Queensland infrastructure fantasist to hold "summit" on turning the Clarence River estuary into a coal & bauxite loading port

On 2 June 2016 Desmond John Thomas Euen will be holding a “summit” at the Returned Servicemen's Memorial Club in Casino NSW.

This A “Key” Nation Building Infrastructure Plan Summit holds the promise of containing more spin than the federal election campaign.

Readers may recall Mr. Euen (seen left) as that almost compulsive creator of shelf companies - Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd (created 31.08.12), Y.P.R (AUST) Pty Ltd (created 13.03.14), A.I.D (HK) LTD (possibly created in 2015), and N.S.W. Export Logistics Pty Ltd (created 17.03.16) – and the man who wants to turn NSW Far North Coast fishing port and popular holiday destination, Yamba, into a coal port.

Euen appears to have sent out many invitations to attend and has listed the following invitees on various websites:

Local Yagel & Bundjalung Land Council Representatives

Supply Nation (Indigenous Business Development)

Mr Lester Rogers (General Manager of Moree Shire Plains Council)

Tamworth Mayor Mr Col Murray

Mayor Richie Williamson (Clarence Valley Council)

Regional Development Australia RDANI

Regional Development Australia (Mid North Coast NSW)

Liverpool Council South Western Sydney

Australian Rail Association

Australian Industry Group

Riverina Inland Rail Alliance Group.

He has also listed a changing kaleidoscope of presenters/keynote speakers.

Starting with:

[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pihba-eW1hwJ:https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/announcement-create-new-policy-government-des-euen+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au, accessed 21 May 2016]

Which changed to this:

[http://www.aid-australia.com.au/?s=summit, accessed 21 May 2016]

Des Euen’s grand plans get little media coverage in the Northern Rivers and what it does must give this Queensland fantasist little comfort.

This is an example of the Clarence Valley’s enthusiasm for a coal loading facility in the Clarence River estuary, published on the front page of The Daily Examiner on 27 May 2014:

GRAND PLAN OR HOT AIR Businessman's Yamba port plans met with scepticism: Port transport proposal met with scepticism

The idea of establishing the Port of Yamba as the centre of a massive transport hub on the northern NSW coast has surfaced again.

The proposal, labelled the YPR Project, is the brainchild of Desmond John Thomas Euen, the managing director of the $1, one share company Australian Infrastructure Developments.

It aims to create a transport network linking the coalfields in the north-west of the state to an international port in Yamba, all funded by private equity.

The YPR website claims it will be ready to make a big announcement next month.

"YPR (AUST) Pty Ltd is currently in dialog with the relevant departments of both the NSW and Federal Government."

"THE company expects to be in position to submit development plans and financial endorsements by June 2014," it read.

The news has sparked alarm in the conservation movement, with Lock the Gate activists promising to fight any attempts to set up infrastructure for a massive port in the Clarence River estuary.

But an expert in the field believes the "common sense test" rules it out.

Harwood Marine managing director Ross Roberts said he had been following Mr Euen's plans but had spotted some major flaws.

"Anyone can come up with big ideas and put them forward," he said. "But when they do, they have to pass the common sense test.

"The first thing you ask is: who is going to pay for it and then why would you want to do it?"

Mr Roberts said the current economy was contracting, so finding people willing to stump up the amount of money required would be hard.

"The other question is why?" he said. "In 1990 there were 22 ships operating out of the port, now there are none. That has to tell you something."

Mr Roberts, who does marine industry business around the world, said the Clarence estuary contained 100 islands and nowhere on the planet had he seen an attempt to create a huge port in such an area.

"Dealing with floods would be the first worry," he said. "Do they build up all the islands by a metre? Then where does that water go in flood?"

Mr Euen claims to be in talks with Federal and NSW government departments, but these claims seem exaggerated.

Last year Mr Euen met with a senior policy adviser from the office of Duncan Gay, the NSW Minister for Roads and Ports.

The minister's office said a senior staff member met with Mr Euen, who signalled an intention to submit a proposal, but did not receive the ministry's in-principal support.

The Daily Examiner contacted Mr Euen, who said he would be happy to outline the plans at "a mutually convenient time".

A sample of unfavourable comments left under the online article:

Fedup - Junction Hill

NO,NO,NO. In my opinion if this was to go ahead Yamba would be ruined. Maybe Mr Euen should look at why vessels have left the port. It would not have anything to do with siltation would it? Just take a look at what has happened in QLD with their coal loader and the subsequent pollution of the Great Barrier Reef. Who has the money to build this or is he in discussions with the Chinese who are after the CSG and anything else they can get their hands on.

yambaman - Yamba 

Hmm, fantasy indeed, the day this is approved is the day I blow up Oyster Channel bridge!

BigUglyWaz - Waterview Heights

Does anyone really think this is something more than a dream?

Have a look at the YPR website, google a few things and tell me you can see any of this happening, forget the cost involved, and the environmental destruction.

Port of Yamba Depths. "Shipping channel depths are maintained at 4.0 metres"

"..... the deepening of the Suez Canal from 18 m (60ft) to 20 m (66ft) in 2009 permits most capesize vessels to pass through it."

Capesize bulk carriers. "Due to their large dimensions and deep draughts, capesize ships are suitable to serve only large ports with deep water terminals in the world. As a result, they can serve a comparatively small number of ports in the world."

Probably going to need a little dredging to get those to carriers into the Clarence.

Maybe Clive can get onto this, something to spend his billions on after he finishes the Titanic II?

EmmaB – Yamba

Has anyone looked closer at this crazy plan? It can be found at http://www.ypraust.com.au/project-1-p....

Mr. Euen is expecting that ships of Post-Panamax and Capesize will come into his proposed port.

Post-Panamax ships are larger than 294,13 m (965 ft) long, 32,31 m (106 ft) wide and have draughts in excess of 12,04 m (39.5 ft).

Capesize ships are very large and ultra large cargo vessels with a capacity over 150,000 DWT. They are categorised under VLCC,ULCC, VLOC and ULOC and can be as large as 400,000 DWT or even more. They serve regions with largest deepwater terminals in the world and are primarily used for transporting coal and iron ore. Because of their giant size, they are suitable to serve only a small number of ports with deepwater terminals.

See: http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/sh...

grippy - Yamba

Just remembered you have the sacred Aboriginal reef at Yambas mouth.
Who will blow that up?

JohnHancocks – Maclean

I won't be parting with any of my savings for such a scheme - nor would I advise anyone else to contribute a cent toward anything connected to it.

Not that Mr. Euen doesn’t have a gift for convincing the gullible, as this excerpt from a Queensland Bauxite Limited 4 March 2016 announcement demonstrates:

[http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160304/pdf/435lqnp45v0yyd.pdf]

I wonder if Queensland Bauxite can hear the laughter coming from south of the QLD-NSW border?

For readers who have never sighted Des Euan's unrealistic and ever expanding grand plan for Goodwood, Chatsworth and Palmers islands, as well as for lands on the Iluka side of the Clarence River estuary and the Mororo district, here it is all neatly laid out:

http://www.aid-australia.com.au/project-1/

UPDATE

Facebook Clarence Forum:

John Hagger 

I am told that the plan includes:

The removal of the existing breakwater to open up the river and

Incorporating Chatsworth, Harwood and Gilbert Islands into the Port complex

The apparent goal is to become the biggest Port in Australia.

The claims include:

25% Australian Infrastructure Development shareholding by 1st Nations groups.

Current guarantee of 51.2 Billion Dollars funding.

The support of Clarence Valley Council and other Councils.

That Clarence Valley Council was represented at a recent joint Council meeting in Namoi and voted in favour of the proposal.

Three (3) letters of support from Mayor Richard on CVC letterhead.

Des Euen has promised to send copies of the above claims.

He has also promised that the Port would not be used for Coal or Gas.

To date none of the promised papers have arrived.

21 May at 13:31

Letter from Clarence Valley Council Mayor Richie Williamson to John Hagger posted on Clarence Forum 24 May 2016:

“Dear Mr. Hagger,

Thank you for your email regarding the Australian Infrastructure Development (AID) letter of support and whether it was signed by me.

It seems the letter (which was signed by me in 2011) is being used to grossly misrepresent the truth as the letter is about a different proposal all together. I also draw your attention to the top of the letter, dated 11/2/2011, which thanks Mr Euen for presenting his proposal, which was “The Trans Seaport Eastern Integrated Land Proposal” my recall was that this proposal was about transporting containers via the road network to and from the Port of Yamba from Port Kembla and Brisbane, hence the reference to the Pacific Highway upgrade and other road transport businesses that council had worked with in the past. The letter does not support this proposal, but the larger “transport hub” idea that I know you have also supported in the past.

The letter is in no way supporting the current AID proposal around rail from inland NSW to the Port of Yamba. Any claim by AID of my support is strongly rejected by me; in fact, I have been completely opposed to the rail proposal from the first time I heard of it.

Please see the links below as an example;

http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/…/plans-railway-ar…/1294404/

I stress Council has given no written letter of support to the present AID proposal and would be, in my view, highly unlikely to provide such a letter.

I also note the claim that; “I and/or a council officer attended a meeting recently in the Namoi district regarding the current AID proposal” is completely untrue and false.

I hope this clarifies this matter.

Richie"

The original list of invitees to the Euen “summit” posted at Linked in, courtesy of Google Cache on 11 May 2016:

Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce MP

The Hon Darren Chester MP the Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Development

Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten MP

The Hon Anthony Albanese MP Shadow Minister for Transport and Infrastructure

 [ this would be an opportune time for both parties to show bipartisan support for private enterprise funded regional and nation building infrastructure development]

Premier of NSW The Hon Mike Baird MP and/or NSW Deputy Premier

NSW Minister for Regional Development and Infrastructure Andrew Constance MP

NSW Trade and Investment

Transport for NSW

INNSW

IA (Infrastructure Australia)

ACTU President Ged Kearney

National Farmers Federation

NSW Farmers Association

Qld Farmers Association

Victorian Farmers Association

Riverina Inland Rail Alliance Group

Namoi Cotton Farmers and other Regional Industry peak bodies as they come to hand.

Baird Government continues to betray healthy biodiversity in rural and regional New South Wales

It would appear that there will be barely a protection left to recognised biodiverse regions in New South Wales such as the Northern Rivers once the blinkered Baird Coalition Government has its way…….

EDO NSW (Environmental Defender’s Office), 3 May 2016:

Our top 10 concerns with the draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016 and Local Land Services Amendment Bill

The NSW Government’s proposed biodiversity legislative and policy package removes many of NSW’s long-held environmental protections, and represents a serious backward step for environmental law and policy in New South Wales. Here are EDO NSW's top 10 concerns with the draft Biodiversity Conservation Bill 2016 and Local Land Services Amendment Bill.

1. Repeal of the Native Vegetation Act and environmental standards that go with it

The Local Land Services Amendment Bill replaces the Native Vegetation Act and its world class Environmental Outcomes Assessment Methodology (EOAM) with self-assessable Codes, exemptions and discretionary clearing. There are no clear environmental baselines, aims or targets. There is no ban on broadscale clearing, no mandatory soil, water and salinity assessment, and no ‘maintain-or-improve’ standard to ensure environmental outcomes – either at the site scale or at the landscape scale. Provisions are less stringent, less evidence-based, less accountable, and are likely to result in significant clearing increases in NSW.

2. Heavy reliance on flexible and indirect biodiversity offsets

The proposed scheme is heavily reliant on ‘offsetting’ biodiversity impacts (by managing other areas for biodiversity) rather than preventing the impacts, and adopts the standards of the problematic Major Projects Offsets Policy. The Biodiversity Assessment Methodology (BAM) is therefore significantly weakened, for example, direct ‘like-for-like’ offsetting requirements are relaxed and can be circumvented. The option to pay money in lieu of an actual offset will result in net loss of certain threatened species and communities. Offset areas and set asides may be further offset later on rather than actually protected in perpetuity.

3. Conservation gains aren’t guaranteed in law, but dependent on funding decisions

The proposed regime places almost complete reliance on political, budgetary decisions (which may be short-term) to achieve biodiversity gains, rather than on protections in the Bill to prevent continued biodiversity decline. We strongly support incentives and stewardship payments to rural landholders to conserve and protect environmental values, but funding must be supported by rules and targets that stop valuable biodiversity being cleared in both rural and urban areas.

4. Uncertainty and discretion

While great reliance is placed on a ‘single scientific method’ to inform land-clearing decisions, there is discretion as to whether a consent authority actually has to apply the results. Offset requirements may be discounted based on other subjective considerations. There is even some discretion around “red lights”, i.e., where clearing and development could cause serious and irreversible biodiversity loss. SEPPs, Regulations and variation certificates provide for unnecessary exemptions from standard pathways. This will create uncertainty and loopholes instead of clarity and consistency.

5. Public participation is not mandatory

Decisions and instruments are not invalid even if consultation processes aren’t followed. Public consultation may be based on summary documents, and issues raised in submission may be ‘summarised’ by proponents instead of directly considered by decision-makers. The proposed public register provisions are far less detailed (for example, in terms of providing information about vegetation clearing and set asides).

6. Administration of a complex regime

The logic of repealing three and a half Acts to create one coherent Act and scheme is actually resulting in a carving up of responsibilities into the Local Land Services Act, Environmental Planning & Assessment Act, the new Biodiversity Conservation Act – and associated regulations, SEPPs and Codes. The NSW Government is departing from a key recommendation of the Independent Biodiversity legislation Review Panel – i.e., that land clearing involving a change of use should be assessed under planning laws – and is instead, handing the vast majority of clearing approvals to the Local Land Services which currently do not have the resources or expertise to carry out these functions. Furthermore, how the legislation will be applied will depend on future mapping, which is likely to be problematic and highly contested.

7. Contradictory legislation

On one hand, the Biodiversity Conservation Bill carries over provisions of our current threatened species laws (like listing threatened species and ecological communities by a scientific committee), while at the same time theLocal Land Services Bill will increase known threats to those species. The Bills fail to tackle the conflict between reducing the impact of listed key threatening processes to biodiversity, and permitting more land clearing via self-assessed Codes and discretionary development applications. For example, the Biodiversity Conservation Billlists “loss of hollow bearing trees” as a key threatening process, while at the same time, the Local Land Services Bill allows clearing of paddock trees without approval.

8. Lower environmental standards for ‘Biocertification’ at the landscape scale

The revised Biocertification scheme for large areas of land removes the requirement to ‘maintain or improve environmental outcomes’. Instead, it applies the BAM and imposes a broad discretion to impose conditions. It replaces the current positive test with a negative one - to avoid ‘serious and irreversible’ environmental outcomes as a result of biocertification. Removing the current test contradicts the Bill’s aim to conserve biodiversity and ecological integrity at regional and State scales.

9. Uncertain compliance, enforcement, monitoring and reporting

The NSW Government has been unable to estimate how much landclearing will occur under the new relaxed system – in particular, how much clearing will occur under the new self-assessable codes. The proposed legislation includes updated offences and penalties, but there is no indication who will undertake compliance and enforcement responsibilities. The Biodiversity Conservation Bill’s objects include improving and sharing knowledge (including drawing on local and Aboriginal knowledge) and the Biodiversity Panel’s report hinged on high-quality environmental data, monitoring and reporting. However, the legislation does not set clear requirements for these essential elements so it will be difficult to determine how much biodiversity is being lost under the relaxed rules.

10. Missed opportunities for key reforms

Rewriting our biodiversity laws is a once in a generation opportunity to put in place laws that will actually address the most significant threats to biodiversity. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation does not address necessary and important reforms, for example to address cumulative impacts and climate change impacts of clearing (and potential carbon gain). Instead, the Bill carries over deficiencies of current system for example: exemptions and wide discretion for projects with the biggest impacts (State Significant Development), vulnerable ecological communities are excluded from the definition of threatened species, and mining is still permitted in areas that supposedly offset previous losses and areas of outstanding biodiversity value.

Further analysis will be published on our website shortly and discussed at upcoming seminars and workshops.

The package will be on public exhibition until Tuesday 28 June 2016. During this time community members are able to make submissions. We’ll be running workshops and seminars across NSW in June and providing resources to help communities have their say. If you’re interested in making a submission and getting involved, please sign up to our weekly eBulletin.

Our resources and updates feature on our web page dedicated to the reforms.

Australian Federal Election 2016: something is seriously wrong when private school students get more in government support than the government's own students

The Australian Constitution grants the Commonwealth no specific powers in relation to education. Nevertheless under Section 96 of the Constitution it has partially funded government and non-government schools since the Menzies era, with recurrent funding for private school students beginning in 1970 under Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton.

Some of these private schools belong to organizations holding considerable wealth. The Sydney Catholic archdiocese alone controls funds worth more than $1.2 billion and has regularly made multi-million dollar tax-free profits and nationally the Australian Catholic Church is thought to be worth an est. $100 billion.

On 18 May 2016 The Age reported on the growth in that federal government funding for non-government schools:

Something is seriously wrong when private school students get more in government support than the government's own students. Just as it is when private superannuants get more in government support than the government's own pensioners.

Yet it's happening, and neither side of politics wants to talk about it.

You can check out examples in your own suburb by scouring the MySchool website.

In Balwyn, the government-run Balwyn Primary gets $7214 of government funds per student, while down the road the privately run St Bede's Parish Primary gets $7974, plus what it charges parents.

In Preston, Newlands Primary gets $10,362 but Sacred Heart gets $11,488. In Spotswood, Spotswood Primary gets $8008 while St Margaret Mary's gets $11397. In Ballarat, Ballarat North Primary gets $8158 while St Patrick's gets $8499.

That's by no means a complete list, and the schools I have mentioned are roughly matched for size and socio-economic status.

Right now, on average, Catholic and independent private schools get less per student than government schools, but if present trends continue they'll overtake government schools in four years. An analysis by a former president of the NSW Secondary Principals Council, Chris Bonnor, and education researcher Bernie Shepherd entitled Private School, Public Cost finds that by 2020 the typical Catholic student will receive $850 more than the typical government student, and the typical independent student $100 more.

In the Lower Clarence Valley (Page electorate) on the NSW North Coast similar examples can be found.

St. James Primary School, Yamba NSW – total enrolments 102 pupils

Net recurrent income 2014			$ Total					$ Per student
		Australian Government recurrent funding		969,340					10,536
		State/territory government recurrent funding		207,246					2,253
		Fees, charges and parent contributions		98,101					1,066
		Other private sources		55,836					607
		Total gross income (excluding income from government capital grants)			1,330,523			14,462

Yamba Public School, Yamba NSW- total enrolment 386 pupils

Net recurrent income 2014			$ Total					$ Per student
		Australian Government recurrent funding		607,352					1,586
		State/territory government recurrent funding		3,030,464					7,912
		Fees, charges and parent contributions		86,124					225
		Other private sources		7,982					21
		Total gross income (excluding income from government capital grants)			3,731,922				9,744

St Joseph's PrimarySchool, Maclean, NSW - total enrolments 103 pupils

Net recurrent income 2014				$ Total					$ Per  student
			Australian Government recurrent funding		1,346,008				9,970
			State/territory government recurrent funding		540,393				4,003
			Fees, charges and parent contributions		150,565				1,115
			Other private sources		56,717				420
			2,093,683							15,509

MacleanPublic School, Maclean, NSW - total enrolments 183 pupils

Net recurrent income 2014			$ Total							$ Per student
		Australian Government recurrent funding		366,999				1,932
		State/territory government recurrent funding		1,738,097				9,148
		Fees, charges and parent contributions		61,132				322
		Other private sources		42,194				222
		Total gross income (excluding income from government capital grants)			2,208,421				11,623