The fate of Australia's dugongs and sea turtles

The fate of Australia’s dugongs and sea turtles due to declining numbers, loss of habitat, pollution, unmonitored legal hunting and illegal poaching is once more being debated in the media.

Tropic Now, 14 November 2016:

Traditional hunting advocates say the practise represents a small component of the issues facing sea turtles and dugongs.

Pic: David Reid

Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion has defended traditional hunting at a graduation ceremony for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rangers in Cairns.

Native title laws allow traditional owners to hunt endangered turtles and dugongs.

Wildlife identity Bob Irwin has recently called for a moratorium on current practices but Mr Scullion says hunting isn’t the problem.

“There is evidence to demonstrate it is sustainable and there is no evidence to demonstrate it isn’t,” he says.

“Yes, there are some threats to dugongs and turtles. But none of them come from the ocean, they all come from the land and they’re all associated with degradation of habitat.”

Indigenous ranger Mick Hale runs a turtle hospital, Yuku-Baja-Muliku, with his wife, Larissa, at Archer Point more than 300 kilometres north of Cairns.

“We started about six years ago,” Mr Hale says. “It came about around the time Cyclone Larry and Cyclone Yasi decimated our seagrass beds.

“We noticed a lot of sick turtles around [with no food], so instead of letting them die we started a turtle hospital.

Traditional hunting can be sustainable, Mr Hale says.

“The biggest challenge for us is getting the public to understand that traditional hunting is the smallest percentage of mortality for turtles and dugongs,” he says.

“We’ve got environmental impacts, habitat destruction, global climate change.

“These are all massive contributors to the demise of turtle and dugong populations.”

The Hales are currently caring for three turtles - two green sea turtles and a hawksbill.

“We just do it because it’s what we do,” Ms Hale says. “We look after country and after people so that we do have a sustainable future.”

Injinoo ranger Cristo Lifu says rescuing five olive ridley sea turtles from ghost nets with fellow Cape York rangers recently was a powerful experience.

“They were stranded and stuck in a net,” Mr Lifu says.

“We rescued them but it was lucky we were there. Because if not, they would have been dead in another two or three days.

“It’s just about caring for country. Our elders looked after country before us and it’s our time now to take over.”……

The Australian, 11 November 2016:

…three federal ministers commit to talk to indigenous rangers and the Queensland state government to spearhead moves that could see more “no take’’ zones introduced in a bid to stop the vulnerable ­species being poached and traded, as revealed in The Australian last month…..

The North Australian Indig­en­ous Land and Sea Management Alliance says commerc­ia­l­isation claims have been found to be “unsubstantiated”, while envir­onmental groups point out that dugongs and turtles face far greater threats than hunting, including loss of habitat, marine debris and coastal development.

The Cairns Post, 9 August 2016:

AN indigenous leader claims a moratorium on dug­ong and turtle hunting will not work and will only push poachers further underground.

The Coalition is preparing draft legislation to provide stronger protection for the marine creatures from over-exploitation by traditional owner groups.

Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch has said he is not happy with some elements of the draft legislation and wants a blanket moratorium on the traditional take of the species.

Girringun Aboriginal Corporation chief executive Phil Rist said his group’s TUMRA (Traditional Use of Marine Resource Agreement) had ens­ured populations of turtles and dugongs along the Cassowary Coast remained sustainable for 10 years.

He said imposing a moratorium on hunting of the animals would push illegal hunting and exploitation further underground.

“TUMRAs around turtles and dugongs are the way to go,” he said.

“These are instruments for us – ourselves – to better manage our take of turtle and dug­ong on a sustainable level.

“These agreements are end­orsed by the State and Federal governments, and we have proven that they work and they work really well.”

Cairns Turtle Rehabilitation Centre co-ordinator Jennie Gilbert supported a moratorium on turtle hunting, saying the animals definitely needed more protection in Far Northern waters.

“They have got enough threats in their lives without hunting,” she said. “We know that there’s illegal hunting and poaching going on out there.

“The numbers of green sea turtles in Far North Queensland still haven’t recovered from the mass stranding event of 2012, due to a lack of feeding grounds.”

BACKGROUND

ABC News, 27 September 2014:

The Federal Government is warning anyone involved in the illegal trade of dugong and turtle meat that they will be caught.

The Government has allocated $5 million to a dugong and turtle protection plan that involves the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Customs and Border Protection, and the Australian Crime Commission.

Environment Minister Greg Hunt said the Crime Commission has been given $2 million to investigate the illegal trade.

Traditional owners have given their backing to the Government's protection plan.

"They know that their good name is being used by poachers," Mr Hunt said.

"We are determined to end the illegal trafficking in dugong and turtle meat and to protect these majestic creatures."

Under the Native Title Act of 1993, Indigenous people with native title rights can hunt marine turtles and dugong for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs, and "in exercise and enjoyment of their native title rights and interests".

Dugong and turtle poaching has been identified as a problem in the Northern Territory and Queensland, where the animals are hunted and the meat sold illegally.

National Indigenous radio broadcaster Seith Fourmile said non-Indigenous people were also involved in the illegal trade.

"They are involved with the trading, with selling it, passing it down - some of the turtle meat has gone as far south as Sydney and Melbourne," he said. 

Australian Government Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan 2014-2017:

To enhance the protection of our iconic marine turtles and dugong in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait, the Australian Government has committed $5.3 million over three years for delivery of a Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan under the Reef 2050 Plan and Reef Trust. The plan addresses threatening processes that impact on the long-term recovery and survival of these protected migratory species. Information about the Reef 2050 Plan and Reef Trust is available at www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/reef-trust

The Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan includes the following seven core elements:

       1.    $2 million for a Specialised Indigenous Ranger Programme for strengthened  enforcement and compliance and marine conservation in Queensland and the Torres Strait
The programme is being delivered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. More information is available at www.indigenous.gov.au/news-and-media/announcements/minister-scullion-2-million-strengthen-compliance-powers-indigenous

       2.    $2 million for an Australian Crime Commission investigation into the illegal poaching, transportation and trade of turtle and dugong meat in the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait
A fact sheet about the investigation by the commission’s Wildlife and Environmental Crime Team is available at
https://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/ Wildlife%20%26%20Environmental%20Crime%20Team%20FACTSHEET%20281114.pdf(link is external)

      3.    $700 000 for marine debris clean-up initiatives
Information about the Great Barrier Reef marine debris clean-up initiative is available at www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2014/mr20141113a.html

     4.    $600 000 to support the Cairns and Fitzroy Island Turtle Rehabilitation Centre
The Reef Trust will support the work of the centre to rehabilitate sick and injured turtles and return them to the marine environment.
Information about the Cairns and Fitzroy Turtle Rehabilitation Centre is available at www.saveourseaturtles.com.au/about-ctrc.html(link is external) and www.fitzroyisland.com/newsroom/meet-patients-cairns-turtle-rehabilitation-centre(link is external)

      5.    Working with Indigenous leaders to provide for traditional use and reef protection
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is working with Traditional Owners to develop Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements to provide for traditional use and deliver reef protection. This may also include voluntary no take agreements.
Information about the agreements is available at www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-marine-resources-agreements(link is external)

      6.    Federal legislation tripling the penalties for poaching and illegal transportation of turtle and dugong meat
The Environment Legislation Amendment Act 2015 amends various sections of the EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Marine Park Act) to provide additional protection for turtles and dugong. The amendments triple the maximum penalties for various criminal offences related to the killing, injuring, taking, trading, keeping or moving of turtles and dugong under the EPBC Act and for criminal offences and civil penalty provisions which apply to the taking of, or injury to, turtles and dugong where they are a protected species under the Marine Park Act.
The tripling of maximum penalties does not impact on the rights of Native Title holders under the Native Title Act 1993 to hunt turtle and dugong for personal, domestic or non-commercial communal needs.
Information about the legislation is available at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/ Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5128

      7.    A national approach to dugong and turtle management
Refers to the nationally co-ordinated management of turtle and dugong in Australia. This includes the development of EPBC Act policy documents and guidelines such as updating the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles of Australia 2003, Marine Turtle Referral Guidelines and policy guidelines for dugong and seagrass habitats.

Is president-elect Donald J Trump likely to enter the White House with a large personal debt?

He may be a single digit billionaire but this is not the sort of money U.S. president-elect Donald J. Trump can expect to find down the back of one of his Fifth Avenue sofas – so where will the US$47.5 million come from to pay back these loans declared below?

Did he borrow from his own companies to help fund his election campaign or did he borrow elsewhere?

Will he go the way of many a suspect politician and decide to quietly 'sell' petitioners access to himself as president after 20 January 2017? After all, Trump obviously sees himself as a businessman first and a president second.

2016 Presidential Campaign Finance:

Campaign contributions to DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC. from individuals totaled US$85,958,458 and Donald Trump’s own contribution was an additional US$8,599,568.

US$47,508,505 of his campaign funding was money he borrowed or loans which he has guaranteed, with candidate loan repayments to date totaling zero.

Total receipts were US$254,946,267.78 and total disbursements US$238,951,814.21 (specific outlays listed here).

Cash on hand as of 19 October 2016 was US$15,994,454.

Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. owes US$2,086,572 and to date has had to refund contributions totaling US$406,776. As of 20 November the US Federal Election Commission has notified the campaign treasurer that there have been potential violations of electoral law totaling tens of thousands of dollars in excessive, prohibited and impermissable contributions which are required to be refunded to contributors.

[See: http://docquery.fec.gov/pres//2016/12G/C00580100.html and http://docquery.fec.gov/pres//2016/12G/C00580100/A_STATE_C00580100.html]

Political donations to the Trump campaign by state

STATE	SUM
Alaska	24,726.00
Alabama	100,475.00
Arkansas	41,311.00
Arizona	128,119.00
California	528,053.00
Colorado	97,902.00
Connecticut	51,435.00
District of Columbia	11,200.00
Delaware	14,650.00
Florida	518,009.75
Georgia	179,845.96
Hawaii	15,434.00
Iowa	54,717.00
Idaho	24,212.00
Illinois	142,379.38
Indiana	60,830.00
Kansas	53,343.00
Kentucky	52,057.00
Louisiana	98,470.00
Massachusetts	82,895.00
Maryland	78,154.98
Maine	12,674.00
Michigan	141,878.00
Minnesota	44,339.00
Missouri	70,822.00
Mississippi	38,400.00
Montana	16,224.00
North Carolina	114,228.00
North Dakota	15,542.00
Nebraska	27,560.44
New Hampshire	18,380.00
New Jersey	117,382.00
New Mexico	46,055.00
Nevada	80,581.08
New York	225,577.55
Ohio	134,695.77
Oklahoma	76,169.00
Oregon	46,016.00
Pennsylvania	149,508.03
Puerto Rico	500.00
Rhode Island	7,846.00
South Carolina	75,422.00
South Dakota	10,569.00
Tennessee	100,885.00
Texas	583,537.40
Utah	39,237.00
Virginia	181,666.00
Virgin Islands	250.00
Vermont	4,534.00
Washington	131,435.07
Wisconsin	44,838.00
West Virginia	12,580.00
Wyoming	17,904.00

Generated Thu Oct 27 21:35:10 2016

Big security role on offer at ADHA - what could possibly go wrong?

itNews, 18 November 2016:

One of the highest-stakes cyber security jobs in the federal government is up for grabs as the Australian Digital Health Agency looks for an executive to take on responsibility for securing the national e-health records system.

The My Health Record platform is on the cusp of becoming a fully national data store as the government prepares to make registration opt-out in a move that will create accounts for most Australians.

It means the My Health Record system, which is operated by the ADHA, will very quickly turn into one of the largest and most sensitive databases in the country - and a big target for cyber criminals looking to capitalise on the risk.

The ADHA is looking to recruit an experienced security boss to lead its cyber security centre and take on accountability for the health data of millions of Australians.

 

Full job description here: http://allegisgroupapac.com/media/252348/pd%20-%20general%20manager,%20cyber%20security%20centre%20pd_updated.pdf

SOUTH GRAFTON ASBESTOS REMOVAL STRATEGY: Clarence Valley Council holding public meeting 5.30pm 1 December 2016 at Grafton council chambers

Any Clarence Valley resident concerned about the amount of asbestos and contaminated landfill found on the old council depot site at South Grafton now being redeveloped by Clarence Valley Council should note this date in their diaries as this is likely the only chance the community will have to sort through the claims and counter claims that have circulated about this site for years.

Clarence Valley Council, media release, 16 November 2016:

Public meeting on depot development

In order to keep members of the public fully informed about the development of a new works depot in South Grafton and how it is dealing with contaminants found there, the Clarence Valley Council will hold a public meeting in Grafton on December 1.

The council’s works and civil director, Troy Anderson, said the organisation was keen to allay any concerns the community might have about how asbestos and other contaminants found at the site were being handled.

“It’s fair to say we have found more there than any of our independent pre-work reports indicated,” he said.

“But now it has been uncovered, we will deal with it and that will be done according to all relevant safety guidelines.

“During excavation of the site about 900kg of bonded asbestos has been found.

“It is a substantial amount, but to put it into perspective that is about 0.015% of the material on site and will all be dealt with in a safe and controlled manner.

“Our contractors have installed air monitoring stations around the boundary of the site, some site staff carry individual air monitoring devices, there has been increased watering and, as a precautionary measure, stockpiles on site have been treated with a polymer spray to provide an increased level of safety.

“The contractors have also kept the neighbouring South Grafton High School and residents informed of developments.”

Mr Anderson said it would add to the cost of the depot project, but it should be remembered the rehabilitation work would be required regardless of whether a depot was going to be built.

“We have to fully decommission that sewer treatment plant and that involves cleaning up the site,” he said.

“This is just something we have to do.”

The meeting will be held in the Grafton chambers of the council from 5.30pm on December 1. Representatives of the contractors and government agencies will also attend.

Release ends.

************************

BACKGROUND

Clarence Valley Independent, 16 November 2016:

December 2015: John Hagger, convenor of Facebook community discussion group, The Clarence Forum, writes to Clarence Valley Council (CVC), advising that a former CVC employee had told him that fill and rubbish, including asbestos cement pipes, had been dumped at the former sewerage treatment plant (STP); Mr Hagger asked CVC for a meeting “to outline and describe the nature of Council’s dumping and assist Council with the actual locations” of the material.
CVC’s works and civil director Troy Anderson responds and notes that the former employee “was heavily involved in the contaminated land surveys…
“… I am expecting that [his] advice … will be in line with … existing information and data…”

January 2016: ABC North Coast and the Independent report on alleged asbestos at the site. Safework NSW inspects the site and advised it is “working with CVC to develop safe systems of work for the remediation”.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) advised that “CVC is the appropriate regulatory authority and is responsible for any asbestos issues on the site”.
CVC’s general manager, Scott Greensill, advised that “all necessary actions in regards to possible asbestos … are being managed in the appropriate and responsible manner.
“…The ongoing raising of this issue is considered to be nothing more that irresponsible scaremongering.”
CVC declined to answer the Independent’s list of questions.

February 2016: CVC issues a media release titled, Warning of misleading claims from petitioners, which alleged that someone had been petitioning nearby residents. Scott Greensill said that “some of the reports [about the petitioner] we have had are disturbing.
“One resident told us the petitioner … made a number of false claims…
“She said he told her the council was going to dump asbestos waste near the [adjacent] South Grafton High School … that is a completely irresponsible claim.”
At the February council meeting, Cr Karen Toms asked the general manager if the remediation budget was adequate, given the alleged asbestos.
Responding, Mr Greensill said that “there is no identified asbestos on the site”.
“Now, if it turns up … we’ve said on multiple occasions that we will manage it…”

March 2016: CVC issues a media release stating that the site “poses no asbestos risk”, following further testing of the site, and that a new report “backs up findings of a report prepared in 2013”. The release states that “an asbestos pipe was identified at the southwest portion of the site” and that “if a significant amount of suspected bonded asbestos is encountered all works must cease and the appropriate additional controls implemented.”

March 2016: Greens MP David Shoebridge lodged questions in the NSW Parliament, regarding the alleged “illegal dumping of asbestos”, asking: “What actions is the Minister taking to ensure that Clarence Valley Council is taking appropriate steps to inform the community, honestly and transparently.”
His questions were answered in June and the Minister assured him that everything was in order and that CVC was working with Safework NSW and the EPA.

June 2016: The general manager writes to John Hagger, telling him that he “did not intend to waste any more of [CVC’s] time and resources addressing allegations, which I believe have already been addressed”.

July 2016: At the July council meeting, Cr Toms asks if she can have a copy of a map that marks the location of alleged contaminated fill, as indicated by the former employee.

She said the council had not been “open and transparent” about the issue. Previously, Mr Greensill had invited Cr Toms to submit a formal GIPA (Government Information (Public Access)) and pay the associated fees “as a member of the public”.
The following comment was published, with her permission, on The Clarence Forum: “The reason he has given me is the issue of alleged asbestos has been dealt with and is not a matter that is before Council.”

September 2016: The Clarence Environment Centre’s John Edwards was given a map of where the alleged asbestos was buried, following an appeal against CVC’s initial rejection of his formal GIPA, on the grounds that “the information that you seek access to was provided to Council in confidence”.
The former employee tells the Independent that the map CVC released was not the same one he had given the council; however, he said his main concern was material dumped in the former STP’s sludge lagoon, as marked on the map given to Mr Edwards.

November 2016: Documents showing that 900 kilograms of asbestos pipes had been discovered during the sieving of 4,000 cubic metres of fill, along with “large pieces of concrete, tires and car parts, chain wire fencing and road markers”, are tabled at the November council meeting.

Clarence Valley Independent, 16 November 2016:

Investigations by Hutchison Builders, the contractor in charge of the project, have revealed that the “stockpiles detailed in the RAP and previous reports provided to Council have grown since the reports and, in many instances, are on top of existing stockpiles.

“This means that what has been assumed to be natural ground is actually uncontrolled fill.

“….The high level of organic material in the fill sifted thus far indicates risks with re-use of the material below the stockpiles and the significant amount of waste in the material will make it difficult to work with.

“In addition there is likely to be further asbestos in this material.

“…In accordance with their obligations the 3rd Party Auditor has notified EPA of the uncontrolled fill and asbestos materials that have been dumped on the site.

“EPA has contacted Council with regards to this and an initial response provided.

“The response was high level and further information is likely to be required by EPA.”

These ‘discoveries’, the PCG minutes state, could result in a variation to the contract of “$1million to $1.4million” if the ‘cleaned’ stockpile is retained and buried on site, however, “this option may not be acceptable to EPA and further advice from EPA may be required”.

“The potential costs for removing all of the uncontrolled fill and bio-solids will be in the order of $2m to 2.5m,” the PCG minutes state.

However, these costs would have had to have been met by CVC in any case, as it is bound to remediate the former sewerage treatment plant irrespective of a depot being constructed or not – and will be paid for out of the council’s sewer fund.

Meanwhile, the report to council states that “discovery and rectification of latent conditions will have an approximate 3 month delay to the overall construction programme”.

Four weeks of this delay was a result of the Parsons Brinckerhoff “RAP report and Technical specification reports [having] not been completed in accordance with EPA requirements”.

The report to council notes: “There remains a risk that NSW EPA may take action toward Council with regard to uncontrolled waste being placed at the site.”

And: “It is proposed that Council assess its options at a future date with regard to the suitability and validity of the RAP … there are numerous discrepancies and inadequacies associated with the document…”

Clarence Valley Independent, October 2016:

The Independent sent a long list of questions to Clarence Valley Council following The Clarence Forum’s allegations that there is asbestos contamination at the proposed ‘super’ depot site at Tyson Street, South Grafton.

However, the general manager Scott Greensill, who described the forum’s convenor John Hagger’s allegations as “irresponsible scaremongering”, chose to answer the questions with the following statement:

“Council takes matters of community and workplace safety very seriously.
“All necessary actions in regards to possible asbestos at the proposed new depot site in Grafton are being managed in the appropriate and responsible manner.

“During the course of the redevelopment project Council is legally obliged to appropriately deal with any waste related matters, including asbestos, and these are encompassed in a site remediation action plan.

“Council has been in discussion with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and SafeWork NSW who are both in concurrence with council’s current management and proposed actions.

“Council is aware that anonymous complaints were made to the EPA and SafeWork NSW late last year and these have been adequately attended to.

“Recurrent attempts of raising this matter appear to be emanating from one person, despite Council clearly demonstrating on numerous occasions to relevant authorities that the required protections and plans are in place.

“The ongoing raising of this issue is considered to be nothing more that irresponsible scaremongering.”

The questions posed by the Independent are below:

• SafeWork NSW has advised the Independent that it has “directed Council to ensure the site remains secure and that no unauthorised individuals or workers have access to the site” and that it has “also advised Council to update their asbestos register to reflect that asbestos is present at the site”. Has this occurred?

• How can I access the council’s asbestos register?

• SafeWork NSW has advised the Independent that it “is working with Council to develop safe systems of work for the remediation of the site set to start in early 2016”. How and when do you envisage that this will take place?

• If asbestos was known to be onsite (as reported by the ABC), why was this information omitted from the State Environment Planning Policy checklist – marked as not relevant – regarding Table 55 in the Managing Land Contamination Planning Guidelines, SEPP 55–Remediation of Land, when the planning proposal was exhibited?

• The planning proposal comment, however, says that “Council is in any case stepping through a ‘remediation action plan’ (RAP) process in respect of the contamination that has been detected at the site. If it’s not Table 55 contamination (eg asbestos); what are the specific contaminants referred to in the RAP?

• The EPA has publically stated that “asbestos on the site would require remediation before the land is developed”. However, director Troy Anderson stated in the ABC report that, “Council has a remediation action plan for the entire site which has identified a certain area which may have asbestos materials and we’ll be dealing with that as we move through construction.” Your statement is contrary to what was stated by the EPA [remediation before the land is developed]. What is the council doing regarding this apparent conflict?
• Will the site be remediated before any construction commences?

• The council’s asbestos policy states: “It is illegal to dispose of asbestos waste in domestic waste bins or to recycle, reuse, BURY or ILLEGALLY DUMP [the Independent’s emphasis] asbestos waste.” The council appears to have breached this policy, what is your response to that?

• Is the asbestos onsite regarded as friable or non-friable?

• What are the products onsite that contain asbestos?

• It has been alleged that some of the material dumped at the site has subsequently been removed and used elsewhere – has this occurred?

• If so, does CVC have a record of where this material has been used?

• It has been alleged that local residents may have removed material from the site, which may be contaminated by asbestos – what is CVC doing to manage this?

• What action does the council plan to take to advise and/or protect its employees regarding the asbestos, in accordance with the council’s asbestos policy?

Clarence Valley Council, media release, 10 February 2016:

Warning of misleading claims from petitioners

CLARENCE Valley residents, particularly those in the South Grafton area, have been advised to be cautious about information they might get from petitioners operating in the

area.

Clarence Valley Council general manager, Scott Greensill, said residents had contacted the council’s customer service centres saying they had been approached to sign a petition

opposing the possible development of a new works depot in Tyson Street, South Grafton.

Mr Greensill said council had no issue with people expressing their opinions about developments or council activities, but encouraged those approached to seek more

information about any proposals before signing petitions.

“Some of the reports we have had are disturbing,” he said.

“One resident told us the petitioner refused to give his name and made a number of false claims about the possible depot development.

“She said he told her the council was going to dump asbestos waste near the South Grafton High School and that children were going to die from it. That is a completely irresponsible

claim.

“She also said there would be lights flashing all night, there would be machinery going at all hours and her property value would drop.

“She refused to sign his petition.

“People have a democratic right to voice their opinions about council and its operations, but they need to do that based on factual information – not on the basis of something someone

who refuses to identify himself has told them.

“If any residents or ratepayers want any factual information about this or any other proposal they should contact our customer service team.”

Release ends.