The Australian, 3 April 2017:
Tuesday, 4 April 2017
Turnbull Government's $75 & $125 bribes appear to have earned it nothing but falling poll numbers
The announcement of a one-off payment of $75 to singles and $125 to couples who receive the aged, disabled and carers pensions to cope with a predicted rise of $78 in the average household electricity bill from June this year, along with a promised loan to the SA Government for construction of a solar thermal power plant and a feasibility study for a north-south gas pipeline, in exchange for company tax cuts for businesses with up to $50 million annual turnovers – has not produced a happy bounce in the polls for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government led by Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce.
This Newspoll was conducted between Thursday 30 March and Sunday 2 April 2017.
The Australian, 3 April 2017:
The Australian, 3 April 2017:
Looking on in awe as a nation drives its people off a cliff and into a turbulent sea
Dear President Tusk,
On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.
Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.
This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.
It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.
The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.
I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.
The process in the United Kingdom
As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.
From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.
Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union
The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.
If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.
It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.
Proposed principles for our discussions
Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.
i. We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation
Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.
ii. We should always put our citizens first
There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.
iii. We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement
We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.
iv. We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible
Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.
v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland
The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.
vi. We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges
Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.
vii. We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values
Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.
The task before us
As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.
We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.
The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.
Yours sincerely,
Theresa May
Labels:
government policy,
history,
U.K.
Ballina Council and sand miner behaving badly?
Echo NetDaily reported on 27 March 2017 that McGeary Bros Pty Ltd plan to extend its quarry operations:
Residents of Lennox Head and the Ballina Greens are opposing a proposal to create a new 3.2 million tonne sand mine on Newrybar Swamp Road, saying an existing mine in the area is already exceeding its extraction approvals and creating a blight on the coastal landscape.
The No Sand Mine for Lennox group said that following its investigation of the existing mine, Ballina Shire Council admitted that despite quarterly statements being submitted to the council clearly outlining the over extraction, council have not contacted the miners to discuss their over extraction, nor imposed any restrictions or fines.
Newrybar resident and Greens member Nathan questioned if the council was unwilling or unable to control the extraction rates of the existing mine, how would it manage the much larger site.
‘We would like to question whether council understands or is monitoring the impact on the very sensitive Newrybar Swamp and North Creek. The over extraction of 115,000 tonnes of material means that there has been about 115 million litres of water displaced,’ he told Echonetdaily.
‘The new mine is proposing a much, much larger sand mine for that same area,’ he added.
‘Locals are already concerned about the number of trucks on the road, whether environmental concerns are being monitored correctly as acid sulphate soil issues, water runoff, habitat loss and agricultural land loss.
‘Then there are the trucks, the noise, the damage to local infrastructure, safety and the fact the tab for any damage will have to be picked up by ratepayers.
‘So that’s what motivated us to have a bit of a look into it and check what’s happening with the current mine,’ he said.
Lennox Head resident and group spokesperson Amelia Hicks said that on council’s statements the group estimates ‘there have been 18,000 extra truck movements’ east and west on Ross Lane in 2016 ‘which equates to 62 additional truck movements per day’.
The Lennox Wave, 29
November 2016:
According to Planners
North spokesperson Steve Connelly, ‘We submitted a basic application to
the Department of Planning and Environment seeking Secretary’s Environmental
Assessment Requirements (SEARs).
The Secretary of the
Department consulted all relevant government departments then issued us with a
very comprehensive set of Environmental Assessment Requirements. These SEARs
must be addressed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Development.
We are preparing the
EIS, in association with an expert team of environmental, design and
engineering consultants. The EIS must include comprehensive environmental
management and monitoring measures.
That EIS, when it is
completed, will be lodged with the with Council. The EIS will be publicly
exhibited for at least 30 days. During this time, submissions will be invited
from the public and Council consults with all the government agencies.’
As part of the EIS
issues of soil, water, noise, biodiversity, transport, heritage, waste, public
safety, visual impact, social and economic factors, and rehabilitation will all
be addressed.
Meanwhile, Amelia Hicks
is urging residents to stay alert and ready to take action on this issue. If
you would like more information on the planned mine or would like to get
involved you can contact her on amelia.hicks@me.com.
Labels:
Ballina Shire Council,
environment,
people power,
sand mining
Monday, 3 April 2017
Six foot tall heavyweight Barnaby Joyce versus thirteen inches of Australian possum magic
A red-faced political brawler has decided to beat up on a shy, small nocturnal possum.
THE POSSUM
Gymnobelideus leadbeateri
Native to Australia
Originally known as the Bass River Possum
Estimated average length: 33 cm (13 inches) from head to tail
Critically Endangered (2015)
On International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species
Estimated wild population: 1,200 - 4,000 possums
Leadbeater's possum occurs in Australia’s tallest forests in central Victoria. Considered extinct until 1961, the species is now found in two subpopulations: a core location in the Central Highlands and an outlier in lowland floodplain forest. During the day, possums den in communal nests in the hollow centre of a large dead or living tree. A monogamous breeding pair and one or more generations of offspring den together. Feeding occurs at night with the diet comprising of trunk and branch exudates (80%) and insects (20%). [Australian Department of Environment and Energy, Species Profile and Threats Database, 2017]
Old-growth ash forest is prime habitat for Leadbeater’s possum. It is estimated that old-growth or multi-aged mountain ash forest comprised 30–60 per cent of the current ash forest estate in the Central Highlands of Victoria prior to European settlement. Old growth ash forest now comprises 1.15 per cent of this mountain ash forest estate (Lindenmayer et al., 2013a). [Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Conservation Advice to the Minister, 22 April 2015]
Bushfires, post-fire salvage logging and commercial timber harvesting, particularly clear-felling, are the principal cause of continuing loss of ideal habitat.
The Leadbeater’s Possum is the gazetted mammal emblem of Victoria [1971].
* Image of Joyce letter via Twitter
* Photograph of Barnaby Joyce from Google Images
Dear Mr. Hogan, What is your position on your leader's plan to encourage the gas industry by mandating that landowners "hosting" wells be given 10% of royalties?
Grafton Loop
c/- PO Box 763
Grafton 2460
_____________________________
24th March 2017
Mr Kevin Hogan MP
Member for Page
63 Molesworth St
LISMORE 2480
Dear Mr Hogan
Barnaby Joyce’s Gas Royalty Plan
The Grafton Loop of the Knitting Nannas was surprised to hear that the National Party Leader, Barnaby Joyce, is promoting a plan which he believes will lead to community acceptance of CSG and unconventional gas mining in areas of our nation where there has been strong resistance to this invasive and polluting industry.
We believe that Mr Joyce has no appreciation of the deleterious impacts of gas-mining which have been overwhelmingly demonstrated in Queensland as well as in other parts of the world. We also believe that his attempt to bribe landowners will not lead to community acceptance of the industry.
Some of the Nannas in our Loop have experience of what a Queensland gasfield is like and how appalling living in or near a gasfield is to local communities. You might care to read Nanna Lynette’s gasfield inspection report on the Nannas’ blog at: http://knaggrafton.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/queensland-gasfield-tour-knitting.html
Mr Hogan, you previously supported those who opposed the industry in your electorate. (We are uncertain whether this concern about the industry extended beyond your electorate to other parts of the nation.)
What is your position on your leader’s plan to encourage the gas industry by mandating that landowners “hosting” wells be given 10% of royalties?
Do you believe that this bribe will ensure that neighbouring landowners (as differing from directly impacted landowners) will accept the industry in their areas? Do you believe that the rest of the community will accept the industry?
We look forward to your response.
Regards
Leonie Blain
on behalf of the Grafton Nannas
Sunday, 2 April 2017
Australian lawyers commitment to pro bono work cannot plug the gaps in legal assistance sector caused by federal government budget cuts
Medianet Release
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
© Australian Associated Press, 2017
|
NSW Berejiklian Government continues to say no to coal seam gas mining in the Northern Rivers region
The Daily Examiner, 22 March 2017:
THE NSW Government has ruled out coal seam gas mining and exploration on the North Coast.
Deputy Premier John Barlilaro put a line through it yesterday during unveiling of the The North Coast Regional Plan at Coffs Harbour yesterday.
"We've heard the community's viewpoint on coal seam gas loud and clear and this plan states that CSG resources on the North Coast will remain in the ground,” Mr Barlilaro said.
The Member for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis, was another member of the government happy to keep CSG in the ground.
"Despite what the deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, might be saying there is no appetite for coal seam gas mining on the North Coast,” Mr Gulaptis said.
Mr Joyce last week floated a national plan to give farmers who allowed gas wells on their land a 10% share of the royalties generated….
Mr Gulaptis said there was also no appetite to allow CSG mining exploration in the government.
"The government has bought up the exploration licences on the North Coast and in reality there's plenty of natural gas around,” he said.
Mr Gulaptis said the claims of a "gas shortage” in Australia were hard to understand.
"We've got plenty of gas in Australia,” he said. "The issues seems to be ensuring there is enough of it directed to domestic supply and not go offshore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)