Koalas in Iluka on the NSW North Coast and coastal development pressure

Who would not get pleasure in seeing this healthy young Koala peering down at them from the foliage?

Photograph supplied by Gabrielle Barto

It was sighted in Paperbark and then later Flooded Gum in Sid and Eileen Gill Park in Elizabeth Street, Iluka all day on Wednesday, 8th February 2017 and is one of those koalas giving lie to the myth much favoured by developers that the local koala population is functionally extinct.

The amateur photographer on the spot, Ms. Barto stated: May be the same koala sighted in Elizabeth St. on 5th January. Both sightings are within 250 metres of Hickey St. Iluka D/A site. One of the criteria for assessing critical koala habitat  (E.P.B.C  Critical Koala Habitat assessment tool) is that one or more koalas are sighted within 2 kms. of the edge of impact area, in this case the Hickey St. (D/A) site, within the last 5 years.

Passions run deep in Iluka not only for koalas, but also more generally for protecting biodiversity for future generations.

Letter to the Editor in the Clarence Valley Independent on 8 February 2017:

Iluka DA - Have Your Say

15 January at 20:07 

Koala sighting again.

Intersection of Hogan street and Elizabeth streets 5th January 2017 around 9.30 am. (West of the 160 lot development proposal)

Thank you and great work Essential Energy. They got here pretty qiuckly and it was a great relocation to the relative safety of the bush across the road.

This situation came about because of a dog chasing the koala. Hopefully the koala headed back into the Bundjalung National Park (to the East of this location) and to relative safety.

This bush heading back to the national park is going to be largely cleared and broken up if the 160 lot subdivision gets approval. The re-submitted DA still does not include a continuous vegetation corridor for koalas to move in a east west or west east direction!

Koalas will become more vulnerable to dog attack and car strike unless the developer includes a realistic continuous vegetation corridor within the proposed development site.

Belatedly the NSW Coalition Government; is currently beginning the development of a whole of government koala strategy and asking for community feedback on planning issues and its Saving Our Species conservation strategy. At a federal level, the National Koala Conservation and Management Strategy expired in 2014. Word is that a new strategy is in the pipeline but at the moment we’re flying blind.

The best way to protect koalas is a tried and tested one. The scientists that identified the crisis ecoregion problem also identified the solution: large, well-connected protected areas. Only by protecting and connecting remaining koala habitat can the government enact meaningful conservation. Everything else is tinkering round the edges.

And only by demonstrating that it can effectively protect koalas can we have any confidence that the government can protect the rest of Australia’s extraordinary wildlife that doesn’t share the koala’s high profile. [The Guardian, 16 January 2017]

On the other hand professional property developer, climate change sceptic and alternate Clarence Valley Council representative on the NSW Northern Joint Planning Panel, Cr. Andrew Baker, made this characteristically snide comment on Saturday, 11 February 2016 in an email he cc’d to North Coast Voices¹:

Thanks Gab for the copy

I hadn't appreciated the significance until your email.

It seems the only Koala sightings in the last 5 years have occurred at exactly the same time as Council is considering significant Iluka Development Applications.

I recall the identical occurrence as Council was about to consider the Anchorage Park expansion.

On the basis of your reports it seems development applications are proving extremely beneficial in attracting Koala to the area. Of course it might take a few more DA's to prove this obvious benefit but I expect this will now encourage further.

Of course I'm not suggesting the ability to encourage Koala is the only reason to support any development application - it will be just one of, if any, benefits to be considered along with disadvantages if any on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you for bringing this supporting information to our attention.

Regards

Andrew Baker

The tenor of this comment throws into doubt Cr. Baker’s ability to act as an unbiased council alternate (if called upon) in relation to this particular development application when it is considered by the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel in March this year.

North Coast Voices was not alone in noticing this comment, as one other recipient of Baker's email made clear when he told the councilor: "I find your comments not only highly offensive, but, given your supposedly impartial decision-making role as Councillor, deeply disturbing."

To which the property developing Cr. Baker's insouciant reply (again cc'd to this blog) was; "It's unfortunate that you are disturbed and offended. Surely that's some personal issue that can't be blamed only on my willingness to state the obvious?

And people wonder why - when all the world loves koalas - they are fast disappearing from this state's coastal landscape?

Note:
When deciding to send his reply email as "Reply All", Cr. Baker made a conscious choice to also make his personal views known to council staff having some responsibility for and/or carriage of formal advice to Council-in-the-Chamber in relation to DA SUB2015/0034. Thus muddying the waters considerably, given it is a number of concerned residents' understanding that a final staff report and recommendation on the development application is yet to be delivered.

Without wide consultation with indigenous peoples the Turnbull Government is fast tracking amendments to the C'wealth Native Title Act 1993

Without wide consultation with indigenous peoples the Turnbull Government has tabled a retrospective bill, Native title amendment (indigenous land use agreements) bill 2017, in order to overturn Federal Court of Australia orders handed down in McGlade  v Native Title Registrar [2017] FCAFC 10 and ensure that projects such as foreign multinational Adani Mining Pty Ltd’s Galilee Basin complex comprising six open-cut & five underground coal mines and associated infrastructure can proceed.

As it now stands this bill appears to allow a weakening of the authority of Native Title holders identified and named by the Native Title Tribunal in decisions made under existing provisions in Native Title Act 1993 as well as those who may be named in future decisions.

However, this is a complex issue given the number of existing Indigenous Land Use Agreements which have been entered into across Australia and merits Parliament’s attention – though perhaps not the less than 24 hour express train ride Turnbull gave it in the Lower House.

On 16 February the bill passed the House of Representatives with a majority of 9 MPs and has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which is expected to file a report on 17 March 2017.

So who has a bad case of egg on face when it comes to an Iluka DA - The Daily Examiner or the NSW Nationals Member for Clarence?

On 13 January 2017 The Daily Examiner contained this little nugget of information on Page 3:

State Member for Clarence Chris Gulaptis agreed there were plenty of good arguments to support their case, and said he wa “absolutely supportive” of their fight [for an ambulance station].

But he said it would be an uphill battle, partly due to the village’s small size.

Iluka has a population of about 2000 but it is growing, with planning for a 162 lot subdivision just finalised.

Planning for a 162 lot subdivision just finalised?

Seems either Chris Gulaptis is spinning the situation or the newspaper took its eyes off the ball.

Planning appears to be far from finalised.

This was on Page 31 of Clarence Valley Council’s Environment, Planning & Community Committee Meeting Business Paper of 14  February 2017:

SUB2015/0034 11/12/2015 297 162 lot Residential Subdivision and new roads

Hickey Street

ILUKA NSW 2466

Additional information received and unsatisfactory.

Further information has been requested 24/1/17 (flora and fauna, stormwater, sewer, cultural heritage)

In addition, the formal staff report to council is yet to be tabled and deliberations of the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel are not yet completed.

Global Warming: the Red Herring strikes again!

One of the Clarence Valley’s arch-denialists is once more on the anti-climate science campaign trail…..

Letter to the Editor, The Daily Examiner, 10 February 2017, p.11:

Old heat

Browsing through past newspaper articles brought up this reminder of just how hot it's been in years gone by.

The 1896 February 3 edition of the Kalgoorlie Miner carried this article titled: Heat in NSW: A record of the extreme heat which has prevailed in the West during the last month has been supplied to the government by the Manager of Gundabook estate on the Darling river.

The record shows that from January 1-25 the thermometer ranged from 112deg. to 123deg. in the shade, during the first week from 118 to 124: during the second week from 118 to 128 and during the third week the thermometer once went to 129 degrees: All these readings are in Farenheit and when converted to Celcius range from 44.44deg. to 47.77deg to 50.55 deg to 51.11 deg, 53.55 deg, and 53.88 deg. the highest reading.

Now that was a heat wave that occurred without the assistance of the much maligned industrial revolution.

Fred Perring, Halfway Creek

As usual Mr. Perring doesn’t do his homework.

The Industrial Revolution began around the mid-1700s and over a century later (in the year cited by Perring) the effects of greenhouse gases on global atmosphere and ground temperature, as well as the possibility of fossil fuels being a source of carbon dioxide were already being discussed in the scientific community.

The following is a snapshot of a paper by Nobel Prize winner Svante August Arrhenius published in April 1896:

Royal Society of Chemistry, retrieved 11 February 2017

The paper in its entirety can be read here.

Oh, for heaven's sake! Australia is not being swamped by anyone

If I hear of one more idiot suggesting that Australia is being “swamped” and a Trump-style ban on “Muslim" immigration is needed or an “Australia First” policy is required along with a "Make Australia Great Again" slogan, I will scream in frustration.

On any given day it is estimated that just 2.2 per cent of the Australian population follow the Islam religion.

At the 2011 national census that percentage translated into only 475,562 people spread around the nation.

Whereas there were est. 13,150,078 professed Christians in Australia at the time, along with 4,796,432 people with no religion.

That’s over 13 million Christians to less than half a million Muslims.

Or to put it another way - there was 1 Christian for every  0.58² km of land compared to 1 Muslim for every 16.71² km.

That was over five years ago.

When the Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes the 2016 Census sometime this year, I suspect that the total number of people of the Islamic faith will be less than 700,000.

People living in much of rural and regional Australia would rarely come into contact with someone of that faith so it is hard to see how the country or its culture is being swamped.

Perhaps Pauline Hanson of One Nation and Cory Bernardi of Australian Conservatives might like to explain the basis for their fearmongering.

Former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials politely tell U.S. federal court that Trump is undermining national security

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.  v  DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the States, et al., Response to Emergency Motion Exhibit A:

We, Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice declare as follows:

1. We are former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government:

a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. A refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and has been a member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 2009 and the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has received assessments of threats facing the United States.

b. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2015, and as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015 to January 20, 2017.

c. Michael V. Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009.

d. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017.

2. We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats that the United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have all held the highest security clearances. A number of us have worked at senior levels in administrations of both political parties. Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”).

3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.

4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized vetting system developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective.

5. In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States in many respects:

a. The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field. Every day, American soldiers work and fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who put their lives on the line to protect Americans. For example, allies who would be barred by the Order work alongside our men and women in Iraq fighting against ISIL. To the extent that the Order bans travel by individuals cooperating against ISIL, we risk placing our military efforts at risk by sending an insulting message to those citizens and all Muslims.

b. The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining the necessary information sharing and collaboration in intelligence, law enforcement, military, and diplomatic channels to address the threat posed by terrorist groups such as ISIL. The international criticism of the Order has been intense, and it has alienated U.S. allies. It will strain our relationships with partner countries in Europe and the Middle East, on whom we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation, undermining years of effort to bring them closer. By alienating these partners, we could lose access to the intelligence and resources necessary to fight the root causes of terror or disrupt attacks launched from abroad, before an attack occurs within our borders.

c. The Order will endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who have risked much or all to keep Americans safe – and whom our officers had promised always to protect with the full might of our government and our people.

d. Left in place, the Executive Order will likely feed the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with Islam. As government officials, we took every step we could to counter violent extremism. Because of the Order’s disparate impact against Muslim travelers and immigrants, it feeds ISIL’s narrative and sends the wrong message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the world: the U.S. government is at war with them based on their religion. The Order may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a recruiting tool and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is engaged in a religious war. e. The Order will disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating Muslim-American communities in the United States, it will harm our efforts to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino and Orlando.

f. The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact. When the Order issued, those disrupted included women and children who had been victimized by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of travelers today face deep uncertainty about whether they may travel to or from the United States: for medical treatment, study or scholarly exchange, funerals or other pressing family reasons. While the Order allows for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to agree to admit travelers from these countries on a case-by-case basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of affected individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel.

g. The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and residents. The Order will affect many foreign travelers, particularly students, who annually inject hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well over a million U.S. jobs. Since the Order issued, affected companies have noted its adverse impacts on many strategic economic sectors, including defense, technology, medicine, culture and others…….

File this official U.S. presidential proclamation under WTF! for future reference

Executive Office of the President, Document Number: 2017-01798**:

Proclamation 9570 of January 20, 2017

National Day of Patriotic Devotion

A Proclamation

A new national pride stirs the American soul and inspires the American heart. We are one people, united by a common destiny and a shared purpose.

Freedom is the birthright of all Americans, and to preserve that freedom we must maintain faith in our sacred values and heritage.

Our Constitution is written on parchment, but it lives in the hearts of the American people. There is no freedom where the people do not believe in it; no law where the people do not follow it; and no peace where the people do not pray for it.

There are no greater people than the American citizenry, and as long as we believe in ourselves, and our country, there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 20, 2017, as National Day of Patriotic Devotion, in order to strengthen our bonds to each other and to our country—and to renew the duties of Government to the people.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twentieth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-first.

  Filed 1-23-17; 2:00 pm]

[FR Doc. 2017-01798

Billing code 3295-F7-P

As CNBC News pointed out; by the time this proclamation was announced on 21 January the national day had passed because it referred to one specific day, Donald Trump's inauguration day of 20 January 2017 and therefore was a one-off national day.

** This proclamation is not found to date on the Proclamations webpage at www.whitehouse.gov, although it continues to be displayed at the U.S. Office of the Federal Register.