Is NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian intending "to make it a priority to finish off effective protection of the natural environment – something started years ago under the Coalition State Government"?

On Thursday 4 April 2019 the local Knitting Nannas held a protest knit-in outside the electoral office of NSW Nationals MP for Clarence, Chris Gulaptis.

Below is the text of their letter to Mr. Gulaptis dated the same day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 Knitting Nannas Against Gas

Grafton Loop

c/- PO Box 763

Grafton 2460

knaggrafton@gmail.com

4th April 2019

                                                                        C O P Y

Mr C Gulaptis MP

Member for Clarence

11 Prince Street

GRAFTON  NSW 2460

Dear Mr Gulaptis

Dissolving of Office of Environment and Heritage

The Grafton Nannas are very concerned about your Government’s recently announced intention of doing away with the Office of Environment and Heritage as an independent entity.

We have long been worried about the Government’s lack of concern about protecting the natural environment for current and future generations of humans as well as for other life forms.

Government policies over recent years have been seen by many in our community and elsewhere as being a de facto war on the natural environment.

For example:

• Changes to vegetation laws which have led to a large increase in clearing of habitat which is important to the survival of native flora and fauna.  This weakening of the former laws is also likely to lead to increased topsoil loss and general land degradation.

• Changes to logging regulations which threaten the sustainability of native forests which belong to the people of NSW – and not to logging interests. These changes include limiting pre-logging fauna surveys, an inevitable increase in clear-felling, and reduction in the width of buffer zones along streams.  

• Failure to protect the health of rivers, particularly those in the Murray-Darling Basin.  For years the NSW Government, as well as the Federal Government, has been pandering to the irrigation industry while ignoring the need to protect river health by ensuring that flows are adequate for river health.  The drought is not an excuse for this folly.

• Other examples include the cutting of funding to the National Parks & Wildlife Service and penny-pinching changes to its structure as well as the failure to ensure that the existing weak environment laws are enforced and appropriate penalties imposed on those who breach them.

We are aware that the Premier recently stated that her Government would make the environment a priority. 

Since hearing that OEH was to lose any of the limited independence it currently has and is to be pushed into a mega-Planning Department, we are left wondering about what the premier actually meant about “priority”.  Did she mean that she intended to make it a priority to finish off effective protection of the natural environment – something started years ago under the Coalition State Government?  It looks very much like that to the Nannas.

Yours sincerely

Leonie Blain

On behalf of the Grafton Nannas

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Morrison’s plan to use whatever is left in Coalition MPs and Senators electoral communications parliamentary allowance to fund his national election campaign has been scuttled

Australian Senate Hansard, 3 April 2019, excerpt:

REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019 Disallowance Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (21:29): I move: That item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, made under the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, be disallowed [F2019L00177]. The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Farrell, relating to the disallowance of item 4 of the Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (2019 Measures No. 1) Regulations 2019, be agreed to. The Senate divided. [21:34] (The President—Senator Ryan)

Ayes ......................34 Noes ......................26 Majority.................8

The New Daily, 4 April 2019:

The Morrison government has lost a bid to allow MPs to use taxpayer-funded electoral allowances to pay for TV and radio advertisements during the looming federal election campaign.

Late on Wednesday night – in one of this parliament’s last votes before the election is called – the Senate dumped a government regulation allowing $22 million of public money to be used for political ads in the lead up to May’s federal poll.

MPs have a budget of about $137,000 for electorate communications, while senators have up to $109,000.

Under existing rules, they cannot use office expenses money to pay for content on television or radio. The government’s changes would have allowed them to use printing entitlements to buy TV and radio ads for the first time.

The Coalition had argued lifting the ban on TV and radio promotions would have put Australian media on a level playing field by ensuring all communities had the same access to information from their federal MP.

But Labor frontbencher Don Farrell, who moved the disallowance motion in the Senate, accused Prime Minister Scott Morrison of wasting taxpayers’ money in a bid to save his job.

“Publicly funded office budgets are for members and senators to communicate with their constituents – not for spamming voters with hollow election slogans from the ad man, Scott Morrison,” he said.

With the support of the Greens and a handful of crossbench senators, Labor won the disallowance vote.... 

The heroes of the hour who saved us all from what was clearly an attempt to create a lasting rort at taxpayer’s expense were:

Bilyk, CL. Carr, KJ. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Di Natale, R. Dodson, P. Farrell, D. Faruqi, M. Gallacher, AM. Griff, S. Hanson-Young, SC. Hinch, D. Ketter, CR.  (teller) Kitching, K. Lines, S. Marshall, GM. McAllister, J. McCarthy, M. McKim, NJ. O'Neill, DM. Patrick, RL. Polley, H. Pratt, LC. Rice, J. Siewert, R. Smith, DPB. Steele-John, J. Sterle, G. Storer, TR. Urquhart, AE. Waters, LJ. Watt, M. Whish-Wilson, PS. Wong, P.

Well done one and all!

When local people power has a win

The rejection of a $25 million development at Byron Bay’s Ewingsdale Rd for a 282-lot subdivision was met with thunderous applause.

Villa World’s plan for a controversial development was unanimously rejected by members of the Northern Joint Regional Planning Panel at a meeting on Monday.

It was the second DA for the West Byron site to be refused by the panel, as a $40 million development put forward by West Byron Landowners Group was rejected earlier this year.

Numerous speakers pleaded with the NRPP on many grounds, including that they “did not want a Gold Coast” in Byron Bay.

The proposal was refused on 10 grounds including: adverse impacts to surrounding properties; a significant visual impact and undesirable impact on the street scape inconsistent with the northern entrance to Byron Bay; the development was likely to have had adverse impacts on threatened species and ecosystems; no adequate discharge of storm water and was not considered in the public’s interest.

Echo NetDaily, 9 April 2019:

No social or environmental license

Newly reelected MP Tamara Smith said this another great win for our community and people power. ‘The thousands of community submissions and actions highlighting the fundamental flaws in developing this land have successfully culminated in the NRPP rejecting both subdivision plans – against the odds,’ she said.

‘With the rejection of both the West Byron subdivision applications by the NRPP the developers should immediately approach the State government and request that they buy the land and restore it to the Cumbebin Swamp Reserve.

Ms Smith said there is no social or environmental license for a subdivision of the swamp land known as West Byron. ‘So why waste more money on legal battles when the community is utterly opposed.

‘Restitution is on offer for the landowners and they should jump at the chance to be made whole and walk away. They need only look to Condon Hill at Lennox to see decades of iconic land ownership that has never passed muster to see development on it. Get out now is my advice.

‘I strongly advise Byron Shire Council to shelve any idea of a reduced sub-division and instead respectfully ask them to help me actually deliver what the community wants – No West Byron Mega-development.”

Justifiable opposition

Former Byron Shire Mayor Jan Barham also spoke to the panel. She said she wanted to acknowledge the amazing efforts of the community in their justifiable opposition to the inappropriate proposals for the West Byron lands.

‘This development fails on every point,’ she said. ‘From the destruction of biodiversity and the threat to the local koala population and wallum froglet, the filling of a flood prone area, likely negative impact on the Belongil Creek and the Cape Byron Marine Park and further traffic chaos on Ewingsdale Road, that will not be alleviated by the bypass.

‘I’m confident these points have been raised in sufficient detail in the submissions to inform a refusal.’

Ms Barham summed up the general feeling on the day. ‘The refusal of Villa World by the Planning Panel alongside the previous West Byron refusal, justifies years of commitment by our community to protect and preserve our special place, with evidence, passion and genuine concern for the future,’ she said after the decision was announced.

‘It makes me feel so proud to be a member of an activist community who knows the value of standing up for what we believe in and thankfully, this time, the independence of the process delivered the right outcome.

‘Well done to everyone who took the time to be involved, no doubt there will be more challenges to come but the refusals vindicates us and our role as protectors.’

Climate change, what’s climate change?

Because the majority of rightwing members of the Australian Parliament refuse to accept the realities of climate change the nation ended up with legislation like this on 3 April 2019.

Unfortunately in this they were aided and abetted by Labor senators even though these senators had reservations about unintended consequences

Medium.com, 3 April 2019:

In the final sitting day before the election Senators passed a bill to greatly increase the powers and funding of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (Efic).

Under the guise of Australia’s ‘step-up’ in the Pacific, the Senate has turned this obscure agency into a larger ‘development bank’ for infrastructure oversea.

The changes were strongly criticised by Australia’s development community, and as Australia Institute research has warned, risk fast-tracking taxpayer funding towards fossil fuel projects in the region, undermining the climate action on which the safety of the Pacific depends.

What the Efic?

Efic is a lending agency whose core job is lending to support Australian exporters, ostensibly small and medium sized enterprises.

In recent years the government has used Efic to administer the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) — the agency that wanted to lend Adani $1 billion dollars for its railway line — and the government’s multi-billion dollar Defence Exports Facility.

By passing the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Infrastructure Financing) Bill 2019, the Senate gives Efic nearly unfettered scope to fund any sort of infrastructure, and access to an extra billion dollars, increasing six-fold its ‘callable capital’ to draw on to back up even larger loans.

Despite the stated purpose of supporting development, under the changes Efic is required only to maximise ‘Australian benefits’. There is no mention at all of the development needs and challenges of countries where Efic would invest.

Instead, Efic can now lend simply to benefit “a person carrying on business or other activities in Australia”, which the government states will empower Efic to promote fossil fuel “energy” exports from Australia.

Taxpayers Funding Fossil Fuels

Efic has a long and sorry history of funding fossil fuel projects, both overseas and in Australia. Half of its current portfolio is in the fossil fuel and mining sectors.

Despite being a Commonwealth agency, Efic explicitly states it is no constrained by the goals of the Paris Agreement and it has refused to disclose how it considers climate risk.

The biggest thing Efic has ever done was backing the PNG LNG project, a massive gas project in Papua New Guinea. Efic was warned in advance it would likely lead to civil conflict and economic disruption. And it did, sparking conflict verging on civil war.

Right now, under current rules, Efic is thinking about lending money to Woodside to develop an oil and gas field in Senegal in Africa. Efic has previously been in talks with Adani about its coal mine……..

Valley Watch urgent message to Clarence Valley residents about saving Lawrence koala habitat

Koala habitat within Larwence village streets

Valley Watch Inc has sent this email out…….

Hi everyone brief history and response from Essential Energy below.  

Upgrade and change of route required due to safety (currently passing over someone's house).  Project planned then needed to change route as an underground water main was identified in their proposed route.  New route chosen and vegetation clearing increased from two trees and trimming to approx. 28 trees & shrubs being cleared in a known koala corridor.

Thanks to Community who raised concerns and attended special meeting where they presented new route that could be considered.  As per email below we need to ensure Essential Energy hear there is large community support for protecting koala habitat.

Please telephone and email Raelene Myers at Essential Energy.

Thanks

----- Forwarded message -----

From: Linda redacted]

Sent: Friday, 5 April 2019, 05:06:11 pm AEDT

Subject: save Lawrence koala habitat

Hi everyone,

At the end of an information session today in Grafton, led by Essential Energy Community Liaison Officer Raelene Myers, the Essential Energy staff told the assembled concerned Lawrence and wider Clarence Valley residents, after much discussion, that they will now put the plan to relocate some poles and wires to an area that would involve koala habitat destruction on hold, while they examine an alternative route that would not. 

The alternative route was put forward by meeting attendees. The plan attached shows the existing route in green, the habitat-destroying route in orange, and the non-habitat-destroying route in red.

Raelene has undertaken to keep updated people who let her know they want to be. Our best chance of saving the koala habitat now is to get as many people as possible to contact her and let her know we are in favour of the non-habitat destroying route and want to be kept updated. Her contact details are below.

Please pass this information on to anyone you think might care.

Regards,

Linda

---

T: 02 6589 8810 (extn 88810) M: 0407 518 170

E: raelene.myers@essentialenergy.com.au

PO Box 5730 Port Macquarie NSW 2444

General Enquiries: 13 23 91

UPDATE

The Daily Examiner, 10 April 2019, p.5:

Clarence Valley councillor Greg Clancy said the the proposal would result in the removal of a number of trees and put at risk the koala population in the area.

“We think they could reroute the power lines a different way to reduce the number of trees that would need to cut down,” he said. “I think it’s going to push the local population further towards extinction"

Mr Clancy said despite the relatively small number of trees marked for removal, the frequency with which koalas could be found in them meant they should be saved.

“I was out there the other day with a representative from Essential Energy and there was a koala in one of the marked trees,” he said.

“The point is the koalas are always in these trees and there is a lot of habitat they may not find as suitable. You need to rely on where the koalas are, not where they might be.”

National Redress Scheme: Morrison Government's deviation from royal commission recommendations without sound evidence had been "to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors"

Sadly Prime Minister Scott Morrison and his political cronies continue to wage war on the poor and vulnerable without exception.

This time it is victims of insitutional child sexual abuse they are trying to deny access to compensation and to unfairly limit the amount of compensation recommended by the Royal Commission into Insitutional Response to Child Sexual Abuse.

Herald Sun, 4 April 2019:

THE Federal Government must explain how it capped National Redress Scheme payments to child sex survivors at $150,000 rather than a recommended $200,000, said a parliamentary committee left "deeply dissatisfied" when it was unable to find an answer during a review of the scheme.

The $150,000 cap was rammed into legislation after the Turnbull Government warned any push to lift it would delay the scheme's implementation by 18 months.

But the committee's unsuccessful attempts to solve the mystery has left survivors believing $150,000 was chosen because it matched Anglican and Catholic maximum payments, a joint select committee reviewing the scheme found.

"The committee is deeply dissatisfied that the maximum payment amount has been reduced and that no clear explanation has been provided about why this occurred or who advocated for this reduction," the report released on Wednesday said.

"The committee has tried to ascertain the reason for the reduction in the maximum payment and has put this question to various witnesses, including Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services on numerous occasions. 

However, apart from acknowledging that $150,000 was the amount agreed to between the Commonwealth, states, and territories, the committee has not received any explanation or rationale about this discrepancy."

The committee, headed by Senator Derryn Hinch with Newcastle MP Sharon Claydon as deputy chair, was told more than 3000 people had applied for redress by February 28 after its launch on July 1, 2018, but only 88 cases were finalised, with fewer than 10 survivors paid between $100,000 and $150,000.

At least one person received the maximum $150,000.

"The committee recommends that the government clearly and openly explain how the maximum payments came to be set at $150,000 rather than $200,000, and the rationale for this decision," it said in one of 29 recommendations. The committee recommended amending legislation to lift the cap to $200,000.

The cross-party committee made up of four Liberal members, three Labor, one Green and Senator Hinch issued a damning assessment of parts of the redress scheme that vary from recommendations by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2017.

They include an assessment matrix that restricts maximum payments to penetrative child sexual abuse, counselling capped at $5000 and excluding people with serious criminal convictions or making applications from jail.

The criminal conviction and jail exclusions would "disproportionately impact" Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who made up almost one third of survivors seen by royal commissioners during private sessions in jail.

"This is an alarming statistic," the committee said.

Ms Claydon said the Federal Government's deviation from royal commission recommendations without sound evidence had been "to the detriment of the scheme and against the interests of survivors".

BACKGROUND

Joint Select Committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse:

On 20 June 2017 the House of Representatives agreed to a Senate resolution that a joint select committee on oversight of the implementation of redress related recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse be established following the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission.

Excerpts from Joint Committee's report:

Intrinsic to a survivor's access to redress are the institutions responsible for the sexual abuse and their decision to join the scheme. While all states and territories are now participating in the scheme, there are no mechanisms to force private institutions to join the scheme. Yet survivors will not be able to obtain redress if the institution responsible for their abuse refuses to join the scheme. This is both unfair and unacceptable. Plainly, more needs to be done to pressure non-participating institutions to join the scheme, and provide survivors with access to redress....

Central to the redress scheme are the survivors. Wherever possible, the scheme should be an inclusive scheme that does not exclude groups of survivors. Currently, certain groups of survivors are either not eligible for redress or are subject to potentially arbitrary decisions when seeking permission to apply for redress. The government has suggested that some of these exclusions are necessary to protect the scheme from particular risks, such as fraud, while others are necessary to ensure the efficient administration of the scheme. These are not sufficient justifications to unilaterally exclude large groups of survivors, who would otherwise have a legitimate claim, from accessing redress.

Recommendation 14
8.94 The committee recommends that the government clearly and openly explain how the maximum payments came to be set at $150 000 rather than $200 000, and the rationale for this decision.

Recommendation 15
8.95 In line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments agree to increase the maximum redress payment from $150 000 to $200 000.

Recommendation 16
8.100 In line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, the committee recommends that Commonwealth, state and territory governments implement a minimum payment of $10 000 for the monetary component of redress, noting that in practice some offers may be lower than $10 000 after relevant prior payments to the survivor by the responsible institution are considered, or after calculating a non-participating institution's share of the costs.

The full April 2019 Joint Standing Committee report can be read here.

NOTE:

The Anglican Diocese of Grafton on the NSW North Coast has now joined the National Redress Scheme.

Stevens Holding gets development approval on Iluka large lot adjacent to World Heirtage listed forest from Australian Govenment Dept. of the Environment and Energy

Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy: APPROVAL lIuka Residential Subdivision, Hic... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/404969621/Australian-Government-Department-of-the-Environment-and-Energy-APPROVAL-lIuka-Residential-Subdivision-Hickey-Street-lIuka-NSW-EPBC-2017-8003

It should be noted that many of the conditions in this federal government approval only last for the life of the community title agreement. An agreement which can be altered or extinguished by lot holders as little as two years into the agreement.