A Message To All Liberal Party Politicians In The Australian Parliament

https://youtu.be/m0ufUSVSyUc

Who do we blame as matters go from bad to worse over the next eight months in Australia?

The country is being crippled by the effects of drought and basic food prices will soon begin to rise, while at the same time wages growth remains stagnant. Cost cutting by successive Coalition federal governments is impacting service delivery on everything from health and welfare through to national broadband connectivity.

The federal government is still a policy-free zone with regard to energy and climate change due to toxic infighting between members of the Liberal Party of Australia which, along with its coalition partner the National Party, has an ideological inability to drag itself into the 21st century to face the consequences of ongoing land degradation and water insecurity.

Australia now has a new prime minister, but this situation is unlikely to change as the hard right remains holding the reins of government.

The next federal election is still over eight months away. 

So who do we blame for the situation the country finds itself in between now and the election?

Take your pick.......

According to News.com.au this is the list of federal parliamentary members of the Liberal Party of Australia who voted to bring on the leadership spill of 24 August 2018:

1. Andrew Hastie

2. Tony Pasin

3. Craig Kelly

4. Michael Sukkar

5. Kevin Andrews

6. Tony Abbott

7. Ian Goodenough

8. Nicolle Flint

9. Peter Dutton

10. Jason Wood

11. Ross Vasta

12. Luke Howarth

13. Rick Wilson

14. Ted O’Brien

15. Zed Seselja

16 Greg Hunt

17 Steven Ciobo

18 Angus Taylor

19 Alan Tudge

20. Michael Keenan

21 Andrew Wallace

22 Scott Buchholz

23 Jim Molan

24 Slade Brockman

25 Dean Smith

26 Jane Hume

27 Mitch Fifield

28. John McVeigh

29. David Fawcett

30. Amanda Stoker

31. Jonathon Duniam

32. David Bushby

33. James Paterson

34 Eric Abetz

35. Concetta Fierravanti-Wells

36. James McGrath

37. Mathias Cormann

38. Michaelia Cash

39. Karen Andrews

40. Andrew Laming

41 Ben Morton

42. Sussan Ley

43. Warren Entsch

Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan tries to straddle the Coalition fence by becoming a Faux Independent after the new Morrison Government is sworn-in

The political situation in Australia thus far this week..............

You can't get any more blunt than @murpharoo's assessment of #libspill -

"The Government is killing itself in plain view ... It doesn't matter who wins because they're stuffed" pic.twitter.com/1HazIUyd06

— News Breakfast (@BreakfastNews) August 22, 2018

Thinking to hedge his bets in a toxic political environment and remain in the federal parliament beyond the forthcoming federal election, Kevin Hogan sent out this media release on 23 August 2018: 

STATEMENT FROM KEVIN HOGAN

This constant rotation of Prime Ministers by both the Labor Party and the Liberal party, I cannot condone.

 I am announcing today, that if there is another leadership spill for the position of Prime Minister prior to the next federal election, I will remove myself from the government benches and sit on the cross benches.

 I have made this decision because my community is fed up. What we have been seeing in Canberra with leadership changes over the last 10 years, is letting our great country down.

This is not about Peter Dutton, Malcolm Turnbull or Kevin Hogan, it is about the Office of Prime Minister.

I remain 100 per cent committed to delivering for my community. I remain committed to the National Party.

If this occurs, I will still attend National Party meetings if invited. I will not attend Coalition Party Room meetings.

 I will support the Government in No Confidence Motions and Supply.  Any other legislation I will take on a case by case basis.

The model I intend to follow is similar to what the Western Australian National, Tony Crook did.

I will continue to focus on what my community has sent me here to do. I thank them for their overwhelming support. [my yellow hightlighting]

Hogan has been in the federal parliament and a member of the Abbott & Turnbull Coalition governments for almost five years and in that time has never voted against Liberal-Nationals party policy.

What Hogan is doing with this media release is taking a hollow stance.

He fully intends to support the new Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Nationals Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack.

An arrogant new prime minister with a history since 2013 of human rights abuses as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, of welfare recipient bashing as Minister for Social Services, of relentless cost cutting as Treasurer and as a strong supporter of propping up the rich at the expense of low income families.

“Sneaky laws which declare you as guilty in the eyes of the law the minute the police say you are guilty” - Turnbull Government legislative overreach continues in 2018?

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 16 August 2018:

A Senate committee has just given the Turnbull government the green light to nationalise a scheme that allows government to seize citizens’ assets unless their legitimate origins can be explained, even if the owner of the wealth hasn’t been charged with let alone convicted of an offence.

On 6 August, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the federal government pass the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 without any changes.

Unexplained wealth laws currently exist in every Australian jurisdiction, but the new scheme provides a broader model allowing for federal and state authorities to work in collaboration across jurisdictional borders to target serious and organised crime.

“The scale and complexity of this criminal threat has necessitated an enhanced focus on cooperative, cross-jurisdictional responses by Australian governments,” home affairs minister Peter Dutton said in the second reading speech of the bill.

However, critics of the scheme warn that existing unexplained wealth laws undermine the rule of law and broadening their scope will lead to a further erosion of civil liberties. And while these laws are meant to target untouchable crime bosses, they’re actually being used against petty criminals.

Presumption of guilt

“These beefed-up laws bring down all the secret surveillance and the swapping of scuttlebutt masquerading as intelligence on everyone in Australia,” Civil Liberties Australia CEO Bill Rowlings told Sydney Criminal Lawyers.

“The unexplained wealth laws completely overturn the presumption of innocence, which is part of our rule of law in Australia,” he continued. “They are sneaky laws which declare you as guilty in the eyes of the law the minute the police say you are guilty.”

Unexplained wealth laws are a recent development in Australia. But, unlike other proceeds of crime laws that allow for the confiscation of assets derived from prosecuted criminal acts, unexplained wealth places the onus upon the individual to prove their wealth was legally acquired.

“People don’t understand, under these laws the government can confiscate your assets even if you haven’t been found guilty of anything,” Mr Rowlings stressed.

Broadening the reach

The current Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws were introduced in 2010 via amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act).

These laws apply where there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” an individual’s assets have been derived from a committed federal offence, “a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect.”

There are three sorts of orders that can be sought in relation to unexplained wealth. Section 20A of the Act provides that a court can issue an unexplained wealth restraining order, which is an interim order that restricts an individual’s ability to dispose of property.

Section 179B of the Act allows for the issuance of a preliminary order, which requires a person to appear in court to prove their wealth is legitimate. And under section 179E, an order can be issued requiring that the payment of an amount of wealth deemed unlawful be made to the government.

The new legislation amends sections 20A and 179E, so that these orders can be issued in respect to relevant offences of participating states, as well as in relation to territory offences. Relevant state offences will be outlined in state legislation that enables participation in the national scheme.

Sharing it around

The legislation broadens the access authorities have to an individual’s banking information in relation to an unexplained wealth investigation.

Section 213 of the Act allows certain authorised Commonwealth officers to issue access notices to financial institutions. This provision will now be extended to states and territory law enforcement agencies.

Proposed section 297C of the Act outlines how federal, state and territory governments will divvy up the seized wealth. A subcommittee will be established to distribute the money. And while any state that opts out of the scheme will be eligible for a share, it will be a less favourable amount.

The legislation also makes amendments to the sharing of information provisions contained in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.…..

Backdoor revenue raising

The NSW government has already introduced legislation into parliament, which enables that state to participate in the national scheme. The legislation sets out that the relevant offences the laws apply to are set out in section 6(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.

NSW police minister Troy Grant told parliament that the legislation allows the state to refer matters to the Commonwealth, which then authorises the Australian federal police to use certain NSW offences as a basis for the confiscation of unexplained wealth.

But, Mr Rowlings states that the nationalising of the scheme will actually streamline a process that sees the unwarranted confiscation of wealth to prop up government coffers.

“The cash seized is paying for extra government lawyers to help seize more cash,” Mr Rowlings made clear, “so it’s a devious upward spiral where more and more unconvicted people will have their assets taken, and then have to prove their innocence or the government gets their assets.”

Read the full article here.

A definitive list of the far right nutters within the current federal Liberal Party?

Sky News stated this as a list of those in the Liberal party room who backed, then Minister for Home Affairs and now backbencher, Peter Dutton's attempt to overthrow Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull:

A Who’s Who of those voting against Malcolm Bligh Turnbull in the Liberal party room leadership ballot on 21 August 2018:

Peter Dutton himself,
Michael Sukkar, MP for Deakin (Vic) & Assistant Minister to the Treasurer,
Greg Hunt, MP for Flinders (Vic) & Minister for Health,
Tony Abbott, MP for Warringah (NSW) & former sacked prime minister,
Zed Seselja, Senator for ACT & Assistant Minister for Science, Jobs and Innovation,
Steven Ciobo, MP for Moncrieff (Qld) & Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment,
Michael Keenan, MP for Stirling (WA) & Minister for Human Services,
Alan Tudge, MP for Aston (Vic) & Minister for Human Services,
Angus Taylor, MP for Hume (NSW) & Minister for Law Enforcement and Cyber Security,
Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, Senator for NSW & Minister for International Development and the Pacific,
Tony Pasin, MP for Barker (SA),
Jason Wood, MP for La Trobe (Vic),
Andrew Hastie, MP for Canning (WA),
Kevin Andrews, MP for Menzies (Vic),
Eric Abetz, Senator for Tasmania,
Ted O'Brien, MP for Fairfax (Qld),
Amanda Stoker, Senator for Queensland,
Andrew Wallace, MP for Fisher (Qld),
Karen Andrews, MP for McPherson(Qld),
Jim Molan, Senator for NSW,
Luke Howarth, MP for Petrie (Qld),
Nicole Flint, MP for Boothby (SA),
James Paterson, Senator for Victoria,
David Bushby, Senator for Tasmania,
Ross Vasta, MP for Bonner (Qld),
Ben Morton, MP for Tangney (WA),
James McGrath, Senator for Queensland,
Rick Wilson, MP for O'Connor (WA),
Scott Buchholz, MP for Wright (Qld),
David Fawcett, Senator for SA,
Dean Smith, Senator for WA,
Ian Goodenough, MP for Moore (WA),
Andrew Laming, MP for Bowman (Qld),
Jonathan Duniam, Senator for Tasmania,
Bert Van Manen, MP for Forde (Qld).

What a gathering of 'entitled' climate change denialists, followers of King Coal, members of the IPA, homophobes and hardened welfare recipient bashers.

All in all, a handy list of who not to vote for at the forthcoming federal election if one prefers a world where Peter Dutton never becomes Prime Minister of Australia.

Gloucester community's landmark climate change case began in NSW Land & Environment Court, August 2018

Environmental Defenders Office NSW, 14 August 2018:

CASE SUMMARY

Gloucester Resources Ltd and Stratford Pty Ltd
v Groundswell Gloucester and Dept of Planning & Environment 

The Client: Groundswell Gloucester, a residents’ community group concerned with the environmental, social and economic future of the Stroud Gloucester Valley near Barrington Tops in the upper Hunter.

The Case: Represented by EDO NSW, Groundswell Gloucester was joined to proceedings that will determine the fate of the Rocky Hill Coal project, a greenfield open-cut coal mine less than 5km from Gloucester township.

Representation: Matt Floro, solicitor for EDO NSW, has carriage of this matter for Groundswell Gloucester and our Principal Solicitor, Elaine Johnson, is the solicitor on record. We are grateful to barrister Robert White for his assistance in this matter.

Experts: Emeritus Professor Will Steffen will for the first time give evidence in an Australian court that no new fossil fuel developments can be approved if we are to avoid overspending our carbon budget. Professor Steffen is a Climate Councillor on the Climate Council of Australia, Member of the ACT Government’s Climate Change Council, and was previously a Climate Commissioner on the Australian Government’s Climate Commission.

Energy analyst Tim Buckley will explain the financial mechanisms and market changes that are driving investments away from coal and creating a risk that Rocky Hill will become a stranded asset. Tim Buckley is Director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia, Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

60 community objectors include farmers, doctors, Traditional Owners and young people. This is also the first time in an Australian court that young people will talk about the impact of climate change and the impact of the mine on their communities, and future generations.

Timeline:

2016 - Community celebrations after AGL withdraws its application to drill 330 coal seam gas extraction wells in the area.

December 2017 - celebrations continue when the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) refuses consent to the Rocky Hill Coal Project proposed by Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL). The PAC found that the mine was not in the public interest because of its proximity to the town of Gloucester, significant visual impact and direct contravention of the area’s zoning plans.

The PAC also refuses consent to a Modification of the consent for the nearby Stratford mine - operated by a related company of Yancoal Australia Limited - that proposed the receipt, processing and railing of coal from the Project.  The PAC found that the Modification would have no critical purpose or utility outside the Project.

Planning Minister grants both mining companies the right to appeal the refusal of consent to the Land and Environment Court.

February 2018 - Our client, Groundswell Gloucester, seeks to be joined to the proceedings.

April 2018 - following a full-day hearing, the Land and Environment Court orders that Groundswell Gloucester be joined to the proceedings brought by GRL.
In relation to the climate change ground, on joining Groundswell Gloucester, the Court noted that:
“GRL submits that the raising of the climate issue as proposed in a domestic Court if the Intervener were joined would not serve the purpose of improving this particular planning decision; and, instead, would be a “side show and a distraction”. I do not agree.”

Our client has been permitted by the Court to present expert evidence on climate change and the social impacts of this new mine. The Court will hear anthropological evidence about the social impact of mining on the community.

This is the first time an Australian court will hear expert evidence about the urgent need to stay within the global carbon budget in the context of a proposed new coal mine.

Key dates: 
13-14 August 2018
Opening submissions at the Land and Environment Court, Macquarie Street, Sydney
15 August 2018
Site visit (parties only) Gloucester
16-17 August 2018
Hearings in Gloucester (community objectors)
20-24 & 27-31 August 2018
Submissions and expert witnesses at the Land and Environment Court, Macquarie Street, Sydney

Background

This is the first hearing of its kind since the historic Paris Agreement in which a superior jurisdiction Australian court will hear expert testimony about climate change, the carbon budget and the impacts of the burning of fossil fuels.

For years EDO NSW has supported the Gloucester community, providing legal and scientific advice. This contributed to a recommendation from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) in 2016 to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) to refuse GRL’s greenfield mine application, known as the Rocky Hill Coal Project (the Project) and the associated Stratford modification.

In December 2017, the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) refused consent to the Project and the modification, finding they were not in the public interest because of proximity to the town of Gloucester, significant visual impact and the area’s zoning under planning laws.

In deciding how the Project and modification would be assessed, the NSW Minister for Planning granted unusual merit appeal rights to GRL and Yancoal who are now joined together in aggressively challenging the refusal in the Land and Environment Court.

Both coal companies have recruited their own legal and scientific teams. However Groundswell Gloucester was not told about the merit appeal until February, two months after GRL filed the case.

EDO NSW case page: www.edonsw.org.au/groundswell 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Concerned citizens can donate to the Environmental Defence Fund here.

Is Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton value for money?

Australia's millionaire Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton has gathered to himself a lucrative salary worth in the vicinity of $478,068 per annum, before any parliamentary entitlements are realised.

The Prime Minister's annual salary is only a little under $50,000 more than this, while the U.S, President's annual salary is apparently around AU$70,000 less than Dutton's annual payment for services rendered.

So is Peter Dutton giving taxpayers value for the revenue dollars they supply.

It honestly doesn't appear to be the case if this audit is any indication.

Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), Report No.45 2017–18 The Integration of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, excerpts:

On 18 July 2017, the Prime Minister announced that the government had decided to establish a Home Affairs portfolio which would have responsibility for:

federal law enforcement;

national security;

transport security;

criminal justice;

emergency management;

immigration and multicultural affairs; and

border-related functions.

The Department of Home Affairs has assumed all of the department’s functions (including the ABF) in addition to functions from each of the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet; Social Services; Infrastructure and Regional Development and the Attorney-General’s department.

In addition to the ABF, the Home Affairs portfolio also includes the following entities:

the Australian Federal Police;

the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission;

the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre; and

the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. …..

Conclusion

10. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection achieved the integration of DIBP and ACBPS and the creation of the Australian Border Force in a structural sense and is also progressing with the implementation of a suite of reform projects. However, it is not achieving commitments made to government in relation to additional revenue, and is not in a position to provide the government with assurance that the claimed benefits of integration have been achieved.

11. The department established largely effective governance arrangements which were revised over time in response to emerging issues.

12. The department’s record keeping continues to be poor.

13. The department is effectively managing a suite of 38 capability reform projects and has developed sound monitoring arrangements, although the Executive Committee does not have visibility of the overall status of individual projects.

14. The efficiency savings committed to by the department were removed from its forward estimates and have thus been incorporated in the budget. However, the department has not verified whether efficiencies have been delivered in the specific areas which were nominated in the Integration Business Case.

15. Based on progress to the end of December 2017, if collections continue at the current rate the department will only collect 31.6 per cent of the additional customs duty revenue to which it committed in the Integration Business Case.

16. In the Integration Business Case, the department committed to a detailed Benefits Realisation Plan. The plan was not implemented despite several reviews identifying this omission. As a result, the department cannot demonstrate to the government that the claimed benefits of integration have been achieved….

18. Reporting to the Executive focused primarily on integration and organisational reform, with minimal coverage of progress in delivery of the suite of 38 capability reform projects. Following the identification of this as a gap in the 2017 Gateway Review, an Enterprise Transformation Blueprint was established to provide the Executive Committee with greater visibility over the progress of activity across the department.

19. There was no evidence identified to indicate that written briefings were provided to the Minister on progress throughout the implementation process.

20. Detailed communication plans were established and implemented to support the integration process. ‘Pulse Check’ surveys were regularly taken to evaluate staff satisfaction and engagement with the process.

21. The audit found that the department did not maintain adequate records of the integration process. This finding repeats the outcomes of a substantial number of audits and reviews going back to 2005. The department’s own assessment is that its records and information management is in a critically poor state. The problems and their solutions are known to the department, and it has an action plan to address them, although numerous previous attempts to do so have not been successful.

22. The department also experienced a loss of corporate memory due to the level of turn-over of SES staff, with almost half of SES officers present in July 2015 no longer in the department at July 2017.

23. The department initially identified possible risks to effective integration. However, regular reporting against those risks ceased when the Reform and Integration Task Force was disbanded.

24. The department made extensive use of consultants to assist it with the integration process. Despite a requirement to evaluate contracts upon completion, this did not occur in 31 out of 33 (94 per cent) of contracts with a value of more than $1 million examined by the ANAO, and therefore it is unclear whether these services represented value for money…..

The Assurance Partner [Third Horizon] was engaged by DIBP as a consultant for the period 19 June 2014 to 18 June 2016 with a contract value of $2 million The total paid to the consultant was $1.6 million. Due to the department’s concerns with the Assurance Partner’s performance, the engagement ended early in August 2015……

The initial allocation of funds for the Portfolio Reform Program in the 2014–15 budget was $710.4 million.5 Additional funds were approved in successive budgets which brought the total funding for the Program to $977.8 million. [my yellow highlighting]

BRIEF BACKGROUND

North Coast Voices, 26 June 2018, Australia’s Border Farce lives down to its nickname

Is Philip Gaetjens the consummate public servant or in 2018 has he devolved into a right-wing ideological warrior?

On 31 July 2018 Philip Gaetjens will become Secretary to the Australian Treasury reporting to the Australian Treasurer.

Now from 2011 to 2015 he was head of the NSW Treasury under a Baird Coalition Government and before that did a stint at the SA Treasury in 1995 to 1997 spanning the terms of two Liberal premiers, so he will bring some experience to the position.

However, he has also been both chief of staff to former federal treasurer and Liberal MP Peter Costello during the Howard Coalition Government and chief of staff to current federal treasurer and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison in the Turnbull Coalition Government.

There is a question this curriculum vitae raises – “Is Philip Gaetjens the consummate public servant or in 2018 has he devolved into a right-wing ideological warrior?”

Will treasury advice still be seen as authoritative during his tenure?

With Treasury already gaining a reputation as an enabler of Scott Morrison’s worst partisan public pronouncements in election years will Gaetjens make the situation even more difficult for ordinary voters trying to decipher truth in the midst of relentless political spin?

In August Gaetjens will be joined in Treasury by Liberal Senator and Australian Finance Minister Mathias Cormann's chief of staff Simon Atkinson as Deputy Secretary of the Fiscal Group.

WHat did the IPA do with all those millions?

The Daily Telegraph, 6 July 2018, p.23:

…a mysterious foundation, CEF, which received $4 million from Hancock Prospecting in the year to June 2015, and the conservative Institute of Public Affairs think tank, which received $4.5 million from Hancock Prospecting. The Institute did not declare Hancock Prospecting’s donation in its annual report, and after receiving the funds awarded Mrs Rinehart life membership. [my yellow highlighting]

So one of the big donors to that lobby group passing itself off as a public policy think tank, the Institute Of Public Affairs Limited - endorsed as a Deductible Gift Recipient since 30 March 2006 - has been revealed.

I wonder what the Institute of  Public Affairs Limited or the The Trustee For Institute Of Public Affairs Research Trust did with all those millions?

Because IPA annual reports do not show a $4.5 million spike. By 30 June 2015 its revenue which is primarily derived from membership fees and donations stood at $3.24 million (down from $3.47 million in June 2014) and only rose by $1.75 million as at 30 June 2016. In fact between June 2015 and June 2017 IPA revenue only rose by a total of $2.86 million.

By the end of the 2017 financial year the Trustee was telling the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission that it was still only a “medium sized charity” run by 5 volunteers holding only $1,140,497 in cash or cash equivalents and this was the trust’s total assets.

In fact that $4.5 million donation isn’t recorded in any of the financial reports submitted to the charities commission either.

Even though the IPA is supposedly a think tank and the trust fund was set up for the public charitable object of undertaking scientific research one is tempted to question this omission. 

June 2015 was less than a year out from the 2016 federal election campaign. Given their ‘joined at the hip’ relationship, did the IPA use part or most of these millions to assist the Liberal Party election campaign in some manner?

Perhaps the IPA Board* would like to enlighten us all on that point?

* Institute of Public Affairs Limiter Board Members

The Hon. Rod Kemp,  Chair

John Roskam, Executive Director

Dr Janet Albrechtsen

Harold Clough

Dr Tim Duncan

Dr Michael Folie

Michael Hickinbotham

Geoff Hone

Rod Menzies

William Morgan

Maurice O’Shannassy 

Institute of Public Affairs Research Trust Board Members

KEMP, CHARLES RODERICK, Chair

ALBRECHTSEN, JANET KIM

CLOUGH, WILLIAM HAROLD

DUNCAN, WILLIAM TIMOTHY

FOLIE, GEOFFREY MICHAEL

HICKINBOTHAM, MICHAEL ROBB

HONE, GEOFFREY WILLIAM

MENZIES, RODNEY WILLIAM

MORGAN, WILLIAM HUGH MATHESO

O'SHANNASSY, MAURICE JOSEPH

ROSKAM, JOHN PETER

A CERTAIN RMS ASPHALT BATCHING PLANT: Open Letter to NSW Premier & Liberal MP for Willoughby, Gladys Berejiklian, as well as Minister for Roads Maritime and Freight & Nationals MP for Oxley, Melinda Pavey

Dear Premier Berejiklian and Minister Pavey,

Communities in the Clarence River estuary are concerned about an aspect of the NSW Government's current Pacific Highway construction planning.

Below are some of those concerns expressed to local newspaper The Daily Examiner with regard to a Roads and Maritime Services (RMS) plan to install a temporary asphalt batching plant at Woombah on the Clarence River flood plain.

The build is scheduled to start this month and the plant will operate for the next two and a half years.

Please note the attitude – local residents are not amused at the high-handed way in which the NSW Government and RMS went about a cursory declaration of intent.

“What they’re not happy about is an asphalt batching plant being built right near their houses, using their only connecting road to the villages”

“We want the highway, and we want the asphalt plant to be somewhere, but we want it to be away from our communities where it won’t impact on our health and safety”

“The plant will add a reported 500 truck moments and 100 car movements per day at peak, or one every minute, and residents are concerned the additional traffic will create safety problems, and a bottleneck at their intersection, which they already describe as “tight” after it was temporarily re-routed. They also cite concerns over possible health affects the dust may cause for nearby residents.”

We have a resident as close as 450 metres from the plant who is suffering from lung cancer….Although Pacific Complete have been made aware of this, since they were first told they have failed to take action to acknowledge her.”

“We live within one kilometre of the plant and we found out two weeks ago by letterbox drop”

“We found out last Wednesday they didn’t tell anyone else. We’ve been around to other residents who are just outside the area and they had no idea the plant was coming at all.”

I also draw your attention to the content of emails coming out of Iluka:

“Woombah is surrounded by World Heritage National Park. Within the waterways affected by run off from the proposed asphalt plant is the organic Solum Farm. Woombah Coffee will also be affected. Not to mention the multiple organic gardners who sell at the Yamba Markets and those who grow their own food.

The small community of Woombah and its neighbour Iluka are places that welcome tourists for the natural and clean beauty of the environment. An asphalt plant WILL threaten that. 

In addition, the Esk River at Woombah is fed by many of the creeks and waterways in the bushland where the asphalt plant is proposed. They will be adversely affected, which will flow into the Esk which will flow into the Clarence which will affect the fishing, oyster and prawn industries, on which many make their living. Not to mention the tourist industry that survives because our area offers a clean environment with unpolluted air and water.

This proposal is an outrage. Teven said NO. Woombah says NO as well.​”

“What about our kids on school buses with no seatbelts and the increase in traffic particularly trucks”

“Iluka Naturally, turn off at the asphalt plant, how ironic.”

For my own part I would add to these expressions of concern the fact that the 80ha, NPWS-managed Mororo Creek Nature Reserve is only est. 98 metres from the western end of the southern boundary of the proposed asphalt batching site. 

This protected land parcel is one of the reserves which form part of a forested corridor linking Bundjalung National Park to the east and the protected areas of the Richmond Range to the west. It lies within the boundaries of the Yaegl Local Aboriginal Land Council area, the Clarence Valley Local Government Area and the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority.

The Mororo Creek Reserve conserves areas of endangered swamp sclerophyll forest, coastal saltmarsh, subtropical coastal floodplain forest and swamp oak floodplain forest.

Most importantly, Mororo Creek and several of its tributaries which run through this reserve empty into the Clarence River Estuary less than est. 2km from the proposed asphalt batching site.

Now I have no idea why the NSW Government decided that a brief three-page information sheet and invitation to comment published online at http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/documents/projects/northern-nsw/woolgoolga-to-ballina/w2b-woombah-batch-plant-notification-2018-06.pdf was to be the limit of its community consultation effort or why a similar document was sent at short notice to such a small number of Woombah residents.

I don’t pretend to understand why the information sheet contained just one small image of a section of a Pillar Valley temporary asphalt batching plant with no description of typical batching plant infrastructure and no Woombah site layout plan at all, much less one to scale.

There was not a hint in the information sheet of the range of known issues which can arise during site construction, plant operation and site rehabilitation.

Those residents who were originally invited to comment were supplied with less than rudimentary information on which to assess the desirability of a batching plant on the designated site.

Given that the proposed Woombah asphalt batching plant site is est. 2 to 2.5kms as the crow flies from Clarence River estuary waters which:

(1) are covered by Yaegl Native Title;

(2) at certain points are covered by international treaties, including JAMBA, CAMBA, ROKAMBA;

(3) contain the second largest area of seagrass (83 ha), the largest area of mangroves (765 ha) and the third largest area of saltmarsh (290ha) in the northern rivers region [Williams et al 2006 in Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan 2010];

(4) are part of the largest combined river-ocean fishery in NSW containing high fisheries value marine species; and

(5) are a vital component of regional tourism, 

perhaps Premier Berejiklian and Minister Pavey can answer two vital questions.

1. Is the Woombah asphalt batching plant site above the 100 year flood level for the lower Clarence Valley flood plain?

Because if it is not, then the NSW Government’s cavalier attitude to flood risk management would potentially see toxic waste from asphalt batching flow into the Clarence River estuary during a flood event – including solid waste and any organic solvents/hydrocarbons captured in holding ponds for the life of the plant – along with any nearby excavated plant/road construction materials. After all, extreme flood event height predictions for that general area are 3.5 to 4.5 mAHD.

2. Why on earth was a decision made to site the asphalt batching plant and access road at a point along the Pacific Highway where it would cause the maximum damage to Iluka’s clean, green destination image and vital tourism trade?

When the NSW Government first mooted the Pacific Highway upgrade on the North Coast one of the advantages it canvassed was an increase in tourism numbers due to better road conditions.

In the 2015-16 financial year annual visitor numbers to the Clarence Valley were approximately 986,000 persons and their estimated spending was in the vicinity of $383.3 million. By the end of the 2016 calendar year the  tourism visitor count for that year had reached over 1 million.

Most of these visitors holidayed along the Clarence Coast and Iluka is a strong component of that coastal tourism.

If the NSW Government seriously believes that leaving Woombah-Iluka with only one safe, unimpeded access point for day, weekend and long-stay visitors, the Yamba to Iluka foot passenger only ferry, will not significantly affect tourism numbers over the course of two and a half years, one has to wonder if it bothered to investigate the issue at all before signing off on the proposed plant site.

The effect of siting the asphalt batching plant and access road on the designated site will in all likelihood have the effect of diminishing not growing tourism traffic to Iluka for a period beyond the years it actually takes to complete the Maclean to Devil’s Pulpit section of the highway upgrade, as visitor perception of a holiday area can change when industrial level activity becomes visually prominent.

When it comes to commitment to the community consultation process, the NSW Government obviously hasn’t insisted that Roads and Maritime Services live up to its undertaking to engage with communities to understand their needs and consider these when making decisions.

In fact, looking at satellite images of the site one cannot escape the suspicion that pre-construction ground preparation had already commenced before any information was sent out to selected Woombah residents.

Since news of the asphalt batching plan site reached the Lower Clarence and residents began to approach their local state member, there appears to have been a promise made to hold a "drop-in information session" at an unspecified date.

Having experienced NSW departmental drop-in information sessions, I am well aware that they are of limited value as purveyors of anything other that the meagre degree of information found in the aforementioned three page RMS document and, ineffectual as vehicles for genuine community consultation.

The people of Woombah and Iluka deserve better.  They deserve a formal information night which canvasses all the issues, with representatives from RMS and the Pacific Highway project team prepared to address concerns and answer questions, as well as representatives of both the Premier and Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight in attendance as observers.

I’m sure that all residents and business owners in both Woombah and Iluka would appreciate both Premier and Minster taking the time to consider these questions and ensure government genuinely consults with both village communities before considering proceeding with any Roads and Maritime Servces site proposal.

Sincerely,

Clarence  Girl