Because there is a great deal of sleight of hand in federal government annual budget announcements, to be sure that what the Turnbull Government is planning doesn't make life harder for you, your family and community everyone needs to read the fine print.
Wednesday, 9 May 2018
Heard Budget Speech 2018, read this morning's headlines? Now hunt the dollars using this cheat sheet
Because there is a great deal of sleight of hand in federal government annual budget announcements, to be sure that what the Turnbull Government is planning doesn't make life harder for you, your family and community everyone needs to read the fine print.
Budget Paper No. 1:
Budget Strategy and Outlook
- provides:
*
information about the international and domestic economic outlook, including
numerical estimates of key parameters such as gross domestic product (GDP)
growth, employment, and the consumer price index (CPI)
*
a statement of the Government’s fiscal strategy and the fiscal outlook of the
Commonwealth (that is, the Government’s outlook and strategy for revenue,
notably taxes)
*
estimates of the revenues and expenditures of the Commonwealth, and their
composition
*
information on the proposed capital investment of the Commonwealth •
information on the assets, liabilities—including contingent liabilities, or
‘risks’—and debt held or owed by the Commonwealth, and
*
historical information about the Commonwealth’s fiscal and debt position.
Go
to:
Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Measures - contains information about the
budget measures/policies Government intends to pursue and each measure will
have a costing attached to it.
Go to:
Budget Paper No. 3: Federal Financial
Relations - contains information about financial
assistance grants made by the Commonwealth to States and Territories. Includes specific
purpose payments for health, education, roads, local government. Also provides estimates of the amount of GST
revenue that will be collected, and estimates of how much each state and
territory will receive from the GST.
Go to:
Budget Paper No. 4: Agency Resourcing - deals with various types of
appropriations that are used by the Government to fund entities and activities.
Shows the amounts and types of appropriation that are expected to be utilised
in the forthcoming year.
Go to:
[Sources http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/4523572/upload_binary/4523572.pdf
& https://www.budget.gov.au/2018-19/content/documents.html]
Lock The Gate back in court asking questions about "secretive deals" between NSW Coalition Government and Shenhua mining group
NSW Environmental Defender’s Office
(EDO):
Our client Lock the Gate
is seeking access to information held by the NSW Government about secretive
deals relating to the “buy-back” of the coal exploration licence
for Shenhua Watermark Coal Pty Limited’s (Shenhua) controversial Shenhua
Watermark Coal Mine in the Liverpool Plains in north central NSW, one of the
nation’s most productive agricultural regions.
Lock the Gate argues
that the public has a right to know about deals made behind closed doors in
relation to the exploration and development of the proposed Watermark coal
mine. Lock the Gate argues that accountability and transparency in this case
are essential given the significant predicted impacts of the Watermark mine on
the Liverpool Plains, the nation’s agricultural industry, local communities and
the environment.
On behalf of Lock the
Gate, we are asking the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal to decide that
the release of this information is in the public interest.
Farmland on the
Liverpool Plains. Photo: Lock the Gate Alliance.
Background
In July and September
2017, respectively, Lock the Gate made applications to the NSW Department of
Planning and Environment and the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet for
information about Shenhua’s application to renew its exploration licence for
the Watermark mine. That information encompasses secretive dealings between
Shenhua and the NSW Government that resulted in the buy-back of around 51% of
the exploration licence, which covered the highly fertile “black soils” of the
Liverpool Plains, at the cost of $262 million to the public.
Whilst the NSW
Government claims that the buy-back was necessary to protect the black soils
from mining, and thereby the agricultural industry of the Liverpool Plains,
Lock the Gate contends that the buy-back will do nothing to lessen the expected
impacts of the mine. Furthermore, Lock the Gate argues that the buy-back was
completely unnecessary. The NSW Government could have used its powers under the
Mining Act to reduce the size of the exploration licence by 50% upon its renewal
without the payment of any compensation to Shenhua.The NSW Government could
also have cancelled the exploration licence outright given that Shenhua had
allegedly failed to comply with a condition of the licence that required
substantial development of the Watermark mine to have commenced by October
2016, eight years after the initial grant of the licence in 2008.
The information sought
by Lock the Gate includes Shenhua’s submissions on the licence renewal
application, its request for the abovementioned licence condition to be
suspended, Ministerial briefings and draft deeds of agreement about coal
exploration and mining titles. The NSW Government has withheld this information
on the basis that, amongst other things, it contains Cabinet information, was
provided in confidence, or that its release may be prejudicial to Shenhua’s
business interests – and therefore that there is an overriding public interest
against its disclosure.
On the contrary, Lock
the Gate argues that the overwhelming public interest in the release of the
information is clear.
Access to this
information will increase the accountability and transparency of the NSW
Government in relation to the exploration and development of coal in the
Liverpool Plains. This is particularly important in these circumstances where
the Government has done deals with a private, foreign-owned, coal mining
company behind closed doors and these have resulted in the expenditure of vast
amounts of public funds without clear justification.
Access to this information
is also vital for the public to have confidence in the decision-making
processes of the NSW Government in relation to dealings about coal mining and
exploration projects. This is essential where these dealings involve projects
that are likely to have significant economic, social and environmental impacts
and in which a number of stakeholders have expressed competing views.
The more
transparency around those deliberative processes, the more likely it is that
they will be of high quality and will serve the public interest.
The matter is listed for
hearing on 9 May 2018.
Brendan Dobbie,
solicitor for EDO NSW, has carriage of this matter for Lock the Gate and our
Principal Solicitor, Elaine Johnson, is the solicitor on record.
We are grateful to
barrister Scott Nash for his assistance in this matter.
Help defend the environment
With your support, we can continue to help community groups like Australian Coal Alliance defend the environment. Please make a donation today.
With your support, we can continue to help community groups like Australian Coal Alliance defend the environment. Please make a donation today.
Stay in touch with news on this case
by signing up to
our weekly eBulletin.
Labels:
coal,
environment,
farming,
mining,
people power,
sustainable food
Is Telstra selling customer location data? Did it ever specifically request permission from account holders?
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
4 May 2018:
Telstra is making money
by on-selling location data from its customers' mobile phones in similar deals
to a partnership with the Bureau of Statistics that caused a public backlash
last week.
The Australian Bureau of
Statistics came under fire for partnering with the telco for a study in 2016,
which used mobile phone data showing how many people were in particular suburbs
hour by hour.
Similar data is now
available for a fee, after the Location Insights program was quietly launched
by the telco in July 2016. The Australian Bureau of Statistics was the first
licensee under the program, but has not used Telstra's Location Insights since
then.
Data available to
Telstra's clients can be broken down into 15 minute increments, and
demographics broken down by age groups and gender. The smallest geographic
areas available for analysis are the same as the Australian Bureau of
Statistics' smallest statistical area, which have an average population of 400
people and could have as few as 200 people.
In a video used to
spruik the service by Telstra, potential customers are listed as local
governments and transport companies. It’s not clear how many organisations have
used the service, or what the price tag is for such information.
“Imagine if you could
know what is happening in your community, region, or city hub, every 15
minutes,” a voiceover in the Youtube video promoting the program said.
“Telstra Location
Insights builds industry-specific metrics where data sets are used for
modelling purposes and then extrapolated to estimate for the entire
population,” a Telstra spokesman said.
“These metrics are
aggregated spatially and temporally before differential privacy and
k-anonymisation are both applied to completely anonymise the data.”
This explanation is not
accepted by senior lecturer at the University of Melbourne Vanessa Teague.
“In order to know
whether those things actually work, we need to see what the parameters are and
how they're applied to the data in order to be assured that they’re applied
correctly and they work,” Dr Teague said.
Dr Teague is chair of
the Cybersecurity and Democracy Network and was part of a team of researchers
who re-identified patient health records from Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme
data that was released by the government.
“It's possible that
[anonymising the data] has been done correctly, it's also possible that they
think it’s been done correctly but they’re wrong. And really the only way to
assess that is to get a clear and detailed technical description of what
they've done,” Dr Teague said.
“If they've done it
right then there's no reason to be secretive about the details of what they’ve
done, if they’ve done it wrong then they are better off getting a genuine open
assessment of it so they can find out sooner rather than later.”
Telstra said the use of
the information was in line with its privacy statement, which states that
customers’ information could be shared with “our dealers, our related entities
or our business or commercial partners and other businesses we work with”.
Dr Teague is sceptical about that explanation. “Just because a company holds highly sensitive information about you doesn’t mean that that data is their property that they should then be able to turnaround and sell without asking you,” she said.
Now when I read Telstra's privacy statement I do not recall that it mentioned that it would be selling mobile phone location information in SA1 statistical level data bundles captured at 15 minute intervals (as mentioned in the news article) and, that those bundles could be used to create data sets which track an individual's movements over time in relatively fine detail.
Yamba in the Clarence Valley NSW is a quiet little town with a population of approx. 6,076 persons living in 3,820 dwellings spread across est. 16 SLA1 statistical levels and in over 100 even smaller statistical Mesh Blocks.
I suspect that many Yamba residents will not be happy with the idea that Telstra Corporation Limited will alllow their movements to be tracked and their daily habits predicted if an individual, private company, government agency or political party pays them for the town's mobile phone location data.
Tuesday, 8 May 2018
Gladstone Qld inherits serial fantacist
Still trying to sell 'the dream", former truck driver Des Euan has moved on from Port Of Yamba NSW to Gladstone in Queensland....
The Observer, 16 March 2018:
North Coast Voices readers may recall that he was touting both the Yamba 'mega port' and the Gladstone mega logistics hub to the Dept. of Infrastructure and Development in August last year.
Following in his previous footsteps Euan has created a shell company, set up a website and is apparently well into his patter.
Both Resources and Northern Australia Minister and Liberal Senator for Queensland Matt Canavan and local state Labor MP for Gladstone Glen Butcher reportedly support Euan's scheme.
Perhaps the people Gladstone should ponder on the reasons why that ancient Roman maxim caveat emptor has lasted down the ages.
* Hat tip to Clarrie Rivers for supplying link the newspaper article.
Labels:
coastal development,
Gladstone,
pipe dreams
Ballina not happy with second-rate NBN installation plans
The
Northern Star,
4 May 2018:
BALLINA'S deputy mayor
is calling on residents to speak out against about the NBNCo's plans to deliver
"second class technology" to local residents.
Cr Keith Williams said
he had been contacted by residents in East Ballina, Skennars Head and Lennox
Head to say they would be getting "inferior" fibre to the node NBN
connections.
But he said fibre to the
kerb should be the minimum installation standard across the shire.
"We know that fibre
to the node places more reliance on the copper network, limits potential speeds
and is more expensive to upgrade," Cr Williams said.
"This places a real
limit on the economic potential of the area, not just now, but potentially for
years to come.
"It makes no sense
whatsoever when you consider that all these areas are close to the coast and
more exposed to the effects of salt water.
"This is precisely
the areas where you want less reliance on copper."
Cr Williams said failure
to oppose NBN rollout plans now, risked leaving residents in these areas with a
second class NBN.
"NBN Co have
insisted this is not second class technology, being essentially the same
technology as fibre to the kerb," he said.
"In this they are
correct, but they avoid the central point.
"The greater
reliance on the old copper network means it is a second rate service, slower,
more prone to dropouts and more expensive to upgrade.
"From my enquiries
to date it seems there is no formal mechanism to seek a review of the NBN Co
rollout plans.
"The only way these
things change is by community pressure and adverse publicity.
"I'm asking
everyone in the area to go to the NBN website, check what the rollout plans are
for your house and if it says Fibre to the Node, let NBN Co know that it just
isn't good enough.
"You deserve
better."
Monday, 7 May 2018
Elder abuse and profit shifting go hand-in-hand in the age care sector?
Any
regular reader of online news would have seen mentions of elder abuse, neglect
and sub-standard health care over the years.
hellocaremail.com.au, 2017:
Elder abuse is a
critical issue in aged care homes, with thousands of cases reported to the
Health Department every year…. In 2016-2017, there were 2853 reports of
“reportable assaults’’ and 2463 allegations of “unreasonable use of force”.
Australian
Law Reform Commission, Elder Abuse (DP 83), Abuse
and neglect in aged care, 12 December 2016:
1.34 Stakeholders
reported many instances of abuse of people receiving aged care. These included
reports of abuse by paid care workers[55] and
other residents of care homes[56] as
well as by family members and/or appointed decision makers of care recipients.[57] For
example, Alzheimer’s Australia provided the following examples of physical and
emotional abuse:
When working as a PCA
[personal care assistant] in 2 high care units, I witnessed multiple, daily
examples of residents who were unable to communicate being abused including:
PCA telling resident to ‘die you f---ing old bitch!’ because she resisted being
bed bathed. Hoist lifting was always done by one PCA on their own not 2 as per
guidelines and time pressures meant PCAs often using considerable physical
force to get resistive people into hoists; resident not secured in hoist
dropped through and broke arm—died soon after; residents being slapped,
forcibly restrained and force-fed or not fed at all; resident with no relatives
never moved out of bed, frequently left alone for hours without attention;
residents belongings being stolen and food brought in by relatives eaten by
PCAs.[58]
1.35 The
ALRC also received reports of other forms of abuse, including sexual[59] and
financial abuse.[60] Restrictions
on movement[61] and
visitation[62] were
also reported. Many submissions also identified neglect of care recipients.[63]
The
Sydney Morning Herald,
15 October 2017:
Across NSW, 58 per cent
of aged care workers surveyed said they have not been able to provide the level
of care residents deserved because of budget cuts. Of those, 80 per cent said
staff shortages were the main barrier to providing proper care.
The
Courier-Mail,
19 April 2018:
PROFIT-HUNGRY aged care
companies are charging fat “administration fees” to skim up to 40 per cent of
government payments for in-home nursing care.
More than 100,000
elderly Australians are on a waiting list to receive as much as $50,000 a year
in a “homecare package” to pay for nursing, housekeeping or companionship
at home. But an investigation by The Courier-Mail has revealed
that some home-care companies are pocketing as much as $19,000 of the
taxpayer cash through hefty “administration” or “case management” fees.
The fees are billed on
top of hourly charges for home help – leaving clients with less cash
to spend on in-home care such as nursing. And if clients want to
switch to a cheaper provider, they are being slugged up to $1000 in “exit
fees”.
The Age, 3 May 2018:
Scandals, including a
recent national audit showing 600 aged-care homes failed in the past
five years to provide minimum standards, prompted a government review. The
Coalition, accepting a key recommendation, has ended the ridiculous practice of
alerting operators to spot checks. The review also urged the streamlining and
strengthening of the regulator.
If one does a
simple online search many of the big ‘for profit’ aged care providers are named
in relation to such abuse, neglect and sub-standard health care allegations.
Now in May
2018 the Tax Justice Network[1] is looking at aged care
provision from another angle. One which shows that the budgetary meanness which sees these big companies expect elderly residents to remain in sodden incontinence pads or live-off meagre meal rations occurs in spite of the millions in profit made on the back of billions in taxpayer funding of the age care sector.
It has
released A Tax Justice Network – Australia Report, TAX
AVOIDANCE BY
FOR-PROFIT AGED CARE COMPANIES: PROFIT SHIFTING ON PUBLIC FUNDS.
Sadly, this
report only confirms the fact that corporate greed runs rampant through all major
aspects of Australian life, including aged care.
Executive Summary, Background, p.5:
Older
people are a growing proportion of Australia’s population; in 2016, 15% (one in
seven) Australians were aged 65 years or older. By 2056 this percentage is
expected to grow to 22% (8.7 million).1 The need for aged care services is
increasing. Between 2015– 2016 almost 214,000 people entered aged care in Australia.
On average, older people in Australia spend three years in permanent
residential care, just over two years in home care, and one and a half months
in respite care.2 The Australian tax payer, via the Commonwealth Government
contributes around 75% of the expenditure in aged care in Australia, which is
around 96% of the total funding on aged care from Commonwealth and State
Governments. Government recurrent spending on aged care services in Australia
was $17.4 billion Australian dollars (AUD) in 2016- 2017, with residential aged
care services accounting for 69.3% ($12.1 billion AUD).3 Some of this funding
is provided as subsidies to aged care provider companies including those that
operate for profit. In 2018 the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation
(ANMF), Australia’s largest national professional and industrial nursing and
midwifery organisation with over 268,500 members, commissioned the Tax Justice
Network - Australia to analyse possible tax avoidance by for-profit aged care
companies and to provide recommendations for improving transparency on
Government spending on for-profit aged care.
Key points from the
report
*
By number of beds, not-for-profit providers are the largest aged care provider
group in Australia (52% in 2013-2014), however there has been a rapid growth in
the size and spread of for-profit companies; Bupa, Opal, Regis and Estia are
the largest aged care providers nationally. If Japara and Allity are included,
these 6 for-profit companies operate over 20% of residential aged care beds in
Australia.
*
In the most recent year (mostly the 2017 financial year) the six largest
for-profit companies were given over $2.17 billion AUD via government
subsidies. This was 72% of their total revenue of over $3 billion. These
companies also reported profits of $210 million AUD (2016-2018).
*
Companies can use various accounting methods to avoid paying tax. One method is
when a company links (staples) two or more businesses (securities) they own
together, each security is treated separately for tax purposes to reduce the
amount of tax the company has to pay. Aged care companies are known to use this
method as well as other tax avoiding practices. Another practice is by
“renting” their aged care homes from themselves (one security rents to another)
or by providing loans between securities and shareholders.
*
The six largest for-profit aged care providers have enormous incomes and
profits:
* The largest company, BUPA, had
almost $7.5 billion in total income in Australia (2015-16) but paid only $105
million in tax on a taxable income of only $352 million.
* BUPA’s Australian aged care business
made over $663 million in 2017 and over 70% ($468 million) of this was from
government funding.
* Funding from government and resident
fees increased in 2017, but BUPA paid almost $3 million less to their employees
and suppliers.
* The second largest, Opal, had total
income of $527.2 million in 2015-16 but paid only $2.4 million in tax on a
taxable income of only $7.9 million.
* 76% ($441 million) was from government
funding in 2016.
*
Allity had total income of $315.6 million in 2015-16 and paid no tax.
* 67% ($224 million) of Allity’s
revenue was from government funding in 2016-17.
*
Regis, Estia, and Japara are listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX)
but appear to be using methods to reduce the amount of tax they pay while
earning large profits from over $1 billion of government subsidies.
*
Family owned aged care companies (Arcare, TriCare, and Signature) receive
between $42-$160 million each in annual government subsidies but provide very
little public information on their operations and financial performance and may
use accounting methods to avoid paying tax.
* (All figures quoted above are in AUD)
*
The Australian Government and the Federal Opposition (the Australian Labor
Party) have proposed several ways to fix the problems with companies avoiding
tax by using trust structures and other methods but there are still loopholes.
*
It is difficult to get a detailed and complete picture of the full extent to
which these heavily subsidised aged care companies are avoiding paying as much
tax as they should, because Australian law is not currently strong enough to
ensure that their financial records and accounting practices are publicly
available and fully transparent.
Conclusion
The
six largest for-profit aged care providers in Australia received over $2.17
billion AUD in annual tax payer funded subsidies which provided after tax
profits of $210 million AUD. The actual operating profits were much larger.
These providers only paid around $154 million AUD in tax in 2015-16. Companies
that receive millions of tax payer dollars via Australian government subsidies
must be required by law to meet higher standards of transparency in financial
reports and be publicly accountable. The report calls upon the Government,
Opposition, and cross-bench Senators to work together to make laws to stop aged
care providers from avoiding the taxes they should pay and provide clear
records of their business dealings.
The
Tax Justice Network – Australia strongly supports recent government legislation
that has been introduced to close loopholes in the Multinational Anti-Avoidance
Law and government reforms to stapled structures. However, there is still a
need for additional transparency measures. The Tax Justice Network – Australia
also strongly supports a policy proposed by the Australian Labor Party to
introduce minimum taxation of discretionary trusts. These reform measures are
examined in more detail by this report in the section: Current Reform Measures.
This
analysis of tax payments and corporate structures of the largest for-profit
aged care companies provides clear evidence that simple common-sense reforms
are needed immediately to restore integrity to the tax system and to ensure
public accountability on billions of dollars in government spending.
RECOMMENDATIONS
FROM THE REPORT
Any
company that receives Commonwealth funds over $10 million in any year must file
complete audited annual financial statements with Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC) in full compliance with all Australian Accounting
Standards and not be eligible for Reduced Disclosure Requirements. Public and
private companies must fully disclose all transactions between trusts or similar
parties that are part of stapled structures or similar corporate structures
where most or all income is earned from a related party and where operating
income is substantially reduced by lease and/or finance payments to related
parties with beneficial tax treatment.
Australia’s
Largest For-Profit Aged Care Companies
In
Australia, non-profit providers collectively operate a majority of residential
aged care beds. However, the market share of large for-profit providers
continues to grow rapidly. Likewise, the influence of for profit providers on
shaping government policy and influencing broader trends in the aged care
sector has never been greater. Ranked by the number of government allocated
residential aged care places (beds) in 2017, the six largest for-profit aged
care companies in Australia are; Bupa, Opal, Regis, Estia, Japara, and Allity.
Combined, they operate over 20% of all residential aged care beds in the
country. These companies continue to expand market share through new
developments and acquisitions. These companies are also expanding to provide
more retirement living and home care services, which allow access to additional
government funding. In the most recent financial year (2016-2017), these six
for-profit aged care companies combined received over $2.17 billion in
government subsidies.4 This made up 72% of their combined total revenue of over
$3 billion.5……
COMPANY
SNAPSHOT
Bupa:
A United Kingdom-based mutual insurance company with global operations
including aged care services. Australia is Bupa’s largest and most profitable
market.
Regis,
Estia, and Japara: Public aged care companies listed on the ASX.
Opal:
A private aged care company owned by subsidiaries of two listed companies, AMP
Capital and Singapore-based G.K. Goh.
Allity:
controlled by Archer Capital, an Australian private equity firm with large
foreign pension fund investors.
Arcare,
TriCare and Signature (formerly Innovative Care): three family-owned,
for-profit aged care companies.
NOTE:
1. The Tax Justice Network -
Australia is the Australian branch of the Tax Justice Network (TJN) and the
Global Alliance for Tax Justice. TJN is an independent organisation launched in
the British Houses of Parliament in March 2003. It is dedicated to high-level
research, analysis and advocacy in the field of tax and regulation. TJN works
to map, analyse and explain the role of taxation and the harmful impacts of tax
evasion, tax avoidance, tax competition and tax havens. TJN’s objective is to encourage
reform at the global and national levels.
Membership of the Network can be found here.
Labels:
aged care,
elder abuse,
government funding,
human rights,
multinationals,
taxation
Early end to NSW North Coast shark nets trial and Berejiklian Government urged not to reinstate the controversial strategy.
Echo
NetDaily, 3
May 2018:
Local Greens MP Tamara
Smith and animal rights activists have welcomed the early end to the North
Coast shark nets trial and urged the State Government not to reinstate the
controversial strategy.
NSW Primary Industries
Minister Niall Blair announced on Wednesday that the nets would begin coming
out immediately owing to the early start of the whale migration season in the
region.
The migration officially
started on May 1, a month earlier than last year.
Ms Smith said on
Thursday that the cessation of the trial should be permanent, and that other
measures should be used to enhance community safety.
‘There is no scientific
evidence and little community support for putting shark nets back in the waters
off the North Coast,’ Ms Smith said in a press release.
‘The data from the North
Coast Shark Net Trial is yet more evidence that the shark netting program in
NSW does little to keep people safe in the water but takes a terrible toll on
local marine life.
‘I support shark
spotting by trained personnel such as Shark Watch volunteers or Surf Life
Savers, using binoculars and drones.’
According to
departmental statistics from the trial, just two of the 132 marine creatures
caught in the nets between November 23, 2017 and March 31 this year was a
target shark.
Among the other animals
caught were a small number of threatened species, including Green Turtles and
Great Hammerhead sharks, as well as 23 rays.
Forty-nine of the
animals caught in the nets were killed…..
If any reader has a mind to support the permanent removal of these shark nets they can write, phone or email:
NSW Premier Hon. Gladys Berejiklian
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PH (02) 8574 5000
Email Contact the Premier
NSW Deputy Premier Hon. John Barilaro
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PH (02) 8574 5150
NSW Minister for the Environment Gabrielle Upton
GPO Box 5341
SYDNEY NSW 2001
SYDNEY NSW 2001
PH (02) 8574 6107
Sunday, 6 May 2018
"We don't have old buildings, we have old trees": the fight to save a 200 year-old Lennox Head fig tree continues
Echo
NetDaily, 30 April
2018:
Ballina
Council has offered a temporary reprieve for the 200 year old Moreton Bay fig
tree in Castle Drive Lennox Head. Photo Jenny Grinlington.
Ballina’s Deputy Mayor,
Keith Williams, has thanked locals campaigning to save a
200-year-old Fig Tree at Lennox Head.
He said community
pressure had contributed to a rethink from the mayor that resulted in a last
minute rescission motion to temporarily save the tree while further
investigation is undertaken.
The motion signed by
Mayor David Wright, Cr Williams and Cr Meehan calls an Extraordinary Meeting to
consider further technical reports on the causes of cracking in an adjoining
house.
‘A number of highly
qualified arborists have written to Council urging further investigation of the
tree roots and claiming that soil moisture issues under the house are a more
likely source of the damage than the tree. This warrants further investigation,
said Cr Williams.
‘This tree predates the
arrival of European settlers in the area. Apart from items such as centuries
old fish traps, these ancient trees are some of the most significant heritage
items in the shire. They should be protected on that basis.’
‘I think all councillors
are mindful of the fact that our insurer has accepted a claim for damage and
denied future liability unless this tree is removed. But if that assessment is
wrong, we should challenge it on behalf of our community’, said Cr Williams.
He told Echonetdaily it
was ‘a difficult issue – we’ve been placed in a difficult position with our
insurer. They don’t value heritage. This in my view this is a significant item
of heritage – we don’t have old buildings, we have old trees.
While the date of the
extraordinary meeting is still to be determined by the general manager, Cr
Williams said he expects it to be ‘within next couple of weeks’.....
Labels:
Ballina Shire Council,
trees
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)

