Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts

Tuesday 19 March 2024

Youth crime and crime generally are always good ways to scare rural and regional communities and a scare campaign has been running hot and cold in 2024

 

Youth crime and crime generally are always good ways to scare rural and regional communities and a scare campaign has been running hot and cold since the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOSCAR) released the state's 2023 December quarter crime statistics.


The National Party members of the NSW Parliament have been beating up these figures and supporting any group who will drink the political Kool-Aid.


On 23 February 2024 the NSW Police Minister Yasmin Catley in Budget Estimates described the Country Mayors Association calls for an inquiry into regional crime as calling for nothing more than a “talkfest”.


By 14 March 2023 the political situation but not the statistics had changed.


TheCountry Mayors Association of NSW has welcomed the NSW Premier’sannouncement that the NSW Government will implement new initiativesto start to address regional youth crime.


The mayors' law and order concerns were somewhat recent given the last annual survey conducted by the CMA saw the 69 rural and regional local governments who answered this survey placing law and order low on their priority lists.


Readers of Murdoch media and local Northern Rivers newspapers may also have noticed the sudden flurry of journalistic and National Party concern about local crime rates.


The Clarence Valley Independent of 13 March 2024 was a case in point:


News of an escalation in youth crime in the Clarence Valley has gone right to the top of the Coffs Clarence Police District, with the Commander, Superintendent Joanne Schultz involved in implementing prevention and intervention strategies to prevent re-offending....

Last month, Member for Clarence, Richie Williamson joined calls by the Country Mayors Association of NSW for the Minns Labor Government to launch a parliamentary inquiry into rural and regional crime, following a spike in crime in the Clarence and Richmond Valley’s.

The most recent data from the authorities show that youth crime continues to rise, especially for stealing motor vehicles and break and enter offences,” Mr Williamson said.


So what had changed for the Minns Government?


Well, firstly the state electorate is now only six months away from the NSW Local Government elections on Saturday, 14 September 2024 and both incumbent governments and their political opposition like to play the 'laura norder' card in an election year which sees party politics playing a significant but rarely openly stated role in council elections.


Secondly, the NSW Premier has announced new punitive legal measures aimed at youth offenders when it comes to matters like consideration of bail applications and certain increased penalties and, what better way to win support for this move and a policy of "proactive policing" of vulnerable groups than to further demonise young offenders.


Thirdly, a 'helpful' study was released by BOSCAR this month titled "Crime in Regional and Rural NSW in 2023: Trends and Patterns".


While this study openly admitted that in the last 20 years property crime had fallen by 48 per cent in regional NSW, this was seen as deficient because property crime had fallen by 67 per cent in Greater Sydney over the same period and as due to the different rates of decline, in 2023 the rate of recorded property crime was 59 per cent higher in Regional NSW compared to Greater Sydney. A most unfortunate statistical clash.


The study also stated: In 2023 the aggregate rate of recorded violent crime in Regional NSW was equivalent to the recorded rate in 2004. In Greater Sydney, however, violent crime declined significantly in the two decades to 2023 (down 20% from 2004 to 2023). The long-term decline in violence in Sydney and relative stability in Regional NSW has increased the disparity between the rate of violent crime in the regions versus the capital city. In 2023 the rate of recorded violent crime was 57% higher in Regional NSW compared with Greater Sydney.


Leaving a distinct impression that the comparisons being made are beginning to resemble the apple and orange variety and are unhelpful to anyone except state and local government politicians on the make in a local council election year.


The icing on the cake was the following paragraph, which totalled five years of crime statistics to achieve impressive numbers which are broken down in red annotations:


Four major offences, however, significantly increased in Regional NSW over the five years from 2019

to 2023:

o Motor vehicle theft (up 20% or 1,239 additional incidents) An est. average increase of 248 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. In this category and unspecified number of youth offenders are alleged to be found.

o Non-domestic assault (up 14% or 1,825 additional incidents) An est. average increase of 365 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. On a yearly average est. 204 were youth offenders.

o Sexual assault (up 47% or 1,505 additional incidents) An est. average increase of 301 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. In this category it is solely adult offending.

o Domestic violence related assault (up 24% or additional incidents)

An est. average increase of 659 offences per year across 95 regional local government areas. On a yearly average est. 86 were youth offenders.


For those interested BOSCAR released a set of graphs which breakdown the trends into more specific crime categories at:

https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publication%20Supporting%20Documents/RCS-quarterly/Supplementary%20charts%20-%20Recorded%20Crime%20Charts%202019%20to%202023.pdf


As for "stealing motor vehicles and break and enter offences" the Nationals MLA for Clarence points to in relation to youth crime, BOSCAR data for January to December 2023 show NSW Police proceeded against a total of 27 vehicle thefts in the Clarence Valley LGA, with 9 of these thefts alleged to be by young offenders aged between 10-17 years of age. While break and enter offences proceeded against totalled 33 offences, with 9 of these break and enters alleged to be by young offenders aged between 10-17 years of age.


As for motor vehicle theft and break and enter statistics for the Coffs Clarence Police District, BOSCAR shows Coffs-Grafton statistical district was considered "stable' over the last five years. With the change in motor vehicle theft being +113 thefts between 2019 and 2023 totals. While break and enter dwelling fell by -145 incidents and break and enter non-dwelling fell by -9 incidents between 2019 and 2023 totals.


From a personal perspective - yes let's all insist on higher numbers of police in all regional areas to improve crime clear up rates and because police are often spread thin on the ground during emergencies and, in the Northern Rivers region in particular we now have such events far too often.


However, does the desire to have more police in our towns mean that we need to endorse a more punitive response to young offenders by a state government and its police force?


ABC News, 18 March 2024:


Some of the country's top legal and criminal justice experts have written to NSW Premier Chris Minns about proposed bail changes. Sixty organisations signed the letter, including the Aboriginal Legal Service and the Sydney Institute of Criminology....

Amnesty International, Save the Children and the Human Rights Law Centre are also signatories to the letter, which states the premier's bail changes will "make crime worse in regional communities, not better".

"Your new policy to increase youth incarceration is a betrayal of your Closing the Gap commitments," they tell the premier....


Friday 26 August 2022

It’s time. Time that at federal, state and local government level all elected or appointed officials, all public servants and council administrations turned to face what the phrase “climate crisis” actually means in macro and micro terms to coastal populations


 

It’s time. Time that at federal, state and local government level all elected and appointed officials, all public servants and council administrations really accepted that global warming and climate change is real and is happening right now.


To turn and face what the phrase “climate crisis” actually means in macro and micro terms.


Everyone needs to recognise that in 2022 science knows more that it did in the years 1990, 2000, 2010.


What was once thought the degree of global warming that the earth could tolerate (5°C above pre-industrial levels) is now in doubt and the tipping points causing ‘large-scale discontinuities’ are thought to have the potential to occur at as low as 1 and 2 °C – some of which have already occurred.


Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910 leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events. With most of this warming occurring since the 1950s. 


According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 2020 a number of factors caused by a warming Australia can be identified;

  • Oceans around Australia are acidifying and have warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.

  • Sea levels are rising around Australia, including more frequent extremes, that are increasing the risk of inundation and damage to coastal infrastructure and communities.

  • There has been a decline of around 16 per cent in April to October rainfall in the southwest of Australia since 1970. Across the same region May–July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.

  • In the southeast of Australia there has been a decline of around 12 per cent in April to October rainfall since the late 1990s.

  • There has been a decrease in streamflow at the majority of streamflow gauges across southern Australia since 1975.

  • Rainfall and streamflow have increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.

  • There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of the country since the 1950s, especially in southern Australia.

  • There has been a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones observed in the Australian region since 1982.


Again according to BOM, by 2021 the national mean temperature was 0.56 °C warmer than the 1961–1990 average.


In other words, the continent continues to warm and our weather is changing across all seasons of the year and catastrophic weather events are either becoming more frequent or more intense.


The Climate Council in its UNINSURABLE NATION: AUSTRALIA’S MOST CLIMATE-VULNERABLE PLACES, 3 May 2022 report states:


Worsening extreme weather means increased costs of maintenance, repair and replacement to properties – our homes, workplaces and commercial buildings. As the risk of being affected by extreme weather events increases, insurers will raise premiums to cover the increased cost of claims and reinsurance.


Insurance will become increasingly unaffordable or unavailable in large parts of Australia due to worsening extreme weather…..


Across Australia approximately 520,940 properties, or one in every 25, will be ‘high risk’, having annual damage costs from extreme weather and climate change that make them effectively uninsurable by 2030. In addition, 9% of properties (1 in 11) will reach the ‘medium risk’ classification by 2030, with annual damage costs that equate to 0.2-1% of the property replacement cost. These properties are at risk of becoming underinsured….


Climate change affects all Australians, but some federal electorates face far greater risks than others.

The top 10 most at-risk federal electorates by 2030 are:

1. Nicholls (Vic)

2. Richmond (NSW)

3. Maranoa (QLD)

4. Moncrieff (QLD),

5. Wright (QLD),

6. Brisbane (QLD),

7. Griffith (QLD),

8. Indi (Vic)

9. Page (NSW) and

10. Hindmarsh (SA).

  • In these at-risk electorates, 15% of properties (165,646) or around one in every seven properties will be uninsurable this decade….

  • The percentage of properties that will be uninsurable by 2030 in each state and territory is 6.5% in Queensland; 3.3% in NSW; 3.2% in South Australia; 2.6% in Victoria; 2.5% in the Northern Territory; 2.4% in Western Australia; 2% in Tasmania and 1.3% in the ACT.


People living in the NSW Northern Rivers Region’s seven local government areas will recognise that both of their federal electorates are on the Top 10 most at-risk” list.


In the Page electorate this refers to Parts of Ballina, Lismore, Richmond Valley, Clarence Valley, with a combined total of 103,657 properties at levels of risk ranging from medium to high. With 5.4% of properties at high risk to riverine flooding, 0.4% of properties at high risk to surface water flooding and 5.3% of properties at high risk to bushfire.


While in the Richmond electorate this refers to Tweed, Byron, Ballina, with a combined total of 106,445 properties at levels of risk ranging from medium to high risk. With 14% of properties being at at high risk to riverine flooding, 0.4% of properties at high risk to surface water flooding and 5.2% of properties at high risk to bushfire.


The insurance, banking and real estate industries have noticed these statistics for years and now speak in terms of coastal zone properties in danger of becoming uninsurable, sited on land that will no longer have a monetary value.


One co-author of the Climate Council report has advised home owners and buyers to have a deep understanding of the local hazards and to acquire a property-specific report on their risk.


Three years after the first U.N. assessment report containing predictions of global warming and climatic impacts, the NSW Government protected itself and local councils against being held accountable for future deficiencies in decision making with regard to urban and infrastructure planning by establishing a new the Local Government Act in 1993


This Act divested local councils of any and all responsibility by a presumption that local government in all things acts in good faith unless proven otherwise and, local government across the state slowly began to apply a superficial wash of climate change mention in policies and sometimes even planning documents.


Safe in the knowledge, that when considering actual development applications for both large and small land subdivision by predominately professional incorporated property developers, councils In The Chamber, council executives, administrations and all employees had a “Get out of Jail Free” card. Because after all it’s just a game of Monopoly, innit?


This attitude is what drives Clarence Valley Council and a number of property developers with land in Yamba. Who after decades of poring over maps of West Yamba together have increasingly been making decisions about Yamba township with little or no regard for either the wellbeing or concerns of residents and ratepayers.


It’s reached the risible stage in relation to that land zoned residential, accessed via Carrs Drive. Where a long promised Master Plan for the entire urban land release was not proceeded with and its need later denied. 


When land filling resulted in problems on surrounding properties becoming very evident, Council administration was careful to go through a very limited form of cursory community consultation designed not to have a binding outcome and, rather conveniently is now only offering a West Yamba Urban Release Area information page on Council’s website and a printed quarterly update on development progress previously mutually agreed to by property developers and Council.


A move which offers no binding certainty on population density, lot numbers or sizes and still treats land filling on an ad hoc basis.


The lack of any real consideration of climate change impacts is appalling and mirrored in other large subdivisions such as those in Orion Drive, Park Ave and Golding Street.


The video at https://www.keepyambacountry.com/copy-of-more-information demonstrates just how poorly thought through was the approx. 2.8 AHD landfill and drainage at the Park Ave lot which has raised an est. 6.65ha of land above the ground level of a significant number of adjoining and adjacent long established and occupied residential properties. 


Screenshot taken from video "IN-DEPTH DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT on the Keep Yamba Country website, 2022














Similar scenarios are being played out in other Northern Rivers local government areas. Developers are not stupid. They know that now climate change is not just an abstract idea but something that can be seen and experienced they only have a finite time to offload their coastal zone subdivisions onto unsuspecting residential lot purchasers – before the next catastrophic flood or bushfire devastates a town/area considered to be a desirable place to live and wipes out the urge to buy land there. 


BACKGROUND


Excerpts from Local Government Act 1993 as of 16 July 2022:


731 Liability of councillors, employees and other persons

A matter or thing done by the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, a council, a councillor, a member of a committee of the council or an employee of the council or any person acting under the direction of the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, the council or a committee of the council does not, if the matter or thing was done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, and for and on behalf of the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, the council or a committee of the council, subject a councillor, a member, an employee or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.


733 Exemption from liability—flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone

(1) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding.

(2) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land in the coastal zone being affected by a coastline hazard (as described in the coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016) or the nature or extent of any such hazard, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being so affected.

(2A) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being subject to the risk of bush fire or the nature or extent of any such risk, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being subject to the risk of bush fire.

(3) Without limiting subsections (1), (2) and (2A), those subsections apply to—

(a) the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument, including a planning proposal for the proposed environmental planning instrument, or a development control plan, or the granting or refusal of consent to a development application, or the determination of an application for a complying development certificate, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(b) the preparation and adoption of a coastal management program under the Coastal Management Act 2016 (and the preparation and making of a coastal zone management plan under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 that is continued in effect by operation of clause 4 of Schedule 3 to the Coastal Management Act 2016), and

(c) the imposition of any condition in relation to an application referred to in paragraph (a), and

(d) advice furnished in a certificate under section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(e) the carrying out of flood mitigation works, and

(f) the carrying out of coastal protection works, and

(f1) the carrying out of bush fire hazard reduction works, and

(f2) anything done or omitted to be done regarding beach erosion or shoreline recession on Crown land (including Crown managed land) or land owned or controlled by a council or a public authority, and

(f3) the failure to upgrade flood mitigation works or coastal protection works in response to projected or actual impacts of climate change, and

(f4) the failure to undertake action to enforce the removal of illegal or unauthorised structures that results in erosion of a beach or land adjacent to a beach, and

(f5) the provision of information relating to climate change or sea level rise, and

(f6) (Repealed) anything done or omitted to be done regarding the negligent placement or maintenance by a landowner of emergency coastal protection works authorised by a certificate under Division 2 of Part 4C of the Coastal Protection Act 1979,

(g) any other thing done or omitted to be done in the exercise of a council’s functions under this or any other Act.

(4) Without limiting any other circumstances in which a council may have acted in good faith, a council is, unless the contrary is proved, taken to have acted in good faith for the purposes of this section if the advice was furnished, or the thing was done or omitted to be done—

(a) substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the relevant manual most recently notified under subsection (5) at that time, or

(b) substantially in accordance with the principles and mandatory requirements set out in the current coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016, or

(c) in accordance with a direction under section 14(2) of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Minister for Planning may, from time to time, give notification in the Gazette of the publication of—

(a) a manual relating to the management of flood liable land, or

(b) (Repealed) a manual relating to the management of the coastline.

(c) a manual relating to the management of land subject to the risk of bush fire.

The notification must specify where and when copies of the manual may be inspected.

(6) A copy of the manual must be available for public inspection, free of charge, at the office of the council during ordinary office hours.

(7) This section applies to and in respect of—

(a) the Crown, a statutory body representing the Crown and a public or local authority constituted by or under any Act, and

(b) a councillor or employee of a council or any such body or authority, and

(c) a Public Service employee, and

(d) a person acting under the direction of a council or of the Crown or any such body or authority, and

(e) Water NSW, but only with respect to the exercise of its functions in the Sydney catchment area (within the meaning of the Water NSW Act 2014) or the exercise of its functions in any part of the State in connection with the granting of flood work approvals under the Water Management Act 2000,

in the same way as it applies to and in respect of a council.

(8) In this section—

coastal zone has the same meaning as in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

manual includes guidelines.


8 Personal liability

A matter or thing done or omitted to be done by the Project Review Committee, a member of the Project Review Committee or a person acting under the direction of the Project Review Committee does not, if the matter or thing was done or omitted to be done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, subject a member or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.


Tuesday 14 June 2022

So what will the timetables be for introducing national anti-corruption commission legislation and a new religious discrimination bill?


Australia is only on Day 23 of the new Albanese Labor Government, but some timetables are emerging when it comes to promised reforms.


Attorney-General’s Department, Media Centre, ABC Radio National – Breakfast with Patricia Karvelas, Interview with Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Subjects: National Anti-Corruption Commission; Bernard Collaery; Religious Discrimination Legislation, 8 June 2022, transcript excerpt:


PATRICIA KARVELAS: There's little detail on what your anti-corruption commission will look like. Will you be starting from scratch or will you use independent MP Helen Haines' template?


MARK DREYFUS: My department swung into action, Patricia, as soon as the election result was clear. We've now got a task force of senior officials headed by a Deputy Secretary completely devoted to ensuring that we will legislate a national anti-corruption commission this year. And the full resources of the department are now directed to drafting the very best bill that we can bring to the Australian Parliament.


PATRICIA KARVELAS: You say that because the Commonwealth is the last to legislate an anti-corruption commission you can pick and choose the best from the states and territories. Can you give me an idea on what you see as best practice?


MARK DREYFUS: There's a whole range of features that have been obviously discussed over the last three years, a lot of it in response to the inadequate model that the former government put forward. The commission is going to be independent, it's going to be powerful, it's going to have the powers of a Royal Commission. And some of the contentious matters that we've looked at are the scope of the commission. It's going to deal with serious and systemic corruption, it's going to be able to receive allegations from a whole range of sources, it's going to be able to, at its discretion, hold public hearings and all of those are important features and, of course, important differences from the former government's model. And it'll be able to look into the past. That's another deficiency of the former government's proposal. We think that it's completely inappropriate to suggest that an anti-corruption commission, once set up, would only be able to look at matters that arose after it was set up. That can't be right. None of the state and territory anti-corruption commissions function on that basis. They've all been able to look back into the past at their discretion when they think it's appropriate.


PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, so two questions on this; how far back into the past?


MARK DREYFUS: That's going to be a matter for the commission.


PATRICIA KARVELAS: What's your view?


MARK DREYFUS: No, I'm not going to express a view. It's not for us, as the Government, to direct this commission…..


MARK DREYFUS: ... and I'm not going to set limits on this commission. It's independent. That's the key to it. It's not there to accept instructions from the government of the day. It's there to be independent.


PATRICIA KARVELAS: You say most of the hearings would be held in private. What would justify a public hearing in your view? How will that be articulated in the legislation for when the threshold is met for a public hearing?


MARK DREYFUS: There will be circumstances in which it is clearly in the public interest for a public hearing to take place. The experience of the state and territory commissions - because almost all of them have got the power to hold public hearings - is that they are sparing in the holding of those public hearings. They can, potentially, be very useful. A number of the anti-corruption commissioners around Australia with whom I've spoken about this have pointed out to me that it's a way of building confidence in the activities of the commission, if people can see it in operation. It's a way of showing how the commission is going about its work. And very often the holding of public hearings, some commissioners have told me, is something that prompts others to come forward. It brings out evidence if people hear of the investigation because the public hearing is being reported on. But overwhelmingly the work of these commissions is conducted by private hearings. They're sparing in their use of the public hearings…..


PATRICIA KARVELAS: When will the full design of the commission be announced?


MARK DREYFUS: We're going to bring a bill to the Parliament. And I'm going to be consulting before we do that, I'm certainly going to be consulting with the crossbench. As you said, in your introduction, the election of many independent members of the Parliament who campaigned on integrity issues tells us about the level of public support for this anti-corruption commission. It's a nation building reform. We're treating it extremely seriously. It's, as I've said, a paramount objective for the Government. I'm looking forward to consulting right across the Parliament on the details of this.


PATRICIA KARVELAS: So, if you have it legislated by the end of the year Attorney-General, does that mean it could be operational by next year?


MARK DREYFUS: We are going to legislate to create this anti-corruption commission, put the legislation in place, by the end of this year. That is the most clear commitment that we've given during the course of the campaign when it might be operational. If the legislation is passed by the end of this year it'll be a matter, as always for the establishment of a Commonwealth agency, of finding premises, finding staff appointing the commissioners, and then then it can get up and running.


PATRICIA KARVELAS: And what sort of timeframe might that might that look like?


MARK DREYFUS: I'd be hoping around the middle of 2023…..


PATRICIA KARVELAS: Just finally, prior to the election Labor said it would seek to legislate a Religious Discrimination Act and scrap the ability of schools to expel gay and transgender students at the same time. But a timeline hasn't been given. Are you still committed to religious discrimination legislation? And when would you do it?


MARK DREYFUS: Very much so and it's something that we will do, as we've said, in the course of this Parliament. Unlike the commitment on the National Anti-Corruption Commission where we've put a timeline on it by saying we are going to legislate by the end of this year, we haven't put such a timeline on the religious discrimination legislation that we will be bringing before the Parliament. But be assured, Patricia, we are bringing religious discrimination legislation before the Parliament. I have a very sharp memory of being interviewed by you at about 7:30 in the morning after an all night sitting for Federal Parliament earlier this year, when I think we'd sat to about 5 am in the morning. And one of the things I said to you in that interview was that, if we were successful at the upcoming election, we would be returning to this subject and bringing legislation to the Parliament on religious discrimination. That's why we voted for the government's bill, even after our amendments, only one of the amendments we supported, was successful. Because at its core, there is an appropriate, at the core even of the government's bill, there was an appropriate structure of anti-discrimination law, bringing in a prohibition on discriminating against people on the grounds of their religious beliefs. So I think we've made our position clear. It is a matter again of drafting legislation, which we will be doing and we will be bringing legislation to the Parliament…...


Tuesday 14 December 2021

It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) and successive NSW Liberal-Nationals governments have allowed it to become a trojan horse for unsustainable development and financial rorting


It was the Baird Coalition Government which created the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme (BOS) which was established under the Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016

 Under this scheme, applications for development or clearing approvals must set out how impacts on biodiversity will be avoided and minimised. The remaining residual impacts can be offset by the purchase and/or retirement of biodiversity credits or payment to the Biodiversity Conservation Fund. 

 Landholders can enter into Biodiversity Stewardship Agreements to create offset sites on their land to generate biodiversity credits. These credits are then available to the market for purchase by developers, landholders or the Biodiversity Conservation Trust to offset the impacts of development or clearing. 

However it was a scheme loathed by the mining industry from the start as an impediment on its commercial interests and by the industry's supporters, such as National Party political robber baron and then Deputy Prime Minister John Barilaro. It was also a scheme heartily disliked by local government areas fighting to retain biodiversity, maintain healthy water sources and protect remaining forest.


Clarence Valley Independent, 15 December 2021:


A report tabled at the August 24 Clarence Valley Council (CVC) meeting warns that the NSW Biodiversity Offset Scheme (BOS) has had the opposite effect to its intention: instead of protecting the valley’s natural environment, it has “ensured a net loss to biodiversity, often of our most threatened flora and fauna”.... 


Staff advised councillors of four key issues: “a net loss of biodiversity across the LGA, a lack of stewardship sites in the Clarence (currently, there are only two stewardship sites in the Clarence), a lack of transparency in the BOS, and inconsistencies in offset prices. 


 “There is little confidence in this legislation for biodiversity conservation as offsets can be facilitated outside of the CVC local government area,” staff wrote. 


 “…credit suppliers are located all over the state, hence, if a developer can source credits, they are unlikely to be sourced within the Clarence, creating a ‘net loss’ of biodiversity.” 


On the lack of transparency, staff wrote: “Many plant community types on the floodplain, which comprises a large percentage of land being developed in the Clarence, are threatened ecological communities (TEC), which are to be offset for the same TEC, forcing developers to pay into the fund as the sole way to offset credits, as there are no locally available credits. 


“There is no way to determine if this money deposited in the trust is then used to facilitate recovery or protection of TECs in the Clarence – creating biodiversity loss.”....


Clarence Valley Council was not alone in expressing Northern NSW concerns as the Inquiry's submissions list confirmed. 


The NSW Parliament Portfolio Committee No. 7 - Environment and Planning's Inquiry into the Integrity of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme will not report until 1 March 2022, so the jury is still out on the Perrottet Coalition Government's response to its yet to be completed investigation.


However, one issue is being addressed.......



Environment reporter Lisa Fox (left)writing in The Guardian, 10 December 2021:




Officials working on conservation matters in the New South Wales environment department have been barred from holding financial interests in the state’s biodiversity offset scheme.


This follows an investigation of the department’s management of potential conflicts of interest.


Senior officials told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday that staff who work on the offset scheme or in the department’s biodiversity, conservation and science sections had been told they could not work in those roles and hold personal interests in properties and companies that were involved in the financial trade of offset credits.


It follows two external investigations that were commissioned by the department after Guardian Australia uncovered a series of failures in offset programs.


Offsets exist to allow developers to compensate for environmental damage in one area by delivering an equivalent environmental benefit in another.


But there have been problems with the system, including in one case a 20-year delay in delivering environmental protection and so-called “double-dipping” by developers in areas of urban sprawl.


Guardian Australia also revealed the state and federal governments bought tens of millions of dollars in offset credits from properties linked to consultants whose company advised the government on development in western Sydney.


The reporting triggered a string of reviews, including one by the legal firm Maddocks and one by the consultancy Centium examining how the environment department had managed potential conflicts of interest associated with staff holding financial interests in offset sites….


Dean Knudsen, the deputy secretary for biodiversity, conservation and science, told Friday’s hearing of the offset inquiry there had been fewer than five officials with such financial interests.


After the reviews, the department has introduced a new conflict of interest protocol that deems some investments “high risk” and presenting an “unacceptable risk to the integrity” of the scheme.


Knudsen said as a result, staff in certain sections could no longer participate in the scheme and those with historic interests had 12 months to divest.


For departmental staff we’ve effectively said you’re not supposed to be participating in the scheme,” he said.


If you have historically, we’ve told them what you have to do to effectively distance them from that.”


The Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, who is chairing the inquiry, said the changes were welcome.


This should have happened at the start of the scheme to help prevent the types of windfall gains by a few individuals with detailed knowledge of the offset industry,” she said.


However, we also need to see a tightening of conflicts of interest [rules] within the industry itself, including within ecological consultancies.”


Officials were also asked about delays in securing permanent protection of offset sites to compensate for habitat destruction caused by coalmines in NSW.


Responses to questions on notice in the parliament from the independent MLC Justin Field state that of the 41 coalmines approved in New South Wales in the past decade, one did not require offsets, 14 had not yet triggered the requirement to deliver their offsets, nine had land set aside but permanent protections were not yet in place, and 17 had “substantially finalised” their offsets.


.but certain aspects – such as finalisation of some of the legal arrangements protecting the site – were outstanding.


Officials agreed the process for securing offsets for mines had not been “as timely as [they] should be”.


Field said it was not good enough that “not one single coalmine approved in the last decade has secured their required offsets through finalised in-perpetuity arrangements”.


The government needs to improve the transparency around what the hold-up is, put a deadline on finalising these arrangements and hold these mine operators to that deadline,” he said. 


Read the full article here.