Monday, 4 March 2024

North East Forest Alliance & Environmental Defenders Office fight on to protect the continued existence of native forests and the biodivsersity they contain

 

Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), March 2024 Newsletter, 29 February 2024:









Hope for NSW forests: Court decision upholds community’s right to challenge native forest logging


In the shadow of claims made by the NSW Forestry Corporation, communities have been led to believe that they have no rights to challenge decisions about industrial logging in NSW native forests or seek action over unlawful conduct when logging destroys hollow-bearing trees and critical habitat for threatened species.


But two recent court decisions have shattered those claims after EDO’s client successfully ran an argument which hasn’t previously been tested in the courts. After 20 years of resistance by the Forestry Corporation, it is now legally recognised that communities with a special interest have the right to hold the state-owned logging agency to account over its forestry operations in native forests.


NSW forests are remarkable for their diverse ecosystems, unique biodiversity and cultural significance. Encompassing semi-arid woodlands to lush rainforests, these globally recognised forests are home to an extraordinary array of plant and animal life, much of which is unique to the region.


Protecting our forests is one of the most important things we can do to manage climate change, preserve our precious biodiversity and prevent further species extinctions. Yet Forestry Corporation NSW logs around 30,000 hectares of state forest every year. Sadly, many of these forests are logged to be turned into low-value products, such as woodchips, that are exported to make cardboard and toilet paper.


Weak laws failing our forests


NSW Forestry Corporation is the state-owned logging agency that undertakes industrial logging in public native forests, including in nationally important koala habitat and areas that are still recovering from the catastrophic impacts of the 2019-20 Black Summer Bushfires. It is entrusted with managing two million hectares of public forests, yet in the past three years alone, Forestry Corporation has been fined 12 times for illegal logging activities. There are 21 investigations still pending. 1


Forestry Corporation operates under bilateral agreements with the Federal Government, called ‘regional forest agreements’, or RFAs, which allow logging to bypass normal federal environmental scrutiny. No other industry benefits from such an allowance. Under the current system of RFAs, threatened species such as the koala, greater glider and gang-gang cockatoo are being driven to extinction and the ecosystems and landscapes that we depend on are being destroyed at an astounding rate.


For some 20 years, Forestry Corporation has asserted that the community cannot seek to challenge its public native forestry operations. On 20 November 2023, the NSW Land and Environment Court rejected that position.


Court decision confirms community right


The EDO represented the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) in mid-2023 challenging logging approvals in Myrtle and Braemar State Forests. The forests were severely damaged by the ferocious Black Summer Bushfires, which wiped out an estimated 70 per cent of the local koala population.


While NEFA was not ultimately successful, the court confirmed for the first time that the Forestry Act does not prevent persons with a special interest from taking legal action over forestry operations in NSW, including disputing logging approvals.


This is particularly important as NSW laws explicitly attempt to reduce the community’s right to challenge Forestry Corporation conduct regarding industrial native forest logging.


Forestry Corporation also argued that the court cannot judicially review harvest and haul plans because all forestry operations had already been approved by the relevant Ministers in the overarching regulation, the Coastal Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (CIFOA). However, the court again rejected that position and found that such operational plans are open to challenge.


Forest groups fight on after disappointing court decision


Building on the NEFA decision, South East Forest Rescue (SEFR) then took a step further with court action in January 2024. SEFR is seeking an injunction to stop Forestry Corporation from conducting any forestry activities in certain state forests until adequate surveys for greater, yellow-bellied and squirrel gliders have been performed. SEFR is being represented by XD Law.


SEFR argued that Forestry Corporation is breaking the law by not performing adequate surveys for den trees and necessary exclusion zones around den trees are not being implemented. It is the first time in 25 years that the Forestry Corporation has been brought to court by citizens for failure to comply with native forestry regulations, in particular failure to conduct adequate surveys for gliders.


Drawing from the findings in the NEFA decision, her Honour found that persons with a special interest can also seek to enforce the conditions of the CIFOA against Forestry Corporation.


These two decisions mark a significant departure from the status quo of the past 20 years and set important precedent for the community to hold the Forestry Corporation to account over native forest logging.


President of NEFA, Dailan Pugh said regarding NEFAs legal challenge:


While NEFA were disappointed that our legal challenge to the logging of important Koala populations in Braemar and Myrtle State Forests was not successful, it’s promising that the case did establish that NEFA have the civil right to enforce NSW’s logging rules, opening a door to litigation we thought had been shut to us since 1998.”


We thank the EDO for the immense effort they put into this case and creating future opportunities for NEFA, and other groups, to challenge the culture of complacency around logging fostered by lack of public accountability.”


1 Register of Crown forestry investigations (nsw.gov.au)


Sunday, 3 March 2024

On the afternoon of Thursday 29 February 2029 seven Liberal Party members in pursuit of a 'gotcha' moment rose to their feet in what can only be seen as an organised racist dog whistle in the House of Representatives to question the government based on 'facts' they knew to be false

 

On Tuesday, 27 February 2024 a report of a sexual assault in the Richmond area was made to Victoria Police.


That night Victoria Police charged a 43 year-old West Papuan Richmond resident, a former immigration detainee released under a 2023 High Court ruling, with sexual assault.


The next day, Wednesday 28 February, he faced the Melbourne Magistrates' Court sometime in the morning on charges of sexual assault of one woman, stalking and two counts of unlawful assault involving this woman and another in two separate incidents on the same day. He did not apply for bail.


Victoria Police held a press conference in the afternoon of the same day in which Commander Mark Galliot revealed that police had since interviewed another male Richmond resident in relation to the same offences and apologised for arresting and detaining the West Papuan man in a case of mistaken identity. This second man is not a person released from immigration detention under the High Court ruling and, does not appear to be a migrant, refugee or asylum seeker.


Within hours the charged man's case returned to the Magistrates Court where all charges against him were withdrawn due to "misidentification" and he was released.


Regardless of the relatively swift and public resolution of this incident, members of the Coalition Opposition rose in the House of Representatives on the afternoon of the following day Thursday, 29 February and began to ask questions of the Albanese Government along these lines:


Ms LEY (Farrer—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is to the Minister for Immigration,

Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. When was the minister first informed that a serial sex offender that the

Albanese government had released from immigration detention had been charged with sexual assault, stalking and two counts of unlawful assault in Victoria?


Ms McKENZIE (Flinders) (14:08): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. I refer to the minister's previous answer and ask: why did the minister fail to use his powers to seek to redetain this serial sex offender and protect these two Victorian women?


Mr FLETCHER (Bradfield—Manager of Opposition Business) (14:22): My question is to the Minister for

Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Out of the 149 hardcore criminals released by the Albanese

government, how many rapists and sex offenders, apart from the one who has just been charged with sexual assault, remain at large in the community?


Mr CALDWELL (Fadden) (14:30): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. On 13 February the minister assured the House that all 149 of the hardcore criminals the Albanese government released were being continuously monitored. Was this serial sex offender being continuously monitored at the time he is alleged to have sexually assaulted and stalked two women in Victoria?


Mr SUKKAR (Deakin) (14:41): My question is to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. When did the minister inform the Prime Minister that this serial sex offender had committed new crimes against the Victorian community?


Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Leader of the Opposition) (14:52): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime

Minister, the immigration minister is a disaster. His decisions have put Australians at risk—

Government members interjecting—

Mr DUTTON: My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, the immigration minister is a disaster. His

decisions have put Australians at risk, and women in Victoria are alleged to have been sexually assaulted. A hundred and forty-nine hardcore criminals—

Ms Thwaites interjecting— ......

Mr DUTTON: A hundred and forty-nine hardcore criminals have been released into the community. The minister has not taken a single application to redetain one of these criminals, and now more Australians are being harmed, with the likely risk extending to many more Australians. When will you show leadership, stop being so weak and sack this minister?


The Prime Minister's response.


Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Prime Minister) (14:53): 'We are not in a position to defy an order of the High Court, and no-one is suggesting that they should do that.' Not my words—the words of Senator Paterson. 'Under the Constitution, you can't detain someone indefinitely. We accept that.' Not my words—the words of the Leader of the Opposition. 'The High Court made the decision. We respect that decision.' Not my words—the words of the shadow minister for immigration. I'll tell you what's not strong. I'll tell you what strength is not. Strength is not asking for responses that would endanger judicial processes. That is not strong. There is no strength whatsoever in that. What is appalling is that the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that that is the case because he has been in that position, including when he was responsible for the legislation which our legislation was based upon. It was his legislation that he presided over, and he knows that that is the case.

[House of Representatives, Hansard, 29 February 2024, pp. 19, 22, 23, 25, 27]


There is little chance in light of the scant two days until the Saturday 2 March Dunkley federal by-election in Victoria that these Coalition MPs - especially Ms. McKenzie and Mr. Sukkar - were not aware of the details of the case of mistaken identity by the afternoon of Wednesday, 29 February 2024. After all, Victoria Police calling a televised press conference 24 hours earlier to essentially admit a wrongful arrest was a notable event.


It appears Ms. Ley was so determined to poison the Dunkley by-election well that she sent this tweet 1:03 hours before she asked her question in the House.



Once the mainstream media began to pick up on these misleading statements being made under parliamentary privilege and on social media, Leader of the Opposition & Liberal MP for Dickson, Peter Dutton, was quick to further mislead and infer the Minister for Immigration was to blame. Presumably for not immediately alerting them to the fact that they were about to accuse the wrong person of sexual assault. 'How were we to know?'


However, despite such a juvenile excuse in front of the camera, the fact remains that in the House and elsewhere this was deceitful politicking and racist dog whistling at its worst.


By the evening of Thursday, 29 February Victoria Police had publicly released details of the second man who was identified as a person of interest for the same offences on Wednesday 28 February 2024.


Finally, two days later at approx. 9pm on Saturday, 2 March, three hours after the polls closed, the Dunkley federal by-election was called for Labor by Antony Green and the Liberal candidate publicly conceded.


So the Coalition's sordid attempt at political theatre had missed its mark.



Saturday, 2 March 2024

COUNTING THE VOTES: Dunkley federal by-election today, Saturday 2 March 2024 - time to watch for the AEC virtual tally room to come online around 6pm tonight


Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)  Virtual Tally Room link:


https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/HouseDivisionPage-29778-210.htm


ABC News 24 Live Stream - live coverage Dunkley by-election

https://iview.abc.net.au/show/abc-news-24


Anthony Green ABC's chief election analyst:


X/Twitter

@AntonyGreenElec


Dunkley By-election 2024 Results at



UPDATE:


9pm by-election called for Labor. 

Liberal candidate concedes.


Quote of the Week

 


"Full of shit and full of himself, Scooter has left the building. His greatest contribution to Australian governance is his departure from it."

["Grumpy Geezer" writing about Scott Morrison's final departure from federal parliament 21 months after he led his government to defeat in May 2022 general election, The Australian Independent Media Network 28.02.24]


Video of the Week



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoSYO3fApEc&t=231s


Official video for WELI “Kangaroo Time (Club Edit)” made for the 2024 'Dance Your PhD' Thesis Contest.

Four-minute video features drag queens, twerking, ballerinas, a classical Indian dancer and a bunch of friends from Canberra.

Overall competition winner.

 

Tweet of the Week

 

 

Friday, 1 March 2024

Only two of the seven local government councils in the NSW Northern Rivers regions have made a genuine effort to divest themselves of fossil fuel industry investments

 

ECHO, 28 February 2024:



Byron Shire Council investments in fossil fuel projects as of Jan 2024 PIC Byron Shire Council


Byron Shire Council investments in projects linked to fossil fuel production decreased significantly after the NSW Treasury Corporation (TCorp) relaxed rules last year.


Investment reports included in last week’s agenda for the council’s ordinary monthly meeting showed the council had 56% of its investment funds lodged with fossil fuel aligned projects by the end of January 2024.


The figure was a decrease compared to 71% at the end of December 2023 and 85% at the end of the 2022-2023 financial year.


Staff credited the removal of a state covenant requiring local governments to invest TCorp loans mostly in institutions with A+ credit ratings or stronger.


Institutions offering investments in the ‘ethical’ area still mainly had lower credit ratings of BBB, or weren’t rated at all, staff said, citing credit unions as an example.


Staff noted the council’s diversified approach to investment was aimed at achieving short, medium, and long-term results.


Investment was regulated by TCorp, which until late last year effectively forced NSW local governments to bank at least a quarter of their low interest TCorp loans in A rated institutions or higher.


The council wasn’t allowed at the time to invest any more than 40% of the loans in A- rated institutions, 30% in BBB+ rated institutions and 5% in institutions rated BBB- and below.


Credit ratings allowed ranged from BBB- and below, or not rated, to AAA, with councils also encouraged to invest in TCorp itself.


End of financial year 2022-2023 figures from the council showed of nearly $65 million invested at the time, 85% was helping support fossil fuel aligned projects via various bonds, term deposits and other accounts..... [my yellow highlighting]


Read the full article here.


At the end of the 2022-23 financial year Richmond Valley Council had a cash held in banks & investment portfolio of $90.668 million. Of which $48.087 million or 53 per cent of the total was invested with financial institutions which do not invest in or finance the fossil fuel industry.


As of 30 June 2023 Clarence Valley Council investment portfolio stood at $156.357 million. 

Of which only $12 million is invested with financial institutions which do not invest in or finance the fossil fuel industry. Representing a paltry 7.67 per cent of council's investments. 

At the ordinary monthly meeting of 25 July 2023 all nine councillors voted to simply note Clarence Valley Council's investment position. Which appears to indicate that this local government is not overly interested in living up to rhetoric expressed in the past.


On 30 June 2023 Ballina Shire Council's investment portfolio stood at $104.300 million, of which only $8 million or 7.67 per cent was invested with financial institutions which do not invest in or finance the fossil fuel industry. As councillors there also voted to note the report without comment, there is no indication that council will be increasing its green investments anytime soon.


Tweed Shire Council valued its investment portfolio at $431.958 as at 30 June 2023. None of the investments listed were identified as being invested with financial institutions which do not invest in or finance the fossil fuel industry.


Lismore City Council listed the face value of its investment portfolio as $133.719 million. Council also had approximately $1.9 million held in various bank accounts which were deemed as transactional accounts and are not included in the investment portfolio. Council takes care to note that it holds no funds in fossil free investments or 0 per cent.


Finally, Kyogle Council published its 2022-23 financial statement in December 2023 and did not identify investments as a single line item, so nothing was to be gleaned as to what if any money it had invested with financial institutions which do not invest in or finance the fossil fuel industry.