Clarence Valley Council 2010 Biodiversity Strategy - more honoured in the breach than the observance?

TheDaily Examiner, 22 June 2020:

Since last September, Clarence Valley Council has been reviewing its 2010 Biodiversity Strategy, and recently placed it on public exhibition for comment.

As someone who participated in the development of that original strategy, I undertook a critical review of that document to see if the aims and objectives, particularly relating to native vegetation, had been achieved before making comments on the review.

Those objectives were to: • Protect areas of native vegetation; • Reduce the loss of native vegetation to facilitate a net gain; • Revegetate riparian zones; • Encourage the protection and management of regrowth in identified corridors, and; • Educate the community on the benefits of biodiversity, and enforce legislation aimed at protecting native flora and fauna values.

Sadly, I concluded they had not been met, particularly the enforcing of legislation.

There are some relatively uncontrollable external factors that have undoubtedly led to a net loss of vegetation, such as the massive destruction caused by the Pacific Highway relocation.

However, council did nothing to convince the Roads and Maritime Authority to change the route to either of two other less-damaging options.

My cynicism is based on reality, as evidenced by the following example. The 2010 strategy acknowledged that “land clearing and fragmentation was the most important contributor, to the loss of habitat and decline of native species”, and recommended that “any removal of native vegetation, as part of a development application where clearing cannot be avoided, shall be offset to ensure a net gain in vegetation”.

With that strong statement in place, one has to ask why the largest single housing development to be approved, Iluka’s Hickey St project, went through with no offsets required whatsoever, resulting in the net loss of 14 hectares of forest.Regrettably, it’s not the strategy that has failed to halt biodiversity decline, it is the failure of Clarence Valley Council itself, from planners through to elected councillors, very few of whom, it would appear, have ever read the document, and have little or no understanding of the critical need to protect biodiversity in order for humanity to survive.

CREDIT: John Edwards Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition

Australian National Audit Office found the federal environment department has been ineffective in managing risks to the environment, that its management of assessments and approvals is not effective, and that it is not managing conflicts of interest in the work it undertakes

The Guardian, June 2020:

The government has failed in its duty to protect the environment in its delivery of Australia’s national conservation laws, a scathing review by the national auditor general has found.

The Australian National Audit Office found the federal environment department has been ineffective in managing risks to the environment, that its management of assessments and approvals is not effective, and that it is not managing conflicts of interest in the work it undertakes.

The report also finds a correlation between funding and staffing cuts to the department and a blow-out in the time it is taking to make decisions, as highlighted by Guardian Australia.

The review, which comes in advance of the interim report on Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, has prompted renewed calls for the establishment of an independent national environmental regulator.

It is the sixth audit of the department’s administration of the EPBC Act.

The report examined how effective the department had been in administering referrals, assessments and approvals under the Act, which is the main decision-making work for developments likely to have a significant impact on nationally significant species and ecosystems.

“Despite being subject to multiple reviews, audits and parliamentary inquiries since the commencement of the Act, the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment’s administration of referrals, assessments and approvals of controlled actions under the EPBC Act is not effective,” the report concludes.

Among its findings, the auditor found the department could not demonstrate that the environmental conditions it set for developments were enough to prevent unacceptable risk to Australia’s natural environment.

Of the approvals examined, 79% contained conditions that were noncompliant with procedures or contained clerical or administrative errors, reducing the department’s ability to monitor the condition or achieve the intended environmental outcome.

The report also found that a document the department is required to produce to show how the proposed environmental conditions would produce the desired environmental protections was in most cases not being written.

From a random sample of 29 approvals from 2015 to 2018, the auditor found this document had not been produced in 26 cases.

In further findings, the audit concluded:

• environmental assessments were not being undertaken in full compliance with procedures and decisions were being overturned in court;
• the department is failing to keep key documents related to its decisions;
• the department has been failing to meet statutory timeframes for decisions. This has been markedly the case since 2014-15 when the number of decisions made within legal timeframes dropped from 60% to 5% in 2018-19. This correlated with cuts to staff in the department who could assess development proposals
• the department is not properly monitoring if developers are meeting their environmental conditions;
• briefing packages written by the department when assessing environmental management plans for developments did not contain any consideration of other statutory documents under the Act that are supposed to protect threatened species, including recovery plans;
• the department has not established any guidance or quality control measures for assessing the effectiveness of environmental offsets. It also has not mapped where all of its approved environmental offsets are, meaning they cannot be properly tracked;
• agricultural clearing is rarely being referred to the department for assessment under national law;
• potential conflicts of interest are not being managed, despite the existence of sound oversight structures;
• the average overrun of statutory timeframes for approval decisions in 2018-19 was 116 days.

“This report is a scathing indictment of the federal government’s administration of our national environment law and highlights why we need a stronger law and a new independent regulator,” said James Trezise, a policy analyst at the Australian Conservation Foundation....

In advance of the interim report, due next week, the government has expressed a desire to streamline approvals and cut so-called “green tape”.

But environment groups said the audit confirmed Australia’s laws were “fundamentally broken”.

The Wilderness Society’s Suzanne Milthorpe said the findings showed a “catastrophic failure” to administer the law and protect the environment.

“This report shows that the natural and cultural heritage that is core to Australia’s identity is being put at severe risk by the government’s unwillingness to fix problems they’ve been warned about for years,” she said.

“It shows that even when the department is aware of high risks of environmental wrongdoing, like with deforestation from agricultural expansion, they are unwilling to act.

“The Morrison government announced last week that they want to load this failed system up even further by slashing approval times in the name of slashing ‘green tape’. But this audit shows that the current system is not capable of making good decisions, let alone quick ones.”....

Note

Referrals, Assessments and Approvals of Controlled Actions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 [the ANAO audit] can be found at 
https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/referrals-assessments-and-approvals-controlled-actions-under-the-epbc-act.

Quote of the Week

“We have done our best to convince the Government to reverse the indexation freeze...We've done our best to find efficiencies without affecting content, but we have said all along, since this (freeze) was announced in 2018, that after successive budget reductions to the ABC, there's only so much that can be gained through efficiency and in the end, content will be affected, and we've seen that roll out yesterday.”  [ABC managing director David Anderson, in The West Australian, 25 June 2020]

Cartoons of the Week

Peter Broelman

Cartoonist unknown

Clarence Valley Rural Fire Service boosts firefighting numbers ahead of 2020-21 bushfire season

Clarence Valley Independent, 19 June 2020:

The Clarence Valley Rural Fire Service (RFS) have been inundated with new members, with an increased number signing up since the start of last year’s horrendous fire season.

Since January 2019, approximately 303 volunteers have signed up (240 of those have joined since September 2019).

Clarence Valley Region RFS operations manager Ian Smith said that to get over 200 (new members) in a season, is unprecedented.

“Across the Clarence Valley we have a total of 1237 members. An increase of 240 is approx. 24 percent increase in numbers since September 2019,” Mr Smith said.

“In 2016 our total new members were 67, in 2017 it was 74 and in 2018 there were 86,” he said.

Mr Smith said that among the top numbers of brigades to receive new members were: Trenayr Brigade 32, Southhampton 27 and Woombah 26 and 23 new members in the Clarence Valley Catering.

“The breakdown of our new members consists of 206 male and 102 females. Our youngest new members are two 14-year-olds from Copmanhurst and Tyringham brigades and our oldest (new) member is 80 years old, in the Catering Brigade,” he said.....

Australian Prime Minister is urging states to push ahead with reopening despite COVID-19 outbreaks

“We always said that we were not going for eradication of the virus. Other economies tried that and their economy was far more damaged than ours. And so we have to ensure that we can run our economy, run our lives, run our communities, alongside this virus.” [Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison speaking on ABC radio program “PM”, 22 June 2020]

Financial Review, 22 June 2020:

A fresh outbreak of coronavirus in Victoria should not stop moves to reopen the economy, according to Scott Morrison, as one state delayed plans to reopen its borders and others contemplated new travel restrictions.

With Victoria recording a spike in cases because of what experts said was tardy adherence to safety protocols, thousands living within six local government jurisdictions were told not to leave their area unless essential.  

As the state introduced the toughest COVID-19 measures currently in Australia in an effort to contain the spike, the Prime Minister agreed it was a "wake-up call" but said setbacks were anticipated when he announced more than a month ago that the states were to reopen their economies by July. 

"This is part of living with COVID-19. And we will continue on with the process of opening up our economy and getting people back into work,'' Mr Morrison said.....

This was Scott Morrison at his uncaring, bullying best last Monday.

So what does "living with COVID-19" actually mean?

Well for 104 people it meant death, with 3 elderly victims dying at home and 30 in nursing homes.

It means there are still active COVID-19 cases in 4 Australian states and some people are still becoming sick enough to require an intensive care hospital bed.

Living with COVID-19 also means community transmission of the disease remains an issue in Australia, as well as people entering/exiting the country while infected.

The pandemic growth may have significanly slowed in Australia but it has not stopped, every day the average number of confirmed COVID-19 cases grow by around 12 people.

All this clearly indicates that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is not passively responding to successive state public health orders. What was happening is that collectively we had gone to great lengths to avoid coming into contact with this deadly virus thereby avoiding spreading COVID-19 disease.

When this collective action begins to fragment as more and more businesses, entertainment and sporting venues open, state borders are no longer closed and more international flights are allowed into the country, the virus which lives only to mindlessly replicate in as many human bodies as possible will quickly begin to infect larger numbers of people again.

It is highly likely that the resultant disease growth rate will not be able to be described as a "spike" or "setback". For Scott Morrison is stubborn. He will force the states and territories, along with communities and families, to keep exposure to the virus at a dangerously high level simply because he intends to open up the economy and go full bore ahead by July.

So why does the economy have to 'open' in July? 

Not because Morrison really cares about one of his favourite slogans, "jobs and growth". No, 'Emperor' Scott is afraid his own party and its financial backers will finally realise that he has no clothes and the economy is that scrap of cloth he is clutching to cover his nakedness.

It's all about hanging on to personal political power and his lucrative salary as prime minister - and he doesn't care how many people have to die or become chronically ill in order to achieve this.

When a powerful 77 year-old legal figure is finally revealed as a serial sexual harasser in the workplace

The Sydney Morning Herald,  22 June 2020:

Justice Dyson Heydon arrives at the Royal Commission into trade unions in 2015 in Sydney,CREDIT: BEN RUSHTON

Former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon, one of the nation’s pre-eminent legal minds, sexually harassed six young female associates, an independent inquiry by the court has found.

A Herald investigation has also uncovered further allegations from senior legal figures of predatory behaviour by Mr Heydon, including a judge who claims that he indecently assaulted her. The women claim that Mr Heydon’s status as one of the most powerful men in the country protected him from being held to account for his actions.

The High Court inquiry was prompted by two of the judge’s former associates notifying the Chief Justice Susan Kiefel in March 2019 that they had been sexually harassed by Mr Heydon.

“We are ashamed that this could have happened at the High Court of Australia,” said Chief Justice Kiefel in a statement. She confirmed that the lengthy investigation found that “the Honourable Dyson Heydon, AC, QC” harassed six former staff members.

“The findings are of extreme concern to me, my fellow justices, our chief executive and the staff of the court,” said the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Kiefel has personally apologised to the six women, five of them Mr Heydon’s associates, saying “their accounts of their experiences at the time have been believed”.

Dyson Heydon was on the High Court bench from 2003-13 and in 2014 was appointed by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott to run the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption.

Mr Heydon denied the claims via his lawyers Speed and Stracey who issued a statement.....

“Dyson Heydon was one of the most powerful men in the country,” said Josh Bornstein, the women’s lawyer and a principal with law firm Maurice Blackburn in Melbourne. “As the independent investigation makes clear, he is also a sex pest. At the same time he was dispensing justice in the highest court in Australia’s legal system, he was [engaged in] sexual harassment.”

Vivienne Thom, the former Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, interviewed a dozen witnesses, including five former associates. Dr Thom’s report found that the evidence “demonstrates a tendency by Mr Heydon to engage in a pattern of conduct of sexual harassment” which included unwelcome touching, attempting to kiss the women and taking them into his bedroom.

A Herald investigation can reveal that Mr Heydon’s predatory behaviour was an “open secret” in legal and judicial circles. Not only did he prey on his young associates during his decade on the High Court until his mandatory retirement at 70 in 2013, other females in the profession suffered at his hands.....

Read the full article here.

The Guardian, 22 June 2020:

“At the time that this sexual harassment occurred, Dyson Heydon was in his 60s, a conservative judge, a prominent Catholic and a married man,” Bornstein said. 

“The women he employed were in their early 20s and often straight out of university. He was one of the most powerful men in the country, who could make or break their future careers in the law. 

Bornstein said there was an “extreme power imbalance” between Heydon and the young women. 

There was no clear avenue for women to complain about such conduct, he said. 

“The fear of his power and influence meant that the women did not feel able to come forward until recently,” he said.

STATEMENT BY THE HON SUSAN MEFEL AC,CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (PDF)

UPDATE 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June 2020: 

The Herald and The Age can now reveal claims about his behaviour extend to Britain where he is the subject of allegations, including inappropriate touching. 

Following his mandatory retirement from the High Court in 2013 aged 70, Dyson Heydon sought out a teaching position at the prestigious English university, where he had studied on a Rhodes scholarship in 1964. 

His three-year appointment at the Faculty of Law was greeted with excitement within the university, according to documents released under freedom of information laws...... 

Mr Heydon's lectures were scheduled to occur early each year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive. 

However, allegations about his behaviour would cast a dark shadow over Mr Heydon’s tenure. 

"My first introduction to him was that all the Australian law students at Oxford called him 'Dirty Dyson', that seemed to be the moniker he had widely," one former student said. 

One of Mr Heydon’s postgraduate students, whom the Herald and The Age have chosen not to name, was so upset and angry about Mr Heydon’s harassment of her in the Bodleian Library, that she complained to the university. 

The university decided not to renew Mr Heydon’s visiting professorship. In heavily redacted documents released to the Herald and The Age under FOI, the reason for the university's decision was not apparent. 

"The Personnel Committee has already taken a decision that Dyson Heydon should not be renewed," stated Oxford Law Faculty Dean Anne Davies in an email dated June 1, 2016. "We have written to tell him this."

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June 2020:

The ACT's Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended the Australian Federal Police investigate former High Court justice Dyson Heydon over allegations of sexual harassment following a damning investigation commissioned by the court.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 June 2020:

Ms Coutts told the investigator she was worried that Justice Heydon "who was then a large and strong man" may try to harass her friend again. 

Ms Coutts told the investigator called in to conduct the independent inquiry, Dr Vivienne Thom, that she informed Justice McHugh of his colleague's alleged behaviour. 

According to the report, Justice McHugh allegedly replied: "Well Sharona, it's not easy to shock me these days but you have just truly shocked me." 

Ms Coutts said the following day, after further discussions with Justice McHugh, that he left the chambers, returning later to tell her: "I've told the Chief. It's his court. He has to deal with this." 

It is not known what steps were taken by then Chief Justice Murray Gleeson about Justice Heydon's behaviour. Mr McHugh declined to participate in the investigation. When contacted by the Herald and The Age, Mr Gleeson, now retired from the bench, said: "I am unwilling to comment". Mr McHugh, also retired from the bench, did not respond to emails and phone messages..... 

A group of the most senior female barristers in NSW have lodged a complaint with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, following allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault against Mr Heydon. The 14 silks took their action following the revelation in the Herald that a High Court investigation found Mr Heydon had sexually harassed six former associates of the court. None of the female barristers making the complaint allege they themselves were the subject of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Heydon. 

The statutory body, which acts as the professional watchdog, has powers to investigate Mr Heydon's alleged misconduct. It can determine whether Mr Heydon is a "fit and proper person" under the official admission rules for the legal profession. It can also take disciplinary action against a barrister, or commence disciplinary proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In the most serious cases, a practitioner can be disbarred. 

Complaints to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner are confidential. 

The move came as the NSW Bar Association president Tim Game SC released a strongly-worded message warning "barristers who engage in sexual harassment can be investigated and disciplined for professional misconduct".