Yet another example of why Australia needs uniform 'real time' political donation disclosure laws

The full list of who made declarable cash donations to political parties or independent candidates and, which state parties and associated entities transferred money to their federal counterparts for use in the campaign preceding the 2 July 2016 federal election, won’t be known until 2018.

That will in all probability be less than a year before the next federal election.

Even then the accuracy of disclosures is open to speculation as at the period covering the previous federal election in 2013 indicates:

50 (54%) resulted in the disclosure return requiring amendment

35 returns (38%) required amendment to the reported total value of receipts

32 returns (34%) required amendment to the reported total value of payments

12 returns (13%) required amendment to the reported total value of debts

31 returns (33%) required amendment to the details of individual receipts, either by correcting the details disclosed or adding receipts not included on the return

6 returns (6%) required amendment to the details of outstanding debts, either by correcting the details disclosed or adding debts not included on the return.

Meanwhile, as we wait ABC News on 14 July 2016 supplied yet another example of why real time online publication of political donation declarations would be a wise reform:

A group of Sydney property developers have donated thousands of dollars to the ACT branch of the Liberal Party despite appearing to have no connection with the capital.

Developers are banned from making political donations in New South Wales, but are not in the ACT.

Since last month four companies registered to developers in Sydney have donated a total of $20,000 to the Canberra Liberals.

The ACT Labor Government said it had no record of any of the companies ever working, or applying for work, in the territory.

One of the developers, Tony Merhi, previously appeared before the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) over allegations he had bypassed his state's ban on developer donations by donating to a Liberal Party slush fund.

Mr Merhi also sparked interest when it was revealed he began donating tens of thousands of dollars to the federal Liberal Party following the NSW ban on developer donations in 2009.

In response to questions from the ABC, regarding the donations and the possibility the Canberra Liberals were being used to avoid the NSW ban, the party released a short statement.

"The Canberra Liberals receive donations from many different individuals and businesses. All donations are permitted under ACT donations laws," the statement read.

Merc Shoppingtown, Toplace, J&M Nassif Property Group and Statewide Planning all made one-off $5,000 donations to the Liberals in June.

Details on the companies are limited, but Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) records showed they were registered respectively to Tony Merhi, Jean Nassif, John and Maroun Nassif, and Hoda Demian.

The ABC has been unable to contact any of the companies or their directors, other than Toplace, who declined to comment.

The NSW Electoral Commission said the "risk of money being moved between branches of political parties [was] not a new one"….

"The NSW Electoral Commission has advocated reform in this area, as has the Panel of Experts on Political Donations more recently," the Commission said in a statement.

But the Commission said if the ACT Liberal Party chose to transfer the money to their New South Wales colleagues there would be a cap on how quickly they could do it.

"The ACT branch of the Liberal Party can donate this financial year $5,900 to the NSW branch for state purposes and another $5,900 for local government purposes," the Commission said.

The ACT Liberal Party deputy leader Alistair Coe dismissed the issue as a storm in a tea cup.

Mr Coe said the donations were linked to the party's federal campaign.

"So our federal campaign does have different dealings with people right across the ACT and indeed Australia, so to that end those donations are linked to the federal campaign rather than territory politics," he said…..

Last week's update to the ACT's political donation disclosures also shows the Canberra Liberals received one of their largest ever individual donations, $30,000 from Paul Marks, as well as a $15,000 donation from the Victorian branch of the party.

Mr Marks rose to prominence last year when then federal Liberal MP Stuart Robert was forced to resign after it was revealed he held shares in a mining company linked to Mr Marks.

UPDATE

The Sydney Morning Herald, 15 July 2016:

The party's financial dire straits were so bad during the marathon eight-week campaign the Liberals had to scrimp on their advertising earlier to afford a blitz during the final week, when political ads are thought to be most effective.  

One Liberal MP said they were regularly approached and offered donations on the proviso they were not redirected to Mr Turnbull's federal campaign. 

The Australian reported on Friday that Mr Turnbull, a multi-millionaire some estimate could be worth as much as $200 million, had dipped into his own pocket to fund $1 million worth of Liberal Party advertising.

Asked to confirm or deny the report, Mr Turnbull's office declined to answer and instead said all donations would be disclosed and made public. 

"Donations to the Liberal Party are disclosed in accordance with the requirements of the Electoral Act," a spokesman for the Prime Minister said. 

The Australian Electoral Commission says parties must disclose their donors identities each financial year, if their contributions exceed $13,000. But records for the 2016 election campaign will not be made public until February 2017.....  

For all those political tragics out there: Page polling booths which didn't vote for Nationals Kevin Hogan

National Party incumbent Kevin Hogan received 44.68% of the 100,358 formal first preference votes counted and, was returned in the Page electorate by a margin of 5,524 two-party preferred votes with a swing against him of 0.35%* compared to the est. 6.71% swing towards him in 2013.

An est. 26% of all Page electorate polling booths failed to return Kevin Hogan - Brooms Head, Casino North, Cawongla, Clunes, Dunoon, Goolmangar, Goonellabah, Grafton East, Jiggi, Kyogle South, Lismore, Lismore East, Lismore Heights, Lismore North, Lismore South, Meerschaum Vale, Nimbin, Red Rock, Rosebank, Sandy Beach, South Grafton, Sydney, Tabulam, The Channon, Wardell, Whiporie, and Woombah.

The bottom line for Mr. Hogan is that est. 55.32% of the voters in his electorate chose to vote for anyone but him. A marked increase since 2013 when only 47.48% of voters preferred other candidates,

Perhaps this figure will finally light a fire under his seat and he will begin to actively represent the interests of communities in his electorate - not just blindly play follow the leader when he votes in the Australian parliament.

* As of 6pm 14 July 2015 5,363 declaration votes were still to be processed.
   At 6.62 pm nationally 85.7% of the vote had been counted and only 1 seat remained in doubt.

The water raiders have turned their eyes once more to the Clarence River system

Bumper sticker from the successful 2007 community campaign

The Abbott-Turnbull Government’s ‘100 dams’ plan lives on into 2016.

He said….

The Area News, 11 July 2016:

A Griffith group’s push to send an extra 1000 gigalitres of water down the Darling River is gaining momentum with Bourke Shire Council jumping on board.

The Clarence River Diversion, originally mooted in the early 1980’s by engineer David Coffey and buried by the Hawke government, was resurrected by Griffith councillor Dino Zappacosta and the Build More Dams committee. Cr Zappacosta said he was pleased Bourke council was supporting their campaign for state and federal governments to carry out a feasibility study.

“Bourke Shire Council is fully supportive of the plan,” he said.

“They actually said many years ago they tried to get water from there.”

The scheme, if it went ahead, would see a number of dams built high in the Clarence River catchment, west of Grafton. From there, collected rainwater would run through the Great Dividing Range in an 80-kilometre tunnel and flow into the Dumaresq River before eventually finding its way into the Darling River.

She said….

Email sent to North Coast Voices by Debrah Novak of Yamba, 13 July 2016:

I AM WANTING to point out to Griffith councillor Dino Zappacosta, the Build More Dams committee and Bourke Shire Council if you think you can bulldoze your way into the Clarence Valley and take 1000 gigalitres of water for the Murray-Darling River system you have definitely got a big fight on your hands.

The plan you are resurrecting is over 30 years old however the fact you have had no community consultation with the people of the Clarence and the fact you think you have a right to access our water is downright gob smacking, plain rude and who the hell do you think you are?

Our Clarence River is one of the last remaining wild rivers in NSW and hell will freeze over before our community will let you have one single drop. 

If you divert the Clarence River westward you will not only destroy our regions three greatest economic drivers, fishing, tourism and agriculture you will severely impact the replenishing of the Tweed, Gold Coast and Frazer Coast beaches. You take us on you take them on too.

Earlier this year I invited world acclaimed Australian geologist Dr John Jackson up to the Clarence River Gorge to explain to me how if the Clarence River were dammed or diverted, how it would impact on the lower reaches of our region.

He said " wetlands and fish habitat needed for the very foundation of our entire professional and recreational fishing industry would be destroyed. 

It has taken millions of years for the Clarence River to course its way through the mountains and valleys and then wind its way down to Yamba and then out into the Pacific Ocean. Currents then take all this sand north and in the process has created Fraser and Moreton Bay Islands and the beaches of the Tweed and Gold Coast".

Yes the Clarence River floods almost biannually and thank God it does because during that process it scours out all the chemicals that have built up over time from local industrial and agricultural businesses.

And finally do you think the five Aboriginal Nations for which the Clarence River is their life blood would allow you to divert their water west, sorry but you are dreaming.

The Murray Darling Basin is broken because of greed, a sense of entitlement and the inability for your community to take responsibility for compromising Mother Nature.

We value what we have here in the Clarence River and Valley and I guarantee the 53,000 of us who call this place home would stand shoulder to shoulder to protect her.

A little bit of history....

Excerpt from a North Coast Voices post, 19 October 2010:

Commonwealth Hansard:

Page Electorate: Clarence River 
Ms SAFFIN (Page) (10.57 am)—I have a message on behalf of my community in Page that I want to give to the parliament and everybody who is going to be involved in the Murray-Darling Basin plan and debate. The message from my community, which is home to the Clarence River—and a lot of people seem to be talking about wanting to get their hands on it and are looking at it for diversion—is this: not a drop. Right across my electorate thousands of cars have that on their bumper stickers: not a drop. In effect it is saying hands off the Clarence River.
The idea that the Clarence River can be diverted is one of those issues that have been around for quite some time.
Everybody has raised this issue at different times. In particular, there was some engineering plan that it could be done. My message to the two Tonys is: not one drop will be taken out of the Clarence River. I have also been told, and I do not want to verbal the honourable member for Kennedy, that on the member’s website he talks about those not in favour of looking at some sort of diversion as being political pygmies. While I am not going to comment about my size and whether that is correct, I would say to the honourable member that the people in the Clarence Valley and in Page are certainly not political pygmies. The catchment area of the Clarence River falls within 100 kilometres of the New South Wales coastal strip. Our industries are fishing—we have a huge commercial fishing industry—and agriculture, and the economy is heavily underpinned by that commercial fishing. There is also forestry and tourism. It is all worth a lot to us. This debate is one of those debates that come up every now and then. Engineering wise, we can do anything—we can do marvels—but in terms of the environment and also the viability of the Clarence it would be a disaster. They can look all they like but—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has expired.

A Clarence Valley Protest, 25 November 2007:

Clarence River now safe from water raiders 

The Howard Government was soundly defeated at the Australian federal election last night, with outgoing Prime Minister John Howard tipped to be ousted by Labor in the seat he has held since first entering parliament.
The Nationals look like going into Opposition, along with their coalition partner the Liberal Party, with a reduced number of regional and rural seats.
The NSW Northern Rivers now has two of its three elected federal representatives drawn from the Australian Labor Party which gave a firm commitment earlier this year not to dam and divert waters from the Clarence River catchment area.

To see how the local political battle played out go to North Coast Voices:
northcoastvoices.blogspot.com

Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom - who is she?

Like a good many people in Australia I hadn’t really noticed this politician until the fall-out from the U.K. Brexit vote began.

Now as Prime Minister-elect until her swearing in sometime later today, Theresa May is being portrayed in sections of the mainstream media as another Iron Lady.

May is an Oxford graduate with a degree in geography, who worked for the Bank of England from 1985 until 1997 before holding a post at the Association for Payment Clearing Services and, also served as a councillor for the London Borough of Merton's Durnsford Ward from 1986 to 1994 [http://www.tmay.co.uk/biography].

She is alleged to identify as a One Nation Conservative.

Theresa May was elected MP for Maidenhead in May 1997, after which she held several shadow positions, including:

Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment 1999 to 2001

Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions 2001 to 2002

Shadow Secretary of State for the Family 2004 to 2005

Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport 2005

Shadow Leader of the House of Commons 2005 to 2009

May was Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Women and Equalities 2010 to 2012 and was appointed Home Secretary in May 2010

She was re-elected on 7 May 2015 with 65.8% of the vote in her Maidenhead electorate.

SOME INSTANCES OF THERESA MAY’S VOTING RECORD

2010 voted to raise VAT (consumption tax).

12 October 2011 voted against creating more jobs for young people funded by bank bonuses.

2012 voted for a scheme where employees could sell their rights (among them the right to redundancy pay and the right to not be unfairly dismissed from their jobs) for shares in the company for which they worked.

June 2012 as Home Secretary found guilty of contempt of court.

18 December 2012 announced restrictive changes to the immigration rules applying to non-EEA nationals seeking to bring family members to the U.K.

2013 voted against acting on soaring energy bills and begins to campaign against the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights.

September 2013 voted against calling on the government to get more people into work, against introducing a compulsory jobs guarantee, against standing up for families in the private rental sector, against curbing payday lenders, and against banking reforms.

13 May 2014 voted not to ban estate agents from charging their fees to tenants instead of the person renting out the property.

April 2016 voted against implementing a series of proposals intended to reduce tax avoidance and evasion and against giving the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority duties to combat abusive tax avoidance arrangements.

[See: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-prime-minister-andrea-leadsom-policies-voting-record-human-rights-what-did-she-mean-a7130961.html & Wikipedia]

More details of May’s voting record can be found at: http://myparliament.info/Member/8/Voting.

* Photographs found at Google Images

Yamba Mega Port: nothing to see here, move along

This is the ‘back of the envelope’ mapping done by Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd for its proposed plan to construct an industrial port on 27.2 per cent of the entire Clarence River Estuary. Neat, tidy and full of unnaturally straight lines.

When asked about impacts on the environment the proposed industrialisation of the Port of Yamba would cause, the spokespeople for Australian Infrastructure Developments usually only have two things to say.

Firstly they point out that the initial environmental advice (which no-one outside the company appears to have sighted) gives the all clear – especially with regard to seagrass beds which supposedly do not exist in the channels to be dredged under this plan.

Secondly they say the Environmental Impact Statement which will have to be produced before they can move forward will be the company’s guideline for development.

In recent weeks there has been a third claim and that is that the company will cut another “entrance” on the north side of the river mouth so that Dirragun reef can lie undisturbed.

We are told there’s nothing for Lower Clarence communities to worry about at all.

But what do people actually living in the Clarence Estuary know about their river?

Well, firstly locals know that there are sea grass beds along the route the large cargo vessels will take back and forth from the four proposed terminals and, that the seagrass beds from the western end of Goodwood Island down the channel leading to the container terminal will in all likelihood be destroyed by the company’s deep channel dredging. 

They are also aware of the degree of mangrove loss likely to occur and, the saltmarsh that will be eliminated during construction along with roosting & feeding habitat of migratory birds protected under the internationally recognised Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), Australia-China Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and Republic of Korea–Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

These three agreements oblige the governments concerned; to take appropriate measures to preserve and enhance the environment of listed migratory species, including the establishment of sanctuaries.

Living as they do in a richly biodiverse region, locals are well aware that the federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act also provides for protection of migratory species as a matter of National Environmental Significance.

[Clarence River County Council, Clarence Estuary Management Plan, 2006]

Click on images to enlarge

In fact locals know full well that Des Euen and his backers would have to play merry hell with estuarine and intertidal areas of a wetlands system that eight years ago the NSW Department of Environment was recommending should be placed on the National Reserve System [Clarence Lowlands Wetland Conservation Assessment, December 2008].

Secondly, locals are aware that any genuine Environmental Impact Statement would point to all these risks and more.

Thirdly, there is the puzzling matter of the proposed new harbour entrance which has surfaced.

As anyone can see on the snapshot of part of the NSW Roads and Maritime Services coastal boating map (below), the north side of the harbour mouth is already listed as the safe route for shipping to enter the estuary – the approach leads are clearly marked.

Click on image to enlarge

So where is this new entrance to be cut? Some or all of the 1,280m north breakwater wall built between 1952-1968 under the Clarence Harbour Works Act would have to be removed – and therein lies the rub.

Prior to construction of the entrance works floods caused significant changes to the shape of the river entrance and the location of navigable channels (Soros Longworth & McKenzie 1978) and the partial or complete removal of one or both of these walls is likely to see sand build up in the river between Iluka and Hickey Island as it did in the mid-1800s and/or further inside the smooth water limit of the main channel. Maintenance dredging may have to be an annual event, rather than a probable bi-annual event to keep the proposed new port navigable.

I won’t even go near the loss of a measure of protection in heavy seas and storms for all boats seeking harbour – the evidence of our own eyes during this year’s east coast lows are enough to give most of the population of Yamba and Iluka a fair idea of what to expect.

The Liberal Party blame game begins in earnest

After seven days of blaming Labor, the Greens, GetUp!, Twitter, the unions and/or the stupidity of voters generally, finally someone in the Liberal Party of Australia begins to be somewhat truthful about reasons behind the electorate’s loss of confidence in the Abbott-Turnbull Government.

Although Michael Kroger's naming of just the current prime minister and treasurer in relation to the loss of  possibly 14 seats in the recent federal election indicates a failure to accept that this Coalition Government was toxic from the moment it was sworn in on 18 September 2013.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 July 2016:

Victorian Liberal Party president Michael Kroger has sheeted the blame for the government's disappointing election result to the Prime Minister and his Treasurer, citing a lack of "economic leadership in the country" as one of the key reasons the party failed at the polls.

Mr Kroger also pointed to a period of policy confusion between last September and May when Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Treasurer Scott Morrison floated potential changes to the GST, the ability of the states to raise their own taxes, negative gearing, capital gains tax and superannuation.

Amid the period of policy confusion, Mr Turnbull took to Facebook to publicly deny a Fairfax Media report that he was killing Abbott government's Tax White Paper, and then five months later killed the Tax White Paper. 

"It was a period of absolute confusion for business and for voters," said one senior Victorian Liberal on Saturday.

Speaking on Melbourne gay and lesbian radio station Joy 94.9 on Saturday, Mr Kroger blamed the government's back-flipping on policies for its electoral failure.

"In that period when we were putting things on and off the table and the electorate formed the opinion, 'well if you fellas, if you people, don't know what [you] are doing, that's a problem'," he said.

Mr Kroger said backflips on the GST, in particular, hurt the government at the polls. "The electorate got a view that we didn't have a clear idea of where we wanted to take the country in terms of the economy." 

Asked by host David McCarthy if the party had "lost the campaign", Mr Kroger said "it is not the campaign that people should focus on, it's what happened on the period September to May".

In September last year Tony Abbott lost the prime ministership to Mr Turnbull. 

Mr Kroger said the polls showed the Liberal Party had 56 per cent of the vote "when Malcolm came in" and that had fallen to just 49 per cent by the time the election campaign started.

"So it is not the campaign, it is this period September to May, and unfortunately, in that period, we didn't take the opportunity to take control of the economic leadership in the country," Mr Kroger said.

"The Liberal Party's number one brand equity, the reason people vote for the Liberal Party, is because we have a long and distinguished history of being better economic managers than Labor, and that's what the public think."

Mr Kroger suggested the government, through its repeated policy backflips, had lost that trust of traditional Liberal voters.

"Political parties have to take responsibility for their own performance," he said. "The results slid dramatically from a 56-44 result, where we were 12 per cent in front to one where we are either 1 per cent behind or to level. Something happened, something dramatic happened, it wasn't an accident, something dramatic happened."

However for other Liberals it is business as usual in the political blame game......

ABC News, 11 July 2016:

Cabinet minister Christopher Pyne has lashed out at right-wing colleagues who anonymously brief the media, labelling them as "cowards".

Mr Pyne's criticism came as the ABC's election computer determined the Coalition had retained the central Queensland seat of Flynn, taking it to 75 seats, one short of forming a majority government.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's tight election win is expected to embolden conservative elements of the Coalition.

A conservative MP reportedly said right-wing backbenchers would now be able to dictate government policy.

"[The Prime Minister's] theory was to win and win comfortably, so the conservatives would all have to kneel at the altar of Malcolm Turnbull," the unnamed MP told News Corp.

"Well, I think someone else will be kneeling at the conservative altar now."

Mr Pyne said colleagues who snipe anonymously lacked "character" and "wherewithal".

"Whoever said that, if they did really say it, they should put their name to things like that," he told RN Breakfast.

"It sounds very brave and chest beating when you say it anonymously, but I'd love a person who says things like that to actually put their name to it.

"Because without their name it's just cowardice obviously ... cowardly statements in the press from anonymous sources who haven't got the wherewithal and the strength of character to put their names to those kinds of flowery statements."

Australia faces an era of mass extinctions

For decades international scientists have been warning Australia that this island continent would feel the worst environmental impacts of global warming first.

And for just as many decades (with the exception of the years between 2007 and 2013), as both governments and the governed, this country has been ignoring these warnings.

The end result is that Australia now lists 83 species of higher plants, 23 mammal species, 22 species of birds and at least 4 frogs species as having been driven into extinction since 1788. 

There are many hundreds more threatened species and ecological communities. See: C'wealth EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna.

While we as a nation and people have not yet achieved 100 per cent extinction in certain flora and fauna groups, climate change has arrived to assist in turning this unique landmass and its coastal waters into a barren wasteland. 

This year alone has seen 93 per cent of The Great Barrier Reef experience coral bleaching and 700 kilometres of the Gulf of Carpentaria suffer widespread mangrove dieback with saltmash loss, while the Great Southern Reef lost 100 kms of its giant kelp forests in 2011 leading to the functional extinction of 370sq km of rocky cool-climate reefs, extending down the coast from Kalbarri, about 570km north of Perth, Western Australia. 

Now reputable institutions and senior scientists are giving us another urgent warning about extinctions to come if Australia doesn't stop acting as if the natural environment hasn't changed for the worse in the last 200 years.

SCIENTISTS’DECLARATION: ACCELERATING FOREST, WOODLAND AND GRASSLAND DESTRUCTION IN AUSTRALIA

Australia’s land clearing rate is once again among the highest in the world.

Remaining forests and woodlands are critical for much of our wildlife, for the health and productivity of our lands and waters, and for the character of our nation. Beginning in the 1990s, governments gradually increased protection of these remaining forests and woodlands.

However, those laws are now being wound back.

The State of Queensland has suffered the greatest loss of forests and woodlands. But while stronger laws by the mid-2000s achieved dramatic reductions of forest and woodland loss, recent weakening of laws reversed the trend. Loss of rtinture forest has more than trebled since 2009. In Victoria, home to four of Australia’s five most heavily cleared bioregions, land clearing controls were weakened in 2013, and in New South Wales, proposed biodiversity laws provide increased opportunities for habitat destruction.

Of the eleven world regions highlighted as global deforestation fronts, eastern Australia is the only one in a developed country. This problem threatens much of Australia’s extraordinary biodiversity and, if not redressed, will blight the environmental legacy we leave future generations.

Australia’s wildlife at risk

Already, Australia’s environment has suffered substantial damage from clearing of forests, woodlands and grasslands, including serious declines in woodland birds and reptiles.  Vast numbers of animals are killed by forest and woodland destruction. For example, between 1998 and 2005 an estimated 100 million native birds, reptiles and mammals were killed because of destruction of their habitat in NSW; in Queensland, the estimate was 100 million native animals dying each year between 1997 and 1999. As land clearing once again escalates, so too will these losses of wildlife.

The loss of habitat is among the greatest of threats to Australia’s unique threatened species, imperiling 60% of Australia’s more than 1,700 threatened species. Habitat protection is essential for preventing more species from becoming threatened in the future, adding to our burgeoning threatened species lists. Habitat removal eliminates the plants and animals that lived in it; increases risks to wildlife from introduced predators; impacts surface and groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and fragments habitat so that individuals are unable to move through the landscape. It also reduces the ability of species to move in response to climate change.

The societal costs of forest and woodland destruction

Forest and woodland destruction also causes long-term costs to farmers, governments and society. Removal of native vegetation:

·         Hastens erosion and reduces fertility of Australia’s ancient and fragile soils 

·         Increases the risk of soils becoming saline 

·         Exacerbates drought 

·         Reduces numbers of native pollinators and many wildlife species (such as woodland birds and insectivorous bats) that control agricultural pests 

·         Reduces shade for livestock from heat and wind.

Continued and increasing removal of forests, woodlands and grasslands increases the cost of restoring landscapes and reduces the chance of success. For example, the Australian Government has committed to plant 20 million trees by 2020. Yet many more than 20 million trees are cleared every year in Queensland alone.

Forest and woodland destruction increases the threat to some of Australia’s most iconic environmental assets. Coral health on The Great Barrier Reef has declined precipitously from the effects of high temperatures associated with climate change, poor water quality, and the flow-on impacts it triggers (such as crown-of-thorns outbreaks). Native vegetation removal from catchments that flow into the Great Barrier Reef liberates topsoil and contaminants, reducing water quality and threatening the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef. Governments have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this problem, with estimates of the full cost of restoring water quality as high as AUD$10 billion.

Native vegetation is a major carbon sink. Forest and woodland destruction is the fastest-growing contributor to Australia’s carbon emissions, as it transfers the carbon that was stored in the vegetation to the atmosphere. Hence, Australia’s increasing forest and woodland destruction threatens its ability to meet its commitments under four major international treaties: the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Heritage Convention, the Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Urgently-needed solutions

·         Develop and implement a strategy to end net loss of native vegetation, and restore over-cleared landscapes

·         Recognise all biodiversity, not just threatened species, in policy and legislation for the management of native vegetation

·         Establish clear, transparent and repeatable national reporting of clearing of native vegetation

·         Use rigorous biodiversity assessment methods for assessing clearing requests, accounting for all potential impacts, including cumulative and indirect impacts

·         Identify habitats that are of high conservation value for complete protection

·         For unavoidable losses of native vegetation, require robust and transparent offsets that meet the highest standards and improve biodiversity outcomes

Thirteen years ago, scientists from across the world expressed their grave concern about ongoing high rates of land forest and woodland destruction in the Australian State of Queensland. For a while, the warning was heeded, and the Queensland state government acted to bring land clearing to historically low levels.

The progress made then is now being undone. Forest and woodland destruction has resumed at increasingly high rates. This return of large-scale deforestation to Australia risks further irreversible environmental consequences of international significance.

Today, scientists from across the world (including those listed), in conjunction with scientific societies and the delegates of the Society for Conservation Biology (Oceania) Conference, call upon Australian governments and parliaments, especially those of Queensland and New South Wales, to take action. We call for the prevention of a return to the damaging past of high rates of woodland and forest destruction, in order to protect the unique biodiversity and marine environments of which Australia is sole custodian.

Signatories

Scientific Societies

·         The Society for Conservation Biology Oceania

·         The Ecological Society of Australia

·         The Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales

·         The Australian Wildlife Management Society

And 200 senior scientists from Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Malaysia, Sweden, Denmark, United Kingdom, and United States of America whose names can be found here.

8 July 2016