Pictured left: NSW Forestry Corp CEO Nick Roberts There’s been a smelly plume of unaccountability and wanton ecological destruction wafting from the NSW Forestry Corporation for many years. The private enterprise arm of the toxic O’Farrell state government is tasked to ‘man- age’ our valuable natural assets, but instead destroys our heritage and makes a financial loss while doing it. Echonetdaily reported last May that ‘NSW taxpayers were slugged nearly $120 million last year to fund the ongoing logging’ of the state’s forests.’ And now it’s at our doorstep. Old-growth blackbutt on private property adjacent to the Whian Whian State Conservation Area, just west of Goonengerry National Park, is being logged by the Corporation. While it’s legal to log privately owned land when requirements are met, the North East Forest Alliance (NEFA) claim the area is home to endangered koala habitat and at least four other species that are threatened with extinction. This means they are acting illegally, they say. It’s just another in a long list of incidents that NEFA has reported. Around a year ago, NEFA found numerous koala scats in logged parts of the Royal Camp State Forest near Grafton. Later the Corporation was slapped with paltry fines of less than $1,000 by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for logging a koala high-use area. Then last June, it appeared they were up to the same thing in the Koreelah State Forest near Woodenbong. There is little doubt that the EPA needs to be strengthened to ensure better outcomes for forest protection. But like the ACCC or the Press Council, they have little bite. The Forestry Corporation’s ‘Native Forest Operations’ have no place in modern times – plantation timber can more than provide for our needs. Stop killing koalas, Nick Roberts.
0 Comments
While NSW government departments and Liberal/National politicians distance themselves from taking any responsibility on holiday letting (see news, page 3), where exactly will tourist and visitor accommodation be permitted in Council’s new planning document, the draft 2012 LEP (local environment plan)?
Taking Byron Bay’s existing business and residential areas, the town has been zoned broadly into R2 (low-density residential), a little of R3 (medium-density residential) and B2 (local centre). Zone B2 (local centre) is the only zone that permits all forms of ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ with consent and predictably covers Byron’s CBD. But that’s a small area; zone R2 (low-density residential) covers much of Byron’s residential areas, including Wategos, and lists ‘tourist and visitor accommodation’ as prohibited but ‘bed & breakfast accommodation’ and ‘boarding houses’ as permitted with consent. Zone R3 (medium density residential) is similar to R2 in this regard, with exception that R3 also permits ‘serviced apartments’, Council may say what they consider is illegal through LEP ‘provisions’; however, any authority it has is being undermined by those who holiday let in non-holiday-let zones. Will this new LEP provide any more certainty? It will if Council bothers to uphold it in the courts – otherwise why not drop the charade? Residents don’t have to wait around for councils, however. In a case brought to the Land and Environment Court over a holiday letting at Terrigal, the Dobrohotoff family, fed up with disruptive short-term neighbours, had a win despite the reluctance of the Gosford council to prosecute. If our council continues to dither with ‘consultation’ when it’s action against illegal letting that is needed, then it can’t be too surprised if residents see the courts as a source of more reliable justice. It’s either good or bad news: the NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO) was thrown a cash lifeline by the federal government last week after the state government, with pressure from the mining sector and News Ltd, cut some of its funding late last year.
The EDO is a small team of lawyers, with offices in Sydney and Lismore, which examines government policy and represents and advises the public in environmental law cases. So re-instating their operational costs is good news if you value free speech and a differing opinion. But as reported in News Ltd’s The Australian, it’s bad news. Its Friday July 5 headline, ‘Boost for anti-coal body shows Labor knows how to alienate its heartland,’ can be found amid stories spruiking new mining projects. According to corporate shill journalist Chris Merritt, Hunter Valley coalminers should reject Labor because they are now funding the EDO, which ‘advises those who want to destroy their industry.’ In contrast to News Ltd, the ABC reported at the time of the funding slash that there was ‘an angry backlash in the Hunter Valley’ over the EDO cuts. So which media outlet offers less spin? Bulga-Milbrodale Progress Association vice-president, John Krey, told ABC that without the EDO’s help, mining expansions such as the Mount Thorley-Warkworth mine will continue unabated. ‘We could not, as a community group, afford to run and pay full fees for legal teams to run our case.’ Meanwhile NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher told The Australian late last year there’s a ‘left agenda to destroy the economy.’ Politics aside, if the mining industry were prevented from dictating Australia’s economic growth and we adopted best practice sources of renewable energy already available, our economy and environment would be in much better shape. Preventing the fossil fuel industry from regulating the renewable sector would be a start. It should be noted that our local NSW MP, Don Page, appeared to have no interest in fighting against his government’s cuts to the EDO. The upcoming referendum asking Australians if they want local government recognised in the constitution has, like previous attempts, been met with confusion and the glazing of eyes.
Though the odds are stacked against it getting public support, it does offer an opportunity to examine the state and federal governments’ tenuous relationship and how they administer our taxes. According to Shipra Chordia, director of the Federalism Project at the University of NSW, around 80 per cent of the federal $2.7 billion budget to local government is channelled through the states. ‘The remaining 20 per cent is direct funding from the federal to the local level, and is used to finance popular programs, such as the Roads to Recovery program.’ Without a clear constitutional power to directly fund local government, we are told by proponents, a significant number of federal to council programs such as the Roads to Recovery program might be put in jeopardy by future High Court challenges. But would recognising local government undermine the principles of federalism or our Constitution? There is little doubt that such changes are a threat to the states’ powers and relevance. This is primarily because the feds could bypass states and presumably expand on funding directly. And similarly, opponents say councils with more power could perhaps apply taxes instead of rates, while ‘spot’ fines could have more legal legitimacy and carry harsher penalties. Also it would be harder to challenge councils in the federal courts. It’s been said all government tiers exist to prevent local dictatorships and corruption, and it’s widely recognised to be critical that no level of government has too much power. Council’s purpose was originally intended to provide essential services and maintenance, and opponents say it should not extend beyond roads, rates and rubbish. Others say councils’ roles are, in practice, much more. Past and present poor performances by NSW Labor and coalition parties make a good argument for change, as does this region’s lack of funding relative to other local government areas. Who wouldn’t want better local governance and a streamlined, less complicated bureaucracy? The referendum will be included with the September election, and the amendment’s wording has just become public at http://regional.gov.au. Also see http://localgovrecognition.gov.au. Hans Lovejoy, editor The $2 million dollar rail study into this region is a failure because its terms of reference do not mention peak oil, climate change, food security or the intelligent design that rail offers.
And MP Don Page obviously carries little weight in parliament – he told ABC radio last year that he would ask for a broader environmental scope but somehow that was ignored. The study provides answers the government was looking for: more roads. It’s a rail study that looks like it was written for the fossil fuel dependent freight industry. So while the fossil fuel dependent freight industry move almost everything about, including food, why did this report not mention any of the environmental and social benefits of rail? Wilfully concentrating transport options could perhaps be considered treasonous in more informed and engaged societies. Interestingly, the government report alluded to this region as being home to a bunch of welfare dependent moochers. It says accessibility and mobility needs, ‘are not primarily driven by economic growth, but by a large and increasing dependent population needing regular access to services.’ Perhaps we should instead blame ourselves for not breeding enough to create a consumer economic need. Or for not developing this region as fast as Queensland. Light commuter rail between towns is in the best interests of this Shire, not ‘tourist trails’. It would create instant economic stimulation, and apart from easing traffic burdens, the greatest gains from trains would be in ensuring food security, self dependence and resilience. Where are the vision and balls in current political governance? Was it ever there? Maybe the last future vision was when then- premier of NSW Sir Henry Parkes arrived by train to make his famous federation speech in Tenterfield. It was a speech that set in motion the formation of the Commonwealth of Australia. Since Australia swapped riding the sheep’s back for coal trucks, enormous PR budgets and legislation became necessary to protect resource extraction revenue and quell dissent. Indeed it takes mass collective hypnosis to convince ourselves that the planet should continue to be polluted with fossil fuels when renewable technology is available.
An interesting hiccup in that unevolved narrative was activist Jonathan Moylan’s prank on the NSW coal industry last week; governments and corporations appear confounded and have yet to figure out what to do about his actions. He faked a press release from ANZ to highlight the bank’s complicity and investment in destroying the Leard State Forest, west of Armidale, for mining profits. The result was it temporarily wiped $314 million off Whitehaven Coal shares, which is an ANZ investment. While the government was quick to seize his computer and mobile phone, why haven’t charges been laid? It’s because legal precedent is yet to be established on such activity, Crikey’s Sally Whyte reports. ‘According to Associate Professor Keturah Whitford at the Australian National University’s College of Business and Economics, Moylan could be charged under Section 1041E [of the Corporations Act 2001], but could also face civil action from stakeholders under Section 1041H of the [Corporations] Act. There isn’t an Australian precedent to foreshadow the likelihood of conviction or possible sentences. Whitford says it’s “hard to predict sentencing, but the extent of damage including losses to investors would be taken into account and the fact that he wasn’t personally profiting”.’ Moylan’s inventive media activism is somewhat similar to that of the Yes Men, who use parody and satire to highlight psychopathic corporate behaviour. In the long term, the fossil fuel industry will lose the battle against renewables simply because renewable energy provides a means of production. It’s a simple economic premise not even relevant to environmental destruction. And in case this all sounds too whacky, James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, said in 2008: ‘CEOs of fossil-energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.’ Well said, can’t wait, bring it on. The NSW Nurses Association rightly prevented health district chief executive Chris Crawford from replacing Mullum’s night doctor with teleconferencing technology.
But instead of an apology to the community for the anxiety caused, Mr Crawford instead explained to The Echo that ‘Mullum is not ready at the moment to do it on a doctor-to- nurses basis.’ And while Mullum Hospital nurse Shauna Boyle told The Echo that nurses were not against telehealth per say, they were opposed to having to operate the video-link system without a doctor. Here’s where the message was lost: she also added that staff at other hospitals using the system told them it was never meant to replace a doctor. So – was the rollout of this technology meant to complement existing staffing levels or replace them? Clearly in Mullum’s case it was to replace, while other hospitals that didn’t have a night doctor, it was a complement to existing staffing levels. Cost-cutting under the guise of ‘new technology’ is austerity by stealth, and while Mr Crawford may have been given the hatchet job to try to skim a budget, The Echo suggests he could start with his own salary. According to www.abc.net.au on November 24 this year, the latest salary increases granted to top bureaucrats in New South Wales rose by nearly $12,000. ‘The [bureaucrat] heads of the premier’s department, Trade and Infrastructure NSW are now all being paid well in excess of $500,000,’ claims the article. Labor’s Walt Secord told the ABC reporter, ‘A 2.5 per cent increase to a nurse or a teacher does not compare to a bureaucrat on $400,000 a year. You cannot compare them,’ he said. ‘That is coming at a time when the state government’s cutting 5,000 public sector jobs and slashing $1.7 billion from education.’ Mr Secord also said that the director-general of Premier and Cabinet will now earn $545,000. ‘That’s substantially more than the premier,’ he said. Fortunately this outcome was not decided by bureaucrats but by nurses, who are paid much much less. A prospecting application by the Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) is on public submission with the intention to frack ‘n mine most of NSW.
This can be viewed in a variety of ways. Here are just two: Red pill The push behind applying for five prospecting mining rights across NSW is to end Aboriginal poverty, NSWALC CEO Geoff Scott said in a release on November 6. ‘We owe it to ourselves, and to future generations of Aboriginal people... We can sit on the sidelines or we can take an active role to become part of the real Australian economy.’ He’s correct to say the real economy is mining. According to an article on www.asx.com.au, Top 10 ways to profit from mining boom, ‘Almost 90 per cent of last year’s 96 initial public offerings (IPOs) were resource-related companies and the top performers gave shareholders well over 500 per cent returns.’ Author Toni Case (TheBull.com.au) continues, ‘In fact, the entire materials sector has been a standout performer, with an annualised return of 10.99 per cent to 31 March 2011.’ And the future looks to be still powered by coal or gas, with the claim that ‘The Federal Treasury believes the mining boom could have another 15 years to go; demand from China and India shows no sign of slowing.’ Thankfully, this is a free country. Mr Scott is entitled to pursue whatever means neccessary to ensure the future prosperity for the future generations of Aboriginal people. Blue pill You have to wonder who will benefit from the Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC)’s plans to mine ‘n’ frack the state of NSW, because it will not be the wider Aboriginal community. Locally, the traditional Aboriginal custodians of this region, the Arakwal people of Byron Bay, have said they do not want CSG or mining in this region and have distanced themselves from the NSWALC. What isn’t addressed in NSWALC CEO Geoff Scott’s PR is that his organisation is already self-funding, was set up by the government, and earns income from its investments. This is not about poverty, it’s about greed. The real benefactors of this will of course be the overseas mining corporations who are nervously watching the public-awareness campaign on CSG grow. Public submissions on this prospecting application end on December 5, so get in fast. Visit www.resources.nsw.gov.au for more. NSW premier Baz O’Farrell doesn’t like education or differing opinions, judging from the latest cuts to TAFE and the EDO (Environmental Defenders Office).
Both were given a king hit last week; TAFE fees will rise nearly ten per cent with fewer teachers while art courses will no longer exist. And the essential legal service the EDO provides to the community regarding CSG, planning and environmental advice will end next year. While it’s easy to blame the previous NSW Labor government’s incompetence and the current federal government on lost GST revenue, it’s worth pausing to reflect on how reducing access to education and information benefits a society. It doesn’t. No matter what rhetoric our two local National Party MPs spin, eliminating creative expression, critical thought and differing opinions through austerity cuts reflects poorly on a wealthy nation such as ours. Didn’t John Lennon go to art school? It’s mean-spirited and limits the social spectrum. And actions such as these lead to a homogeneous dull grey tasteless soup where the measure of worth is based only on economic factors. Totalitarian governments have always been suspicious of art and dissenting views. Take the Degenerate Art Exhibition, held in Berlin in 1939. Works that were clearly of exceptional quality were ridiculed in an effort to persuade the public it wasn’t ‘good’ art. Comedian Lenny Bruce once said, ‘Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say “fuck the government.” Lenny was referring to censorship of course, but the latest austerity measures of cutting funding to education and legal advice amount to just that. Environmental worriers and warriors have been critical of the NSW government’s Green Paper so far, which aims to overhaul town, rural and city planning.
But let’s just pause and look at the state government’s own propaganda. Its website’s statements include ‘promoting a “can do” culture’ and ‘reducing red tape and delay’... and so on. Despite the motherhood claims of transparency and efficiency, it also claims to have ‘community consultation at the forefront of planning decisions’. And the 30-year-old planning document needs to be revised, according to www.planning.nsw.gov.au, as the ‘legislation has been modified over 150 times’. Okay, fair enough. But here’s what the paper says about streamlining development: ‘To depoliticise decision making, it is proposed that development applications be streamed to appropriate independent and expert decision makers. State and regional scale development will be assessed by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) and the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP). One option being considered by the NSW government is for local level development applications to be considered by an independent expert panel... There will be targets set for timeframes for different types of assessment and the achievement of these targets will be monitored and reported, with implications for poor or inefficient decision making.’ The state government is disingenuous to say that community consultation will be at the forefront of planning decisions. Its stated aims are to take away a community’s right to decide state and regional scale development. Despite public feedback being now closed, NSW councils have their chance to have input until October 5. Hopefully councils across the state will apply what little wedge they can to resist innapropriate developments that the state plans to enforce in the name of economic rationalism. |
Archives
August 2014
Categories
All
|