industry observers tend to think that industry figures may be inflated. So it is not surprising to find one independent report published in 2015 states that passenger and crew spending in Cairns was 22 per cent lower than the figure supplied by Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) a group representing the interests of cruise lines.
By the industry's own optimistic calculations, if all “Caledonian Sky” passengers come ashore then they should at a minimum spend in total between $4,750 and $5,937 during the five or so hours the ship is moored on the river in October next year.
Except that the cruise ship’s itinerary shows these approximately 114 passengers will have both breakfast and lunch on board ship before sailing away and, in the approx. three hours in between meals, will take a walk up to the Yamba Lighthouse at no charge, visit the Yamba Museum which has a gold coin entrance fee or cross to Iluka to wander the Nature Reserve up to Woody Head and back which is fee free - although it may be possible that the ship rents a mini-bus to transport passengers to Iluka wharf for return to the ship.
However, even then this hardly lives up to the cruise ship industry’s boast that each passenger spends on average $200-$250 a day in Australian regional ports.
*
If ships the size of the "Rainbow
Warrior" can navigate to the Harwood slipway then quite a few of the
small similar size cruise vessels can safely do the same.
The second “Rainbow Warrior” was a yacht with 555 gross tonnage, 55m long,
9m wide with a draft of 3m. The third and current “Rainbow Warrior” has 855 gross tonnage, deadweight 180t, is 57.9m
long, 11.3m wide and has a maximum draft of 5m.
To date I cannot
find any cruise ships of similar size operating on the Australian east coast
ocean route.
All east
coast ships in P&O’s fleet
are large ships, as are Holland
America’s fleet. Princess
Cruises’ ships are all large and, the Royal
Caribbean’s fleet is also composed of large ships. Ditto Carnival’s fleet and Celebrity
Cruises’ ships. Norwegian
Cruise Line, MCS
Cruises and Cunard
Line fleets contain only large vessels. While Oceania Cruises’ fleet is composed of somewhat smaller ships, but with drafts nudging 6m to 7m it probably wouldn't consider entering the Clarence . By comparison Noble
Caledonia’s single cruise ship on the east coast is the ship with the shallowest draft found
to date, but it may have difficulty coming over the bar in October 2018 and/or with swinging around to depart the estuary.
* Cruise lines are philanthropic - they will help people and the environment by giving money to a local cause.
Some but not all cruise lines do occasionally give money to institutions and causes within ports they regularly visit. It is often looked upon by port communities as 'guilty giving'.
For example, in 2014 one of Carnival Cruise Line's ships severely damaged a section of pristine reef in the Cayman Islands. The next year the Carnival Foundation announced it was giving a $75,000 donation to the Cayman Islands-based Central Caribbean Marine Institute toward restoration of an ecologically distinct and globally endangered coral species.
The Cayman Islands government had to step in before the cruise line would hand over $100,000 to the Cayman Islands National Trust towards the Magic Reef Restoration Project to cover the 11,000 sq feet of endangered coral that the "Carnival Magic" crushed.
If the international cruise ship industry genuinely had a social conscience then there wouldn't be reports like "Sweat Ships" (2002) which looks at the abuse of workers' rights aboard cruise ships.
* Modern cruising is really a form of eco-tourism
There is nothing inherently ecological about the design and functioning of a modern cruise ship.
Modern cruise ships:
* predominately still use bunker fuel when underway and diesel/gas power when berthed if there is no dedicated shore electricity supply available to them;
* give off emissions when these fossil fuels are burned and these emissions can and do sometimes exceed permissible levels of air pollution;
* emit underwater noise which disturbs whales and dolphins;
* are usually noisy when moored or berthed due to the need to generate power and/or provide entertainment for passengers;
* sewerage and waste water storage systems can sometimes malfunction or fail;
* have been known to illegally dump sewerage whilst in port;
* will sometimes dump chlorinated swimming pool water overboard;
* sometimes illegally discharge oily waste into the ocean;
* will sometimes have issues with unlawful garbage disposal on some voyages; and
* anti-fouling paint on their hulls leaches into the waters at wharfs and affects the surrounding marine ecosystem.
* The state government will never be able to dredge the bar or the river because of Native Title.
Yes, Native Title covers the Clarence River from just below Ulmarra to the river mouth and out past the two breakwaters where it creates a 350m buffer around "Dirrangan" reef, as well as a narrower ocean water boundary out from the shoreline starting at Woody Head and going on down past Wooli.
Any cruise ship approaching the entrance to the Clarence River would be sailing in waters covered by Native Title.
However, Native Title rights are non-exclusive and so contain a number of qualifications. Therefore people of goodwill across the Clarence Valley and the wider Northern Rivers region will need to speak up in support of the Yaegl People's stated position if the Berejiklian Government decides to proceed with its international cruise ship terminal proposal.
Yes, Native Title covers the Clarence River from just below Ulmarra to the river mouth and out past the two breakwaters where it creates a 350m buffer around "Dirrangan" reef, as well as a narrower ocean water boundary out from the shoreline starting at Woody Head and going on down past Wooli.
Any cruise ship approaching the entrance to the Clarence River would be sailing in waters covered by Native Title.
However, Native Title rights are non-exclusive and so contain a number of qualifications. Therefore people of goodwill across the Clarence Valley and the wider Northern Rivers region will need to speak up in support of the Yaegl People's stated position if the Berejiklian Government decides to proceed with its international cruise ship terminal proposal.
Excerpt from Native
Title Determination Yaegl People #2 Part B:
General qualifications
on native title rights and interests
8. Native title does not
exist in:
(a) Minerals as defined
in the Mining Act 1992 (NSW) and the Mining Regulation 2010 (NSW); and
(b) Petroleum as defined
in the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 (NSW) and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands)
Act 1982 (NSW).
9. The native title
rights and interests described in paragraphs 6 and 7 do not confer:
(a) possession,
occupation, use and enjoyment to the exclusion of all others;
(b) any right to control
access to, or use of, the Determination Area.
10. The native title
rights and interests in the Determination Area are subject to and exercisable
in accordance with:
(a) the laws of the
State of New South Wales and of the Commonwealth;
(b) the traditional laws
acknowledged and traditional customs observed by the Yaegl People; and
(c) the terms of any
Indigenous Land Use Agreement, which may be registered by the National Native
Title Tribunal in respect of any part of the Determination Area made after the
making of this Determination…….
Other
interest which existed at the time Native Title over “Dirrangun” was determined
are protected.
10. Other interests
generally
(a) Rights and
interests, including licences and permits, granted by the Crown in right of the
State of New South Wales, the Clarence Valley Council or of the Commonwealth
pursuant to statute or under regulations made pursuant to such legislation.
(b) Rights and interests
held by reason of the force and operation of the laws of the State of New South
Wales or of the Commonwealth.
(c) Rights and interests
of members of the public arising under common law or statute including, but not
limited to the following:
(i) any public right to
fish;
(ii) the public right to
navigate; and
(iii) the international
right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.
(d) So far as is
confirmed pursuant to section 18 of the Native Title (New South Wales) Act as
at the date of the Determination, any existing public access to and enjoyment
of:
(i) waterways;
(ii) the bed and banks
or foreshores of waterways;
(iii) coastal waters;
(iv) beaches;
(v) stock routes; and
(vi) areas that were
public places at the end of 31 December 1993.
(e) The rights of:
(i) an employee, agent
or instrumentality of the State of New South Wales;
(ii) an employee, agent
or instrumentality of the Commonwealth;
(iii) an employee, agent
or instrumentality of any Local Government Authority, to access the
Determination Area and carry out actions as required in the performance of his/
her or its statutory or common law duty.
Sea claim judgment: Yaegl People #2 v Attorney General of New South Wales [2017] FCA 993 (31 August 2017)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)