Thursday 6 April 2017
Wednesday 5 April 2017
And the Turnbull Government robo-debt debacle blunders on
The Canberra Times, 29 March 2017:
Centrelink hit at least 21,000 families with bogus Family Tax Benefit debts last year, the federal government has conceded.
The welfare agency sent 65,000 demands in November 2016 to repay money received through the family assistance payment but about 21,400 of the families hit with the debt notices were able to prove they owed Centrelink nothing.
Centrelink's parent department, Human Services, blames the error rate of at least 33 per cent on its clients' failure to "engage" and says it has already improved its efforts to get in touch with recipients.
But Labor is scathing of the latest debt recovery revelation, saying something is "terribly wrong" at Centrelink and "hardworking, honest Australians" have been "intimidated" into handing over their money.
The true rate of bogus debts could be higher than the official 33 per cent because the Human Services does not record or disclose how many families simply paid the money to get Centrelink off their backs or lacked the documentation to fight the debt notices.
The Family Tax Benefit recovery effort is a separate process to the controversial 'robo-debt' data-matching scheme which has mired Centrelink in controversy for several months….
…65,000 debt notices had to be raised in November 2016," Human Services said.
"Of these debt notices, 33 per cent were then changed to zero dollars as the individual responded with further information once they had received the debt notice and a reassessment was able to be undertaken."
The department also noted the rate of bogus FTB debts dwarfed that of robo-debt…..
One Nation: political 'sins' like chickens come home to roost
On 3 March 2017 ABC Television ran a Four Corners program titled “Please Explain”.
It opened with presenter Sarah Ferguson stating:
Welcome to Four Corners.
Nine months ago, Pauline Hanson was riding high. Elected to the Senate, along with 3 of her One Nation colleagues, she created out of thin air a powerful new block on the crossbenches of the fractious upper house.
It was an extraordinary comeback for a woman whose first venture into politics more than twenty years ago ended in ignominy, dumped from parliament, and jailed after a conviction for electoral fraud that was later overturned on appeal.
Last month, in the Western Australian State election, Hanson's One Nation Party won three upper house seats but polled far lower than predicted.
Bitter party infighting in Western Australian and Queensland has seen former One Nation powerbrokers and disgruntled candidates come forth to condemn the woman they'd supported and pinned their hopes on.
It was this kind of internal division that helped pull One Nation apart in the late 1990's.
And just like 20 years ago there are claims that a powerful advisor has too much sway over Pauline Hanson - her chief of staff James Ashby.
So are the wheels coming off the One Nation wagon?
Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna ventures inside One Nation for tonight's report.
Then well into the broadcast this went too air:
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Ian Nelson, a 20-year party veteran was the State President, and also the Treasurer. He resurrected Pauline Hanson in 2014 and returned her to politics.
But after her election success, both he and Saraya Beric were left without a job.
The losers of a bitter internal power struggle that's now split One Nation.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Why are you no longer working for One Nation?
IAN NELSON: Basically, James Ashby, two words, James Ashby. He couldn't have me around, I was warned, I was warned months before it happened, so James Ashby couldn't have me around and he just poisoned Pauline against me.
SARAYA BERIC: I'm very disappointed in the person he turned out to be.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: James Ashby seen here on election night, became Pauline Hanson's right hand man very quickly.
To understand his meteoric rise, you have to go back to late 2014.
When Ian Nelson says James Ashby rang him out of the blue, with an irresistible offer: Cut price professional printing for federal and state election campaigns for the entire party.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Did you run any checks or . . .
IAN NELSON: No.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: On who James Ashby was?
IAN NELSON: No. Everybody could blame me for that, no I didn't, I just thought what a kind offer, I've had you know, I have offers simular but this one was a bit funny.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: A quick online search would have revealed James Ashby is no stranger to controversy.
In 2012, he accused his then boss, speaker of the house Peter Slipper, of sexual harassment.
Ultimately James Ashby didn't pursue the case, but it was one of the ugliest political scandals in recent times.
IAN NELSON: I was there to watch Pauline's back and, when I had time I was going to vet people, before they get too close to Pauline but I absolutely failed miserably on that one.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: You failed to vet James Ashby?
IAN NELSON: Yeah. Had I have known what I know today, there was no way I would've put him in, let him anywhere near her.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: In early 2015, James Ashby was appointed to the party's executive.
SARAYA BERIC: James was looking at different ways to promote Pauline and the party and he came up with the idea of getting an aeroplane, a little plane that she could get around logistically, and you know he said the media will go for it, it was a bit of a gimmick and I actually agreed with him.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: How the party managed to pay for the extravagant purchase has remained shrouded in secrecy.
PAULINE HANSON, 19 JANUARY, 2017: We have never received huge donations from anyone in all the time. Our donations come from the small people.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: One of the party's biggest recent donors is wealthy Victorian property developer, the director of VicLand Corporation, Bill McNee.
Four Corners has obtained emails revealing how he contacted One Nation offering financial support.
One Nation's head office responded in February 2015.
EMAIL, 27th February 2015: Pauline ... would like to meet with you if you are still able to travel to QLD. May I also ask for your phone number to pass on to Pauline?'
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Bill McNee wrote back:
EMAIL, 27TH February 2015: 'I would be delighted ... I would like to become a major financial supporter of your party...Let me know when suits for me to come up and meet with you all.'
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Bill McNee followed up again two weeks later, keen to meet:
EMAIL: 16 March 2015: Sorry to be pushy...I'm so eager to offer support to a party that has the courage to stand up for ordinary Australians and give us a voice.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: They met one month later on the 11th of April 2015 at Pauline Hanson's home for a roast dinner. Ian Nelson was there.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Did James Ashby ask Bill McNee for a plane?
IAN NELSON: He just kept saying I'm a pilot, you know w- we should be flying Pauline around and and then Bill said, 'Well, we'll have to get you a plane then'. That's how that conversation went.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Two days later James Ashby wrote this text message to a party official:
TEXT MESSAGE, 13 April 2015: We need to talk to Bill about funding it.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: The official responded:
TEXT MESSAGE: 5 May 2015: 'We had a good chat with Bill. I think Pauline's going to go for the plane'
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Eight days later, donor Bill McNee sent this email to Pauline Hanson and James Ashby:
EMAIL, 13 May 2015: 'James we will sort out the plane tomorrow as well.'
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: And after that message was sent between James Ashby and Bill McNee did a plane arrive?
IAN NELSON: Yes, very shortly afterwards, brand new Jabiru.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: How was that funded- the purchase of that aeroplane?
IAN NELSON: Well, after Bill McNee said, 'Yes we'll have to get you a plane', to my understanding that means, well all right, I'll buy you a plane. But as it turns out, Bill McNee didn't buy the plane, but as I understand it, he transferred the funds to James Ashby, not the Party, not Pauline, but to James Ashby.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Bill McNee has denied funding the purchase of the plane.
He's told Four Corners: "There has been no financial support or assistance to any political party outside what is publicly disclosed and already well known."
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Ian Nelson, the party's state treasurer, says he asked Pauline Hanson to explain how the purchase of the plane had been funded.
IAN NELSON: I said where's the plane, there's no evidence of it anywhere, whose plane is it and she said it's my plane, I said fine, okay, well then, you've got to declare it and she said, 'No, don't worry about it, don't worry about it'. I said 'Well, did Bill McNee buy that plane for the party, did he buy it for you, or did he buy it for James Ashby, and she just looked at me and walked away.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Four Corners has obtained a copy of these 2015 insurance documents for the Jabiru plane.
They confirm the plane was insured in James Ashby's name. It's listed purpose? Business.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: What is the primary purpose or use of that plane?
IAN NELSON: The One Nation Party. To ferry Pauline around, to the little towns and properties.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Was that gift declared?
IAN NELSON: No.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Under the rules, should that have been disclosed?
IAN NELSON: If I did it, yes I would've. If I'd had anything to do with the transaction. I said, 'Yes disclose it for heaven's sakes, because it's been used to ferry Pauline Hanson around the state, so it's really a party matter, so it should've been disclosed.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: The acquisition of the plane wasn't the only thing to worry party Treasurer Ian Nelson.
In 2015 Bill McNee's company, VicLand Business, made donations totalling almost $70,000 to One Nation.
When it came time to declare them, Ian Nelson says James Ashby rang him, questioning the way he'd declared the donations to the Queensland Electoral Commission.
IAN NELSON: You know, he said this is confidential, all these matters are confidential and ah they they're for our business only and I said no, that's not quite right, the rules and regulations state that we have to declare any amount of money over a thousand dollars, we have to declare it, and he said well can't you just put 'anonymous donor'? And I said, no, you can't do that, I'll end up in jail.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: To be clear, James Ashby asked you to list a donor as anonymous instead of declaring the name?
IAN NELSON: Yes.
CARO MELDRUM-HANNA: Rather than disclosing who it is, in contravention . . .
IAN NELSON: In contravention of all the rules and regulations, yes. Later on, Pauline had a bit of a go at me about the same thing.
I said, 'You've got to declare everything', and she just kept calling me an obstructionist, you know, 'Why are you doing it like this?' They just don't understand, and now they're running a party, so God help them all.
And the chickens began flying back to the roost.
The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 April 2017:
On Tuesday, Labor Senator Murray Watt wrote to Australian Electoral Commission head Tom Rogers to investigate whether the matters raised on the program should be referred to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.
"The program contained serious allegations that PHON, Pauline Hanson and her Chief of Staff, James Ashby, may have breached financial disclosure obligations under the Commonwealth Electoral Act," Senator Watt said in his letter.
"In the broadcast, former party treasurer Ian Nelson alleges that PHON failed to declare a significant donation from property developer Bill McNee, which the party used to fund the purchase of a Jabiru light aircraft. According to the manufacturer's website, the cost of a new Jabiru light aircraft can exceed $100,000."
Senator Watt said the allegations were "very serious".
"As you are aware, a breach of financial disclosure obligations under the Act may be a criminal offence," he said.
"Furthermore, any attempt to subvert these critical measures, which seek to ensure transparency and accountability in campaign financing, threatens to undermine public confidence in our system of democracy.
"I ask you to investigate these serious allegations, and refer them to the Director of Public Prosecutions, if appropriate."
A spokeswoman for Special Minister of State Scott Ryan said he had spoken to the AEC about the program but had not yet requested an investigation.
Senator Ryan will hold a follow-up conversation with AEC officials over coming days, she said.
Activist group GetUp! has also sent a separate request to the AEC to investigate the matter.
4:02pm
Following a request on Tuesday from Labor senator Murray Watt, an AEC spokesman said: "The AEC is aware of allegations made on Monday evening's Four Corners program and through other media outlets.
4:02pm
Following a request on Tuesday from Labor senator Murray Watt, an AEC spokesman said: "The AEC is aware of allegations made on Monday evening's Four Corners program and through other media outlets.
The spokesman said the AEC undertakes regular compliance reviews and would consider "information placed in the public domain" as part of its inquiries.
Tuesday 4 April 2017
Turnbull Government's $75 & $125 bribes appear to have earned it nothing but falling poll numbers
The announcement of a one-off payment of $75 to singles and $125 to couples who receive the aged, disabled and carers pensions to cope with a predicted rise of $78 in the average household electricity bill from June this year, along with a promised loan to the SA Government for construction of a solar thermal power plant and a feasibility study for a north-south gas pipeline, in exchange for company tax cuts for businesses with up to $50 million annual turnovers – has not produced a happy bounce in the polls for the Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government led by Malcolm Turnbull and Barnaby Joyce.
This Newspoll was conducted between Thursday 30 March and Sunday 2 April 2017.
The Australian, 3 April 2017:
The Australian, 3 April 2017:
Looking on in awe as a nation drives its people off a cliff and into a turbulent sea
Dear President Tusk,
On 23 June last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. As I have said before, that decision was no rejection of the values we share as fellow Europeans. Nor was it an attempt to do harm to the European Union or any of the remaining member states. On the contrary, the United Kingdom wants the European Union to succeed and prosper. Instead, the referendum was a vote to restore, as we see it, our national self-determination. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe – and we want to remain committed partners and allies to our friends across the continent.
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom Parliament confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill was passed by Parliament on 13 March and it received Royal Assent from Her Majesty The Queen and became an Act of Parliament on 16 March.
Today, therefore, I am writing to give effect to the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom. I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with the same Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community.
This letter sets out the approach of Her Majesty’s Government to the discussions we will have about the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union and about the deep and special partnership we hope to enjoy – as your closest friend and neighbour – with the European Union once we leave. We believe that these objectives are in the interests not only of the United Kingdom but of the European Union and the wider world too.
It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats. We want the United Kingdom, through a new deep and special partnership with a strong European Union, to play its full part in achieving these goals. We therefore believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the European Union.
The Government wants to approach our discussions with ambition, giving citizens and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union – and indeed from third countries around the world – as much certainty as possible, as early as possible.
I would like to propose some principles that may help to shape our coming discussions, but before I do so, I should update you on the process we will be undertaking at home, in the United Kingdom.
The process in the United Kingdom
As I have announced already, the Government will bring forward legislation that will repeal the Act of Parliament – the European Communities Act 1972 – that gives effect to EU law in our country. This legislation will, wherever practical and appropriate, in effect convert the body of existing European Union law (the “acquis”) into UK law. This means there will be certainty for UK citizens and for anybody from the European Union who does business in the United Kingdom. The Government will consult on how we design and implement this legislation, and we will publish a White Paper tomorrow. We also intend to bring forward several other pieces of legislation that address specific issues relating to our departure from the European Union, also with a view to ensuring continuity and certainty, in particular for businesses. We will of course continue to fulfil our responsibilities as a member state while we remain a member of the European Union, and the legislation we propose will not come into effect until we leave.
From the start and throughout the discussions, we will negotiate as one United Kingdom, taking due account of the specific interests of every nation and region of the UK as we do so. When it comes to the return of powers back to the United Kingdom, we will consult fully on which powers should reside in Westminster and which should be devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration.
Negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union
The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.
If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened. In this kind of scenario, both the United Kingdom and the European Union would of course cope with the change, but it is not the outcome that either side should seek. We must therefore work hard to avoid that outcome.
It is for these reasons that we want to be able to agree a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security cooperation, but it is also because we want to play our part in making sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats. And we want the United Kingdom to play its full part in realising that vision for our continent.
Proposed principles for our discussions
Looking ahead to the discussions which we will soon begin, I would like to suggest some principles that we might agree to help make sure that the process is as smooth and successful as possible.
i. We should engage with one another constructively and respectfully, in a spirit of sincere cooperation
Since I became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have listened carefully to you, to my fellow EU Heads of Government and the Presidents of the European Commission and Parliament. That is why the United Kingdom does not seek membership of the single market: we understand and respect your position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible and there can be no “cherry picking”. We also understand that there will be consequences for the UK of leaving the EU: we know that we will lose influence over the rules that affect the European economy. We also know that UK companies will, as they trade within the EU, have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part – just as UK companies do in other overseas markets.
ii. We should always put our citizens first
There is obvious complexity in the discussions we are about to undertake, but we should remember that at the heart of our talks are the interests of all our citizens. There are, for example, many citizens of the remaining member states living in the United Kingdom, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union, and we should aim to strike an early agreement about their rights.
iii. We should work towards securing a comprehensive agreement
We want to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. We will need to discuss how we determine a fair settlement of the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, in accordance with the law and in the spirit of the United Kingdom’s continuing partnership with the EU. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU.
iv. We should work together to minimise disruption and give as much certainty as possible
Investors, businesses and citizens in both the UK and across the remaining 27 member states – and those from third countries around the world – want to be able to plan. In order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from implementation periods to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. It would help both sides to minimise unnecessary disruption if we agree this principle early in the process.
v. In particular, we must pay attention to the UK’s unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland and the importance of the peace process in Northern Ireland
The Republic of Ireland is the only EU member state with a land border with the United Kingdom. We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland. We also have an important responsibility to make sure that nothing is done to jeopardise the peace process in Northern Ireland, and to continue to uphold the Belfast Agreement.
vi. We should begin technical talks on detailed policy areas as soon as possible, but we should prioritise the biggest challenges
Agreeing a high-level approach to the issues arising from our withdrawal will of course be an early priority. But we also propose a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union. This should be of greater scope and ambition than any such agreement before it so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies such as financial services and network industries. This will require detailed technical talks, but as the UK is an existing EU member state, both sides have regulatory frameworks and standards that already match. We should therefore prioritise how we manage the evolution of our regulatory frameworks to maintain a fair and open trading environment, and how we resolve disputes. On the scope of the partnership between us – on both economic and security matters – my officials will put forward detailed proposals for deep, broad and dynamic cooperation.
vii. We should continue to work together to advance and protect our shared European values
Perhaps now more than ever, the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe. We want to play our part to ensure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and able to lead in the world, projecting its values and defending itself from security threats.
The task before us
As I have said, the Government of the United Kingdom wants to agree a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, taking in both economic and security cooperation. At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many parts of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens. Likewise, Europe’s security is more fragile today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Weakening our cooperation for the prosperity and protection of our citizens would be a costly mistake. The United Kingdom’s objectives for our future partnership remain those set out in my Lancaster House speech of 17 January and the subsequent White Paper published on 2 February.
We recognise that it will be a challenge to reach such a comprehensive agreement within the two-year period set out for withdrawal discussions in the Treaty. But we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. We start from a unique position in these discussions – close regulatory alignment, trust in one another’s institutions, and a spirit of cooperation stretching back decades. It is for these reasons, and because the future partnership between the UK and the EU is of such importance to both sides, that I am sure it can be agreed in the time period set out by the Treaty.
The task before us is momentous but it should not be beyond us. After all, the institutions and the leaders of the European Union have succeeded in bringing together a continent blighted by war into a union of peaceful nations, and supported the transition of dictatorships to democracy. Together, I know we are capable of reaching an agreement about the UK’s rights and obligations as a departing member state, while establishing a deep and special partnership that contributes towards the prosperity, security and global power of our continent.
Yours sincerely,
Theresa May
Ballina Council and sand miner behaving badly?
Echo NetDaily reported on 27 March 2017 that McGeary Bros Pty Ltd plan to extend its quarry operations:
Residents of Lennox Head and the Ballina Greens are opposing a proposal to create a new 3.2 million tonne sand mine on Newrybar Swamp Road, saying an existing mine in the area is already exceeding its extraction approvals and creating a blight on the coastal landscape.
The No Sand Mine for Lennox group said that following its investigation of the existing mine, Ballina Shire Council admitted that despite quarterly statements being submitted to the council clearly outlining the over extraction, council have not contacted the miners to discuss their over extraction, nor imposed any restrictions or fines.
Newrybar resident and Greens member Nathan questioned if the council was unwilling or unable to control the extraction rates of the existing mine, how would it manage the much larger site.
‘We would like to question whether council understands or is monitoring the impact on the very sensitive Newrybar Swamp and North Creek. The over extraction of 115,000 tonnes of material means that there has been about 115 million litres of water displaced,’ he told Echonetdaily.
‘The new mine is proposing a much, much larger sand mine for that same area,’ he added.
‘Locals are already concerned about the number of trucks on the road, whether environmental concerns are being monitored correctly as acid sulphate soil issues, water runoff, habitat loss and agricultural land loss.
‘Then there are the trucks, the noise, the damage to local infrastructure, safety and the fact the tab for any damage will have to be picked up by ratepayers.
‘So that’s what motivated us to have a bit of a look into it and check what’s happening with the current mine,’ he said.
Lennox Head resident and group spokesperson Amelia Hicks said that on council’s statements the group estimates ‘there have been 18,000 extra truck movements’ east and west on Ross Lane in 2016 ‘which equates to 62 additional truck movements per day’.
The Lennox Wave, 29
November 2016:
According to Planners
North spokesperson Steve Connelly, ‘We submitted a basic application to
the Department of Planning and Environment seeking Secretary’s Environmental
Assessment Requirements (SEARs).
The Secretary of the
Department consulted all relevant government departments then issued us with a
very comprehensive set of Environmental Assessment Requirements. These SEARs
must be addressed as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Development.
We are preparing the
EIS, in association with an expert team of environmental, design and
engineering consultants. The EIS must include comprehensive environmental
management and monitoring measures.
That EIS, when it is
completed, will be lodged with the with Council. The EIS will be publicly
exhibited for at least 30 days. During this time, submissions will be invited
from the public and Council consults with all the government agencies.’
As part of the EIS
issues of soil, water, noise, biodiversity, transport, heritage, waste, public
safety, visual impact, social and economic factors, and rehabilitation will all
be addressed.
Meanwhile, Amelia Hicks
is urging residents to stay alert and ready to take action on this issue. If
you would like more information on the planned mine or would like to get
involved you can contact her on amelia.hicks@me.com.
Monday 3 April 2017
Six foot tall heavyweight Barnaby Joyce versus thirteen inches of Australian possum magic
A red-faced political brawler has decided to beat up on a shy, small nocturnal possum.
THE POSSUM
Gymnobelideus leadbeateri
Native to Australia
Originally known as the Bass River Possum
Estimated average length: 33 cm (13 inches) from head to tail
Critically Endangered (2015)
On International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species
Estimated wild population: 1,200 - 4,000 possums
Leadbeater's possum occurs in Australia’s tallest forests in central Victoria. Considered extinct until 1961, the species is now found in two subpopulations: a core location in the Central Highlands and an outlier in lowland floodplain forest. During the day, possums den in communal nests in the hollow centre of a large dead or living tree. A monogamous breeding pair and one or more generations of offspring den together. Feeding occurs at night with the diet comprising of trunk and branch exudates (80%) and insects (20%). [Australian Department of Environment and Energy, Species Profile and Threats Database, 2017]
Old-growth ash forest is prime habitat for Leadbeater’s possum. It is estimated that old-growth or multi-aged mountain ash forest comprised 30–60 per cent of the current ash forest estate in the Central Highlands of Victoria prior to European settlement. Old growth ash forest now comprises 1.15 per cent of this mountain ash forest estate (Lindenmayer et al., 2013a). [Threatened Species Scientific Committee, Conservation Advice to the Minister, 22 April 2015]
Bushfires, post-fire salvage logging and commercial timber harvesting, particularly clear-felling, are the principal cause of continuing loss of ideal habitat.
The Leadbeater’s Possum is the gazetted mammal emblem of Victoria [1971].
THE BRAWLER
* Image of Joyce letter via Twitter
* Photograph of Barnaby Joyce from Google Images
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
