Australia In Decline: hearing nature's death rattle

The Guardian, 26 December 2018:

More than 50 Australian plant species are under threat of extinction within the next decade, according to a major study of the country’s threatened flora.

Just 12 of the most at-risk species were found to be listed as critically endangered under national environment laws – the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – and 13 had no national threatened listing at all.

The scientists behind the research, published in the Australian Journal of Botany this month, say the results point to a need for re-evaluation of Australia’s national lists for threatened plants.

It is the first major assessment of the status of Australia’s threatened flora in more than two decades.

Plants account for about 70% of Australia’s national threatened species list, with 1,318 varieties listed as either critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable. 

Among those on the list are acacia pharangites (wongan gully wattle), banksia vincentia, caladenia amoena (charming spider-orchid), caladenia busselliana (Bussell’s spider orchid), calochilus richiae (bald-tip beard orchid) and eremophila pinnatifida (dalwallinu eremophila).

The research team assessed species that met criteria for either a critical or endangered listing at national or state levels to track their rate of decline.

They did this by reviewing all available literature on the plants – including recovery plans, conservation advice and peer-reviewed research – and conducting interviews with 125 botanists, ecologists and land managers with expertise on particular geographic regions or species.

The study examined 1,135 species, including 81 that were unearthed through the interview process as being eligible for a critically endangered or endangered listing but did not have one.

It found 418 plants had continued declines in their population and a further 265 species had insufficient monitoring information available to determine their status.

The scientists concluded that 55 species were at high risk of extinction within the next 10 years, with fewer than 250 individual plants or only a single population remaining. They found just 12 of the most imperilled species were listed under the EPBC Act as critically endangered and 13 had no listing at all.

They said there were also 56 species of plants currently on the critically endangered list that they assessed as having no documented declines or that were stable or even increasing.

“This points to a clear need for re-evaluation and standardisation of current lists, and consistent application of IUCN listing guidelines,” the study states.

“There is also a need to collect systematic, repeatable field data for most of [the] species, to back up suspected and projected declines and provide a stronger basis for investment in recovery actions.”…..

USA 2019: crazy continues to be the order of the day

SPIN, 2 January 2019:

CREDIT: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

 President Trump delivered a harsh post-holiday awakening at his first cabinet meeting of 2019, holding forth for a nearly two-hour freestyle press conference in the presence of reporters.

In what amounted to a barely coherent filibuster, Trump dragged his former secretary of defense, chalked recent stock market turbulence up to a “glitch,”gave a shoutout to Kanye West, and mused that he might have made a good general himself. Most of the time, he sounded like a guy at a bus station arguing with pigeons. Behind him, ex-Fox News exec turned head of the White House press shop Bill Shine shifted uncomfortably in his chair.

In spite of his best efforts, Trump was nearly upstaged by a parody poster of himself as a Game of Thrones character with the text “Sanctions are coming.” The president initially shared the parody image on his Twitter feed in November, apparently signaling his intention to impose sanctions on Iran. On Wednesday afternoon, an actual, physical, movie-theater-sized version of the poster was laid out on the table in front of the president facing the press pool.

When the image first appeared in November, HBO issued a statement that they would “prefer our trademark not be misappropriated for political purposes.” An HBO rep told Spin the network has no additional comment.

Trump didn’t address why the poster was so prominently positioned, but he did extol the virtues of a Southern border wall while posing with appropriated imagery from a dragon soap opera that vehemently undermines that premise. “Walls work,” he told reporters. Trump is currently holding out for wall funding amid an ongoing government shutdown, leaving some 800,000 federal employees currently without pay.

TRUMP: "I had a meeting at the Pentagon with lots of generals. They were like from a movie. Better looking than Tom Cruise, & stronger. And I had more generals than I've ever seen, & we were at the bottom of this incredible room. I said, 'this is greatest room I've ever seen.'" pic.twitter.com/fTpgDXVso8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 2, 2019

Australian Federal Election Campaign 2018-2019: And so the lying begins......

First cab off the rank with a monumental political lie is the Institute of Public Affairs, a Melbourne-based privately-funded, hard right, elitist and racist lobby group with close ties to the Liberal Party of Australia, dedicated to the denial of climate change, suppression of wage growth, abolition of unions and the dismantling of the universal welfare system along with around 71 other divisive policies.

Recruiting John Lloyd will be a boon for @TheIPA. There are more than 680,000 unemployed Australians and the IPA is their effective union. No one else in the public debate is prepared to stand up for people who are locked out of work. https://t.co/GzxqSd2PoK

— Simon Breheny (@Simon_Breheny) December 17, 2018

Anything less like a union for the unemployed it would be hard to imagine. 

Political Cartoon of the Week

Cathy Wilcox

Tweet of the Week

“I am the only person my child has,” the single mother of a five-year-old daughter said, “and she’s looking to me on Christmas morning to take the lead and I’m just sitting there with tears streaming down my face.” https://t.co/imnIYg9eBW #auspol #centrelink

— Luke Henriques-Gomes (@lukehgomes) December 28, 2018

Australian Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton demonstrates his incompetence yet again

During the less than one term he served as Australian prime minister Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott rushed through amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 in 2015.

Given that the Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton has used these amendments to strip Australian citizenship from twelve individuals, the most recent being the revocation of citizenship of a Melbourne-born man currently gaoled in Turkey which now leaves him stateless1 and, as the minister has referenced the Citizenship Loss Board in his decision making perhaps it is time to recall the sketchy details known about this board.

The Guardian, 22 July 2018:

The identity of officials on one of the most powerful government boards in Australia – which has the effective power to strip Australians of citizenship – has been revealed for the first time.

A freedom of information request by Guardian Australia for minutes of the Citizenship Loss Board’s first meeting in February shows the panel is made up of senior departmental secretaries from across government. The secretariat of the committee is Hamish Hansford, an assistant secretary of the immigration department. 

He previously served as the national manager of the intelligence branch of the Australian Crime Commission.

The department of the prime minister’s counter-terrorism co-ordinator, Greg Moriarty, is also on the board, as are Gary Quinlan, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Katherine Jones, from the Attorney-General’s Department, and Christopher Dawson from the Australian Crime Commission.

The immigration department has by far has the largest number of representatives with five officers: Rachel Noble, Michael Manthorpe, Maria Fernandez, Michael Outram and Pip De Veau.

The Australian federal police and defence department’s members are unknown. Both declined to participate in the February meeting for undisclosed reasons.

The Australian Security Intelligence Service (Asis) and Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Asio) each have a member. Neither officer is named, listed only as a “representative”.

The Citizenship Loss Board has the de facto power to strip dual nationals of their citizenship under the federal government’s legislation introduced last year.

Although the law was touted as an anti-terrorism tool, it left open the possibility that people who damaged commonwealth property or even national security whistleblowers could have their citizenship revoked. Legal experts have argued it could create a tier of second-class citizenship.

Although the Citizenship Loss Board appears to be the effective arbiter of this exceptional power, there is no reference to it in the legislation. None of its members are parliamentarians or members of the judiciary. It operates in a legal vacuum. Its recommendations go to the immigration minister with no clear legal mandate.

In theory the board does not have the express power to revoke citizenship. The laws were built to withstand judicial scrutiny, describing the key mechanism to remove citizenship as one of “revocation by conduct” – the argument is that if the law is “self-executing” this could head off judicial review.

The board’s official role is to consider cases where an individual’s behaviour meets the criteria to have citizenship revoked under the law.

This mechanism has been described by University of New South Wales dean of law George Williams as a “legal fiction”. He has previously outlined concerns about the board and the basis for its power. [my yellow highlighting]

Footnote

1. Eligibility requirements for Fijian citizenship which this individual does not currently meet.

http://www.immigration.gov.fj/travel-requirements/fiji-citizenship, retrieved 3 January 2018:

Citizenship by registration covers six categories of individuals:

The first category covers children born outside the Fiji islands on or after 10th April 2009 if at the date of the child’s birth either of the child's parents was a citizen – section 8(1) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The second category covers children under 18 years of age of a foreign nationality that are adopted by Fiji Citizens – section 8 (2) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The third category covers children who were under the age of 18 when either parent became a Fiji citizen – Section 8(3) of the Citizenship Decree 2009.

The fourth category covers persons who would have qualified under the previous three categories but they have reached the age of 18 years. These applicants cannot be granted citizenship unless they have been lawfully present in Fiji for a total of three (3) of the five (5) years immediately before the application – Section 8(5) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The fifth category provides for former adult Fiji citizens who wish to regain their Fiji citizenship. With the introduction of the multiple citizenship policy former citizens wishing to regain their Fiji citizenship need NOT renounce their other citizenship – Section 8(6) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009.

The sixth category provides for spouses of Fiji citizens. Applicants must have been lawfully present in Fiji for a total period of three of the five years immediately before the application – Section 8(7) of the Citizenship of Fiji Decree 2009. (refer to below checklist for fees and other requirement).

Fijian Government position:

"Neil Prakash has not been or is a Fijian citizen. For a child of a Fiji citizen born overseas, the parent has to apply for citizenship for the child to become a Fiji citizen. The department has searched the immigration system and confirms that he has not entered the country nor applied for citizenship since birth." [Head of Fiji's Immigration Department, Nemani Vuniwaqa, quoted in ABC News, 2 January 2018]

Something to remember every time a Liberal or Nationals politician opens his/her mouth in 2019

With both a NSW state election and a federal general election in the first half of this year the Murdoch press and Coalition spokespersons will at some point turn their thoughts to the allegedly oppressive burden of welfare payments on Australian taxpayers and the prevalence of so-called 'welfare bludgers' that are supposedly ripping off the taxpayer.

Leaving aside the fact that every single person in Australia pays one or more forms of tax, even welfare recipients, what is the truth about who gets what from government tax concessions or cash transfers?

In 2018 Australia’s richest 20 per cent of the population owned est. 68 per cent of national private wealth, which means that they owned 80 times more in assets and savings than the poorest 20 per cent of the population.

They also received higher tax and transfer amounts from federal government coffers than welfare recipients.

Here is how that comes about......

Per Capita, The Cost of Privilege Report #7, Executive Summary excerpts, 29 March 2018:

The modelling assessed the various tax concessions and other benefits available to high-income earners and contrasts them with well-understood direct income support measures for low-income earners and those reliant on our social security safety net.

This report quantifies the annual cost to the federal budget of various measures that allow Australians in our wealthiest quintile to minimise their taxable income, thereby reducing government revenue that pays for services for all citizens.

These measures include superannuation tax concessions, negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, the use of discretionary trusts, the exemption from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of private health insurance and education, and the exemption from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) of the principal place of residence. All of these concessions disproportionately benefit high income and high wealth households. 

Our analysis shows that, in combination, these measures impose a cost on the federal budget that easily outstrips that of any single welfare recipient group.

According to our calculations, the cost of foregone tax revenue from the richest 20% of Australians is over AU$68 billion per annum. That’s around $37 a week from every worker in the country.¹

In contrast, the cost of income support in the 2016-2017 financial year was, by group:

Age Pension $44.468 billion ($35 a week per worker)

Assistance to families with children $36.404 billion ($20 a week per worker)

Assistance to people with disabilities $31.721 billion ($17 a week per worker)

Newstart (unemployment benefits) $10.994 billion ($6 a week per worker)

1 Calculated using the methodology outlined in Answer to Question On Notice No: 257, Taxation paid and 2016-17 Financial Year, what was the total government spend? Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Treasury Portfolio, Budget Policy Division, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2017 – 2018

Here is a practical example of the value of tax concessions to the third family above who fall within the top 20 per cent of the population:

Household Three – Michael and Gillian

Michael and Gillian have two children, Isabella, aged 12 and Max, aged 8.

They paid off their mortgage two years ago and live in a four bedroom house in a bayside suburb of Melbourne. 

Isabella and Max go to the local Catholic primary school and will go on to Catholic secondary college. The family has intermediate hospital and extras private health insurance.

Michael is a Team Leader at a large telecommunications company, and earns $230,000 per year. Gillian works 20 hours a week, during school hours, in the HR department of a major bank, and earns $60,000 per year.

Both Michael and Gillian salary sacrifice into their superannuation accounts up to the $25,000 concessional cap. While Michael can only contribute an extra $3,150 of his pre-tax income to super on top of the $21,850 in compulsory contributions already made by his employer, Gillian can contribute $19,000, reducing her taxable income to $41,000.

They own a three bedroom house in Rye, which they rent out through AirBnB as a holiday home and negatively gear, allowing them to reduce Michael’s tax by a further $9,400.

The value of the capital gains tax concession on their holiday home gives them $4,500 in concessional benefits annually, and the tax exemption of their family home in Melbourne provides another concession of $23,500 per year.

Michael and Gillian also receive GST tax exemptions on their private health and education costs to the value of $3,250.00 per year.

Their combined family income after tax is $215,446 per annum, or $4,143.19 per week.

The total amount received from the taxpayer in tax concessions for this family is $71,705 per year, or $1,378.94 per week.

This imbalance in the value of government assistance received by different groups in society, which is so strongly biased towards giving most to the affluent, is a perfect example of Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison's social and economic policies structured to give to those who already have.

Giving to those he appears to believe are 'good' or 'worthy' because they have high levels of income and assets, as opposed to those who are 'bad' or 'unworthy' because they have little in the way of income and assets.

When I was young this attitude was simply described as the Protestant Ethic, now it appears to be known as the Prosperity Gospel.

Under either name it is not the mark of an egalitarian society or of a nation which prides itself on giving everyone "a fair go".

Something readers might care to think on as they decide who to vote for this year.