Pom's prepared to take on an Australian XVII

Is there any truth in the rumour doing the rounds that the Poms have invited Australia to field the entire squad of 17 players chosen for the First Ashes Test at the Gabba in Brisbane next week?

Australian cricket teams have not had the best of things lately. Australia’s losing streak in all forms of the game has reached seven matches, the longest since the 1996-97 season.

Respected cricket scribe Peter Roebuck had this, among other things, to say in today's Sydney Morning Herald about the decision to pick a squad of 17 for the match:

Doubtless, player and public were bemused by the absurd function and the size of the party. Presumably the Poms are chortling into their Earl Grey. Australian cricket has been admired for the clarity of its thinking and the extent of its planning. Suddenly it seemed chaotic. At one stage it seemed that all 66 Shield players were to be included, and possibly Richie Benaud as well.

At first sight it will seem that the selectors have lost the plot. Certainly they have invited ridicule. Over the years Australia has considered 16players sufficient to cover an entire tour of England. Now 17 are required for a single match to be staged just up the road.

Credit: SMH

This is .... the answer to one of life's pressing questions

Sometimes one just has to share the joke......

At last, the real reason!

And that is why the chicken crossed the road.

A hat tip to Clarrie for this one.

Destructive drongoes rule

Some people give even vandals a bad name:

Among stands of endangered communities 1,433 trees and shrubs have been killed in Doubleduke State Forest, near Evans Head. {ABC North Coast News, "Minister urged to stop so-called illegal logging" 15th November 2010}

A female bull shark in the Clarence River had its fins sliced off and its body cavity cut open to remove its pups. {ABC North Coast News, "Mutilated shark found in Clarence river" 11th November 2010}

Clarence Valley shows its resolve to fight water raiders in 2010

From A Clarence Valley Protest on 12 November 2010.

Mayoral Minute in the Clarence Valley Council ordinary monthly meeting business paper for 16 November 2010:

REPORT SUMMARY

Clarence Valley Council has always opposed any plans to divert water out of the Clarence catchment (Reports are attached).

It is now timely that Council again register its strong opposition to any plans to do so.

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the Council again register it strong opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

2. That Council makes a submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Regional Australia inquiry into the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Plan (MDBP), noting Council’s opposition to any plans to divert waters out of the Clarence catchment.

BACKGROUND

The Federal Government has begun an inquiry into the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

For the information of the Council the terms of reference are:

The Standing Committee on Regional Australia will inquire into and report on the socio-economic impact of the proposed Murray-Darling Basin Authority's 'Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan' (the Proposed Basin Plan) on regional communities, with particular reference to:

• The direct and indirect impact of the Proposed Basin Plan on regional communities,including agricultural industries, local business activity and community wellbeing;

• Options for water-saving measures or water return on a region-by-region basis with consideration given to an analysis of actual usage versus licence entitlement over the preceding fifteen years

• The role of governments, the agricultural industry and the research sector in developing and delivering infrastructure and technologies aimed at supporting water efficiency within the Murray-Darling Basin.

In examining each of these issues, the Committee will also consider community views on:

• Measures to increase water efficiency and reduces consumption and their relative cost effectiveness;

• Opportunities for economic growth and diversification within regional communities; and

• Previous relevant reform and structural adjustment programs and the impact on communities and regions.

This will include consultation with Local Government, Regional Development Australia, community groups and individual stakeholders to better understand the local and community issues raised by the Proposed Basin Plan.

The committee will report back to Parliament by end of May 2011.

While it is noted the diversion of “other” river systems or inter basin transfer is not in the terms of reference, the plan is getting some space in the national media and (if reports are correct) has been raised in community consultation to date on the MDBP.

Our community has long held the view that the idea of diverting the Clarence River is something that we will not accept and as such, Council should make a submission outlining the socio-economic impact, environmental impacts and community views on the issue.

Again the words ring true - “Not a drop”.

The diversion of the Clarence River when assessed against Council’s adopted sustainability framework cannot be justified, as outlined below.

Environmental

The Clarence is one of the nation’s great wild rivers, and one of the few rivers in Australia which has no major dam. The only across-river structure for water diversion is the relatively minor Nymboida Weir. The river is also the only place in the world where the endangered Eastern freshwater cod now exists. Much of the river is also surrounded by national parks and many of the tributaries by World Heritage declared rainforest.

The studies for the off-river storage urban water supply at Shannon Creek proved that any large dam on the Clarence River, if it diverted the highest or the lowest flows, could have dire environmental impacts on aquatic lifecycles. This is why the Shannon Creek dam (30,000 mega litres) was designed to only take a small amount of medium river flows from the Nymboida and was not located on the river. The science is beyond doubt, all those rivers which have large cross-river dams have had major environmental impacts on aquatic eco-systems, wetlands and fish habitats. This is the very reason that the Federal Government has released the Murray Darling Basin plan (on display now) and is trying to stop the river dying from too much regulation by dams and irrigation use.

Note: a relatively small urban water supply across-river dam on the Mary River in Queensland did not go ahead due to the environmental impact the dam would have and it only had a fraction of the environmental values of the Clarence.

Economic

The effects of major dams would inevitably decimate the Clarence River commercial and recreational fishing industries. It is well proven that variable flows and the flood flows are essential for a viable fishing and prawn industry. The commercial fishing industry is worth over $92 million in the Valley and generates over 430 jobs. The recreation fishing industry forms a large part of the $280 million tourism industry in the Valley which generates much of the economic base of Yamba, Iluka and Maclean.

The engineering reports carried out in the 1960’s and 70 have proved even then that any diversion scheme could not possibly be economically justified without a huge Government subsidy. Even then, the cheapest option was going to cost over $500 mega litre, which in today’s terms would be many thousands of dollars per mega litre. Note: irrigators now complain about paying less then $10 mega litre in the Murray Darling Basin for their irrigation water. The reports done did not analyse the economic or environmental costs to the Clarence River and on the community.

Any diversion of water to the West is not going to give any more irrigation water accept for those irrigators in the upper catchments eg Namoi, Gywdir, as system losses mainly by evaporation would not see any Clarence water reaching the Murray system. As well, any new water in the system would further accentuate the already major irrigation salinity problem in the Murrumbidgee and Murray irrigation areas.

Socially

The Healthy River Commission, in its report of the Clarence in early 2000’s, found that the one thing that absolutely unites the whole Valley is its river and everybody agrees that this river has great significance and should not be diverted to the West.

The Aboriginal community has a great mythological link to the river with every nation having a dream time story about the Clarence River’s creation.

Governance

The net result of any crazy scheme to divert the Clarence would be that instead of having one river system which is on its knees environmentally, socially and economically, you would instead have two systems in a similar state.

Financially, without huge Government subsidisation, any diversion scheme is totally uneconomic and cannot be paid for by water users in the west.

Cr Richie Williamson

MAYOR

They Must Think We're All Idiots - Part MCCXXXIV

One to make you wonder just who the Libs think they’re fooling…….
"THE political fund-raising arm of the federal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, has been found to have breached electoral laws, while one of his principal donors has also failed to make required disclosures, according to documents lodged with the NSW Election Funding Authority....
After a five-month investigation, the authority found that the Warringah Club, which raises money for Mr Abbott's campaigns in his seat of Warringah, had broken the law by not disclosing the sources of its donations.
''The club failed to lodge a declaration [as required] and the matter is to be further investigated to determine whether to pursue prosecution,'' the authority's funding and disclosures director, Brian DeCelis, wrote to the NSW Greens, which raised an official complaint about the Warringah Club in May. But Mr DeCelis also found that the club and the NSW Liberal Party, which lodged false declarations relating to the club, ''did not understand their disclosure obligations'' and therefore would not be prosecuted for knowingly making a false statement."

WTF! A political party didn’t understand its political donation disclosure obligations under a 29 year-old piece of state legislation? No-one in Warringah could pick up the phone or get onto the Internet and download the 2007 version of this from the NSW Election Funding Authority?

“Registered political parties have obligations under the Election Funding and Disclosures Act 1981 (the Act).
The Funding and Disclosure Guide for Political Parties and Party Agents is now available. The guide provides parties and party agents with information about their obligations under the Act and practical information about how to complete and lodge a disclosure form.
All political parties now have six monthly disclosure obligations with the Election Funding Authority. Party agents must lodge a disclosure with the Authority every six months disclosing the political donations received and electoral expenditure incurred by the party during the six month period ending 30 June and 31 December.
If the party has not received any political donations nor incurred any electoral expenditure during the disclosure period, the party agent must lodge a ‘nil’ disclosure.”

Margi Prideaux asks "Will Australian Environment Minister Burke deliver on marine protected areas?"

Cross-posted from Wild Politics where it was first published on 11 November 2010:

Will Australian Environment Minister Burke deliver on marine protected areas?

The science of protection stacks up. The international community has spoken. Will Minister Burke deliver on marine protected areas?

A few weeks ago, the great and the good convened in Nagoya, Japan to deliberate the future of our planet. Perhaps a little melodramatic, but in many ways it’s the truth. This 10^th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was every bit as important as the Climate Change meetings are. After all, the CBD itself is there to protect the genetic resources, ecosystems and species that we depend on for our quality of life and who share this planet with us. We need this protection to be sorted out, because we are devastating biodiversity at an alarming rate.

The compact that came from the meeting was long, and not surprisingly whittled into irrelevance by the incredible detail of negotiation that was applied to every word. The document is so precise, so exacting and limited in what it is prepared to say, it actually says very little. However, there are a few indicators of the direction the global community at least plans to go. One such directive is the new target for marine protected areas, that:

By 2020, at least … 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes. (CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the Period 2011-2020: Target 11)

This is particularly pertinent for Australia because we are in the midst of deciding the level of protection to be applied to a large section of our coastline and offshore areas. The south east declarations have been completed. Next is the southwest, from the eastern tip of Kangaroo Island to the waters off Shark Bay, then the northwest, the north and finally the east from the northern tip of Cape York to the New South Wales town of Bermagu.

We do this as a nation because pollution, over fishing, species entanglement in nets the destruction of important habitats, and the ecosystem devastation of oil spills are just some of the many threats to Australia’s remarkable marine life. If these threats continue unabated we risk joining the unprecedented global collapse of marine life where two-thirds of the world’s coral reefs are dead or dying and 90 per cent of the world’s large fish have been fished-out.

Today, scientists from the University of Queensland have released a comprehensive and deep study gathering the best available scientific data and applying world leading design principles to their recommendations. ‘Systematic Conservation Planning – A Network of Marine Sanctuaries for the South West Marine Region’ identifies that 50 per cent of the south west region will need to be protected in a network of marine sanctuaries if the marine life is to remain healthy. For clarity, sanctuaries are areas where extractive uses such as commercial fishing and oil and gas are not allowed. Currently, less than 1 per cent of the south west region is protected from these threats.

At the same time 44 of Australia’s leading marine and social scientists in support of marine protection have released a consensus statement – ‘Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia’ – as a peer-level guidance on the selection, design, and implementation of marine protected areas. They concur that significant protection is needed/

Earlier this month another study by the University of Queensland provided a damning assessment of the success of Australia’s national parks, marine parks and nature reserves that are failing to adequately protect more than 80 per cent of Australia’s threatened species. Their study detailed how the fundamental aim of securing species most at risk was not being achieved. Yet another recent study by the University of the Sunshine Coast revealed ancient, giant coral reefs found on Australia undersea mountains are being wiped out by trawling on the sea floor confirming the importance of maintaining and extending Australia’s marine protected areas.

Since moving to the Environment portfolio, Minister Tony Burke has said very little publically about the roll out of marine protected areas around the country. Perhaps this isn’t surprising given that, in their previous term, Labor dithered on everything marine related except championing whale protection internationally. They inherited a well established, Coalition developed, marine planning process but failed to deliver anything on the water, eroding confidence and credibility. Combine this with the unfortunate and poorly informed Liberal and National ‘dog-fish whistles’ to fishers in tinnies during the election and recent history probably gives little confidence to the Minister in his new role.

None-the-less, the timelines still stand, and these decisions are important ones. Indications are that the Minister will make his first and crucial decision for the south west region soon. A huge variety of fish, sharks, whales and seals live in the south west submerged mountain ranges, deep sea canyons and both cool and tropical coral reefs. These waters provide refuge for the magnificent blue, humpback, and southern right whales, as well as bottlenose, spotted and striped dolphins. All these things matter, but perhaps what matters more is that the level of protection that Minister decides to apply will define the level of protection that will be applied to the rest of Australia’s waters for the next 10 to 20 years.

Tim Nicol from the Conservation Council of Western Australia has said today that “The federal government now has the scientific evidence it needs to confidently make important decisions about the future health of the oceans and marine life in Australia’s south west”. Add to this the international consensus and the decision would appear to be a clear cut case. His confidence should be high. If the Minister chooses the side of science he invests in the future. He will also take the first steps towards the largest conservation contribution in Australian history, delivering the biggest network of marine protected areas in the world. If he doesn’t, it will be a once in a lifetime opportunity lost.

Margi Prideaux

http://www.cetaceanconservation.com.au/