Clarence Valley Council itself admits that the entire estuary is already under stress in its Report Card 2013:
Friday 15 February 2019
Clarence Valley 2019: keeping the Clarence River Estuary healthy for future generations
“like other heavy
fabricating sectors shipbuilding involves the use of materials and
manufacturing practices that can impact on the environment, can contribute to
climate change”
[OECD Council Working Party on Shipbuilding
(WP6), November 2010]
“Shipyards are
dangerous construction zones with many worker hazards. Shipbuilding, repair,
cleaning, and coating use toxic chemicals and hazardous or flammable materials.
These activities also can pollute water directly or through runoff. Repairs may
require emptying dirty water from a ship’s ballast and bilge tanks into the
surrounding waters….. Shipbuilding and ship repair use toxic chemicals that
include chromium,
copper, lead,
and nickel. Ship cleaning activities use chemicals that include copper,
hazardous or flammable materials, heavy metals, and solvents.
They release lead, particulate
matter, volatile
organic compounds, zinc, and other air
pollutants.” [NIH U.S. National Library
of Medicine, Boats & Ships, retrieved 18 February 2019]
If it wasn’t
bad enough that barely two years ago Lower
Clarence communities still had a flimflam man and then a set of dodgy
companies (mentioned in a NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation
in 2018) trying to push for large scale industrialisation of Clarence River
estuary – now Clarence Valley Council apparently attracted by the lure of vacant crown land up for grabs appears to be joining the push to industrialise-and-be-damned if these little
gems in its “Clarence Valley Regional Economic Development Strategy 2018 -2022”
are any indication.
These are excerpts from that document:
Clarence Valley’s key
endowments lie in its coastal, riverine and hinterland amenity; arable soils
and favourable climate; access to Sydney and Brisbane via the Pacific Highway;
and the ability to bring new industrial land to market cost effectively…..
Industrial Land -The
Clarence Valley has seven industrial estates open for business and far more
potential development sites compared with neighbouring councils…..
Sustaining a ready
supply of zoned and serviced industrial land is a strategic priority for
supporting growth in these specialisations, with marine precinct proposals……
•Meet emerging
industrial land use opportunities in a timely way •Develop a marine precinct
proposal •Develop a project portfolio of enabling infrastructure for industrial
sites, including the marine precinct proposal…..•Develop a Port of Yamba Strategy…….
Develop a marine
precinct proposal
•Develop a project
portfolio of enabling infrastructure for industrial sites, including the marine
precinct proposal
•Build on the Transport
Precinct Feasibility Final Report to develop road investment priorities
•Review and complete
land use planning through collaboration with neighbouring councils
•Partner with local
industries and training providers to align training courses to industry’s needs
•Advocate for a marine
manufacturing SkillsPoint
•Identify and cost
options for better Pacific Highway connections
•Advocate for progress
on strategic priorities for the Port of Yamba and Summerland Way
•Develop a Port of Yamba
Strategy
•Develop Yamba Road
& Harwood Road business cases…..
The Clarence
River estuary covers an 800 sq. kilometres floodplain and key environmental
indicators for this estuary’s health include water quality, riverbank vegetation, the
number and distribution of fish species, as well as the presence of macroinvertebrates
and plankton.
The estuary is already beginning to struggle under the weight of human
activity, including marine activity. A fact it would seem that Clarence Valley
Council ignores in its development strategy.
It is a fact
that estuary communities cannot afford to ignore if they wish to preserve the
aesthetic, cultural, social and environmental amenity which supports both
community life and the local economy.
In 2016-2017 a
study of six NSW ports was undertaken and published in PLoS One and online in
December 2017 as “Water
quality assessment of Australian ports using water quality evaluation indices”.
With regard
to the Port of Yamba in the lower Clarence
estuary the study recommended regular monitoring and management of port
activities accounting for both biological and chemical toxicological profiles
of the discharging activities.
It did so for
the following reasons:
* The Port of
Yamba has standard levels of Dissolved Oxygen according to ANZECC guidelines. However. the amount of
fecal coliforms was significantly higher in the water of the port area than the
corresponding background samples, which clearly indicates the impact of the fishing
fleet and recreational boating on the port environment.
* Very high concentrations of iron were found in the port
water, the maximum concentration of lead in the water exceeded the ANZECC (0.0022)
guidelines with all the background samples had much lower concentration
of lead compared to the port area and, the maximum concentration of
copper in the water was much higher than ANZECC guidelines and exceeded other
international guidelines at (0.04 mg/l) in Port of Yamba.
* The mean concentration of copper also exceeded the ANZECC
guidelines. When it came to zinc levels were low except in the port area which contained
very high concentrations of zinc, which exceeded the guidelines. Concentration
of cadmium and cobalt were within the ANZECC guidelines.
* Overall the Port of Yamba portrayed high contamination for all
standard guidelines when it came to water quality – the port area has water
quality of medium contamination and one site has high contamination.
Clarence Valley Council itself admits that the entire estuary is already under stress in its Report Card 2013:
Clarence Valley Council itself admits that the entire estuary is already under stress in its Report Card 2013:
“Water quality was poor
in the estuary throughout the study, with the region around the tidal limit with
consistently the worst water quality of the Clarence River
reflecting the
freshwater and tidal inputs at these sites. Estuary tributaries, particularly
Swan and Sportsmans Creeks and the Coldstream River were in very
poor overall condition
receiving a grade of F. These systems had consistently poor water quality that
contributed nutrient rich, low oxygen and acid water
to the Clarence River
following flooding.
Concentrations of
nitrogen and phosphorus consistently exceeded the guideline values throughout
the study at all sites. Very high nitrogen concentrations were
recorded in estuarine
reaches following flooding. There were no algal blooms recorded during the
study. However, algal concentrations were consistently
above the guideline
value in estuarine reaches.
The Broadwater and
Wooloweyah coastal lagoons both had very poor water quality, with high algal
and nutrient concentrations and turbidity, and low dissolved oxygen values
consistently exceeding a number of water quality guidelines. The Broadwater had
better riparian condition relative to Wooloweyah that improved its
overall grade.
Riparian condition was
generally low from a poor diversity of native vegetation, reduced vegetation
structure and small isolated pockets that were poorly connected to other native
vegetation. Reaches showed evidence of eroding river banks and sediment
deposited in the channel. Estuarine reaches were often dominated by riverbanks with
little or no vegetation present, leading to very poor condition grades.”
The tidal water exchange will not protect the lower estuary from a spreading loss of water quality and increased levels of pollution once industry begins to expand along its foreshores and clusters of marine businesses such as shipbuilding and repair are further developed.
There will be a tipping point that once reached will be hard, perhaps even impossible, to reverse.
This is something that Lower Clarence communities need to consider before council goes too far down this path which leads away from a healthy estuary for future generations.
Thursday 14 February 2019
How the National Party of Australia attempted to ruin Australia’s largest river system
IMAGE: Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group Ltd. |
Former Accountant and banker, Nationals MP for New England (NSW) Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce was deputy Prime Minister of Australia from 18.2.2016 to 27.10.2017 and again from 6.12.2017 to 26.2.2018. He was also Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources from 21.9.2015 to 27.10.2017 and returned as minister once more from 21.9.2015 to 27.10.2017.
This particular politician is likely
to go down in history as one of the worst leaders that the National Party of
Australia ever had.
The
Northern Daily Leader,
9 February 2019:
BARNABY Joyce’s actions
as water minister have been singled out and savaged in the royal
commission into the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the report
suggesting he ignored the law.
The report pointed
to an “ill-informed letter” from Mr Joyce to the South Australian
water minister, as testament to the government’s lack of “any genuine
commitment” to the goal of recovering 450 gigalitres of water for the
environment.
The Leader has
contacted Mr Joyce for an interview and is awaiting a response.
In the letter, Mr Joyce
said he couldn’t see the water being recovered without “causing negative social
and economic impacts to South Australian communities”.
“I cannot foresee [the
other state governments] agreeing that the additional 450GL of water can be delivered
without significant social and economic detriment,” he wrote.
The report said there
was “no reliable evidence” to support Mr Joyce’s claim.
This is what the
South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal
Commission Report’s Final
Report (released on 29 January 2019) stated in part:
For
a number of years neither the Commonwealth Government, nor New South Wales or
Victoria, have had any genuine commitment to recovering the so-called 450 GL of
upwater for enhanced environmental outcomes. The ill-informed letter from Mr
Barnaby Joyce when he was Water Minister to his South Australian counterpart
dated 17 November 2016 — written as though the actual definition of
socio-economic impact in the Basin Plan did not exist — is testament to this…..
On
commercial radio on 29 August 2018, Mr Joyce, the Commonwealth Government’s
Special Drought Envoy — not a member of the Executive Council or a Minister of the
State under either secs 62 or 64 of the Constitution respectively — suggested
that environmental water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder
(CEWH) should be used to ‘grow the fodder to keep the cattle alive’ during the
course of the drought. He suggested that if this was not lawful, then the
relevant legislation should be changed. This suggestion is not in the interests
of the people who live and work in the Basin, nor in the interests of the
broader Australian public, or that of the environment. It is contrary to the
objects and purposes of the Water Act and Basin Plan. It is against the
national interest. It has been rightly rejected by, amongst others, the MDBA
and the CEWH. Adaptation to the challenges of a warmer and drier climate will
require a vastly more sophisticated approach. That approach must be based on
proper scientific research and analysis, as well as a basic level of common
sense.
For
example, in a letter dated 17 November 2016 from the then Commonwealth Minister
for Agriculture and Water, Mr Barnaby Joyce, to the then South Australian
Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Mr Ian Hunter,
Minister Joyce said:
If it was
genuinely possible to put an additional 450 GL down the river without hurting
people, then none of us would have a problem with it. The reality is that it
will. South Australia’s default share of the 450 GL target is 36 GL. Does the
South Australian Government have a plan for where this water would come from
without causing negative social and economic impacts to South Australian
communities? I believe that we are heading into an unprotracted (sic) and
unsolvable stalemate, where the funding will stay on the books for a recovery
that will be impossible to make in accordance with the legislative requirements
— that the recovery must has (sic) positive or neutral social and economic
outcomes
… My main concern is this — just as you have an
understandable desire for one outcome, your colleagues in other states have an
equally understandable desire for another regardless of what side of the
political fence they are on. I cannot foresee them agreeing that the additional
450 GL of water can be delivered without significant social and economic
detriment. The hard conversation has to happen about how we resolve this
stalemate. I look forward to discussing it with you more at the Ministerial
Council.
There
is no reliable evidence before the Commission that would support the assertion
in that letter that recovery of an additional 450 GL of water would have
negative social and economic impacts, or that its consequence would be ‘hurting
people’ either economically, socially, or otherwise. Minister Joyce offered no
such evidence. Leaving that aside, Minister Joyce’s letter ignores the test of
social and economic neutrality in sec 7.17(2)(b) of the Basin Plan. That is no
trifling thing, as that section was (and still currently is) the law. The test
is satisfied by participation, not the concept of ‘hurting people’. Leaving
this also aside, the gist of the letter was such that the Commonwealth’s then
position seemed to be that the recovery of 450 GL of upwater for South
Australia’s environmental assets was unlikely….
Mr
Hooper spoke of a shift in attitude, upon the appointment of the former
Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, to the water portfolio, away from a holistic, whole
of Basin approach to a focus on specific sites, namely Dirranbandi, St George,
and Warren, and the economics of irrigated agriculture in those towns.
Mr
Hooper recalled asking the MDBA for a socio-economic assessment of Aboriginal
people in the Northern Basin to which the MDBA responded by offering to provide
a more limited socio-cultural survey.182 Despite meeting with the MDBA, NBAN
was unaware of the intention to reduce water recovery in the Northern Basin,
which was only revealed once the proposed amendments were publicly released.183
Mr Hooper could not recall any explanation of how the toolkit measures could
substitute for water so as to justify the 70 GL reduction in water to be
recovered…..
In
an interview with 2GB radio, the Commonwealth Government’s Special Drought
Envoy and former Water Resources Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, said:
a national emergency requires emergency power. We have
a large water resource owned by the government. It’s called the Commonwealth
Environmental Water holder and it’s used to water environmental assets. In a
national emergency, which is this drought, surely that water should be used to grow
the fodder to keep the cattle alive to keep the cash flow in the town. When
people say, ‘Oh well, the legislation won’t allow you to do that’. Well, change
the legislation, that’s what we have a parliament for.
National
Party once again proving that it is the party representing mining interests
Climate change denialism is alive and well in the National Party.....
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
9 February 2019:
A Nationals MP's claim
that the Land and Environment Court's decision to block a coal mine in his
electorate reflected an "ideological position" and "smacked of
judicial activism" has prompted a rival MP to accuse him of contempt of
court.
After the court on
Friday rejected Gloucester Resources' bid to open the
Rocky Hill mine on the Mid North Coast because of "climate change
impacts", Nationals MP for the Upper Hunter Michael Johnsen hopped on
2GB to vent his fury.
The show's host Chris
Kenny said: "Here you have a judge in a NSW land and environment court
saying that he's protecting the planet from global warming, from climate
change".
Mr Johnsen replied:
"They are taking an ideological position, again it smacks of judicial
activism, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the proposal itself and
I’m very, very disappointed."
Labels:
climate change,
mining,
rivers,
water wars,
water security
Wednesday 13 February 2019
Australian Tax Office Excess Franking Credits: “When people next receive their dividend refund cheque from the government, remember the government has had to borrow that money”
The Australian Government's public debt stood at an estimated $541.73 billion and growing on 8 February 2019.
On 8 February
2019 in Sydney economist Stephen
Koukoulas made a short three minute statement before the House of
Representatives Economics Committee ‘inquiry’ into the Labor Federal Opposition’s
policy to eliminate excess franking credits.
Excess franking credits are refundable to a shareholder who receives a dividend but has no tax liability to use those franking credits against.
It is free money - money for jam - granted to shareholders for the last eighteen years under a Liberal-Nationals federal government tax policy.
By 30 June 2015 these excess franking credit refunds were costing the federal government an est. $2.54 billion annually and, are currently estimated to be costing the Australian Government well in excess of $5.9 billion each year.
Below are the
notes Koukoulas used for that oral Statement
which boiled down to two issues, the cost to the budget and how the policy is
distorting investment decisions from investors and lazy financial planners.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tax policy is always
riddled with trade offs.
No government wants to tax anyone more than it needs to, nor should it impose a tax regime that is unfair if it means cuts to services, a heavy tax impost on others in the community or adds unnecessarily to the budget deficit and government debt.
Labor’s policy on refundable franking credits will impact the budget bottom line by more than $5 billion a year.
Without the change, this $5 billion, or $100 million a week, means less money is available for the government to provide health care, roads, education, disability assistance and defence.
It is disconcerting that every dollar of refundable franking credits is currently borrowed by the government.
When people next receive their dividend refund cheque from the government, remember the government has had to borrow that money:
… every cent of it.
… this adds to government debt that will have to be repaid one day in the future by our children and our grandchildren.
I think this is unfair.
The policy also distorts the way we Australians invest our savings.
Many investors put money into companies that pay high, fully franked dividends regardless of the underlying strength or potential of that business.
Look at Telstra. The banks.
It is blind, uneducated and lazy investing recommended by lazy financial planners.
It is only the dividend, not the underlying strength of the business, that guides the investment decision.
This is one reason why the Australian stock market is still 15 per cent below the 2007 peak, while the US, German and Canadian stock markets are substantially higher.
None of these countries have refundable franking credits.
Investors in those countries provide finance to dynamic growth companies and strong businesses.
In Australia, such companies are often shunned by investors because they pay no or low dividends.
Investors instead place their money with what are average firms that structure their businesses according to tax policy distortions.
Imagine if the ASX was at 10,000 points, not the 6,000 point level prevailing today?
I suspect the concerns about dividend refunds would be trivial.
The Australian tax distortions mean that local entrepreneurial firms have less access to local capital.
The money is instead tied up in dinosaur companies paying high dividends.
It is one reason why so many of the 21st century technology and start up firms in Australia head overseas to pursue their business models.
No government wants to tax anyone more than it needs to, nor should it impose a tax regime that is unfair if it means cuts to services, a heavy tax impost on others in the community or adds unnecessarily to the budget deficit and government debt.
Labor’s policy on refundable franking credits will impact the budget bottom line by more than $5 billion a year.
Without the change, this $5 billion, or $100 million a week, means less money is available for the government to provide health care, roads, education, disability assistance and defence.
It is disconcerting that every dollar of refundable franking credits is currently borrowed by the government.
When people next receive their dividend refund cheque from the government, remember the government has had to borrow that money:
… every cent of it.
… this adds to government debt that will have to be repaid one day in the future by our children and our grandchildren.
I think this is unfair.
The policy also distorts the way we Australians invest our savings.
Many investors put money into companies that pay high, fully franked dividends regardless of the underlying strength or potential of that business.
Look at Telstra. The banks.
It is blind, uneducated and lazy investing recommended by lazy financial planners.
It is only the dividend, not the underlying strength of the business, that guides the investment decision.
This is one reason why the Australian stock market is still 15 per cent below the 2007 peak, while the US, German and Canadian stock markets are substantially higher.
None of these countries have refundable franking credits.
Investors in those countries provide finance to dynamic growth companies and strong businesses.
In Australia, such companies are often shunned by investors because they pay no or low dividends.
Investors instead place their money with what are average firms that structure their businesses according to tax policy distortions.
Imagine if the ASX was at 10,000 points, not the 6,000 point level prevailing today?
I suspect the concerns about dividend refunds would be trivial.
The Australian tax distortions mean that local entrepreneurial firms have less access to local capital.
The money is instead tied up in dinosaur companies paying high dividends.
It is one reason why so many of the 21st century technology and start up firms in Australia head overseas to pursue their business models.
This costs the
Australian economy growth and jobs.
With the policy change on refundable franking credits, there will be a greater incentive to invest in companies and other assets for reasons of growth and entrepreneurial flair…
… which will be a positive for the economy and jobs …
… and it will be good for the long term future of Australia.
Thank you
With the policy change on refundable franking credits, there will be a greater incentive to invest in companies and other assets for reasons of growth and entrepreneurial flair…
… which will be a positive for the economy and jobs …
… and it will be good for the long term future of Australia.
Thank you
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Marine Life: lovely to look at but do not touch
ABC
News. 10
February 2019:
A striking blue dragon
sea slug, that eats bluebottles and can give a powerful sting, has been washing
ashore and capturing the imagination of residents on the north coast of New
South Wales.
The unusual, soft-bodied
nudibranch is sometimes described as resembling a dragon in flight, a Pokemon
or a blue lizard, and goes by the official name of glaucus atlanticus.
Australian Marine
Stinger Advisory Service director, Dr Lisa Gershwin, said it was a fascinating
little creature…..
PHOTO: The 'blue dragon' nudibranchs float on the surface and have been spotted on beaches and in rockpools in Port Macquarie recently. (Supplied: Michael Spooner) |
Similar to bluebottles,
the blue dragon nudibranchs float on the surface of the water and normally
spend most of their time in the open ocean.
Dr Gershwin said regular
onshore winds along the northern NSW and Queensland coastline this summer had
been washing them onto beaches.
"Like bluebottles,
they hang out right at the air/water interface, and are all floating, living as
a community together, so when the wind blows it moves all of them," she
said……
"They are able to
store the stinging cells from their prey, that is, bluebottles, in their little
… fingers and toes and then use them for their own defence. I've been nailed by
them, they hurt."
Labels:
marine life,
NSW North Coast
Tuesday 12 February 2019
What the Australian Parliament might look like after May 2019
The second Newspoll survey of the year polling 1,567
voters was conducted from 7 February to 10 February 2019.
The results
were:
Primary vote – Labor 39 per cent (up 1
point) to Coalition 37 per cent (unchanged).
Two-party preferred vote – Labor 53 (unchanged)
to Coalition 47 per cent (unchanged).
The two-party preferred result represents
a 31 month long losing streak for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition to date.
If a federal election had been held on
10 February 2019 the swing to Labor would have been 2.5 percent.
This would have given Labor 82 seats
in the House of Representatives to the Coalition’s 63 seats (Liberal 38, LNP
16, Nationals 9).
Based on
these percentages then at the May 2019 federal election Labor MP for Ballina Justine Elliot will comfortably retain the seat she has held since
2004, Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan
will likely lose the seat he has held since September 2013, it is uncertain if
the Cowper electorate will vote in a
Nationals candidate, Nationals MPs David
Gillespie and Barnaby Joyce will
probably retain their seats which both have held since 2013.
These
percentages would also see the current Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Treasurer Josh
Frydenberg, Minister for Health Greg
Hunt, Minister for Human Services Alan
Tudge and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources David Littleproud probably retaining their seats but as members of
the Opposition benches. With Attorney-General Christian Porter fighting to keep his seat on those same benches
and Minister for Home Affairs Peter
Dutton losing the seat of Dickson which he has held since 2001.
It would seem that most destructive and disruptive Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott is also likely to retain his seat.
It would seem that most destructive and disruptive Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott is also likely to retain his seat.
The overall makeup of the House of Representatives will possibly look like this:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/newspoll |
Labels:
elections 2019,
poll,
statistics
New South Wales State of Play February 2019: widespread drought
All of New South Wales is drought affected to varying degrees in February 2019, incliuding the Northern Rivers region.
https://edis.dpi.nsw.gov.au/ |
Labels:
drought,
New South Wales,
Northern Rivers
The lies Liberals tell on the subject of aged care
The
Australian, 7
February 2019:
Aged Care Minister Ken
Wyatt was handed a departmental briefing report showing the “winners and
losers” from the Coalition’s $2 billion savings drive in the aged-care sector
shortly after Scott Morrison announced a royal commission and denied funding
cuts.
Documents obtained by
The Australian under Freedom of Information laws show the proportion of
“losers” almost tripled to 53 per cent following the budget savings revealed in
late 2015.
In the three-year period
to 2018, aged-care services that had been classified as “winners” almost halved
to 47 per cent, according to the brief sent to Mr Wyatt.
A series of “hot issue
briefs, question time briefs and general briefs” sent to Mr Wyatt last year
acknowledged the budget hit to the Aged Care Funding Instrument — which is the
basic taxpayer care subsidy paid to all nursing homes — together with
“increasing cost pressures will be putting pressure on the sector”.
Mr Wyatt was also made
aware of reports of “cut backs to staffing”. At a press conference announcing
the royal commission into aged care in September, the Prime Minister was questioned about two cuts to the
ACFI in the 2015 mid-year economic update and the 2016 budget but denied any
had been made.
“No, no, the Labor Party said that. I don’t accept that,”
he said.
Two days later, a question time brief prepared for Mr Wyatt offered advice on
what to say if asked about funding cuts to ACFI.
The ministerial brief
also contains a breakdown of funding changes by domain, revealing that average
annual taxpayer subsidies per resident increased by just $400 between 2016-17
and 2017-18 despite the growing frailty and complexity of Australians as they
enter residential aged care older than ever before.
For the first time,
funding for the two areas that provide extra boosts for nursing home residents
with significant behavioural problems and complex healthcare requirements went
backwards by $300 a person.
The peak body for
aged-care providers, ahead of the April 2 budget, has urged the Coalition to
include an additional payment of almost $700 million each year.
“This estimate reflects
a range of factors, including the value of foregone indexation (through ACFI),”
Leading Age Services Australia (LASA) says in its pre-budget submission, seen
by The Australian. “This is approximately a 5.2 per cent increase in
residential care funding in 2019-20, noting that this is difficult to calculate
as forward estimates for residential and home care are no longer separately
reported.” LASA said it considered the money to be a “down payment” and a
notably larger funding boost might be needed following the findings of the
royal commission.” The commission, which is due to release its interim report
in October and the final version by the end of April 2020, has already
highlighted the widespread industry practice of “doping” nursing home
residents, which doctors, nurses and consumer groups attribute to overworked
staff. [my yellow highlighting]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)