The man who told the world God had called him to be Prime Minister of Australia is revealed for what he is - just another power hungry politician scheming to become a tinpot dictator**

Current Backbench Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison
IMAGE: James Brickwood, Financial Review, 9 November 2022

Bottom line taken from Hon Virginia Bell’s Report of the Inquiry into the Appointment of the Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments:

From 14 March 2020 then Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott John Morrison — possibly acting on the Pentecostal/Evangelical belief that it was a Christian’s duty to actively bring government under the dominion of God — began to ensure only his own wishes, wants & orders would be those governing the Commonwealth of Australia.

By 15 March 2021 he secretly controlled 5 of the 6 key government portfolios covering treasury, finance, national security, federal law enforcement, emergency management, natural resources, energy, industry, health, food production and water.

On 16 December 2021 he began to use those new powers.

It was not until News Corp journalists Benson & Chambers released their post-federal election book “Plagued” on 15 August 2022 that the Australian electorate became aware of this secret power grab.

Inquiry into the Appointment of Former Prime Minister to Administer Multiple Departments, Report, 25 November 2022:

Executive Summary

1. On 16 August 2022, following revelations in the media a few days earlier, the Prime Minister the Hon Anthony Albanese MP announced that the Hon Scott Morrison MP had been appointed to administer five departments of State in addition to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (“PM&C”) during his term as Prime Minister. Mr Morrison had been appointed to administer the Department of Health on 14 March 2020, the Department of Finance on 30 March 2020, the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources (“DISER”) on 15 April 2021, and the Departments of the Treasury and Home Affairs on 6 May 2021. In other words, Mr Morrison had been appointed to administer six of the 14 departments of State. These appointments had not previously been disclosed to the Parliament or to the public.

2. I was appointed to conduct an Inquiry into the appointments. The Terms of Reference require the Inquiry to examine and report on: the facts and circumstances surrounding the appointments; the implications arising from the appointments; and the practices and processes that apply to the appointment of ministers to administer departments under section 64 of the Constitution and directions that ministers hold certain offices under section 65 of the Constitution. I am also asked to recommend any procedural or legislative changes which would provide greater transparency and accountability. I summarise my key findings below. A list of recommendations is at pages 7 and 8.

3. The Terms of Reference require me to have regard to the Solicitor-General’s Opinion dated 22 August 2022 (SG No 12 of 2022). In that Opinion, the Solicitor-General concluded that the appointment of Mr Morrison to administer DISER was constitutionally valid. The reasoning applies with equal force to each of the appointments. I approach my task upon acceptance of the Solicitor-General’s analysis and conclusions.

Facts and circumstances surrounding the appointments

4. The appointments to administer the Departments of Health and Finance in March 2020 were made under the extreme pressure of responding to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The then Attorney-General, the Hon Christian Porter MP, proposed Mr Morrison’s appointment to administer the Department of Health as a check on the exercise of the Health Minister’s extraordinary powers that are enlivened by the declaration of a “human biosecurity emergency” under the Biosecurity Act 2015 (Cth). Other senior ministers recalled that the justification for the appointment was a concern that, if the Hon Greg Hunt MP, the then Minister for Health, should become incapacitated, a senior minister should be seen to be responsible for the exercise of these powers. Mr Morrison’s reason for taking the appointment appears to have been this latter concern.

5. The context for the appointment to administer the Department of Finance included the financial measures enacted in March 2020 to address the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, the $2 billion Advance to the Finance Minister. The Department of Finance had only one Cabinet Minister administering it. Mr Morrison advised the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Rtd), that the appointment would enable him to exercise the Finance Minister’s significant powers were Senator the Hon Mathias Cormann, the then Minister for Finance, unavailable to do so. Mr Morrison also wished to have the capacity to make decisions about financial support for the States and Territories in “real time” in the context of meetings of the National Cabinet.

6. The appointments, however, were unnecessary. If Mr Hunt or Mr Cormann had become incapacitated and it was desired to have a senior minister exercise the Health Minister’s expansive human biosecurity emergency powers or the Finance Minister’s significant financial authorities, Mr Morrison could have been authorised to act as Minister for Health or Minister for Finance in a matter of minutes.

7. The appointments to DISER, the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Home Affairs are in a different category to the appointments to the Departments of Health and Finance. These appointments had little if any connection to the pandemic. Rather, Mr Morrison was appointed to administer these departments to give himself the capacity to exercise particular statutory powers. In addition to these three departments, the Prime Minister’s Office (“PMO”) also instructed PM&C to prepare a brief for his appointment to administer the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (“DAWE”). Subsequently, Mr Morrison decided not to proceed with the appointment to administer DAWE.

8. Mr Morrison only exercised a statutory power that he enjoyed by reason of the appointments on one occasion. This was the decision to refuse the applications concerning Petroleum Export Permit 11 (known as PEP-11). Mr Morrison had himself appointed to administer DISER to enable him to decide the PEP-11 applications. In relation to the other two appointments, Mr Morrison, through his legal representative, informed me that he “considered it necessary, in the national interest, to lawfully ensure that there would be no gap in the exercise of [powers related to ongoing matters of national security] if required, so as to guarantee the continuity and effective operation of Government”. This concern is not easy to understand. There were ministers, other than the then Treasurer and Minister for Home Affairs, who were appointed to administer those departments. In the event either senior minister were unavailable, there would be no “gap” in the exercise of their ministerial powers. And, as noted, Mr Morrison could readily have been appointed as acting Minister for Home Affairs or acting Treasurer in the event that either Minister was incapacitated.

9. The then Secretary of PM&C, Mr Phil Gaetjens, viewed the appointments to the Departments of Health and Finance as an appropriate safeguard should Mr Hunt or Mr Cormann have become incapacitated. In relation to the other three appointments, the covering briefs prepared by PM&C noted that it was “somewhat unusual” for the Prime Minister to be appointed to administer a department other than PM&C. In relation to the appointment to administer DISER, Mr Gaetjens considered that Mr Morrison had been made aware of the risk of successful legal challenge, in light of his public statements, before he determined the PEP-11 applications. Mr Gaetjens did not seek to speak with Mr Morrison and to advise him in stronger terms than those used in the brief against being appointed to administer DISER in order to make the PEP-11 decision.

10. The proposal to appoint Mr Morrison to administer the Department of Health was known to some senior ministers (including Mr Hunt), as well as some senior public servants (including the then Chief Medical Officer and the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs). The appointment was not disclosed to the Department of Health. The fact of the appointments to administer the Departments of Finance, the Treasury and Home Affairs was not disclosed to anyone other than some members of the PMO and officers in PM&C involved in arranging the appointments. In particular, the appointments were not disclosed to the other ministers appointed to administer those departments or the departments themselves. The former Minister for Resources, the Hon Keith Pitt MP, learned of the appointment to administer DISER on 21 April 2021, however it was not until December 2021 that DISER itself was formally advised of the appointment.

11. In a public statement delivered on 17 August 2022, Mr Morrison justified the secrecy surrounding the appointments on two grounds. In relation to the failure to inform his ministers, Mr Morrison said that he “did not wish Ministers to be second guessing themselves or for there to be the appearance [of] a right of appeal or any diminishing of their authority to exercise their responsibilities”. In relation to the failure to inform the public, Mr Morrison said that “these were emergency, effectively reserve powers”, and there was a risk that the disclosure of the appointments “could be misinterpreted and misunderstood”.

12. However, in the context of my Inquiry, Mr Morrison informed me, again through his legal representative, that “neither [he] nor his office instructed PM&C not to gazette the appointments”, and that he “assumed the usual practice would apply following the relevant Ministerial appointments”. He subsequently explained that he understood the “usual practice” to be that the appointments would be gazetted. This understanding was not consistent with what I was told by PM&C, which is that the announcement of ministerial appointments is the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

13. It is difficult to reconcile Mr Morrison’s choice not to inform his ministers of the appointments out of his wish not to be thought to be second guessing them, with his belief that the appointments had been notified in the Commonwealth Gazette (the “Gazette”). While few members of the public may read the Gazette, any idea that the gazettal of the Prime Minister’s appointment to administer the Treasury (or any of the other appointments) would not be picked up and quickly circulated within the public service and the Parliament strikes me as improbable in the extreme. One might have expected Mr Morrison to inform the affected ministers of the appointments had it been his belief at the time that they were being notified in the Gazette. Finally, there is the circumstance that Mr Morrison was repeatedly pressed at his press conference on 17 August 2022 about his failure not only to inform his ministers but also to inform the public of the appointments. The omission to state that he had acted at all times on the assumption that each appointment had been notified to the public in the Gazette is striking.

14. While it is troubling that by the time of the 2021 appointments, Mr Gaetjens did not take up the issue of the secrecy surrounding them with Mr Morrison and firmly argue for their disclosure, the responsibility for that secrecy must reside with Mr Morrison.

15. Each of the appointments was made by the Governor-General acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, consistently with well settled constitutional convention. Some commentators argued that the Governor-General should have warned Mr Morrison that the appointments were unorthodox and encouraged him to make them public. I consider the criticism of the Governor-General to be unwarranted. Until recently, it was not the practice for Government House to arrange for notification in the Gazette of the appointment of an existing minister to administer a department of State when the appointment was made “on the papers” and not in association with a public swearing-in ceremony.

Implications of the appointments

16. Given the appointments were not disclosed to the Parliament or to the public, and that Mr Morrison did not exercise any of the powers he enjoyed by reason of his appointments apart from making the PEP-11 decision, the implications of the appointments are limited.

17. Mr Morrison does not appear to have attached any significance to the fact that, from the time of its making, each appointment operated in law to charge him with responsibility for the administration of the whole department. There was no delineation of responsibilities between Mr Morrison and the other minister or ministers appointed to administer the department. In the absence of such delineation, there was a risk of conflict had Mr Morrison decided to exercise a statutory power inconsistently with the exercise of the power by another minister administering the department. The 2021 appointments were not taken with a view to Mr Morrison having any active part in the administration of the department but rather to give Mr Morrison the capacity to exercise particular statutory power should the minister charged with responsibility for the exercise of that power propose to do so in a manner with which Mr Morrison disagreed, or fail to make a decision that Mr Morrison wanted to be made. In terms of the functioning of the departments this was as Dr Gordon de Brouwer PSM, Secretary for Public Sector Reform, observes “extremely irregular”.

18. As long as the appointments remained secret and Mr Morrison elected not to exercise his powers as the minister administering a department, it is not apparent that there was any impact on the structure of the ministry. Nevertheless, recourse to being appointed to administer multiple departments seems an exorbitant means of addressing Mr Morrison’s concern about his ministers’ exercise of statutory power in cases that were not subject to Cabinet oversight. Ultimately, he had the power to dismiss a minister if he considered the minister might exercise a power in a way that he, Mr Morrison, considered not to be conducive to the national interest.

19. Given that the Parliament was not informed of any of the appointments, it was unable to hold Mr Morrison to account in his capacity as minister administering any of these five departments. As the Solicitor-General concluded, the principles of responsible government were “fundamentally undermined” because Mr Morrison was not “responsible” to the Parliament, and through the Parliament to the electors, for the departments he was appointed to administer.

20. Finally, the lack of disclosure of the appointments to the public was apt to undermine public confidence in government. Once the appointments became known, the secrecy with which they had been surrounded was corrosive of trust in government.

Process of appointments under sections 64 and 65 of the Constitution

21. Appointments of ministers to administer departments of State under section 64 of the Constitution, and directions that a minister hold a particular office under section 65 of the Constitution, are made by the Governor-General on the advice of the Prime Minister.

22. Since Federation, Government House has arranged for notification in the Gazette of the names of the ministers who have been “sworn in” as members of a ministry at a public ceremony. In recent years, the notification in the Gazette has included the name of the minister and the office the minister has been directed to hold. While the office may serve to indicate the department the minister has been appointed to administer, the fact of the appointment to administer a department of State has not formed part of the notice. Following the “swearing in” ceremony, the Prime Minister will often issue a media release containing the names and offices of the ministers.

23. In some cases, where an existing minister is to be appointed to administer an additional department of State, the appointment will be made “on the papers”. Publication of the appointment in such cases is dependent on the issue of a media release by the Prime Minister.

24. Following the disclosure of Mr Morrison’s appointment to administer additional departments of State, at the direction of the Prime Minister, PM&C and the Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General have agreed on a new protocol for the publication in the Gazette of all ministerial appointments and directions to hold office.

[my yellow and orange highlighting]

List of Recommendations

Recommendation 1

Legislation should be enacted to require publication in the Commonwealth Gazette or in a notifiable instrument registered on the Federal Register of Legislation as soon as reasonably practicable following the fact of:

i. the swearing of an Executive Councillor under section 62 of the Constitution;

ii. the appointment of an officer to administer a department of State under section 64 of the Constitution;

iii. the direction to a Minister of State to hold an office under section 65 of the Constitution; and

iv. the revocation of membership of the Federal Executive Council, an appointment to administer a department, and a direction to hold an office, when effected by an instrument executed by the Governor-General.

The notice or notifiable instrument should include the name of the person and the date that he or she was sworn, appointed and/or directed, or the date that such membership, appointment and/or direction was revoked. It may also be convenient for a copy of the instrument to be included in the notification.

Recommendation 2

The authorisation of an acting minister for a period of two weeks or more should be published as soon as reasonably practicable in the Commonwealth Gazette or in a notifiable instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation.

Recommendation 3

A list of all acting arrangements should be published periodically on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's or each department's website.

Recommendation 4

A document identifying:

i. the ministers appointed to administer each department of State;

ii. the offices the ministers are directed to hold; and

iii.in the case of two or more ministers administering the one department, an outline of the division of responsibilities between the ministers

should be published on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet's website.

Recommendation 5

A website concerning ministerial appointments should be established which contains explanatory materials and current and past records to enable the public to readily ascertain which minister is responsible for which particular matters.

Recommendation 6

All departments should publish a list of the ministers appointed to administer them on their website, and include in their annual report the name of all ministers appointed to administer the department in the reporting period.

Note:

** tinpot dictator - term of contempt -  an autocratic ruler with little political credibility, typically having delusions of grandeur. [Wiktionary, May 2016]

CSIRO-BOM State of the Climate 2022 report and what it says about the World, Australia & the NSW Coastal Zone

“There are no surprises here and the story hasn’t changed. It’s happening, it’s serious and we need to do something about it.” [CSIRO Ocean & Atmosphere Business Unit, Research Director at Climate Science Centre, Dr. Jaclyn Brown, The Guardian, 23 November 2022]

Yes, the story hasn't changed. However, the details are becoming clearer as to how, when and to what degree there will be disruption to Australian society, the national economy and food security — along with increasing risks to the health, safety and well being of the entire population — before national collapse occurs.

Once every two years the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in partnership with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) produce a State of the Climate report.

The current 2022 report is the seventh report in the series. Previous reports can be found here.

The key points in State of the Climate 2022 are as follows:

Australia

• Australia’s climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 ± 0.24 °C since national records began in 1910.

• Sea surface temperatures have increased by an average of 1.05 °C since 1900. This has led to an increase in the frequency of extreme heat events over land and sea.

• There has been a decline of around 15 per cent in April to October rainfall in the southwest of Australia since 1970. Across the same region, May to July rainfall has seen the largest decrease, by around 19 per cent since 1970.

• In the south-east of Australia, there has been a decrease of around 10 per cent in April to October rainfall since the late 1990s.

• There has been a decrease in streamflow at most gauges across 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 a longer fire season, across large parts of the country since the 1950s.

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

• Snow depth, snow cover and number of snow days have decreased in alpine regions since the late 1950s.

• Oceans around Australia are acidifying and have warmed by more than 1 °C since 1900, 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.

Global

• Concentrations of all the major long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to increase, with global annual mean carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations reaching 414.4 parts per million (ppm) in 2021 and the CO2 equivalent (CO2-e) of all greenhouse gases reaching 516 ppm. These are the highest levels on Earth in at least two million years.

• The decline in global fossil fuel emissions of CO2 in 2020 associated with the COVID-19 pandemic will have a negligible impact on climate change. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise, and fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the principal driver of this growth, were back to near pre-pandemic levels in 2021.

• The rate of accumulation of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (both greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere increased considerably during 2020 and 2021.

• Globally averaged air temperature at the Earth’s surface has warmed by over 1 °C since reliable records began in 1850. Each decade since 1980 has been warmer than the last, with 2011–20 being around 0.2 °C warmer than 2001–10.

• The world’s oceans, especially in the Southern Hemisphere, have taken up 91 per cent of the extra energy stored by the planet (as heat) as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.

• More than half of all CO2 emissions from human activities are absorbed by land and ocean sinks, which act to slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.

• Global mean sea levels have risen by around 25 cm since 1880 and continue to rise at an accelerating rate.

Future

In the coming decades, Australia will experience ongoing changes to its weather and climate. Australia is projected to experience:

• Continued increase in air temperatures, more heat extremes and fewer cold extremes.

• Continued decrease, on average, in cool season rainfall across many regions of southern and eastern Australia, which will likely lead to more time in drought, but with ongoing climate variability that will give rise to short-duration heavy-rainfall events at a range of timescales.

• Continued increase in the number of dangerous fire weather days and a longer fire season for southern and eastern Australia.

• Further sea level rise and continued warming and acidification of the oceans around Australia.

• Increased and longer-lasting marine heatwaves that will affect marine environments, such as kelp forests, and increase the likelihood of more frequent and severe bleaching events in coral reefs around Australia, including the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef.

• Fewer tropical cyclones, but a greater proportion is projected to be of high intensity, with large variations from year to year.

• Reduced average snow depth in alpine regions, but with variations from year to year.

On a more local level for many North Coast Voices readers........

KEY MESSAGES FOR THE NSW COASTAL ZONE IN 2030     (8 years into the future)

• Average temperatures will continue to increase in all seasons (very high confidence).

• More hot days and warm spells are projected with very high confidence. Fewer frosts are projected with high confidence.

• Decreases in winter rainfall are projected with medium confidence. Other changes are possible but unclear.

• Increased intensity of extreme rainfall events is projected, with high confidence.

• Mean sea level will continue to rise and height of extreme sea-level events will also increase (very high confidence).

• A harsher fire-weather climate in the future (high confidence).

• On annual and decadal basis, natural variability in the climate system can act to either mask or enhance any long-term human induced trend, particularly in the next 20 years and for rainfall. 

[https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/projections-tools/regional-climate-change-explorer/sub-clusters/]

The full State of the Climate 2022 biennial report can be read and downloaded at:

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/2022/documents/2022-state-of-the-climate-web.pdf. - Presentation Style A

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/state-of-the-climate - Presentation Style B

Turning to the next three months across Australia.......

Australian Bureau of Meteorology

Long-range forecast overview

Issued: 24 November 2022

December to February rainfall is likely (greater than 60% chance) to be above median for the Queensland coast, north coastal and southern New South Wales, all of Victoria, south-eastern South Australia and eastern Tasmania. Below median rainfall is likely for parts of Western Australia.

December to February maximum temperatures are likely (greater than 60% chance) to be warmer than median for Tasmania, and most of northern and western Australia. Below median temperatures are likely for south-eastern parts of Queensland, central and eastern New South Wales, parts of Victoria and the south coast of Western Australia.

December to February minimum temperatures are likely to very likely (greater than 60% to greater than 80% chance) to be warmer than median for most of western, northern and south-east Australia. Below median temperatures are likely for parts of north-east New South Wales.

This wet outlook over northern and eastern Australia is consistent with several climate drivers, including La Niña, a weakened negative Indian Ocean Dipole event, a positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode, and record warm waters around Australia. A Madden–Julian Oscillation pulse is strengthening as it moves into the Western Pacific region, which may also contribute to wetter conditions for parts of north-eastern Australia.

[my yellow highlighting]

Cartoons of the Week

 

Megan Herbert

Mark David

Cathy Wilcox

Meme of the Week

via @RickWatt9

A PERSPECTIVE: The petulant 'child king' Elon Musk

 

Elon Reeve Musk
IMAGE: The Wall Street Journal, 11 July 2022

Tumblr, 22 November 2022:

numberonecatwinner

I was an intern at SpaceX years ago, back it when it was a much smaller company — after Elon got hair plugs, but before his cult of personality was in full swing. I have some insight to offer here.

Back when I was at SpaceX, Elon was basically a child king. He was an important figurehead who provided the company with the money, power, and PR, but he didn’t have the knowledge or (frankly) maturity to handle day-to-day decision making and everyone knew that. He was surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions.

Managing Elon was a huge part of the company culture. Even I, as a lowly intern, would hear people talking about it openly in meetings. People knew how to present ideas in a way that would resonate with him, they knew how to creatively reinterpret (or ignore) his many insane demands, and they even knew how to “stage manage” parts of the physical office space so that it would appeal to Elon.

The funniest example of “stage management” I can remember is this dude on the IT security team. He had a script running in a terminal on one of his monitors that would output random garbage, Matrix-style, so that it always looked like he was doing Important Computer Things to anyone who walked by his desk. Second funniest was all the people I saw playing WoW at their desks after ~5pm, who did it in the office just to give the appearance that they were working late.

People were willing to do that at SpaceX because Elon was giving them the money (and hype) to get into outer space, a mission people cared deeply about. The company also grew with and around Elon. There were layers of management between individual employees and Elon, and those managers were experienced managers of Elon. Again, I cannot stress enough how much of the company culture was oriented around managing this one guy.

Twitter has neither of those things going for it. There is no company culture or internal structure around the problem of managing Elon Musk, and I think for the first time we’re seeing what happens when people actually take that man seriously and at face value. Worse, they’re doing this little experiment after this man has had decades of success at companies that dedicate significant resources to protecting themselves from him, and he’s too narcissistic to realize it. …...

A perspective on one of the serious flaws to be found in the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act

A perspective on one of the serious flaws in the NSW Perrottet Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act which was offered in a last ditch effort to get at least one meaningful amendment to the Bill through the Upper House....

 

NSW Parliament, Legislative Council Hansard, 17 November 2022:

Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:23): I move Independent amendment No. 1 on sheet c2022-241:

No. 1Disaster prevention areas

Page 18, clause 41(2)(c), line 2. Omit "potential". Insert instead "imminent".

The amendment goes to the issue of the extraordinary powers in the bill to override the planning Act in New South Wales. To be really clear for members who may not have taken notice of the extraordinary powers that the bill confers on the planning Minister, the bill entirely switches off the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In fact, there appears to be no limit on the sort of development that could be approved at the stroke of a pen by the Minister. There seems to be no limit on the extent of the proposal, including a proposal that would otherwise be State significant infrastructure requiring very detailed planning and assessment, and there seems to be no limit on where that development could occur in New South Wales.

Under proposed section 68, the planning Minister is authorised to undertake a development without the need for an approval under the Act. This applies under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are my concern. The authorisation may be given "in relation to a declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area". This is a critical point. If you take note of the specifics in the bill, a disaster prevention area could be incredibly broad. There is no requirement for exceptional circumstances. There is no requirement for a disaster to be underway or even likely to be underway in a particular area. If the authority, via the Minister and the Premier, decides that an area is a disaster prevention area, that in and of itself empowers the Minister to authorise the undertaking of a particular development.

In the second reading debate, I raised the example of the Warragamba Dam. I do not for a moment expect that the planning Minister will just authorise the construction of the Warragamba Dam using the provisions of this bill but, to be clear, there is no prevention in the bill. The bill would allow for such a significant development to be undertaken should the Minister, with the concurrence of the Premier, declare the area around the dam to be a disaster prevention area.

Rather than such an extreme example, let us consider a levee around a particular town. Questions around levees are often incredibly controversial. They are raised from time to time and they are highly politicised. Often they must go through extraordinary degrees of community consultation and planning before they are even considered. But, particularly on councils, you will hear some voices arguing strongly for a levee to be increased or a levee to be added. You will hear others warning that there will be incredible downstream impacts as a result that might impact businesses or homes or the environment. I can envisage that these sorts of powers to authorise a development with no restriction could be used to circumvent normal political disputes.

It would be better to resolve the disputes and design such infrastructure, if we were going to proceed with it, in a considered and methodical way using the planning system and all its provisions for consultation in order to go through the potential impacts. But here we have the power to simply declare a disaster prevention area. It is important for people to note just how broad this is. The Minister may make a declaration for such a prevention area if they are satisfied that part of the State is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have had, in the past four years, enough experience to know that any part of New South Wales is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have seen it happen, and we know it is only going to get worse. In my mind, there is no constraint about where this could apply.

The second aspect requires that the authority has recommended making such a declaration. I can envisage that it might arrive at that conclusion because the Minister is satisfied the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community. Not only is it broad in its scope as to where it could apply, the only test is whether the Minister considers that such a development could help prevent or mitigate potential disasters for a community. We have heard the Government make arguments like that for Warragamba Dam. We have heard certain representatives and communities make those sorts of arguments for levees around their towns. We hear those arguments when it comes to clearing of vegetation for fire mitigation, no matter how misguided and not supported by the science that is.

There is a very low test, no threshold, no oversight, no transparency and a very broad remit for an area to be declared a disaster prevention area. Once that is done, the Minister has the power to switch off the New South Wales planning Act entirely and approve a development. That might seem extraordinary, but I have tested it with the Government. The Government has acknowledged that it is true. That is the extent of the powers in the bill, but the Government says, "We don't intend to use it." I would love for the Parliamentary Secretary to clearly put on the record in his response to this amendment that the Government does not intend to use it that way. I agree that the Government would not intend to use it in some of those ways, but I ask this fundamental question: Should emergency powers be used to do preventative work at all? In fact, that is an important consideration. I raised it in my speech to the amendment regarding the climate adaptation plans.

If it is a good idea for the prevention of risk in the instance of a potential disaster, let us do it now. Let us do it in a collaborative and coordinated way. Let us engage the planning system in the way that is intended, which is to raise issues, highlight potential impacts and then mitigate or avoid them where possible. One would expect that that is how it would be done. I have been told by the Government that is not what it intends with disaster prevention areas. The Government described the situation in Lismore with the potential requirement to clear the drains and said that it would have been able to act in advance of that. I do not buy that. There are other provisions in this bill and other elements of the law that would not allow that but, if that is the case, my amendment is clear and simple. Instead of requiring the Minister to be satisfied that the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community, let us omit the word ''potential" and insert instead ''imminent".

There has been sufficient time to understand the potential risks associated with flood and fire impacts in recent years and to give time for an authority, once established, to act at that level to implement projects that could help mitigate risks. But giving it carte blanche with a broad definition "some potential disaster somewhere that it might be likely to directly or indirectly affect", would be open to abuse. This reasonable amendment will bring the bill into line with what the Government says is its intention in the first place. I commend the amendment to the Committee. [my yellow highlighting]

"What has biodiversity ever done for us? Well for a start, it has provided nearly all the oxygen on the planet. Without oxygen, all animals including us, would be dead within minutes."

 

IMAGE: The Young Naturalist Australia

Environmental activist Lauriston Muirhead writing in The Border Mail, 23 November 2022:

Our numbers alone will not protect us

Biodiversity is the diversity of life found in an ecosystem. The more biodiverse, the more balanced and resilient the ecosystem.

A diverse ecosystem is more resistant to shocks and will last longer.

What has biodiversity ever done for us? Well for a start, it has provided nearly all the oxygen on the planet. Without oxygen, all animals including us, would be dead within minutes.

The oxygen was created by cyanobacteria that were able to live in an early atmosphere without oxygen.

Cyanobacteria still work in green plants using the sun's energy to turn the CO2 animals breathe out, back into oxygen (and carbon to help them grow). This is photosynthesis and all life depends on it. Remember, all our food is either plants or animals that ate plants.

The biodiversity of the planet provides all our food, as well as much of our clothing, building materials and erosion protection.

OK, apart from the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and shelter, what did biodiversity ever do for us?

Well, there are the medicines. Where would we be without the willow tree that gave us aspirin or the mould that gave us penicillin.

We can now make many drugs synthetically - but without nature's blueprints, we would not have been able to create these and so many other medicines.

Who knows how many more "cures" exist in the plants and animals of the world?

Our tool-making ability has turned our sticks into bulldozers, our stones into bombs and our boomerangs into bomber aircraft. We have the power to hunt not just one animal but entire species to extinction.

If we think our numbers will protect us, just take the example of the passenger pigeon.

In the 19th century, there were more passenger pigeons than people on the planet. By 1914, they had been hunted to extinction.

We are losing species through direct killing and habitat destruction - now exacerbated by human-induced climate change.

If we keep on playing "species roulette", someday, one of the extinction bullets we pick up might have the name Homo sapiens written on it. We must do more to preserve all species in order to preserve our own.

So go forth, and make the world more biodiverse.

IMAGE: Living Links