The Big Bat & Wildlife Festival, 23 February 2019, Noon till Sunset at Maclean Showground, Cameron St, Maclean NSW

Will the House and the Senate manage to roll back that infamous $487 million grant to a greenwashing charity, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation

Last year mainstream media reported that Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull (former director Goldman Sachs), Minister for Environment and Energy & Liberal MP for Kooyong Josh Frydenberg (former director Deutsche Bank Australia) and Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation & Member of the Business Council of Australia John Schubert (former chair Commonwealth Bank) met on 9 April 2018 to discuss the allocation of a grant valued at in excess of AU$487.6 million to the foundation.

The grant had not been advertised or put to tender.

It was further reported that Great Barrier Reef scientists were told they would need to make “trade-offs” to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good for the government and encourage more corporate donations, emails tabled in the Senate reveal.

A Senate report of the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program has just been published here.

The question now is will the Senate and the House bring on a vote to reverse this grant?

The Guardian, 14 February 2019:

The Senate committee looking at the Great Barrier Reef Foundation $444 million grant has handed down it’s report.

From Peter Whish-Wilson:

The Senate Environment & Communications References Committee inquiry report into the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program was tabled today by the Chair of the inquiry, Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

Senator Whish-Wilson said, “This was the Senate at its best, acting swiftly and working cooperatively to scrutinise, in full, government policy of significant public importance.

“This grant was a desperate attempt to cover up this Government’s legacy of reef mismanagement, years of chronic underfunding and disregard for climate change, in the context of an imminent World Heritage ‘in danger’ listing.

“It was clearly a political decision made with no consultation, due diligence or regard for proper process.

“It’s a textbook case of how not to implement public policy, and a perfect example of why we shouldn’t trust the future of a dying reef to a government intent on outsourcing public policy.

“This report and its recommendations are a good opportunity to press reset and build the best blueprint for future reef management, in full consultation with all stakeholders.

Some of the conclusions from the Committee were:

 “The granting of $444 million to the Reef Foundation was a highly irresponsible decision, hastily concocted by relevant ministers, without proper consideration of risks and potential effectiveness, no consultation with key stakeholders, and without having undertaken due diligence.”

 “This ‘off-the-cuff’ decision has caused massive disruption to existing policy and program delivery, including by existing government agencies. It has all the hallmarks of a government that is not properly managing its responsibility as the guardian of the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef.”

 “There were widespread concerns about “whether the Foundation was the right organisation to manage such a significant investment,” including “the Foundation’s ability to handle such a rapid increase in size and responsibilities, the high cost of administration, and the duplication and governance complexities the Partnership introduces.”

 “The most appropriate action for the Commonwealth to take is to terminate the Foundation Partnership. The committee believes this is necessary to help restore trust in the process of Commonwealth funding for the Reef, if not the entire Commonwealth grants process. The committee also considers that this is necessary to ensure that Commonwealth funding is spent in the best possible way to help protect and preserve the world’s largest coral reef system.”

And the recommendations:

o   That all unspent Foundation Partnership funds be returned to the Commonwealth immediately; and that these funds be earmarked for expenditure on projects to protect and preserve the Reef, to be expended by 30 June 2024.

o   That a review, to be completed by 1 July 2019, be undertaken of the structure of Commonwealth funding to protect and preserve the Reef; the committee further recommends that the expenditure of unspent Foundation Partnership funds be guided by the outcome of this review.

o   That the Australian and Queensland Governments publish an updated Reef 2050 Plan Investment Framework that provides current figures on established funding by source and priority area.

o   Should a future Government decide to maintain the Foundation Agreement, the committee recommends that all necessary steps be undertaken to ensure that the Foundation’s investment of public funds precludes investment in sectors or funds that directly or indirectly contribute to climate change, particularly companies that generate energy from or undertake mining of fossil fuels.

o   Should a future Government decide to maintain the Foundation Agreement, the committee recommends that the Senate order: That — (a) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, by no later than 31 October each year; (i) an annual performance statement for the previous financial year that provides information about the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s performance in achieving the purposes of the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program; and; (ii) independent and audited financial statements for the previous financial year for all receipts and payments relating to the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program funds, including any co financed contributions; (b) If the Senate is not sitting when a statement is ready for presentation, the statement is to be presented to the President under standing order 166; (c) This order has effect until the end of the last financial year in which the Agreement is operative, following the cessation of the Partnership.

o   Should a future government decide to maintain the Foundation Agreement, that the Auditor-General undertake a second audit of the Partnership in late 2019–20 once the final design aspects of the Partnership have been finalised.

o   That the Australian Government take steps to address and effectively tackle climate change as an underlying cause of economic, social and environmental damage to the Reef and the Australian environment more broadly.

BACKGROUND

See:
https://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com/search?q=the+Great+Barrier+Reef+Foundation&max-results=20&by-date=true

Political Cartoons of the Week

David Pope

Cathy Wilcox

Tweet of the Week

Dave,
1. It's not a tax.
2. Unfairness is $5 billion plus dollars being ripped from the budget every year for unearned tax rebates.
3. I live in Wentworth.
4. I'm not voting for you.

— CallanDC (@callapygian) February 8, 2019

Minor parties mix it up over mobile phone after miner’s parliamentary dinner

News.com.au - Senator Brian Burston (right) and One Nation adviser James Ashby. 
Picture: The AustralianSource:Supplied

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation (PHON) senior staffer and United Australia Party (UAP formerly PUP) senator were involved in an altercation near the Great Hall of Parliament House after a Minerals Council of Australia Parliamentary Dinner on the evening of 12 February 2019.

The senator was formerly a member of PHON who split from Pauline Hanson in 2018.

This is not the first time PHON CoS James Ashby has been involved in an incident where his anger has boiled over –  in 2012 he allegedly batted a personal mobile phone from the hand of a journalist into long grass, in 2016 it was alleged that he threw a mobile phone at then PHON MP Ross Culleton’s staffer and in 2017 was accused of “bullying” and “threatening” a member of former PHON candidate Senator Fraser Anning’s staff.

If one looks closely at the political history of the main characters, it would appear that this latest incident was a far-right grudge match involving current and former One Nation politicians and staff.

These are the current claims and counter-claims less than 14 weeks out from the federal election………………

The New Daily, 13 February 2019:

Pauline Hanson has denied sexually harassing Senator Brian Burston after a bloody scuffle in the corridors of Parliament on Wednesday night involving her chief of staff James Ashby. 

Declaring that she “might be 64, but I am not that desperate”, Senator Hanson emphatically denied the ugly claims that led to a physical clash between her former colleague and her current chief of staff.

The bizarre altercation, which was filmed by Mr Ashby, left the 70-year-old Senator Burston allegedly bleeding from cuts to his hand and prompted security to be notified of the clash just outside the Great Hall of Parliament. 

“My hand was injured when Ashby put his phone in the face of my wife and I defended her, fearing for her safety,” Senator Burston told The New Daily. 

“I injured my hand in trying to get the phone off her. [Mr Ashby] ambushed me after attending the Minerals Council dinner where he sat at the same table. Obviously a set up,” he said.

Photos of Brian Burston’s injured hand - he alleges James Ashby caused it. Ashby says footage and witnesses will better explain what happened. Our story on all the tension today leading up to tonight’s fight: https://t.co/KiWpgfZIfD pic.twitter.com/2owetLMy3R

— Max Koslowski (@MaxKoslowski) February 13, 2019

The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 February 2019:

Senator Brian Burston has denied offering to "f---" a staff member to make her feel better, as a bitter dispute erupts on the crossbench over a series of bombshell sexual harassment allegations. 

Rejecting the allegation contained in a lengthy complaint sent to the Department of Finance last year and seen by The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on Wednesday, the United Australia Party senator launched his own attack on Pauline Hanson, claiming the One Nation leader had twice sexually harassed him.

Senator Hanson denied the allegation on Wednesday night during a rushed appearance on Sky News: "A lot of men have tickets on themselves and Brian Burston, don't go out in Canberra, it's very windy tonight.

"I might be 64 but I'm not that desperate. These are allegations that have been made up, there are no truth to them whatsoever and I feel sorry for his wife, I really feel sorry for his wife."

The Sydney Morning Herald, 14 February 2019:

Scott Ryan, the President of the Senate, said he had already talked to his lower house counterpart, Speaker Tony Smith, and would be looking into the spat as more information emerged.

"I've been in discussion with the Speaker this morning and those discussions continue," Senator Ryan said. "We will be looking at this matter as a matter of urgency."

"We both regard this as a grave matter," he said. "At this stage I have received no formal information."

Senator Burston said he did not recall smearing two red marks - which Senator Hanson says is blood - on his rival's office door on Wednesday evening.

"Ashby probably did it himself - I've got no idea," he said. "I don't recall how I got back from [Parliament House cafe] Aussie's to here [his office]."

In a statement, Senator Burston's office said he had referred the matter to police.

"Brian Burston has reported the full matter to the Australian Federal Police and has commenced legal proceedings against James Ashby seeking a restraining order over repeated acts of harassment and aggression of which the Senator has ample evidence."

"Senator Burston absolutely denies all allegations and will be defending them strenuously."

The senator has promised to defend himself with planned remarks in the Senate on Thursday. Under parliamentary privilege laws, a Member of Parliament can make otherwise defamatory comments in the chamber without fear of legal action.

BREAKING: Senate president Scott Ryan has revoked James Ashby's pass to the Parliament #auspol

— Brett Worthington (@BWorthington_) February 14, 2019

The Guardian, 14 February 2019:

President of the Senate Scott Ryan on why he revoked James Ashby’s pass:

“Senators must be free to go about their work in this building, this privilege and protection is not limited to simple proceedings in the chamber. Passholders are granted access to the building on certain conditions on behaviour, amongst others, these conditions are in place to protect all occupants and facilitate the work of members and senators.

The video footage that I have reviewed records the reported incident between Senator Burston and Mr James Ashby last night it shows inappropriate by a passholder towards a senator. Accordingly I have exercised my authority to revoke Mr James Ashby’s pass to access the building and prohibit him from entering the building for the time being. This does not affect his employment which is not a matter for the presiding officers … This does not prejudice any other legal or other proceedings that may be undertaken or initiated by the parties involved. Given the seriousness of the incident and evidence immediately available to me I believe immediate action is necessary and warranted. If further information comes to my attention this decision can be revisited and any subsequent legal action can be taken into account.”

Brian Burston on blood on the door:

“Whilst I do not recall the incident of blood on the door I now have come to the conclusion that it was myself and I sincerely apologise for that action.”

With brawling breaking out in the corridors of Parliament House the May 2019 federal election can't come soon enough.

Clarence Valley 2019: keeping the Clarence River Estuary healthy for future generations

“like other heavy fabricating sectors shipbuilding involves the use of materials and manufacturing practices that can impact on the environment, can contribute to climate change” [OECD Council Working Party on Shipbuilding (WP6), November 2010]

“Shipyards are dangerous construction zones with many worker hazards. Shipbuilding, repair, cleaning, and coating use toxic chemicals and hazardous or flammable materials. These activities also can pollute water directly or through runoff. Repairs may require emptying dirty water from a ship’s ballast and bilge tanks into the surrounding waters….. Shipbuilding and ship repair use toxic chemicals that include chromium, copper, lead, and nickel. Ship cleaning activities use chemicals that include copper, hazardous or flammable materials, heavy metals, and solvents. They release lead, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, zinc, and other air pollutants.” [NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine, Boats & Ships, retrieved 18 February 2019]

If it wasn’t bad enough that barely two years ago Lower Clarence communities still had a flimflam man and then a set of dodgy companies (mentioned in a NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption investigation in 2018) trying to push for large scale industrialisation of Clarence River estuary – now Clarence Valley Council apparently attracted by the lure of vacant crown land up for grabs appears to be joining the push to industrialise-and-be-damned if these little gems in its “Clarence Valley Regional Economic Development Strategy 2018 -2022” are any indication.

These are excerpts from that document:

Clarence Valley’s key endowments lie in its coastal, riverine and hinterland amenity; arable soils and favourable climate; access to Sydney and Brisbane via the Pacific Highway; and the ability to bring new industrial land to market cost effectively…..

Industrial Land -The Clarence Valley has seven industrial estates open for business and far more potential development sites compared with neighbouring councils…..

Sustaining a ready supply of zoned and serviced industrial land is a strategic priority for supporting growth in these specialisations, with marine precinct proposals……

•Meet emerging industrial land use opportunities in a timely way •Develop a marine precinct proposal •Develop a project portfolio of enabling infrastructure for industrial sites, including the marine precinct proposal…..•Develop a Port of Yamba Strategy…….

Develop a marine precinct proposal

•Develop a project portfolio of enabling infrastructure for industrial sites, including the marine precinct proposal

•Build on the Transport Precinct Feasibility Final Report to develop road investment priorities

•Review and complete land use planning through collaboration with neighbouring councils

•Partner with local industries and training providers to align training courses to industry’s needs

•Advocate for a marine manufacturing SkillsPoint

•Identify and cost options for better Pacific Highway connections

•Advocate for progress on strategic priorities for the Port of Yamba and Summerland Way

•Develop a Port of Yamba Strategy

•Develop Yamba Road & Harwood Road business cases…..

The Clarence River estuary covers an 800 sq. kilometres floodplain and key environmental indicators for this estuary’s health include water quality, riverbank vegetation, the number and distribution of fish species, as well as the presence of macroinvertebrates and plankton.

The estuary is already beginning to struggle under the weight of human activity, including marine activity. A fact it would seem that Clarence Valley Council ignores in its development strategy.

It is a fact that estuary communities cannot afford to ignore if they wish to preserve the aesthetic, cultural, social and environmental amenity which supports both community life and the local economy.

In 2016-2017 a study of six NSW ports was undertaken and published in PLoS One and online in December 2017 as “Water quality assessment of Australian ports using water quality evaluation indices”.

With regard to the Port of Yamba in the lower Clarence estuary the study recommended regular monitoring and management of port activities accounting for both biological and chemical toxicological profiles of the discharging activities.

It did so for the following reasons:

* The Port of Yamba has standard levels of Dissolved Oxygen according to ANZECC guidelines. However. the amount of fecal coliforms was significantly higher in the water of the port area than the corresponding background samples, which clearly indicates the impact of the fishing fleet and recreational boating on the port environment.

* Very high concentrations of iron were found in the port water, the maximum concentration of lead in the water exceeded the ANZECC (0.0022) guidelines with all the background samples had much lower concentration of lead compared to the port area and, the maximum concentration of copper in the water was much higher than ANZECC guidelines and exceeded other international guidelines at (0.04 mg/l) in Port of Yamba.

* The mean concentration of copper also exceeded the ANZECC guidelines. When it came to zinc levels were low except in the port area which contained very high concentrations of zinc, which exceeded the guidelines. Concentration of cadmium and cobalt were within the ANZECC guidelines.

* Overall the Port of Yamba portrayed high contamination for all standard guidelines when it came to water quality – the port area has water quality of medium contamination and one site has high contamination.

Clarence Valley Council itself admits that the entire estuary is already under stress in its Report Card 2013:

“Water quality was poor in the estuary throughout the study, with the region around the tidal limit with consistently the worst water quality of the Clarence River 

reflecting the freshwater and tidal inputs at these sites. Estuary tributaries, particularly Swan and Sportsmans Creeks and the Coldstream River were in very

poor overall condition receiving a grade of F. These systems had consistently poor water quality that contributed nutrient rich, low oxygen and acid water

to the Clarence River following flooding.

Concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus consistently exceeded the guideline values throughout the study at all sites. Very high nitrogen concentrations were

recorded in estuarine reaches following flooding. There were no algal blooms recorded during the study. However, algal concentrations were consistently

above the guideline value in estuarine reaches.

The Broadwater and Wooloweyah coastal lagoons both had very poor water quality, with high algal and nutrient concentrations and turbidity, and low dissolved oxygen values consistently exceeding a number of water quality guidelines. The Broadwater had better riparian condition relative to Wooloweyah that improved its overall grade.

Riparian condition was generally low from a poor diversity of native vegetation, reduced vegetation structure and small isolated pockets that were poorly connected to other native vegetation. Reaches showed evidence of eroding river banks and sediment deposited in the channel. Estuarine reaches were often dominated by riverbanks with little or no vegetation present, leading to very poor condition grades.”

The tidal water exchange will not protect the lower estuary from a spreading loss of water quality and increased levels of pollution once industry begins to expand along its foreshores and clusters of marine businesses such as shipbuilding and repair are further developed. 

There will be a tipping point that once reached will be hard, perhaps even impossible, to reverse.

This is something that Lower Clarence communities need to consider before council goes too far down this path which leads away from a healthy estuary for future generations.

How the National Party of Australia attempted to ruin Australia’s largest river system

IMAGE: Murray Darling Wetlands Working Group Ltd.

Former Accountant and banker, Nationals MP for New England (NSW) Barnaby Thomas Gerard Joyce was deputy Prime Minister of Australia from 18.2.2016 to 27.10.2017 and again from 6.12.2017 to 26.2.2018.  He was also Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources from 21.9.2015 to 27.10.2017 and returned as minister once more from 21.9.2015 to 27.10.2017.

This particular politician is likely to go down in history as one of the worst leaders that the National Party of Australia ever had.

The Northern Daily Leader, 9 February 2019:

BARNABY Joyce’s actions as water minister have been singled out and savaged in the royal commission into the Murray Darling Basin Authority, the report suggesting he ignored the law.

The report pointed to an “ill-informed letter” from Mr Joyce to the South Australian water minister, as testament to the government’s lack of “any genuine commitment” to the goal of recovering 450 gigalitres of water for the environment.

The Leader has contacted Mr Joyce for an interview and is awaiting a response.

In the letter, Mr Joyce said he couldn’t see the water being recovered without “causing negative social and economic impacts to South Australian communities”.

“I cannot foresee [the other state governments] agreeing that the additional 450GL of water can be delivered without significant social and economic detriment,” he wrote.

The report said there was “no reliable evidence” to support Mr Joyce’s claim.

This is what the South Australian  Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report’s  Final Report (released on 29 January 2019) stated in part:

For a number of years neither the Commonwealth Government, nor New South Wales or Victoria, have had any genuine commitment to recovering the so-called 450 GL of upwater for enhanced environmental outcomes. The ill-informed letter from Mr Barnaby Joyce when he was Water Minister to his South Australian counterpart dated 17 November 2016 — written as though the actual definition of socio-economic impact in the Basin Plan did not exist — is testament to this…..

On commercial radio on 29 August 2018, Mr Joyce, the Commonwealth Government’s Special Drought Envoy — not a member of the Executive Council or a Minister of the State under either secs 62 or 64 of the Constitution respectively — suggested that environmental water held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) should be used to ‘grow the fodder to keep the cattle alive’ during the course of the drought. He suggested that if this was not lawful, then the relevant legislation should be changed. This suggestion is not in the interests of the people who live and work in the Basin, nor in the interests of the broader Australian public, or that of the environment. It is contrary to the objects and purposes of the Water Act and Basin Plan. It is against the national interest. It has been rightly rejected by, amongst others, the MDBA and the CEWH. Adaptation to the challenges of a warmer and drier climate will require a vastly more sophisticated approach. That approach must be based on proper scientific research and analysis, as well as a basic level of common sense.

For example, in a letter dated 17 November 2016 from the then Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture and Water, Mr Barnaby Joyce, to the then South Australian Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Mr Ian Hunter, Minister Joyce said:

 If it was genuinely possible to put an additional 450 GL down the river without hurting people, then none of us would have a problem with it. The reality is that it will. South Australia’s default share of the 450 GL target is 36 GL. Does the South Australian Government have a plan for where this water would come from without causing negative social and economic impacts to South Australian communities? I believe that we are heading into an unprotracted (sic) and unsolvable stalemate, where the funding will stay on the books for a recovery that will be impossible to make in accordance with the legislative requirements — that the recovery must has (sic) positive or neutral social and economic outcomes

… My main concern is this — just as you have an understandable desire for one outcome, your colleagues in other states have an equally understandable desire for another regardless of what side of the political fence they are on. I cannot foresee them agreeing that the additional 450 GL of water can be delivered without significant social and economic detriment. The hard conversation has to happen about how we resolve this stalemate. I look forward to discussing it with you more at the Ministerial Council.

There is no reliable evidence before the Commission that would support the assertion in that letter that recovery of an additional 450 GL of water would have negative social and economic impacts, or that its consequence would be ‘hurting people’ either economically, socially, or otherwise. Minister Joyce offered no such evidence. Leaving that aside, Minister Joyce’s letter ignores the test of social and economic neutrality in sec 7.17(2)(b) of the Basin Plan. That is no trifling thing, as that section was (and still currently is) the law. The test is satisfied by participation, not the concept of ‘hurting people’. Leaving this also aside, the gist of the letter was such that the Commonwealth’s then position seemed to be that the recovery of 450 GL of upwater for South Australia’s environmental assets was unlikely….

Mr Hooper spoke of a shift in attitude, upon the appointment of the former Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, to the water portfolio, away from a holistic, whole of Basin approach to a focus on specific sites, namely Dirranbandi, St George, and Warren, and the economics of irrigated agriculture in those towns.

Mr Hooper recalled asking the MDBA for a socio-economic assessment of Aboriginal people in the Northern Basin to which the MDBA responded by offering to provide a more limited socio-cultural survey.182 Despite meeting with the MDBA, NBAN was unaware of the intention to reduce water recovery in the Northern Basin, which was only revealed once the proposed amendments were publicly released.183 Mr Hooper could not recall any explanation of how the toolkit measures could substitute for water so as to justify the 70 GL reduction in water to be recovered…..

In an interview with 2GB radio, the Commonwealth Government’s Special Drought Envoy and former Water Resources Minister, Mr Barnaby Joyce, said:

a national emergency requires emergency power. We have a large water resource owned by the government. It’s called the Commonwealth Environmental Water holder and it’s used to water environmental assets. In a national emergency, which is this drought, surely that water should be used to grow the fodder to keep the cattle alive to keep the cash flow in the town. When people say, ‘Oh well, the legislation won’t allow you to do that’. Well, change the legislation, that’s what we have a parliament for.

National Party once again proving that it is the party representing mining interests

Climate change denialism is alive and well in the National Party.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 February 2019:

A Nationals MP's claim that the Land and Environment Court's decision to block a coal mine in his electorate reflected an "ideological position" and "smacked of judicial activism" has prompted a rival MP to accuse him of contempt of court.

After the court on Friday rejected Gloucester Resources' bid to open the Rocky Hill mine on the Mid North Coast because of "climate change impacts", Nationals MP for the Upper Hunter Michael Johnsen hopped on 2GB to vent his fury.

The show's host Chris Kenny said: "Here you have a judge in a NSW land and environment court saying that he's protecting the planet from global warming, from climate change".

Mr Johnsen replied: "They are taking an ideological position, again it smacks of judicial activism, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the proposal itself and I’m very, very disappointed."