Friday, 26 August 2022

It’s time. Time that at federal, state and local government level all elected or appointed officials, all public servants and council administrations turned to face what the phrase “climate crisis” actually means in macro and micro terms to coastal populations


 

It’s time. Time that at federal, state and local government level all elected and appointed officials, all public servants and council administrations really accepted that global warming and climate change is real and is happening right now.


To turn and face what the phrase “climate crisis” actually means in macro and micro terms.


Everyone needs to recognise that in 2022 science knows more that it did in the years 1990, 2000, 2010.


What was once thought the degree of global warming that the earth could tolerate (5°C above pre-industrial levels) is now in doubt and the tipping points causing ‘large-scale discontinuities’ are thought to have the potential to occur at as low as 1 and 2 °C – some of which have already occurred.


Australia’s climate has warmed on average by 1.44 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910 leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events. With most of this warming occurring since the 1950s. 


According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology in 2020 a number of factors caused by a warming Australia can be identified;

  • Oceans around Australia are acidifying and have warmed by around 1 °C since 1910, contributing to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves.

  • Sea levels are rising around Australia, including more frequent extremes, that are increasing the risk of inundation and damage to coastal infrastructure and communities.

  • There has been a decline of around 16 per cent in April to October rainfall in the southwest of Australia since 1970. Across the same region May–July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 20 per cent since 1970.

  • In the southeast of Australia there has been a decline of around 12 per cent in April to October rainfall since the late 1990s.

  • There has been a decrease in streamflow at the majority of streamflow gauges across southern Australia since 1975.

  • Rainfall and streamflow have increased across parts of northern Australia since the 1970s.

  • There has been an increase in extreme fire weather, and in the length of the fire season, across large parts of the country since the 1950s, especially in southern Australia.

  • There has been a decrease in the number of tropical cyclones observed in the Australian region since 1982.


Again according to BOM, by 2021 the national mean temperature was 0.56 °C warmer than the 1961–1990 average.


In other words, the continent continues to warm and our weather is changing across all seasons of the year and catastrophic weather events are either becoming more frequent or more intense.


The Climate Council in its UNINSURABLE NATION: AUSTRALIA’S MOST CLIMATE-VULNERABLE PLACES, 3 May 2022 report states:


Worsening extreme weather means increased costs of maintenance, repair and replacement to properties – our homes, workplaces and commercial buildings. As the risk of being affected by extreme weather events increases, insurers will raise premiums to cover the increased cost of claims and reinsurance.


Insurance will become increasingly unaffordable or unavailable in large parts of Australia due to worsening extreme weather…..


Across Australia approximately 520,940 properties, or one in every 25, will be ‘high risk’, having annual damage costs from extreme weather and climate change that make them effectively uninsurable by 2030. In addition, 9% of properties (1 in 11) will reach the ‘medium risk’ classification by 2030, with annual damage costs that equate to 0.2-1% of the property replacement cost. These properties are at risk of becoming underinsured….


Climate change affects all Australians, but some federal electorates face far greater risks than others.

The top 10 most at-risk federal electorates by 2030 are:

1. Nicholls (Vic)

2. Richmond (NSW)

3. Maranoa (QLD)

4. Moncrieff (QLD),

5. Wright (QLD),

6. Brisbane (QLD),

7. Griffith (QLD),

8. Indi (Vic)

9. Page (NSW) and

10. Hindmarsh (SA).

  • In these at-risk electorates, 15% of properties (165,646) or around one in every seven properties will be uninsurable this decade….

  • The percentage of properties that will be uninsurable by 2030 in each state and territory is 6.5% in Queensland; 3.3% in NSW; 3.2% in South Australia; 2.6% in Victoria; 2.5% in the Northern Territory; 2.4% in Western Australia; 2% in Tasmania and 1.3% in the ACT.


People living in the NSW Northern Rivers Region’s seven local government areas will recognise that both of their federal electorates are on the Top 10 most at-risk” list.


In the Page electorate this refers to Parts of Ballina, Lismore, Richmond Valley, Clarence Valley, with a combined total of 103,657 properties at levels of risk ranging from medium to high. With 5.4% of properties at high risk to riverine flooding, 0.4% of properties at high risk to surface water flooding and 5.3% of properties at high risk to bushfire.


While in the Richmond electorate this refers to Tweed, Byron, Ballina, with a combined total of 106,445 properties at levels of risk ranging from medium to high risk. With 14% of properties being at at high risk to riverine flooding, 0.4% of properties at high risk to surface water flooding and 5.2% of properties at high risk to bushfire.


The insurance, banking and real estate industries have noticed these statistics for years and now speak in terms of coastal zone properties in danger of becoming uninsurable, sited on land that will no longer have a monetary value.


One co-author of the Climate Council report has advised home owners and buyers to have a deep understanding of the local hazards and to acquire a property-specific report on their risk.


Three years after the first U.N. assessment report containing predictions of global warming and climatic impacts, the NSW Government protected itself and local councils against being held accountable for future deficiencies in decision making with regard to urban and infrastructure planning by establishing a new the Local Government Act in 1993


This Act divested local councils of any and all responsibility by a presumption that local government in all things acts in good faith unless proven otherwise and, local government across the state slowly began to apply a superficial wash of climate change mention in policies and sometimes even planning documents.


Safe in the knowledge, that when considering actual development applications for both large and small land subdivision by predominately professional incorporated property developers, councils In The Chamber, council executives, administrations and all employees had a “Get out of Jail Free” card. Because after all it’s just a game of Monopoly, innit?


This attitude is what drives Clarence Valley Council and a number of property developers with land in Yamba. Who after decades of poring over maps of West Yamba together have increasingly been making decisions about Yamba township with little or no regard for either the wellbeing or concerns of residents and ratepayers.


It’s reached the risible stage in relation to that land zoned residential, accessed via Carrs Drive. Where a long promised Master Plan for the entire urban land release was not proceeded with and its need later denied. 


When land filling resulted in problems on surrounding properties becoming very evident, Council administration was careful to go through a very limited form of cursory community consultation designed not to have a binding outcome and, rather conveniently is now only offering a West Yamba Urban Release Area information page on Council’s website and a printed quarterly update on development progress previously mutually agreed to by property developers and Council.


A move which offers no binding certainty on population density, lot numbers or sizes and still treats land filling on an ad hoc basis.


The lack of any real consideration of climate change impacts is appalling and mirrored in other large subdivisions such as those in Orion Drive, Park Ave and Golding Street.


The video at https://www.keepyambacountry.com/copy-of-more-information demonstrates just how poorly thought through was the approx. 2.8 AHD landfill and drainage at the Park Ave lot which has raised an est. 6.65ha of land above the ground level of a significant number of adjoining and adjacent long established and occupied residential properties. 


Screenshot taken from video "IN-DEPTH DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT on the Keep Yamba Country website, 2022














Similar scenarios are being played out in other Northern Rivers local government areas. Developers are not stupid. They know that now climate change is not just an abstract idea but something that can be seen and experienced they only have a finite time to offload their coastal zone subdivisions onto unsuspecting residential lot purchasers – before the next catastrophic flood or bushfire devastates a town/area considered to be a desirable place to live and wipes out the urge to buy land there. 


BACKGROUND


Excerpts from Local Government Act 1993 as of 16 July 2022:


731 Liability of councillors, employees and other persons

A matter or thing done by the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, a council, a councillor, a member of a committee of the council or an employee of the council or any person acting under the direction of the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, the council or a committee of the council does not, if the matter or thing was done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, and for and on behalf of the Minister, the Departmental Chief Executive, the council or a committee of the council, subject a councillor, a member, an employee or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.


733 Exemption from liability—flood liable land, land subject to risk of bush fire and land in coastal zone

(1) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being flooded or the nature or extent of any such flooding.

(2) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land in the coastal zone being affected by a coastline hazard (as described in the coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016) or the nature or extent of any such hazard, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being so affected.

(2A) A council does not incur any liability in respect of—

(a) any advice furnished in good faith by the council relating to the likelihood of any land being subject to the risk of bush fire or the nature or extent of any such risk, or

(b) anything done or omitted to be done in good faith by the council in so far as it relates to the likelihood of land being subject to the risk of bush fire.

(3) Without limiting subsections (1), (2) and (2A), those subsections apply to—

(a) the preparation or making of an environmental planning instrument, including a planning proposal for the proposed environmental planning instrument, or a development control plan, or the granting or refusal of consent to a development application, or the determination of an application for a complying development certificate, under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(b) the preparation and adoption of a coastal management program under the Coastal Management Act 2016 (and the preparation and making of a coastal zone management plan under the Coastal Protection Act 1979 that is continued in effect by operation of clause 4 of Schedule 3 to the Coastal Management Act 2016), and

(c) the imposition of any condition in relation to an application referred to in paragraph (a), and

(d) advice furnished in a certificate under section 149 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, and

(e) the carrying out of flood mitigation works, and

(f) the carrying out of coastal protection works, and

(f1) the carrying out of bush fire hazard reduction works, and

(f2) anything done or omitted to be done regarding beach erosion or shoreline recession on Crown land (including Crown managed land) or land owned or controlled by a council or a public authority, and

(f3) the failure to upgrade flood mitigation works or coastal protection works in response to projected or actual impacts of climate change, and

(f4) the failure to undertake action to enforce the removal of illegal or unauthorised structures that results in erosion of a beach or land adjacent to a beach, and

(f5) the provision of information relating to climate change or sea level rise, and

(f6) (Repealed) anything done or omitted to be done regarding the negligent placement or maintenance by a landowner of emergency coastal protection works authorised by a certificate under Division 2 of Part 4C of the Coastal Protection Act 1979,

(g) any other thing done or omitted to be done in the exercise of a council’s functions under this or any other Act.

(4) Without limiting any other circumstances in which a council may have acted in good faith, a council is, unless the contrary is proved, taken to have acted in good faith for the purposes of this section if the advice was furnished, or the thing was done or omitted to be done—

(a) substantially in accordance with the principles contained in the relevant manual most recently notified under subsection (5) at that time, or

(b) substantially in accordance with the principles and mandatory requirements set out in the current coastal management manual under the Coastal Management Act 2016, or

(c) in accordance with a direction under section 14(2) of the Coastal Management Act 2016.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Minister for Planning may, from time to time, give notification in the Gazette of the publication of—

(a) a manual relating to the management of flood liable land, or

(b) (Repealed) a manual relating to the management of the coastline.

(c) a manual relating to the management of land subject to the risk of bush fire.

The notification must specify where and when copies of the manual may be inspected.

(6) A copy of the manual must be available for public inspection, free of charge, at the office of the council during ordinary office hours.

(7) This section applies to and in respect of—

(a) the Crown, a statutory body representing the Crown and a public or local authority constituted by or under any Act, and

(b) a councillor or employee of a council or any such body or authority, and

(c) a Public Service employee, and

(d) a person acting under the direction of a council or of the Crown or any such body or authority, and

(e) Water NSW, but only with respect to the exercise of its functions in the Sydney catchment area (within the meaning of the Water NSW Act 2014) or the exercise of its functions in any part of the State in connection with the granting of flood work approvals under the Water Management Act 2000,

in the same way as it applies to and in respect of a council.

(8) In this section—

coastal zone has the same meaning as in the Coastal Management Act 2016.

manual includes guidelines.


8 Personal liability

A matter or thing done or omitted to be done by the Project Review Committee, a member of the Project Review Committee or a person acting under the direction of the Project Review Committee does not, if the matter or thing was done or omitted to be done in good faith for the purpose of executing this or any other Act, subject a member or a person so acting personally to any action, liability, claim or demand.


Thursday, 25 August 2022

A lesson in what not to do in Clarence Coast waters


Wooli Bar, Clarence Coast, Northern NSW
IMAGE: svbrahminy 2016


Coastal bars are shallow, shifting sandbanks at the entrance to rivers and coastal estuaries. There are at least nine coastal bars from Wooli to the NSW-Qld border.

Appearances are often deceptive when looking at a bar from the shoreline. Crossing bars can be a dangerous business that will in the blink of an eye turn a planned day's fishing into planning for a funeral.




This story fortunately had a happy ending..... 


Clarence Valley Independent, 24 August 2022:


Two fishermen, a father and his teenage son, are lucky to be alive after their five-metre runabout overturned on the Wooli River bar on the weekend.


Two runabouts were observed by Marine Rescue Wooli Radio Watch Officer Jackie Taffs attempting to cross the Wooli River bar at around 6:20 on Saturday morning.


The first runabout had to contend with five sets of breaking waves of up to 2.5 metres, becoming near vertical on a few occasions, before making it to deeper water. The second vessel was not so fortunate, overturning and spilling its two crew members into the sea just past the breakwater.


The team at Marine Rescue Wooli instantly swung into action, with Deputy Unit Commander Richard Taffs who was also on duty, running down to the nearby bar with a handheld radio to keep a close watch on the position of the two fishermen so as to guide rescuers, while a rescue crew was quickly assembled for rescue vessel Wooli 30.


Fortunately, the crew of the overturned vessel were wearing lifejackets, and were soon swept into the surf zone and onto the nearby Wooli Beach, where members of Marine Rescue Wooli collected them, returning them to the base for a first aid assessment, dry clothes and a hot drink ahead of the arrival of an ambulance and a more thorough medical examination before they were interviewed by NSW Police.....


The dos and don't of crossing coastal bars in New South Wales can be found at:

https://www.nsw.gov.au/driving-boating-and-transport/using-waterways/waterways-and-designated-areas/navigating-coastal-bars/crossing-coastal-bars


Wednesday, 24 August 2022

How for a total of 1,609 days Scott John Morrison hid his ambition to be a 'president' rather than a humble Prime Minister of Australia


Office of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 23 August 2022:


Solicitor-General’s opinion

23 August 2022


On 22 August 2022, the Prime Minister received the Solicitor-General’s opinion (SG No 12 of 2022) – In the matter of the validity of the appointment of Mr Morrison to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources PDF 945KB.


Only the validity of one Appointment of a Minister of State by the Governor-General was considered in the Solicitor-General’s investigation – that of then Australian Prime Minister Scott John Morrison to administer the Dept. of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (DISER) from 15 April 2021 onwards.


IMAGE: pmc.gov.au




















IN THE MATTER OF THE VALIDITY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF MR MORRISON TO ADMINISTER THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, SCIENCE, ENERGY AND RESOURCES



EXCERPT ONE


1. On 12 April 2021, the former Prime Minister, the Hon Scott Morrison MP, wrote to the Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (the Governor-General) to recommend that the Governor-General “appoint me, as Prime Minister, to administer the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources” (DISER). Mr Morrison advised the Governor-General that this appointment would allow him “to be the responsible Minister for matters within that Portfolio, if and when required”.


2. Mr Morrison enclosed with his letter a document headed “Appointment of Minister of State”, with space for the Governor-General’s signature.


EXCERPT TWO


29. While I consider that Mr Morrison’s appointment to administer DISER was valid, that is not to say that the absence of any notification of that appointment to the Parliament, the public, the other Ministers administering DISER or DISER itself was consistent with the principle of responsible government that is inherent in Ch II of the Constitution. In my opinion, it was not.


(i) Responsible government


30. The provisions of Chapter II are sparse. Nevertheless, the High Court has long recognised that they provide for a system of responsible government – meaning a “system by which the executive is responsible to the legislature and, through it, to the electorate”Indeed, responsible government has been recognised as a “central feature of the Australian constitutional system”. As a majority of the High Court put it in the Engineers Case, the Constitution is “permeated through and through with the spirit of … the institution of responsible government”.


EXCERPT THREE


(iii) Recent change in practice concerning Ministry lists


42. Apparently since Mr Morrison became Prime Minister in August 2018 (and certainly since no later than 25 January 2019), it has not been possible to infer from the Ministry list that a Minister has been appointed to administer only such departments as fall within the portfolios against which that Minister’s name appears. That follows because, since that time, the footer to the Ministry list has denied the legitimacy of any such inference, by expressly stating that Ministers “may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed”. The impetus for the inclusion of those words is unclear, although it seems possible that they were included so as to ensure that the tabling of the Ministry list did not mislead Parliament. The words contemplate an apparent practice whereby Ministers may be appointed to administer one or more departments of State without those appointments being published (at least in the Ministry list). The point is starkly illustrated by the fact that Mr Morrison’s name did not appear in the Ministry list published in October 2021 with respect to any of the five departments that he was appointed to administer between March 2020 and May 2021.


43. The result of the analysis above is that there was no way the public could discern from the Ministry list, or anywhere else, that Mr Morrison had been appointed to administer either DISER or any of the other four departments that he was appointed to administer between March 2020 and May 2021. There was likewise no way of knowing whether any other Ministers had also been appointed to administer additional departments without that being mentioned in the Ministry list.


(iv) Implications for responsible government


44. The capacity of the public and the Parliament to ascertain which Ministers have been appointed to administer which departments is critical to the proper functioning of responsible government, because it is those appointments, when read together with the AAO, that determine the matters for which a Minister is legally and politically responsible.


45. The pathway to that conclusion is fairly technical. It is the result of reading the AAO together with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). The AAO provides that a Minister who has been appointed to administer a department is responsible for administering the legislation listed in the Schedule to the AAO relating to that department. The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) then provides that references to “the Minister” in legislation are to be interpreted as a reference to “the Minister, or any of the Ministers, administering the provision”. The result is that the Ministers who are entitled to exercise statutory powers under any Act of the Commonwealth Parliament cannot be identified without first identifying from the AAO which department administers that Act, and then identifying the Ministers who have been appointed to administer that department.


46. The end result is that, to the extent that the public and the Parliament are not informed of appointments that have been made under s 64 of the Constitution, the principles of responsible government are fundamentally undermined. Neither the people nor the Parliament can hold a Minister accountable for the exercise (or, just as importantly, for the non-exercise) of particular statutory powers if they are not aware that the Minister has those powers. Nor can they hold the correct Ministers accountable for any other actions, or inactions, of departments. The undermining of responsible government therefore does not depend on the extent to which Mr Morrison exercised powers under legislation administered by DISER, because from the moment of his appointment he was both legally and politically responsible for the administration of that department, and yet he could not be held accountable for the way that he performed (or did not perform) that role.


47. Separately from the problem of holding Ministers to account, if multiple Ministers have been appointed to administer a single department, those Ministers (or the Prime Minister) are responsible for working out the division of responsibilities between themselves. However, if one Minister does not know that another Minister has been appointed to administer their department, that obviously cannot occur.


48. Finally, an appointment under s 64 of the Constitution is an appointment to “administer” a department. Plainly, however, a department cannot, in practice, be administered by a person whose appointment has not been revealed to the department itself. Failure to inform at least the Secretary of the department of the appointment therefore defeats the purpose of the appointment. It also prevents the department from taking appropriate steps to support and advise that Minister if the Minister decides to exercise powers under any legislation that is administered by that department (unless the appointment is disclosed at that time, as appears to have occurred with respect to Mr Morrison’s appointment to administer DISER). An unpublicised appointment to administer a department therefore fundamentally undermines not just the proper functioning of responsible government, but also the relationship between the Ministry and the public service.

[my yellow highlighting throughout the excerpts]



Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on 23 August 2022 announcing the result of the Inquiry and the need to establish a second inquiry:





ABC News, 23 August 2022, on the subject of the mechanics of establishing the first of five appointments of Scott Morrison to administer a department. In this case the federal Dept. of Health, a portfolio of the then Minister for Health Greg Hunt:


A three to four-page protocol was drafted for approval by the National Security Committee (NSC) of cabinet, which comprised Morrison, then-deputy PM Michael McCormack, Hunt, Peter Dutton (Home Affairs), Mathias Cormann (Finance), Marise Payne (Foreign Affairs) and Linda Reynolds (Defence).


And on March 14, the Governor-General signed an administrative instrument that appointed Scott John Morrison to administer the Department of Health.


Four days later — March 18, 2020 — a "human biosecurity emergency" was declared under the Biosecurity Act, giving health minister Greg Hunt sweeping, plenary powers.


Only members of the NSC — and the Governor-General — knew that Morrison also had that authority, which amounted to effective power of martial law.


Commonwealth Ombudsman said to have recommended a review of all government appointments made during the years Morrison was Treasurer and then Prime Minister

 

The Klaxon reported on 23 August 2022:


The Commonwealth Ombudsman has called for a review of hundreds of Prime Minister and Cabinet appointments - including all those by Scott Morrison - over concerns key officials have been illegally appointed to multiple jobs.


A screenshot was included in the article which purports to show excerpts from a 41-page inquiry report by Commonwealth Ombudsman calling for an official review of multiple agencies' appointment practices during the seven years through to the end of 2021.



IMAGE: https://www.theklaxon.com.au/home/ombudsman-pmc-audit

















I note that Scott Morrison was Australian Treasurer from 21.9.2015 to 28.8.2018, Prime Minister from 24.8.2018 to 23.5.2022 and Minister for Public Service from 29.5.2019 to 8.10.2021. 


Further, on 30 March 2020 Morrison received an Appointment as Minister of State to administer the Department of Finance  and, on 6 May 2021 he received an Appointment as Minister of State to administer both the Dept. of the Treasury and Dept. of Home Affairs.


As yet no mainstream media outlet is carrying news concerning any formal recommendations by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.


Tuesday, 23 August 2022

Resolve Strategic voter intention poll was releases on 22 August 2022 and the Coalition & Opposition Leader Peter Dutton lose more ground

 

It has been three months since the federal general election.


The Sydney Morning Herald released its 21 August 2022 Resolve Strategic poll on Monday 22 August.


According to the newspaper; Voters have swung behind Labor with a surge of support to give the new federal government a strong lead in the community with a primary vote of 42 per cent, up from 33 per cent at the election just three months ago. The significant shift has given Prime Minister Anthony Albanese a commanding lead over Opposition Leader Peter Dutton of 55 to 17 per cent as preferred prime minister….


In New South Wales those figures translate as a Primary Vote of:


Labor – 42%

Coalition (Lib-Nats) – 29%

Greens – 11%

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation – 5%

Clive Palmer’s United Australia – 2%

Independents – 8%

Other – 3%

With 77% of NSW survey respondents committed to their choice.


  • Across the state male survey respondents were the most impressed with Labor showing 42% support compared to female respondents on 40%.

  • Female survey respondents were the least impressed with the Coalition showing only 28% support compared to males respondents on 30%.


According to this survey Labor now leads the Coalition on National Security (by 4 percentage points), Jobs & Wages (by 25 percentage points), and Environment (by 26 percentage points).



On the Preferred Prime Minister question the NSW result was:


Anthony Albanese – 55%

Peter Dutton – 17%


  • Across the state male survey respondents were the most impressed with Anthony Albanese at 59% compared to female respondents on 52%.

  • Female survey respondents were the least impressed with the Peter Dutton showing only 15% support compared to males respondents on 19%.


Almost singlehandedly the policies and actions of the NSW O'Farrell-Baird-Berejiklian-Perrottet coalition governments have brought the Koala to the brink of extinction


https://youtu.be/w8LiyaMs0xU


This century started with celebrations across the state. 

Twenty-two years in and there is little to celebrate in New South Wales.

The state is at the sharp end of climate change impacts, the sharp end of a pandemic and, the sharp end of the Koala extinction crisis.

In 2019-20 alone over 17 million hectares were burnt or impacted and more than 61,000 koalas killed, injured or impacted by fire in the east coast mega bushfire season.

More than than 5.3 million hectares were burnt or impacted in NSW, including 2.7 million hectares of national parks.

In NSW more koala have also been lost to widespread flooding and the stress of habitat loss as the NSW Government continues to allow an unsustainable level of land clearing.

A total of 646,418 hectares have been approved for land clearing in the state between 9 March 2018 and 1 April 2022. The rate at which native vegetation was being cleared was over 61,00 hectares a year.

In 2020-21 the state-owned forestry corporation logged an est. 13,500 hectares of native forest and, as in the past, repeatedly logged in protected areas or known koala habitat.

Currently it is estimated that Australia-wide there may be as few as 43,000 koala left of the est. 7-10 million koala population calculated to exist in 1788. Almost certainly less than 80,000 koala.

In NSW there is some suggestion that the current number of koala left in the wild could be as low as <11,000 individuals in increasingly isolated colonies. Since the 2019-20 devastation of national parks, many of these koalas are now found on private land.

It should be noted that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison federal coalition governments' support of the continued logging of New South Wales native forests between September 2013 to May 2022 had exacerbated the rate of land clearing/loss of native tree cover and the environmental impacts which flow from the removal of so many mature trees.

Monday, 22 August 2022

Northern Rivers resident & former NSW Liberal MLC Catherine Cusack: "I hadn’t realised the former PM’s capacity to upset ordinary people and destroy their trust in government, until now"


Former Liberal MLA Catherine Cusack, writing in The Guardian, 19 August 2022:


I hadn’t realised the former PM’s capacity to upset ordinary people and destroy their trust in government, until now











The most powerful man in the land exploited a health crisis to extract yet more power.’ Photograph: Steven Saphore/AFP/Getty Images


Scott Morrison still possesses an incredible ability to divide and destroy the Australian polity.


His capacity to upset ordinary people – erode their hopes and sour trust in the institutions they are forced to rely on – was overwhelming during Q+A on Thursday.


Technically I was a panel member – but for me, the audience is always the real panel and it was dismaying to observe their bewilderment, cynicism and anguish on the topic of the former prime minister.


I have personally been so twisted up about him since his dreadful visit as prime minister to Lismore after the floods that I hadn’t fully comprehended his wider toxic impact.


That is, until Thursday – listening to Penrith residents ask simple, legitimate questions, and watching their reactions while the camera was fixed on panellists who could only offer solidarity in lieu of answers. Because there are no acceptable answers. Morrison is relentlessly breaking the heart of Australian faith in democracy. And he seems to find that funny.


I do not believe anyone can truthfully say they “know” Morrison. I can say I have “experienced” Scott for 22 years. I have thought about him, tried to work with him and desperately wanted to understand him as a member of his Liberal “team”.


What a quixotic quest that turned out to be. Initially my concern was for the impact his scheming and power games were having on the Liberal party. When as state director he helped Alex Hawke take over scores of strategic Liberal branches it changed the culture of our organisation.


The scheming escalated to the point of thwarting his own party’s efforts to select candidates for the federal election. It made no sense. On 7.30 Leigh Sales asked “why?” and we were given the ludicrous reply: “I did it to help women.”


Understandably, the ordinary citizen may not care how the NSW Liberal party has been so ruthlessly used and rendered a smoking ruin. But Morrison and his government’s power games have had direct impacts on people’s lives.


I felt that intensely during the Northern Rivers floods. Under his government, victims in a Nationals electorate received cash payments denied to victims in a Labor electorate. The pain inflicted was far more than financial. This nasty political parry crushed a desperate community that needed solidarity and compassionate leadership. Instead, they were made to feel like worthless political pawns.


This was a betrayal of a government’s duty to serve every citizen of this country.