Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council wins Red Rock land claim

Red Rock Beach 1991
flickriver.com

Successful Land Claim Appeal for Coffs Harbour LALC

Wednesday, January 8th, 2014

After a two decade wait for a decision on the Coffs Harbour and District Local Aboriginal Land Council v Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act [2013] NSWLEC 216, Justice Craig has handed down his decision in favour of Coffs Harbour LALC.

The claim, originally lodged in 1993 covers a 3.7 km stretch of beach and foredune known as Red Rock Beach (located between Red Rock and Corindi).

The case is particularly significant as it represents one of a few successful land claims to include land right up to the mean high water mark.

Of note the land is being transferred to Coffs Harbour Local Aboriginal Land Council (CH LALC) on condition that an easement for access is created over part of the land to provide public access to and use of the beach for public recreation.

This is a fantastic outcome for the CH LALC especially as the judgment may prove useful in future claims where land is said to be needed for public recreation.

On behalf of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council I wish to extend my sincere congratulations to CH LALC for this terrific win.

Craig Cromelin

NSWALC Chairperson

ABBOTT GOVERNMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT - PART 2: SOME ASPECTS OTHER THAN CLIMATE

Since its election in September last year the Abbott Coalition Government has implemented a series of changes which have far-reaching ramifications for the natural environment and ultimately for the human community which relies on the important services provided by a healthy natural environment.

Some aspects of the Coalition's actions in relation to the major environmental issue of climate change policy were discussed in an earlier post on this blog.  (http://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/the-abbott-government-and-environment.html)

This post outlines four of the Government's other decisions which relate to the natural environment.

NO FEDERAL SCIENCE  PORTFOLIO

A background matter which has significance for the natural environment and its conservation was the surprising decision by the new Government not to appoint a Minister for Science.  This is the first time since 1931 (except for a brief period during World War 2) that there has been no Minister for Science.  Science in Abbott's Government is largely the responsibility for the Minister for Industry, Ian Macfarlane, with some aspects being part of the portfolio of the Minister for Education.  So, as has been noted with disbelief by some commentators, Australia has a Minister for Sport but no Minister for Science.  Whatever the Prime Minister says to explain the lack of a science portfolio in a period when science is an ever-increasing contributor to our lives, it is inevitable that this strange decision has been seen as an indication that science is not considered a priority by the government.

"ONE STOP SHOP" FOR ASSESSING ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

The Minister for the Environment, Greg Hunt, has commenced work on creating a "one stop shop" for assessing the ecological impacts of major projects.  Under the current system major projects have to be approved by the federal government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (introduced by the Howard Government in 1999) as well as by the states under their legislation.

The Abbot Government intends to devolve all environmental assessment on such projects to the states.  It claims that such a system would "slash red tape and increase jobs and investment".  When this rationale is used it is quite obvious that the priority is development at the expense of the natural environment - despite claims to the contrary.

Naturally, this move has been welcomed by business because it considers the change will save time and expense.   And, according to Maria Tarrant, deputy chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, it will provide "certainty" for projects.

Those concerned with conservation have good reason to be worried about Hunt's new system because it is unlikely to provide even the equivalent protection available under the present far-from-perfect system.  Furthermore, the recent record of at least some states on environmental protection indicates they are ill-qualified to take over sole responsibility for environmental protection.

For example, some of the NSW Government's decisions have shown a cavalier disregard for the environment.  These include the decision to allow recreational hunting in some national parks, the three year trial of grazing in 60 national parks, changes to native vegetation regulations easing restrictions on land-clearing, cutting back on protected areas for the critically endangered Grey Nurse Sharks in Marine Parks and changes to the State Environment Planning Policy (Mining, Petroleum Production and Extractive Industry) to make the "significance" of the resource to the economy the central consideration in the approvals  process.

Hunt is hoping that agreements with all states will be finalised by September this year.

PORT DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE GREAT BARRIER REEF COAST

On December 10 Environment Minister Hunt formally approved the Abbot Point (north of Bowen) and Curtis Island (near Gladstone) projects under the EPBC Act.  Abbot Point is set to become one of the largest coal ports in the world while an LNG (liquefied natural gas) plant and port is being developed on Curtis Island.

Mr Hunt said that he had imposed "some of the strictest conditions in Australian history to ensure impacts are avoided, mitigated or offset".  Despite Hunt's claim, there has been considerable concern about the impact of these developments on the Great Barrier Reef.  A major concern has been the effect that the dumping of 3 million cubic metres of dredged material from the Abbot Point development will have on the marine park. Opponents of the dumping of this dredged material had hoped that the Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority would ban any dumping in the Marine Park. However, on January 31 the Authority announced it had approved the dumping.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a World Heritage Area. UNESCO's World Heritage Committee has been concerned for some time about port development in the vicinity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area.  It has told the Australian Government that it is considering putting the Great Barrier Reef on the "in danger" list unless Australia addresses key threats to the Reef from industrialisation - primarily from coal and gas port projects along the Great Barrier Reef coast. The Committee will consider whether any progress has been made in addressing its concerns when it meets in June this year.

Given the decisions made by Hunt and the Marine Park Authority, it is highly likely that the Heritage Committee will put the Great Barrier Reef on the "in danger" list.  If this happens the negative publicity for Australia is likely to be significant.

ATTACK ON THE TASMANIAN FOREST AGREEMENT

Another World Heritage Area is receiving attention from the Abbott Government.  In 2013 the World Heritage Committee approved a 170,000 hectare extension to the Tasmanian World Heritage Area (WHA).  This extension followed an agreement made between all sides involved in decades of disputation over Tasmanian forests.  Lengthy consultation between business, union and green groups led to a deal which secured government payments of $363 million to the timber industry and included a sign-off by all parties to the World Heritage Area extension.  The deal was also endorsed by the Tasmanian Parliament.

During the 2013 election campaign Tony Abbott indicated that the Coalition did not support the WHA extension. Environment Minister Hunt is applying to the World Heritage Committee for the removal of 74,000 hectares from the extension when the Committee meets in June. The Coalition appears completely unconcerned about the consensus reached between the industry and green groups and the fact that the settlement is in the interests of a prosperous timber industry which will be able to export its products – something it was having difficulty doing before the agreement because of sustainability issues.  If the Government gets its way the forest wars will erupt again.

Given what has happened with the Reef and what Hunt and the Tasmanian Liberals are trying to do, UNESCO's World Heritage Committee will be wondering about the Australian Government's environmental credentials and its indifference to world opinion.

Conclusion

Before September's federal election it was obvious that the environment would suffer if the Coalition won office. That is not to say that the Labor government it succeeded always acted in the best long-term interests of the natural environment.  It didn't.  Politicians in general appear to have difficulty in grasping that we as humans rely on the services of the natural environment for our own well-being.  This lack of understanding is epitomised by politicians' obsession with the economy at the expense of the environment - an obsession which completely ignores the fact that the economy and human society are both subsets of the natural environment.  The economy – and human society - will suffer in the medium to long term if the natural environment is degraded.  There are of course other factors which make it easy for politicians to ignore environmental degradation, one of the most significant being the shortness of the electoral cycle.  It is very difficult to see how this problem of political ignorance/indifference can be overcome.

           

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at gmail dot com  to submit comment for consideration.

So Work Choices is not "dead, buried and cremated" after all, Mr. Abbott

We want to protect workers' pay and conditions

We want to see the take home wages of Australian workers increase

Under our policy, no Australian worker will be worse off

[Tony Abbott 9 May 2013]

WHAT THE FAIR WORK ACT STATES

Excerpt from the Fair Work Act 2009:

134  The modern awards objective

What is the modern awards objective?

             (1)  The FWC must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions, taking into account:

                     (a)  relative living standards and the needs of the low paid; and

                     (b)  the need to encourage collective bargaining; and

                     (c)  the need to promote social inclusion through increased workforce participation; and

                     (d)  the need to promote flexible modern work practices and the efficient and productive performance of work; and

                     (da)  the need to provide additional remuneration for:

                              (i)  employees working overtime; or

                             (ii)  employees working unsocial, irregular or unpredictable hours; or

                            (iii)  employees working on weekends or public holidays; or

                            (iv)  employees working shifts; and

                     (e)  the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal or comparable value; and

                     (f)  the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on business, including on productivity, employment costs and the regulatory burden; and

                     (g)  the need to ensure a simple, easy to understand, stable and sustainable modern award system for Australia that avoids unnecessary overlap of modern awards; and

                     (h)  the likely impact of any exercise of modern award powers on employment growth, inflation and the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of the national economy.

This is the modern awards objective.

When does the modern awards objective apply?

             (2)  The modern awards objective applies to the performance or exercise of the FWC's modern award powers, which are:

                     (a)  the FWC's functions or powers under this Part; and

                     (b)  the FWC's functions or powers under Part 2‑6, so far as they relate to modern award minimum wages.

Note:          The FWC must also take into account the objects of this Act and any other applicable provisions. For example, if the FWC is setting, varying or revoking modern award minimum wages, the minimum wages objective also applies (see section 284).

WHAT THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT WANTS

Australian Government Submission To Fair Work Commission 4 Yearly Review Of Modern Awards, 3 February 2014

Fair Work Commission 4 Yearly Review Of Modern Awards documents, statements and submissions can be found here.

What needs to be remembered about the last Sky News bid for the Australia Network

The Australia Network is being criticised as part of the Abbott Government attack on public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

Federal Coalition Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is quoted as saying that she is concerned the ABC's $223 million Australia Network is failing to meet its charter obligations and confirming she is reviewing the service's contract and, a former Coalition foreign minister Alexander Downer stating that he found the Australia Network indefensible.  

In mainstream and social media discussions, the possibility has been raised that this attack is payback for what is alleged to have been a past payback against News Corporation when Sky News lost a 2011 government tender for the Australia Network it had been very confident of winning.

However, everyone is forgetting a little history.

In 2010 the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advised the Rudd Government that the ABC was its preferred operator of the Australia Network. However, Treasury and the Dept. of Finance advised that a tender process would be the best option to ensure value for money.

A request for tender was released by DFAT on 4 February 2011. Only two broadcasters responded - the ABC and Australian News Channel Pty Ltd which owns and operates Sky News Australia.

The Secretary of DFAT was the official approver in the Australia Network tender process and, the chair of the Tender Evaluation Board was a former DFAT deputy secretary and ambassador. Approximately seven months later the Communications Minister became the tender approver.

The Gillard Labor Government finally terminated the Australia Network tender process in early November 2011 on legal and departmental advice, after what the Auditor-General has confirmed was confidential tender information was leaked to the Australian media from June 2011 onwards; and in the wake of the five year-long News Corporation U.K. ‘phone hacking’ scandal which resulted in ongoing revelations throughout 2011 and in the U.K. Parliament Leveson Inquiry which began on 14 November.

Australian News Channel was compensated when the tender process was terminated.

Australian News Channel is a joint venture of Nine Digital, a division of Nine Entertainment Co, Seven Media Group and British Sky Broadcasting.

At the time this tender was halted New Corporation owned a 44 per cent share of British Sky Broadcasting through its subsidiary News Limited.

Although these shares were later sold, in 2013 News Corporation (through 21st Century Fox UK Nominees Limited) still retained significant holdings of voting rights in British Sky Broadcasting shares and 21st Century Fox's President & Chief Operating Officer had joined its board of directors.

Rupert Murdoch is Chair and Chief Executive of 20th Century Fox Inc. Rupert Murdoch and the Murdoch Family Trust appear to be majority shareholders.

The fact that a major shareholder in a joint venture partner in Sky News was the subject of a U.K. parliamentary inquiry must have factored into decisions resulting from what Prime Minister Abbott is now calling a 'particularly dodgy' tender process.

Given that former senior management and staff of News Corporation (now News Corp) newspapers are still on trial at the Old Bailey in London in 2014 and given the numerous U.S. legal proceedings Murdoch business practices have attracted (20th Century Fox Inc, AGM 2013,Pages 33-37), I would have thought it wise to retain the Australia Network within the ABC and not even consider handing it over to a private broadcasting corporation such as Sky News or to any other joint venture which might be progressed by Rupert Murdoch.

The Daily Examiner's new editor defends our ABC. Well done, Mr. Moase.

David Moase in The Daily Examiner, 1 February 2014, Page 10:

The witch hunt begins

If Prime Minister Tony Abbott thinks he's going to scare the ABC by accusing it of acting against the national interest and starting an efficiency inquiry, he should choose another target.

'Aunty' is more than accustomed to raising the ire of governments and has probably grown a rhino-thick hide over the years.

It should happily front up for the inquiry, lay its cards on the table and stand by its proud record established over many years. After all, the last inquiry into how the ABC spends its money found it was under-resourced.

Surely a government in just its fifth month has more important tasks to confront than launching what appears to be little more than a witch hunt.

Exactly what prompted this week's attacks in the media is unclear, although there are plenty of possible motivations.

To me it seems revenge on a number of fronts, particularly for the former Labor government's decision to renege on a deal for Sky News to broadcast into Asia and to return the rights to the ABC.

At the time that decision seemed like Labor payback to Rupert Murdoch for some of his newspapers' political coverage, and now that scenario looks like it is being played out in reverse. It would not come as any surprise to see the ABC lose its Asia deal at the end of this process.

Surely an experienced politician like Mr Abbott understands the government often dislikes what the ABC broadcasts, just as sometimes those broadcasts will make it pleased.

The ABC's role is to broadcast for the people of Australia - not for the government.

Did Japanese whalers act like irresponsible hoons in the Southern Ocean on 2 February 2014?

http://youtu.be/7QCKpq15qTI

DW: Deutsche Welle 3 February 2014:

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, Japan's top government spokesman, said the anti-whaling group known as Sea Shepherd had orchestrated the collision, which took place in the Southern Ocean on Sunday.

"The sabotage activity was extremely dangerous," Suga told reporters.

The spokesman said Japan had urged the Netherlands to take "practical" measures to prevent a recurrence of Sunday's collision.

Sea Shepherd claim the Japanese vessel was responsible for the incident. The group alleged the Japanese ship hit their boat, the Bob Barker, in an effort to drive them away.

It said the harpoon vessel had spent hours prior to the collision dragging steel cables across the bows of the Sea Shepherd's ships in a bid to damage the rudders and propellers.

It was an "unprovoked attack" by the Japanese harpooners, carried out in a "ruthless" fashion, Bob Barker Captain Peter Hammarstedt said.

No one was injured in the incident, although both boats sustained minor damage....

Australia's Environment Minister Greg Hunt ordered an investigation into the collision on Monday, issuing a warning to both groups.

"This must be a message to both parties - whalers and protesters - these are dangerous waters, nobody can play any games with safety, nobody can play any games with international law," Hunt said.

"Everyone must abide by the law and, of course, if there is evidence that either party has breached international maritime law, we will raise it."

Japan is legally permitted to hunt whales in Antarctica for scientific purposes under an exception to a 1986 ban on whaling. The country is reportedly planning to kill roughly 1,000 whales this year....

Australia has appealed to the UN's highest court to outlaw the program. The International Court of Justice is expected to issue its decision later this year.