Showing posts with label Berejiklian Government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Berejiklian Government. Show all posts
Tuesday 19 September 2017
Independent Investigation into NSW Water Management and Compliance - interim report concerning theft and corruption allegations published 8 September 2017
It took a public airing of the issues by ABC TV “Four Corners” in its Pumped: Who is benefitting from the billions spent on the Murray-Darling? program on 24 July 2017 to force the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Australian National Audit Office, Commonwealth Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption and the NSW Berejiklian Coalition Government into investigative action.
The NSW Government has now published its initial 78-page report into allegations of theft and corruption in the management of water resources in the Murray–Darling Basin.
On 11 September 2017, Ken Matthews issued a statement regarding the delivery of his Independent Investigation into NSW Water Management and Compliance. The focus of his interim report was to assess whether the department's policies, procedures and actions were appropriate, to recommend whether further actions should be undertaken, and to identify opportunities to improve the department’s future compliance and enforcement performance.
Download the Independent investigation into NSW water management and compliance – Interim report (2 MB PDF).
ABC News, 12 September 2017:
Yesterday, Mr Hanlon was stood down from the Department of Primary Industries pending a misconduct investigation: Four Corners had also revealed he had offered to share with them — via DropBox — internal departmental documents that had been "debadged".
His removal was announced as the Government released a wide-ranging report by Ken Matthews into the allegations raised in the program.
The Matthews report has turned out to be nothing of the whitewash many expected. What he has delivered instead is a grenade.
Among his recommendations is that the Government enforce a regime of "no metering, no pumping" which is sobering for no other reason than it is so obvious: the vast majority of people who pay water rates in this country will be aghast that this has not always been the case for water users who deal in billions of litres of water.
Most alarming for some government employees and businesspeople is the revelation contained in his report that the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has taken up an interest in the matter: including into whether the department has properly and fully pursued cases of alleged illegal water extraction.
As a result of its involvement, the fine details regarding "gaps in the case management record", and why cases were not pursued in the face of "prima facie evidence of substantive breaches", were not published. Instead, Mr Matthews handed these matters to the anti-graft commission.
From what I saw on the ground when we were filming this program, there will be many people sweating on what happens next. The Matthews investigation was clearly thorough, but it was done in a very short time, and with none of the powers of the ICAC.
A critical further point, that might otherwise be lost amid the hue and cry about illegal water take and meter tampering, is the question of so-called "environmental water".
Another of the findings in the Four Corners program was that huge volumes of this water — which had been purchased by taxpayers to help rescue the Murray-Darling Basin from the degradation caused by decades of over-extraction — was being harvested, legally, by some major irrigators.
This was made possible by a bizarre "water sharing plan" enacted in 2012 by which the NSW Government gave major water-users more reliable access to water — including by dumping restrictions on pump sizes and allowing fast, large-scale industrial extraction of water even when the river was running low.
Mr Matthews makes it clear that "this issue applies not only in the Barwon-Darling water system but elsewhere in NSW and the wider Murray-Darling Basin".
"Solving the problem will be critical to the success of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan," Mr Matthews found.
"It is a pre-condition if the anticipated environmental benefits of the plan are to be delivered.
"The issue is not new. Regrettably, it has continued without resolution for years ... there is a strong public expectation that arrangements should be in place already, and to the extent that they are not, a remedy is urgent."
This is a bombshell for the Commonwealth Government and this major economic and agrarian reform.
The South Australian Government has reacted to Mr Matthews' findings already, reiterating calls for a national judicial inquiry.
For Mr Le Lievre, and many others, this is where the significant changes need to be made. Communities like Louth will simply fade away without the water they once had flowing past.
Earlier this year, Mr Le Lievre told me someone in the NSW Government had to be held accountable for what had been done with the water.
The Matthews report goes some way to delivering precisely that, but, as the weathered farmer insisted at the time, "the only way to make them accountable and to stop them from pulling out legs is to do it under oath".
"Simple. They can't get out of it, they've got to tell the truth."
It is a power that was not available to Mr Matthews, or to the various other investigations now underway into the Four Corners revelations. It is, however, readily used in the ICAC's hearing room.
Monday 14 August 2017
More bad news for NSW coastal forests
The Sydney Morning Herald, 7 August 2017:
A draft bill to revamp regulations for native forestry in NSW was slammed as "overly complex" and inequitable, and it failed to address "an inherent conflict of interest" in the oversight of state-owned Forestry Corp.
Documents obtained by Fairfax Media show the NSW Environment Protection Authority found the government's draft native forestry bill unfairly favoured Forestry Corp by remove licensing requirements for the corporation while maintaining them for landholders or industry seeking private native forestry.
It would also leave the corporation with powers unmatched for a state agency, including its protection from third-party challenges such as from environmental groups.
"The inherent conflict of interest for a corporation in having a concurrency role for negotiating, revoking or changing the terms of their licence ... and the removal of third party legal rights, exists nowhere else in NSW legislation or regulation," the EPA's leaked assessment made last December shows.
Fairfax Media understands the EPA also sought legal advice on how to restrict "very intense" harvesting that the Forestry Corp had conducted for years in areas such as the blackbutt-dominant forests of the NSW mid-north coast.
The Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IFOAs) that permitted the logging were, however, found to be poorly worded, curbing the watchdog's ability to take legal action.
Even if it could act, though, the penalties available remain tiny. While other breaches, such as by coal mines, could attract fines of as much as $1 million, most forestry penalties were in the hundreds of dollars.
Many of the sanctions were decades old and although the cabinet had discussed a review of the penalties in 2014 – and agreed on million-dollar fines for forestry impacts on threatened species in late 2015 – it is yet to update them......
Monday 7 August 2017
Politicians and Water: The Murray Darling Basin Scandal Fallout
The
ABC Four Corners program “Pumped” which was screened on 24th July
has illustrated how important scrutiny of the establishment is to the rule of
law in our democracy. It also illustrates why the ABC is under threat from many
politicians and other powerful players who see any effective scrutiny of their
operations as an intolerable threat to their way of doing business, a way that
is against both the general community interest as well as the national
interest.
The
outrage from the revelations of water theft and other illegality by big
irrigators in the northern NSW area of the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB) has
increased over the days since the program was screened. Politicians have
been left scrambling and forced to change tack following the strength of the
reaction and the condemnation of the inadequacy of their initial responses.
In
NSW the Nationals Minister for Primary Industry, Niall Blair, was forced to
change from an internal inquiry conducted by his department to an independent
inquiry. Blair was excessively optimistic in thinking that such an
internal inquiry would be acceptable given that Four Corners had revealed a
questionable relationship between Gavin Hanlon[1],
his department’s Deputy Director General (Water), and big irrigators in the upper
MDB. In addition there was the important question of why the department
had failed to act on departmental compliance officers’ reports of licence
breaches and meter tampering. And there were questions about the role of the
former water minister Kevin Humphries in dealing with the large irrigators.
The
NSW Opposition has also taken action referring both the former Nationals water
minister Kevin Humphries (Member for Barwon) and a senior bureaucrat
(presumably Gavin Hanlon) to ICAC.
The
Federal Government reaction was initially almost dismissive. The Minister
for Water Resources, Nationals Leader Barnaby Joyce[2],
as well as attempting to downplay the water theft by comparing it to cattle
rustling, claimed that it was a matter for NSW and that there was no need for
Federal Government involvement. Billions of dollars of taxpayer funds have been
used to buy back water for environmental flows and instead of being used for
this purpose this water has gone to the big irrigators in the upper
Barwon-Darling. Presumably the taxpayer funds had come from the Federal
Government. This would surely make it a matter of very great interest to this
government which, seeing it is so concerned about budget repair, would surely
be appalled at the waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.
Joyce’s
totally inadequate initial response was compounded shortly afterwards with what
he said in a speech to irrigators in a hotel at Shepparton, a speech which was
recorded by one of those attending.
Joyce said,
"We have taken water, put it back into agriculture, so we could look after
you and make sure we don't have the greenies running the show basically sending
you out the back door, and that was a hard ask.”
"A
couple of nights ago on Four Corners, you know what that's all about? It's about
them trying to take more water off you, trying to create a calamity. A calamity
for which the solution is to take more water off you, shut more of your towns
down."
Even
a dinosaur like Barnaby Joyce should have been aware that anyone carrying a
smartphone has the capacity to secretly record what others are saying. In
the political sphere we have seen how damaging this can be in the cases of
Christopher Pyne and One Nation’s James Ashby. The Shepparton recording has
certainly damaged Joyce and has added volume to the calls for him to be sacked
from the Water portfolio. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen as
the Prime Minister has enough problems in his own party without alienating
Joyce and the Nationals.
By
Sunday 30th the scandal became a matter that the Federal Government
had to act upon despite Joyce’s earlier labelling it a state matter. The
Federal solution was for the Murray Darling Basin Authority to carry out an
independent basin-wide review into compliance with state-based regulations governing
water use. The Authority is to report by 15th December 2017.
The Government saw this review as complementing the other investigations of the
Four Corners allegations.
However,
this is a case of far too little too late. The MDB Authority is scarcely
a body able to conduct an independent review of what has obviously been
happening under its watch. Furthermore a cynic would see the reporting
date of 15th December, just before the Christmas holiday season, as
a typical government move to ensure that the review report would receive
minimal attention and be forgotten about over the holiday break.
The
Federal Opposition, like its NSW state counterpart, has also taken action on
the scandal. It requested that the Auditor-General expand his current
audit of the Federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The
Auditor-General will now include how the federal department is monitoring the
performance of NSW under the National Partnership Agreement on Implementing
Water Reform in the MDB relevant to the protection and use of environmental
water.
Unsurprisingly,
the South Australian Government, which has long been concerned about the lack
of water reaching the end of the Murray-Darling system, was outraged by the
allegations. It is calling for a judicial inquiry, a much stronger
investigation than those arranged by NSW and the Federal Government. SA
senators from Labor, the Greens, the Nick Xenophon Party and the Conservatives
have joined their state government in calling for a judicial inquiry.
This
scandal has a long way to run yet. There are major questions to be
answered about the National Party – both state and federally - and its
relationship with the big irrigators and its apparent indifference to the needs
of other irrigators further down the system. There is also the question
of its influence on the workings of the NSW Department of
Agriculture. And just what role has it had in limiting the
effectiveness of – perhaps even of sabotaging - the Murray Darling Basin Plan?
For
both Federal and NSW state Liberal leaders there is the question about the
advisability of having resource management portfolios in the hands of Nationals
and of putting both Agriculture and Water in the same portfolio. Each of
these governments has a very poor environmental record. What has been
happening on the Barwon-Darling reinforces the view that keeping “in good” with
the Nationals is far more important for the Liberals than ensuring that
environmental policies are in the best long-term interests of the state and nation.
[1] Gavin Hanlon joined
the NSW Department of Primary Industries in December 2014. Prior to this
he had been Managing Director of Goulburn Murray Water since 2011.
[2] The water portfolio
was removed from the Environment Department and allocated to Joyce as a result
of the agreement with the Liberals in 2015 following Malcolm
Turnbull becoming Prime Minister.
Hildegard
Northern
Rivers
2nd
August 2017
Guest Speak is a North
Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment
from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email northcoastvoices at gmail dot com dot
au to submit comment for consideration.
Tuesday 1 August 2017
Environment Victoria calls on Andrews Government to challenge NSW Berejiklian Government's "rigging" of Murray-Darling Basin Plan river water extraction rules
Environment Victoria, Media Release, Tuesday 25 July 2017:
Calls for Victoria to stand up to NSW water guzzlers
Environmental groups, farmers and Indigenous leaders today called on the Andrews government to respond urgently to claims on ABC’s Four Corners that New South Wales irrigators are engaging in “illegal water use” at the expense of Victoria’s rivers and farmers.Environment Victoria Acting CEO Dr Nicholas Aberle said:
“Victoria is being cheated out of water and the Victorian government needs to stand up to these greedy cotton growers who are guzzling billions of litres meant to flow downstream for our environment.
“Victorians deserve to know exactly how much water has been lost and how this will affect Victoria’s water supplies and the health of our rivers.
Below: Map
showing how alleged illegal water use upstream in NSW affects Victoria
|
And so the spotlight hovers over Australian Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and NSW Regional Water Minister Niall Blair......
When both the NSW Coalition Government (2 April 2015) and Federal Coalition Government (21 September 2015) gave a minister dual responsibility for agriculture and water one could almost hear the political train careening wildly in the distance.
Unfortunately two years later the people of Australia woke to discover that handing over responsibility for water in a complex major river system to two National Party MPs meant it was also a social, economic and environmental train wreck as well.
All the audits and investigations in the world will not unmake the disaster that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan has become under Barnaby Joyce and Niall Blair unless the political will is there, however this is a good start.
In an effort to wrest back control of the situation Prime Minister Turnbull has reportedly
ordered the Murray Darling Basin Authority to conduct an allegedly ndependent basin-wide review into compliance with state-based regulations governing water use. The review report will be presented to the December 2017 Council of Australian Government (COAG) meeting.
Monday 17 July 2017
'The Force' is strong on the Liverpool Plains
People power at work on the NSW Liverpool Plains - well done to everyone over the years who attended protest events, emailed, wrote, phoned. posted, tweeted and/or made formal submissions objecting to Shenhua’s mining expansion plans.
The Northern Daily Leader, 12 July 2017:
Shenhua says it still plans to progress the Watermark coal mine in light of the NSW government $262m buy back of half its exploration licence.
Shenhua Australia Chairman Liu Xiang said the planning for the mine would continue on the remaining section of the licence “in line with the planning approvals” from both the state and federal governments.
The NSW government said despite the agreement, Shenhua's expired exploration licence had yet to be renewed.
“An application to amend the current renewal application to remove the relinquished area has been received,” a Department of Planning and Environment spokesman said.
“The relinquished area will be removed from the title and the consideration of the renewal application for the remainder of the licence will be considered as per normal procedures and in accordance with the Act.”
In a statement to The Leader, Shenhua expressed its “disappointment” regarding the NSW government’s stance on mining operations on black soil plains, “as it would prevent its efforts” to get its exploration licence “wholly renewed”.
While Shenhua believes it “would have been able to responsibly expand its existing Watermark Coal Mine”, it has “come to terms with the NSW Government’s decision to not allow any mining on the black soil plains”.
However, the fight continues…….
Liberal Member of the NSW Legislative Council, Don Harwin
Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts, Vice-President of the Executive Council
Minister for Resources, Minister for Energy and Utilities, and Minister for the Arts, Vice-President of the Executive Council
Phone
|
(02) 8574 7200
|
Fax
|
(02) 9339 5568
|
Email
| |
ABC News, 12 July 2017:
National co-ordinator for the Lock the Gate Alliance Phil Laird said anything less than the full cancellation of the project would not protect the farming systems.
"If we are going to hand over our best farming country to a coal mine that's owned by the Chinese Government, we've got to change our priorities," Mr Laird said.
"This coal mine is going to be 200 metres deep and its going to cut below the ridge line way below the level of the farm land and the aquifers.
"The impacts to those aquifers is unknown and the entire region depends on those aquifers for survival."
CSEC - CHINA SHENHUA ENERGY COMPANY LTD.
12/07/2017 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 12/07/2017 19:28
Voluntary Announcement- Announcement On Progress Of The Wate...
Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited and The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited takes no responsibility for the contents of this announcement, makes no representation as to its accuracy or completeness and expressly disclaims any liability whatsoever for any loss howsoever arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this announcement.
(a joint stock limited company incorporated in the People's Republic of China with limited liability)
(STOCK CODE: 01088)
VOLUNTARY ANNOUNCEMENT
ANNOUNCEMENT ON PROGRESS OF THE WATERMARK PROJECT
This announcement is made by China Shenhua Energy Company Limited (the "Company") on a voluntary basis. The purpose of this announcement is to keep the Shareholders and potential investors of the Company informed of the latest business development of the Group.
On 20 November 2008, the Company issued the Announcement in relation to Watermark Exploration Area Exploration License. Shenhua Watermark Coal Pty Limited ("Watermark Pty"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, entered into Exploration License with the state government of New South Wales, Australia (the "NSW Government"), pursuant to which Watermark Pty paid for the exploration license at a consideration of AUD299,900,000 and obtained the Watermark exploration area of approximately 195 square kilometers in aggregate.
On 29 June 2017, Watermark Pty reached an agreement with the NSW Government in relation to partial extension of the exploration license. Pursuant to the established policies of protection of agricultural activities on the black soil plains, the NSW Government withdrew the exploration license of approximately 100 square kilometres within Watermark exploration area and provided Watermark Pty with economic compensation amounting to AUD261,800,000, and accepted the application for the partial extension of the exploration license of non-black soil plains in Watermark exploration area. According to the agreement upon tendering in 2008, if the mining license of Watermark Pty is approved, then an additional AUD200,000,000 shall be paid to the NSW Government.
There are three planning open-cut mining areas, which are situated within the area of non-black soil plains, for the Watermark Pty Open-cut Coal Mine Project with recoverable reserves of approximately 290 million tonnes (JORC Standards), total designed raw coal production capacity of 10 million tonnes/year and designed service life of 24 years. The total investment amount of the project was approximately AUD1,470,000,000, among which 40% was contributed by Watermark Pty and 60% was financed by way of bank borrowings.
Up to now, the approval from the National Development and Reform Commission of the PRC, the approval for the environmental impact assessment from the Australian Federal Government and the approval from the Planning and Assessment Commission of the NSW Government have been obtained for the Open-cut Coal Mine Project. The environmental protection certification and mining rights license from the NSW Government will be applied for.
Watermark Pty will comply with the requirements of laws in Australia to promote the approval and construction of the Open-cut Coal Mine Project.
SHAREHOLDERS OF THE COMPANY AND POTENTIAL INVESTORS ARE ADVISED TO PAY ATTENTION TO INVESTMENT RISKS AND EXERCISE IN CAUTION WHEN DEALING IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY.
By Order of the Board
CHINA SHENHUA ENERGY COMPANY LIMITED HUANG QING
Secretary of the Board of Directors
Beijing, 12 July 2017
As at the date of this announcement, the Board comprises the following: Dr. Ling Wen, Dr. Han Jianguo and Dr. Li Dong as executive directors, Mr. Zhao Jibin as non- executive director, and Dr. Tam Wai Chu, Maria, Dr. Jiang Bo and Ms. Zhong Yingjie, Christina as independent non-executive directors.
It should be noted that the Shenhua Group has been named as one of the top 100 global fossil fuel companies collectively resposible for 72% of all global industrial Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.
It should be noted that the Shenhua Group has been named as one of the top 100 global fossil fuel companies collectively resposible for 72% of all global industrial Green House Gas (GHG) emissions.
Monday 26 June 2017
Instead of addressing the root causes of homelessness in NSW the Berejiklian Government allows this to occur
It doesn’t matter what political stripe the NSW government of the day is - the issue of homelessness is rarely addressed in a positive fashion.
One only has to consult the National Library of Australia and Trove digital newspaper records to see that homelessness and Sydney have gone hand in hand since the city was established. As has the threat of violence towards those without a roof over their heads.
In February1890 a physical count of homeless people sleeping rough in the city occurred and 127 year later a count still occurs.
In February1890 a physical count of homeless people sleeping rough in the city occurred and 127 year later a count still occurs.
In February
1890 the count stood at 472 rough sleepers and by February 2017 the homeless count on the
night was 433 rough sleepers, with another 489 people in crisis/temporary accommodation* and 28 people of no fixed address in hospital.
In the last fifty years to date in Sydney, the usual first response considered when the number of homeless people become highly visible is to force these people out of the inner city area to become the problem of other suburbs and different councils.
These clearances often only come to the notice of the general public during the lead up to high profile events such as state visits or when Sydney hosted the Olympics in 2000.
These clearances often only come to the notice of the general public during the lead up to high profile events such as state visits or when Sydney hosted the Olympics in 2000.
This time it was the turn of the Berejiklian Coalition Government and The City of Sydney Council to attempt to scatter the homeless from the inner-city by using NSW Police as their all too willing pit bulls.
Now if this sweep of Sydney streets runs true to form an official spokesperson will say that the homeless have been offered alternative accommodation and many have refused.
This is officialese for handing out the contact details of overworked and under-resourced homeless services.
The most easily accessible being the night refuges which are frequently only marginally safer than sleeping rough for the most vulnerable of those on the streets and which can offer little more than temporary night accommodation on a first-come-first-served basis.
While other crisis/temporary accommodation offered through Dept of Housing/FaCS can be for as little as 2-5 days in a budget motel, caravan park or similar.
The current waiting list for permanent social housing in the Sydney metropolitan area is generally between 5 to 10+ years.
The most easily accessible being the night refuges which are frequently only marginally safer than sleeping rough for the most vulnerable of those on the streets and which can offer little more than temporary night accommodation on a first-come-first-served basis.
While other crisis/temporary accommodation offered through Dept of Housing/FaCS can be for as little as 2-5 days in a budget motel, caravan park or similar.
The current waiting list for permanent social housing in the Sydney metropolitan area is generally between 5 to 10+ years.
Well done, Sydney! Home to a heavy-handed, often violent police force, a city administration without a heart and a cruelly indifferent state government.
Note
* There were 16 crisis accommodation hostels with a minimum of 414 beds operating in the City of Sydney local government area in February 2017.
Tuesday 13 June 2017
Are Berejiklian & Co attempting to pull an environmental sleight of hand on NSW communities who value their green and biodiverse landscapes?
On 23 November 2016 the NSW Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 (repealing the Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995, the Nature Conservation Trust Act 2001 and the animal and plant provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974) became law.
On the same day the NSW Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016 (repealing the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and amending the Local Land Services Act 2013 in relation to native vegetation land management in rural areas) also became law.
Currently the NSW Berejiklian Coalition Government has these documents on exhibition:
Regulations and other key products to support the Government's new Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 and Local Land Services Amendment Act 2016, are on exhibition for six weeks from 10 May until 21 June.
- Draft Biodiversity Conservation Regulation 2017 (PDF), and its supporting regulatory impact statement (PDF)
- Draft Local Land Services Amendment Regulation 2017 (PDF)
- Draft Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment (Biodiversity Conservation) Regulation 2017 (PDF)
- Explanation of Intended Effect for the State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) 2017 (PDF)
- Land Management (Native Vegetation) Code (PDF)
- Biodiversity Assessment Method (BAM) (PDF) and BAM tool (Link)
- Accreditation Scheme for the Application of the Biodiversity Assessment Method (PDF)
- Draft Sensitive Biodiversity Values Land Map (Link)
- Serious and irreversible impacts guidance (PDF)
- Offsets payment calculator (Excel) and User Manual (PDF)
Facts sheets and guides that provide detailed information on key topic areas are also available to assist you in making a submission.
Loud warning bells should be ringing in all ears – not least because the draft regulation document State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) 2017 is nowhere to be found.
Instead there is a slick 22-page Explanation of Intended Effect booklet (highlighted in red) which is not worth the paper it is printed on at this point in time.
Why the Berejiklian Government assumes that it is best practice to place major policy change on exhibition with a crucial SEPP not yet drafted is unexplained.
Nor is there any indication as to why this as yet unformed vegetation SEPP is to be signed into government regulation in eleven weeks' time without voters having the opportunity to assess and comment on its precise provisions and wording.
One has to suspect that the reason for such sleight of hand is that State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) 2017 will contain a workaround for property developers to clear environmentally valuable native vegetation using the new permit system long before land comes before a council for consideration as the subject of a development application.
As the Explanation of Intended Effect now stands it appears that local government will have less control over clearing of native vegetation than it had in the past.
Why the Berejiklian Government assumes that it is best practice to place major policy change on exhibition with a crucial SEPP not yet drafted is unexplained.
Nor is there any indication as to why this as yet unformed vegetation SEPP is to be signed into government regulation in eleven weeks' time without voters having the opportunity to assess and comment on its precise provisions and wording.
One has to suspect that the reason for such sleight of hand is that State Environmental Planning Policy (Vegetation) 2017 will contain a workaround for property developers to clear environmentally valuable native vegetation using the new permit system long before land comes before a council for consideration as the subject of a development application.
As the Explanation of Intended Effect now stands it appears that local government will have less control over clearing of native vegetation than it had in the past.
The Better Planning Network (BPN), a state-wide not for profit grassroots volunteer-based organisation, has also highlighted the following issues:
The detailed map of land classified as 'Environmentally Sensitive' is not publicly available.
- The map of Category 1 and Category 2 rural land (ie- land that can be cleared under self-assessable codes or otherwise) is not publicly available.
- The mapping of core koala habitat across NSW has not been completed (we are aware of only 5 NSW Councils that have identified core koala habitat under SEPP 44 Koala Habitat Protection.)
- The details of the Biodiversity Offsets Calculator are not publicly available.
It is impossible for the public to provide accurate feedback on the draft Regulations, Codes and SEPP without access to the above elements. It is also irresponsible and risky for the Government to operationalise its legislation and regulations before these elements have been finalised.
On this basis, we urge you to contact the NSW Premier and the responsible Ministers (Upton, Roberts and Blair) to ask them to:
- Extend the public exhibition of all Regulations and Codes under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2017, as well as the Vegetation SEPP, until the components listed above are made publicly available.
- Ensure that operation of the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2017 does not commence until all relevant mapping, included that listed above, has been completed and reviewed for accuracy by key stakeholders.
An analysis of the draft Regulations, Codes and SEPP has been provided though the Stand Up For Nature Submission Guide. We are preparing our own draft submission which we will circulate to you as soon as possible. However, accurate comment on the full package is not possible until all of the components listed above are made publicly available.
The Environmental Defenders Office NSW (EDO) uploaded this video which walks through the documents on exhibition:
EDO 1 June 2017 seminar slides can be found here. Included in these slides is some advice on what to cover in submissions.
According to the EDO "There are some serious weaknesses" in these draft documents which are intended to become operational on 25 August 2017.
These include:
* Repeal of Native Vegetation Act and environmental standards that go with it, replaced with Codes
* Heavy reliance on flexible and indirect biodiversity offsets – weaker standards in the BAM and for biocertification
* Conservation gains aren't guaranteed in law, but dependent on funding decisions
* There is significant discretion for decision-makers
* Significant risk of policy failure
Locally one can add to this list the fact that Clarence Valley Council has stated:
Locally one can add to this list the fact that Clarence Valley Council has stated:
A review of the draft
Sensitive Biodiversity Values Land Map released by OEH reveals that it is
missing areas of the Clarence Valley LGA which are known to contain habitat for
threatened and critically endangered species or significant biodiversity value
(for example core koala habitat identified in the Ashby-Woombah-Iluka koala
plan of management, as well as significant areas of littoral rainforest and
coastal wetlands).
[Clarence
Valley Council, Environment, Planning & Community Committee Business Paper
- 13 June 2017]
Concerned residents can have their say until 21 June 2017 by:
Or writing to the Land Management and Biodiversity Conservation Reforms Office,
PO Box A290, Sydney South NSW 1232
NOTE
At least one local government, Clarence Valley Council, has requested an extension of time to make a submission on these reforms and to date this formal request has been met with deafening silence.
NOTE
At least one local government, Clarence Valley Council, has requested an extension of time to make a submission on these reforms and to date this formal request has been met with deafening silence.
Wednesday 7 June 2017
In North-East NSW 'a "reduced survey effort" and the dropping of a longstanding rule applying 20 metre buffers to "high-use" areas' is being proposed. How much more can a koala bear?
PHOTO: Australia Zoo in The Age
The Forestry Corporation of NSW (originally the Forestry Commission formed by an act of the NSW Parliament) is the largest manager of commercial native and plantation forests in New South Wales.
Not content with revenue of $339 million and underlying profit after tax of $36 million in 2015-16 (latest annual report) it wants to increase its harvesting range and is coming after quality koala habitat on the NSW North Coast.
ABC News, 3 June 2017:
Many of Australia's most iconic marsupials will lose protection from logging bulldozers, under a radical overhaul proposed in secret Forestry Corporation documents.
The documents, obtained by the ABC, propose the elimination of long-standing threatened species protections, such as site-survey rules, in many NSW state forests.
Intense clearing in northern regions, and increased access to protected stream-banks across the state are other major changes.
Environmentalists say if current rules are trashed, protected marsupials including koalas, wombats, quolls, and gliders will be stealthily eliminated.
"If you don't look, you don't find and if you don't find you don't protect," said conservationist Dailan Pugh, from the North-East Forest Alliance.
The conditions are part of new forestry agreements — known as Integrated Forestry Operations Approvals (IOFA) — and cover four major operational areas across the state. Final details are expected to be announced later this year.
Wombats, quolls, koalas face loss of exclusion zones
PHOTO: Wombats could be "buried alive" as their burrows are crushed by machinery, Mr Pugh says.
(Supplied)
(Supplied)
Many iconic marsupials face additional changes in the draft proposals.
The highly endangered spotted-tail quoll faces a 70 per cent reduction of no-logging zones around breeding dens — reduced from 12 hectares to 3.5 hectares.
Wombats, another protected species, are geographically protected by a line north of the Oxley Highway, requiring a 20 metre logging exclusion zone around burrows.
But Forestry Corporation negotiators want to redraw that protective line further north to Waterfall Way — eliminating the 20 metre exclusion in a vast logging zone between Coffs Harbour and Port Macquarie.
Mr Pugh said that would lead to "more wombats being buried alive, as their burrows are collapsed by machinery and falling trees".
He said environmental regulators, such as the EPA, should address declining wombat numbers by expanding current protections state-wide.
For koalas in north-east NSW, Forestry Corporation proposes a "reduced survey effort" and the dropping of a longstanding rule applying 20 metre buffers to "high-use" areas.
It says future protections are "to be developed" utilising new models to retain habitat.
Cost savings if animal surveys dropped
Currently, prior to harvest, logging companies must survey for 87 vulnerable animals, many already facing threat of extinction.
Where an animal habitat is found, operators then implement site protections such as exclusion zones before logging is approved……
The author cites "significant cost saving" as a benefit of making the change.
But former Forestry scientist Robert Kooyman worried relaxing the rules around surveys would harm up to 49 animal species.
"Forest management requires that you know what it is you are managing," he said.
"While historic records provide an indication of habitat use, they are inevitably incomplete, do not reflect the dynamics of forests, and many animal species are highly mobile within their range and habitats, and follow resources."……
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)