The imporatnce of Indigenous Protected Areas as part of Australia's National Reserve System

Country Needs People:

Here at Country Needs People, we focus a lot of attention on Indigenous rangers. There’s a pretty good reason for that. It’s a phenomenally successful program that is having a positive effect on the lives of Indigenous people across the country. But there’s a second side to our campaign, which sometimes feels overlooked, but which is just as important.

Securing the future of Indigenous Protected Areas will mark another critically important milestone in recognising the value of Indigenous land and sea management to Australia.

Increasingly, Indigenous Protected Areas, or IPAs, are being appreciated as an expression of cultural and economic self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. IPAs are tangible demonstrations of connection to country, but also provide an important social and economic foundation for improving health, education, employment and cultural identity.

IPAs are recognised as part of the Australian Government’s National Reserve System. To date there are more than 70 IPAs, covering 65,000,000 hectares of Indigenous owned or controlled land and sea areas. IPAs are are voluntarily entered into by Indigenous land owners and as part of any agreement with the Australian Government to manage biodiversity; local Traditional Owners initiate the process, and develop a management plan according to criteria which address both local priorities and national biodiversity priorities.  

Typically these two aspects strongly overlap.  The program combines extremely well with the Indigenous Rangers initiatives to result in a strategic, locally led natural and cultural management approach combining highly valuable traditional and local knowledge and contemporary science.  

The IPA is 'declared' formally at a time the Traditional Owners determine, it then becomes part of Australia's national reserve system the NRS.

Read the rest of the post here.

Australian Dept. of the Environment, February 2013:

Stretching over 1,114 hectares of the Lower Richmond Valley on the northern coast of New South Wales, Ngunya Jargoon Indigenous Protected Area is a refuge for an extraordinary number of plants and animals.

Part of the traditional homelands of the Bundjalung people of Ballina and Cabbage Tree Island, Ngunya Jargoon itself is of particular significance to the Nyangbul clan group.

This natural oasis lies in a region suffering from fragmented habitat due to historic land clearing. It is the last remaining intact native area on the lower Richmond floodplain and contains heath and woodlands, rainforest and eucalyptus forest.

Bingil Creek, flowing along the eastern side of the protected area, is in near-pristine condition.

Next to the Blackwell range and Tuckean Swamp, Ngunya Jargoon creates a wildlife corridor between the region's protected areas and provides a home to 38 threatened animal species such as the long-nosed potoroos and other important species including swamp wallabies, koalas and red-bellied black snakes.

More than 400 native plant species are found here, many of which the Bundjalung people used for food, medicine and tools. Bundjalung used broad-leafed paperbark for wrapping food prior to cooking, as a bandage and as a coolamon.

Bush fruits such as geebungs, fiver corners and sour currents played a big part in people's diets. Resin from grass trees, a culturally important plant currently in decline, was used to make glue for firesticks.

Archaeological and historic records paint a rich picture of Indigenous occupation in the area which stretches back thousands of years.

Because large parts of Ngunya Jargoon Indigenous Protected Area have never been developed or damaged, a number of significant discoveries including artefacts which point to precontact economies during the Holocene period, have been made.

Cultural sites containing a large number of artefacts such as stone axes and flake tools and numerous middens and scar trees have also been recorded on the IPA.

The Bundjalung people are guided by the values of healthy country, intergenerational learning, sustainable business and enjoyment to shape their country's future. They plan to develop an outdoor learning space, build walking tracks and collecting native seeds for regeneration programs as part of their management plan for Ngunya Jargoon.

For more than 10 years, the Mibinj Green Team, made up of Bundjalung people, have been working on country. They've undertaken extensive rubbish collections, cultural surveys, revegetation and fencing activities.

Dedicated as an Indigenous Protected Area on 12 February 2013, Ngunya Jargoon has become part of Australia's National Reserve System, ensuring it will be maintained for future generations to enjoy.

Ngunya Jargoon Indigenous Protected Area will be managed under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category VI, as a protected area which is managed for conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources.

Unfortunately the Ngunya Jargoon IPA, which is home to a total of 38 threatened species, falls along the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway upgrade that was approved by the Abbott Government in August 2014.

Biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world excludes China Shenhua Energy & Whitehaven Coal

In 2015 Shenhua Energy Company announced a fall in net profit of 56.9 percent.

In 2016 another nail in its coal coffin was revealed.....

Bloomberg, 14 April 2016:

Norway’s $860 billion sovereign wealth fund unveiled the first list of miners and power producers to be excluded from its portfolio following a ban on coal investments.

The 52 companies being barred include American Electric Power Co. Inc., China Shenhua Energy Co. Ltd., Whitehaven Coal Ltd., Tata Power Co. and Peabody Energy Corp., according to a statement from Norges Bank Investment Management, the unit of Norway’s central bank that manages the world’s biggest wealth fund. The exclusions are based on new criteria introduced by the government in February impacting companies that base at least 30 percent of their activities or revenues on coal.

“We’re reviewing all relevant companies by the end of 2016, and there will be further exclusions,” NBIM spokeswoman Marthe Skaar said by phone.

The fund has already divested stocks and bonds from the 52 companies, Skaar said. Based on current valuations and allocations in line with the fund’s benchmark index, the securities would represent about 19 billion kroner ($2.3 billion), she said. Most of the companies were out of the portfolio by the end of 2015 because 28 of them overlap with a list of so-called risk-based divestments, which the fund initiated as early as 2013, before it was clear there would be a new exclusion criterion based on coal, she said.

Norges Bank has estimated that the ban on coal investments, which was agreed in Parliament last year against the initial reluctance of Norway’s minority, Conservative-led government, would force the fund to sell holdings valued at about 55 billion kroner in 120 companies. The central bank said in a letter to the Finance Ministry last year that most of the companies will have been evaluated by the end of 2016, and that some could remain in the investment portfolio while the fund continued a dialog on their future use of coal……

The world's biggest private coal miner Peabody Energy which is also on the sovereign wealth fund exclusion list, and also operates in the Gunnedah region, is currently seeking bankruptcy protection in the US. 

A brief look at how Australians view Shenhua:

https://youtu.be/s0ZsO_ef0pc

Has Dr Who arrived to rescue us all from a painful political future?

This is Australian Prime Minister Malcom Bligh Turnbull leaving what appears to be the Tardis and, from the ‘stunned mullet’ expression on his face, he has obviously just returned from a visit to his political future……

ABC News, 21 April 2016

When celebrities think that Australian law doesn't apply to them, there is a deep pit of humiliation awaiting

U.S. actor Johnny Depp has found out just how seriously Australia takes its own quarantine laws.

Before he and wife Amber Heard were forced to make an apology video, as part of a plea bargain for unlawfully smuggling two pet dogs into the country, he had obviously not given the matter even a passing thought.

Indeed, once out of the country he became quite defiant in the face of a possible heavy fine and/or gaol sentence for Amber.

The couple’s humbling by order of the court was probably all the more galling for their public relations team once it was realised that their apology video was to be used by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources as an educational tool (as well as being officially posted on Facebook) and that mainstream and social media were calling boss's performance cringeworthy.

This video is their real punishment. Every molecule of star quality has been violently yanked away from Depp and Heard here. They’re sullen and slumped. They’re badly lit and shot from an unflattering angle. Their delivery is ugly and monotone. In effect, the Australian government has done to the celebrity pair what it has already done to its cigarette packaging. It’s taken something seductive and dangerous, and made it look as awful as humanly possible. It’s going to be hard to bounce back from this one. [The Guardian, 18 April 2016]

Below is a fictitious behind-the-scenes take on the making of that video which openly laughs at the celebrity couple and the situation in which they found themselves.

https://youtu.be/Y4Xh2KBI4I0

Quote of the Week

If you believe the conservative line, Australia’s banks are not only too big to fail but too fragile to be openly investigated.

The argument goes like this: yes, the financial sector has behaved very badly, even criminally; but the establishment of a royal commission to examine the seemingly endless stream of scandals could lead to a devastating loss of confidence. [Mike Seccombe in The Saturday Paper, 16 April 2016]

Do We Need A Royal Commission Into The Banks?

The Fairfax Ipsos poll of April 17 found 65% of the public supported a banking Royal Commission.  Yet the Government (minus initially a few backbenchers) vigorously opposes it, slamming it as “populist”, “reckless”, a “distraction”, and a waste of money.  Furthermore the Government claims it would take too long and be likely to erode public confidence in the finance system.

These Government spokesmen – Turnbull, Morrison, Cormann and others – obviously cannot see that the community is sick of the recurring finance sector scandals and has no confidence in any current measures for making these powerful institutions behave ethically – and indeed within the law.

Another oft-cited reason for the Government’s rejection of a royal commission is that we already have “a tough cop on the beat” in the form of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).  ASIC, they reiterate, has both the power to investigate and to prosecute.  They point out that while a Royal Commission can investigate, it has no power to prosecute.

While the “tough cop’s” powers may exist, it has not had any success in stemming the flow of finance sector scandals.  Indeed many of the revelations of bad behaviour have not been as a result of ASIC investigations but the work of whistleblowers and financial journalists. And it would seem that the fines resulting from ASIC investigations have seemed more like “slaps on the wrist” for bad behaviour rather than effective deterrents.

In addition the “tough cop”, along with other government entities, has had its response capacity limited by the very Government which claims ASIC has all that is needed to keep the banks and other finance institutions in line.  In the 2014 budget ASIC lost $120 million over 5 years.  This has obviously affected its investigative capacity.

The increasing clamour for a Royal Commission has worried the Government because of the proximity of the election. Consequently Treasurer Morrison announced recently a series of measures which he claims will solve the bank problem.  These measures include at least $120 million in extra funding, tougher penalties for wrong-doing, greater powers for ASIC and an extra commissioner to focus on prosecuting crimes in the finance sector.  These changes will be financed by the banks who will be hit with a levy of $121 million. The costs to the banks are not, according to the Government, to be passed on to bank customers.

Morrison and the Government are obviously hoping this response will undermine the appeal of Labor’s Royal Commission commitment. Presumably the Government backbenchers  who were supporting the need for a Royal Commission are now satisfied but it’s doubtful that many in the broader community – and particularly those who have been ripped off by the banks – will be.

Those who want the kind of extensive open inquiry that a Royal Commission can provide, have no confidence in ASIC as a body to expose and deal with financial industry malpractice.  This view was highlighted by a Senate committee in 2014 which found ASIC to be “a timid, hesitant regulator, too ready and willing to accept uncritically the word of the bank”.  There is considerable doubt about whether these latest measures will change that. 

Furthermore, is ASIC to investigate its own responses to the plethora of financial scandals? This is a matter which certainly needs to be investigated to ensure that such inadequate responses do not happen again.  Conflict of interest issues mean ASIC cannot be given this important task.  There is, of course, a question about whether the Government wants a light shone on ASIC’s performance just as there is a question about what appears to be its cosy relationship with the banking/finance industry.

This close relationship has been seen as a major reason for the reluctance of the Abbott/Turnbull Government to take effective action to protect consumers.  A prime example of this was its desire to wind back the Future of Financial Advice reforms legislated by the previous Labor Government.   These reforms had been introduced to protect customers from unscrupulous behaviour by advisers and their employers.  The Government failed to wind them back only because of Senate opposition.  Another more recent example of this close relationship is the funding the National Australia Bank is providing as a co-sponsor for a political fundraising breakfast for Kelly O’Dwyer, member for Higgins and the Assistant Treasurer.

The sense of entitlement that banks have about being able to operate with as little government interference as possible – even when behaving badly – was clearly obvious early this month after Labor announced that, if elected, it would hold a banking Royal Commission.  The head of the banking industry lobby, the Australian Bankers Association, refused to rule out the possibility of a mining-style tax ad campaign against Labor.  Presumably the widespread community support for a Royal Commission revealed in a recent poll might make this lobby group realize that such a campaign could backfire.

What is very obvious is that there is a need to shine a very strong light on the banking/ finance industry in order to force the changes that are required to make it fairer and more responsive to customer needs.  Moreover there is an ongoing need to ensure proper compensation for consumers who have been hurt by unscrupulous behaviour over recent years.  And the “bad apples” in the sector need to be identified and removed.  This would lead to a marked improvement in public confidence in the banking/finance system.  The Government measures are clearly too little, too late and were merely rolled out because of fear of an electoral backlash rather than because of any conviction that action was needed.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has shown how powerful is the shining of a strong, very public light on institutions which have done the wrong thing.  We need a Royal Commission into the banking/finance industry to force a sweeping clean-up in this sector.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.

So you think Australia is an egalitarian society? Think again.

Based on the World Population Clock as of 16 April 2016, a total of 74 million people (The 1 Per Cent) are said to own approximately 48 per cent of the entire world’s wealth.

In 2015 the Credit Suisse Group calculated total global wealth at US$250 trillion. 

An est. US$7.6 trillion of this was held offshore in low taxing jurisdictions (tax havens) and the majority of offshore wealth is managed by just 50 big banks, with the 10 busiest banks managing 40 percent of these offshore assets, according to Oxfam Briefing Paper 210. 

How much this represents in lost tax revenue to the countries in which profits were generated is unknown.

However, there is some indication that despite many of the extremely rich having residences in more than one country and often living in constant movement between these homes, they are not above seeking political influence in those countries in which they may not be citizens.

In countries in which they conduct business they are also politically active. In Britain the Sunday Times Rich List for 2015 revealed that: In total, 197 people who have featured in Rich Lists between 2011 and 2015 contributed £82.4m, just under half of the £174.7m donated in private and corporate cash. 25 gave more than £1m. Seven donors gave more than £2m.

What this all means is that by 2015 The 1 Per Cent had amassed US$120 trillion for their own exclusive advantage and use and, of these an est. 7.4 million individuals have the biggest share of that very large slice of the global riches pie.

In that 7.4 million strong group there is old money and new money - heads of royal houses, heirs of fortunes established in previous generations, hedge fund billionaires, investment bankers, oil barons, mining tycoons, industrialists, shipping magnates, the odd digital genius or two, oligarchs, financiers and other disreputable individuals.

Oxfam pointed out in that in 2015, 53 men and 9 women out of these 7.4 million rich individuals had a total combined wealth of $1.76 trillion.

According to the Institute for Policy Studies, by 2015 in America the 20 wealthiest people owned more wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined - that is more wealth than a total of 152 million people in 57 million households.

For the same year, Forbes listed Australia’s 50 richest residents (our very own 0.00020 per cent) as having a combined personal wealth of $85.41 billion - which would roughly equate to 5% of this country’s gross domestic product for 2015.

Also in 2015 news.com.au reported that the chief executive officers of Australia’s biggest corporations earned more than 100 times the annual salary/wage of the average worker - in some cases earning as much as $367,000 a week.

Going into 2015 Westpac Banking Corporation's CEO was already receiving an annual remuneration package worth an est. $13 million.

The gap between the very rich and the rest of Australia continues to grow.

In November 2015 Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that between 2003-04 and 2014-15 the 20% of individuals in the highest income quintile received 42 per cent or nearly half of the total growth in wages and salaries.

In September 2015 The Guardian reported that: The latest figures for Australian household incomes and wealth released last week showed that income inequality has risen in the past two years. The average annual income of the richest 20% rose by 7%, while median households saw their income rise by just 1.3% in the same period.

When one looks for evidence of political influence - it was not unknown for very large political donations from billionaires and millionaires to occur in years past, such as those from Lord Ashcroft and Reg Grundy. While in 2014-15 at least five of the first ten Australian billionaires included on the Forbes Rich List made more modest political donations - between $10,000- $100,000 and predominately to the Liberal-Nationals.

The rich tend to cluster together in life as well as politics. In 2015 Business Insider reported suburban clusters with the highest taxable incomes, of which the following are examples:

* Claremont-Claremont North-Karrakatta-Mount Claremont-Swanbourne, Western Australia, with 10,885 residents having a total combined average taxable income of est. $1.16 billion pa.

* Balmain-Birchgrove-Balmain East, New South Wales, where 10,515 have residents have a total combined average taxable income of est. $1.14 billion pa.
* Middle Cove-Castlecrag-Willoughby-North Willoughby-Willoughby East, NSW, with 10, 295 residents having a total combined average taxable income of est. $1.09 billion pa.

* Darling Point- Edgecliff-Point Piper, NSW, where 5,980 residents have a total combined average taxable income of est. $1.06 billion pa.

* Castle Cove, Roseville, Roseville Chase, NSW, with 8,985 residents having a total combined average taxable income of est. $976.68 million pa.

* Kooyong-Malvern-Malvern North, Victoria. where 7,755 residents have a total combined average taxable income of est. $817.36 million pa.

With all this conspicuous wealth in the top tier of a supposedly egalitarian society, one would expect that any journey towards the bottom of the pile would be more a gentle downward slope rather than a high drop from a cliff. 

However, in January 2015 there were 795,000 ordinary people at the bottom of that proverbial cliff, without a job and living on about $140 per week, and on any given night an est. 1 in every 200 men, women and children were without a permanent roof over their heads.

So when multi-millionaire Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and Treasurer Scott John Morrison begin to explain on 3 May this year how the approximately 90 per cent of Australian households (who don’t have net worths calculated in double digit millions or billions) should start to live on less or expect diminished public health and education provisions in order ’to assist' the national balance sheet, I strongly suggest that every low-income household in this group consider giving both these gentlemen the raised middle finger.

For the last three years it has been those on the bottom tiers of the wealth pyramid who have borne the brunt of punitive federal budget measures and it is time to say “No more!”.

via GIPHY