Ernest Healy

It has been a difficult year for PPL Vic following the death of our longstanding Secretary, founder and driving force, Julianne Bell at the end of January, 2017. Notwithstanding this huge loss, we have continued the good work of PPLVic. See inside for details.

The PPLVic Committee has met 3 times this year and committee members have continued to work on issues in relation to public lands issues as outlined below:

1. Riversdale Park

Our current focus on this issue is a continuation of previous work. PPLVic maintains that a proposed cycle route in Riversdale Park threatens the amenity and safety of the park due to the considerable changes foreshadowed, including the bisection of the path for commuter cycling as well as removal of 7 trees and loss of 2 areas of parkland east and west. Anna Carina and Jill Quirk had a meeting with local state MP, John Pesutto, regarding this issue. He was sympathetic and said he intended lobbying with both local council and with the Minister involved for a better outcome.

2. PPLVic supported the Residents Against Mordialloc Freeway (RAMF)

PPLVic supported the Residents Against Mordialloc Freeway (RAMF) in their request for an EES for Peninsula Link extension in view of the project’s impingement on local wetlands. We have just learned that the group has been successful in obtaining an EES for the project. https://www.facebook.com/RAMF-Residents-Against-Mordialloc-Freeway-960553247333561/

3. West Gate Tunnel Proposal.

This industry-conceived and led project proposes major freeway and tunnel construction, affecting public land from the city end of the Moonee Ponds Creek through to Melbourne’s western suburbs. A submission and presentation were given to the West Gate Tunnel Project Inquiry and Advisory Committee (IAC) on September 15th by Ernest Healy on behalf of PPL Vic. The presentation criticised the relatively poor quality of the public land promised by the developers along the foreshadowed freeway corridor, the damage to the remnant natural environs of the Moonee Ponds Creek and the diversion of scarce public funding to population growth led capital widening at the expense of adequate public transport investment and genuine economic renewal.

4. PPL Vic’s involvement relates to the proposed Melbourne Planning Scheme Amendment C281 applying to freeway apartment construction proximate to Royal Park.

The developer- initiated amendment would see the height of some apartment buildings doubled from the initial proposal height of 11 floors, leading to overshadowing of areas of the Park and significant loss of visual amenity from within the Park. Committee member Joe Edmonds has taken a leading role in formulating and presenting the case against the amendment, which would see high rise erected right next to remnant royal Park Wetland areas. Joe Edmonds and Ernest Healy presented PPLs Vic’s objections concerning this amendment to Planning Minister advisory and departmental staff on October 5th.

5. Protest action against undemocratic moves by Moreland City Council

Along with a number of other community action groups, on August 5th, PPL Vic participated in a protest action outside the Brunswick Town Hall, to express concern over recent attempts by the Moreland City Council to pass revised general bylaws widely considered to be undemocratic. The initially proposed bylaws would have made it illegal to hold street stalls, distribute hand bills, or hold political protests without a council permit. Council has since backtracked on this initiative.

6. Rushall Reserve, Fitzroy

On September 19th 2017, Fiona Bell made a submission to Yarra City Council on behalf of Protectors of Public Lands Vic Inc. regarding the proposed pathway through Rushall Reserve, North Fitzroy to which there has been a great deal of local opposition. It is currently a quiet cul-de-sac park with easy access from an existing bike path that enters the park. Last year the Council decided to make a 2.0 meter wide path go from the Rushall Station through the park over an escarpment above the Merri Creek requiring the removal of many trees.
PPLVic opposes this path, considering it unnecessary given the current access and close proximity of other paths. It will destroy the integrity of this small but important cul-de-sac park. Other important conservation issues include the destruction of numerous trees, including many large and significant eucalypts. They are habitat trees for birds and other animals. The migrating and critically endangered Swift Parrot has been seen in them. Furthermore the tree roots help to provide stability for the escarpment and no geological survey been done to assess the stability of the rock face.

The proposed path is also very close to the railway line. No mention seems to have been made concerning the possible danger caused by train derailments next to the proposed pathway, and these derailments have occurred in the recent past. Significantly it appears that no studies have been taken to determine the actual need for this path. No count of cyclists has been done to determine how many cyclists are likely to wish to use this path, and where they will be coming from or going to. The cost of approximately $600,000 is considerable. The fact that Rushall Reserve is also a culturally significant area and the site of the Batman Woiwurrung Treaty of 1835 has also been raised in opposing this project.

Unfortunately, the councillors voted with a majority in favour of the original location of the path, that breaks up the large open area and for the pathway to be 2.5 meters wide instead of 2 meters wide. Final plans need to be drawn up and permits obtained that will need to take into account all issues and practicalities and there are more opportunities for objections.

7. Port Campbell coastal public land

Committee member, Marion Manifold has been campaigning in the Port Campbell area to protect public land from specific inappropriate large scale developments associated with a push for ever larger numbers of visitors to the shipwreck coast.

Ongoing issues on the Port Campbell coast 2016-17 include a proposed $9 million resort on the Gellibrand River estuary flood plain (a wetlands of national significance) near Princetown. If it is built there would be: Crown Lands utilised to create road access and walking tracks; major earthworks potentially changing the natural river estuary system, potential septic leakage; risk to visitors from flood waters; and impacts on endangered fauna including Latham’s snipe, the Australasian bittern, Australian Grayling, and Southern Brown Bandicoot.

The community group works to educate on Port Campbell coastal issues including publishing an article in the University of New South Wales Law Journal special edition ‘Rethinking Climate Change and the Law’. The article gives a history of the 10-year Southern Ocean Beach House development saga through 6 VCAT hearings. An important part of the article and other articles is an emphasis on community expertise and involvement in decision-making. See article at: http://www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au/

A talk was also given to the Australian Conservation Foundation community program for the University of the Third Age on coastal planning issues and biodiversity advocacy and protection. Submissions were also made into the Shipwreck Coast Master Plan which encourages development of the Port Campbell National Park and Port Campbell Township, and submissions to Amendment C45 which proposes to change local planning policy advocating for greater tourism numbers and growth.

PPLVic-Annual General Meeting

The PPLVic Committee is presently organising the AGM which will be held on the afternoon of November 11th 2017 at the Flemington Community Centre. Apart from the core business of electing a management committee for the coming period, and an address by PPLVic Patron Hon. Kelvin Thomson we look forward to hearing ideas from members about possible future priorities, strategies and modified operation of the organisation in the changed circumstances. A formal notice will be sent out shortly.

Sincerely,
Ernest Healy
President: Protectors of Public Lands Victoria
P.O. Box 197
Parkville 3052

A spokesperson for the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program (NDPRP) today,Thursday, August 21st, 2014, expressed concern and disappointment that the Gympie Regional Council appears to have exercised no independence of thought in adopting a ‘Wild Dog’ control plan, which is ill-informed and based largely on prejudice.

NDPRP Secretary, Dr Ernest Healy, stated that the NDPRP is disappointed that the Gympie Regional Council has adopted a ‘wild dog’ control plan with justifications that are either now shown by scientific research to be false or based on a selective, unbalanced consideration of the available scientific evidence. He said that, "In doing so, the Council is perpetuating a misguided and alarmist perspective on ‘wild dogs’, or dingoes, which ignores their importance for health of ecosystems."

He said,

"It is unfortunate that, in adopting the ‘wild dog’ control plan, the Council is taking an extremist position towards dingoes and dingo conservation. This controversy has arisen because of a growing body of environmental research, which highlights the importance of conserving dingo populations (and their hybrids) for environmental balance, on the one hand, and long-established anti-dingo or ‘wild-dog’ sentiment amongst elements of the pastoral industry, on the other hand, who deem the dingo to be a pest animal to be eradicated or, at least, controlled through lethal means at a landscape level. The legal status of the dingo across much of Australia still largely reflects this historically entrenched pest-animal perspective.

Dr Healy added that it is disappointing that the Gympie Regional Council has adopted a policy framework that obscures the fact that ‘wild dogs’ are native animals. They are dingoes. He said,

‘"A key consideration from a nature conservation point of view is the ecological function of dingo populations, even if they have undergone some degree of hybridisation. If the role played in the natural environment by hybridised populations is essentially the same as the pre-European dingo, then considerations of genetic purity become an unnecessary distraction."

‘

According to the NDPRP, this approach is supported by the fact that much of the in-the-field research into the role of the dingo in maintaining ecological balance, as a top order predator, has been conducted with populations that were almost certainly hybridised to some degree. There is currently no convincing research to show that the levels of hybridisation that have occurred present a biodiversity risk within Australian ecosystems, as is suggested in the Council’s policy.

While always open to new findings of genuine scientific endeavour, the NDPRP considers that virtually the only environmental scientists in Australia who fundamentally contest the idea that dingo populations provide a net benefit to the health of Australian ecosystems are those closely aligned to, or supported by, the pastoral industry and who are therefore facing a serious conflict of interest.

Dr Healy stated that:

‘‘The NDPRP encourages the Gympie Regional Council to follow the progressive lead of primary industries authorities in Victoria, where ‘wild dogs’, or dingoes, are recognised for their positive environmental role.’

‘

Recent Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries documentation states:

‘‘We regard wild dogs/dingoes as Top Order Carnivores that all healthy ecosystems need, and we will make all attempts to ensure these animals are not targeted [by fox control programs].’ (Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries – Powerpoint Presentation, Southern Ark Project)

‘

Contacts:

Jennifer Parkhurst, Rainbow Breach QLD (Vice President NDPRP)
fidingo[AT]bigpond.net.au

Ernest Healy, (Secretary NDPRP)
email: ernest.healy[AT]monash.edu

Jane Goodall and Dingo Conservation

Australia has just had a visit by world renowned primatologist and threatened species advocate Jane Goodall. While in Melbourne, she entered the debate surrounding dingo conservation, making a number of public statements and issuing a media statement which commented on the issue.

It is not surprising that Jane Goodall would advocate for threatened species while in Australia. However, her intervention on dingo conservation is problematic as not all dingo conservation advocates and their organisations base their case on the assumption that the dingo is a threatened species. Goodall appears to have adopted a less progressive position on dingo conservation than was immediately apparent to the general public, or perhaps than she was aware of.

Background

In a nutshell, the controversy surrounding dingo conservation has been underpinned by a growing body of environmental research, which highlights the importance of conserving dingo populations for environmental balance, on the one hand, and long-established anti-dingo or ‘wild-dog’ sentiment amongst elements of the pastoral industry, on the other hand, who deem the dingo to be a pest animal to be eradicated or, at least, controlled through lethal means at a landscape level. The legal status of the dingo across much of Australia largely reflects this historically entrenched pest-animal perspective. Victoria is something of an exception, where the dingo was listed as a threatened native taxon in 2010 and ‘wild-dog’ control is geographically constrained as a result.

The growing dissonance between environmental research, which concludes that dingo conservation within ecosystems should be harnessed in the service of good environmental management, and established pest animal legislation is complicated by the fact that dingoes (Canis lupus dingo) hybridise with their domestic counterpart, the domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris).

Pastoral industry advocates, concerned to fend off the idea that dingoes should not be managed simply as pests, but an environmental asset, have latched hold of hybridisation to argue that what currently exists in the wild are not dingoes, but hybrids, which ought not be considered indigenous or wildlife, and are therefore ineligible for protection. It is at times further argued that in controlling hybrids through ‘wild-dog’ control (poisoning and trapping on a large scale) protection is afforded to remnant ‘pure’ dingoes. Indeed, current purity testing techniques show hybridisation to be widespread, particularly in south eastern Australia.

So, where does this leave dingo conservation advocates, including Jane Goodall’s dingo intervention? One view is that the key task at hand is to locate and protect remnant ‘pure’ dingo populations. This, however, implies that, from a conservation perspective, wild hybrid populations are a threat to be managed, or controlled. ‘Pure’ dingo populations would need to be isolated from hybrid populations. Elements of the farming lobby have support this view. Adherence to this perspective also has significant consequences for where dingoes can be conserved. If dingo purity data is to be believed, hybridisation is widespread throughout much of south eastern Australia. Unless it is possible to completely eradicate wild hybrid populations across south eastern Australia, and then seed the landscape with pure dingo stock, or genetically isolate remnant pockets of ‘pure’ dingoes, wave goodbye to dingo conservation there.

An alternative dingo conservation perspective is one that accommodates the reality of hybridisation in defining what is to be conserved. The key consideration from this perspective is the ecological function of wild populations, even if they have undergone some degree of hybridisation. If the role played in the natural environment by hybridised populations is essentially the same as the pre-European dingo, then considerations of genetic purity become an unnecessary distraction. This approach is lent support by the fact that much of the in-the-field research into the role of the dingo in maintaining top-down ecological balance, as a top order predator, has been conducted with populations that were probably hybridised. There is currently no research to show that hybridisation presents a biodiversity risk within Australian ecosystems.

Another consideration in evaluating these different dingo conservation perspectives is the uncertainty involved with current dingo purity testing techniques. Two approaches are in use. The older method involved making a large number of fine measurements from an assumed representative sample of dingo skulls, and creating a skull profile that is presumed to represent pure dingoes. Any particular skull being tested is then compared for conformity with this profile. The other, more recent method compares key genetic markers from extant dingoes/dingo hybrids with a genetic benchmark that has been derived from a sample of dingoes presumed to have been pure. The real limitation of both of these methods is that there is no pre-European representative sample of either, skulls or genetic make-up. It may never be possible to overcome this limitation. In addition to this uncertainty, ‘pure’ dingoes and dingo hybrids are not readily distinguishable in appearance. Dingo researcher, Dr Laurie Corbett, once commented that although he believed dingoes in north eastern Victoria had undergone some hybridisation, this was not visually apparent. He speculated that this was because the strong selection pressure for survival in this region was effectively pushing the hybrids back into an ancestral conformation.

It is fair to say that, over time, the foremost dingo advocacy organisations have gravitated away from a preoccupation with genetic purity towards the ecological function perspective in deciding what conservation strategies and legislative change should be pursued. Possibly the most developed policy position is that of the National Dingo Preservation and Recovery Program. This organisation makes a distinction between the remnant ‘ancestral dingo’ populations, representative of the pre-European type and the ‘modern dingo’, which encompasses wild populations that perform a desirable ecological role, but which have undergone some degree of hybridisation. Ancestral dingo populations may plausibly be conserved in isolated settings, as in island locations, and captive ‘ancestral’ conservation populations are encouraged as a genetic resource for reintroduction where the circumstances are appropriate. The NDPRP sees the main conservation task, however, in securing the protection of extant populations despite the hybridisation that has occurred. This does not mean that reasonable measures should not be taken to limit further hybridisation.

Once it is accepted that the main dingo conservation task is to secure the legal protection of extant wild dingo populations despite some level of hybridisation, and to gain official recognition of the environmental benefits of such populations, the idea that dingoes are threatened with imminent extinction becomes largely irrelevant. The conservation focus turns instead to the negative environmental consequences of dingo persecution through lethal landscape-level control regimes.

Where can Jane Goodall’s intervention be located in this context?

It is significant therefore that Jane Goodall’s statements appear to have fallen within the genetic purity camp. Her public pronouncements centred round the imminent extinction of the dingo and the prospect of hybridisation. The following statement, was aired on Channel 10 News on June 5th:

…I suppose that they [dingoes] will become extinct and the last few will be hybridised with domestic dogs, and the wild dingo will be gone forever. (10 Eyewitness News, June 5)

This basic message was picked up more widely within the Australian media:

While in Australia, she will talk about the need to protect dingoes, now regarded as being on the verge of extinction. (Radio Australia, June 5, 15:31)

A more sophisticated account is contained in a prepared public statement by the Jane Goodall Institute Australia, dated June 5th. This account, however, remains confused on the key issues of purity, hybridisation and ecological function. The claim that ‘the species could face extinction after decades of persecution’ is repeated. Reference is made to the listing of the dingo as threated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, an assessment based on considerations of genetic purity. The regulatory role of the dingo as top land predator is correctly recognised, as is the view of many scientists that the dingo is ‘…ecologically vital for the health of our land and other native species’… . The relationship between the disruption of packs from poison baiting and increased hybridisation is also noted. A serious flaw in this account, however, is that the populations of dingoes which scientists have concluded are significant for ecosystem health are not necessarily pure, but characterised by some degree of hybridisation. The ecological benefit that has been observed has not depended on the genetic purity of the dingo populations. As noted above, once this is acknowledged, concerns about near-term ‘extinction’ go out the window. Conservation efforts then turn to how extant hybridised populations can be accepted under the rubric of wildlife and protected for their positive environmental role. The confused understanding of the issues underpins the Institute’s claim that very few Alpine dingoes remain. This claim depends upon the view that Alpine dingoes in South eastern Australia are particularly hybridised, being closest to population centres where contact with domestic dogs is more likely. However, once one accepts the ecological function approach to dingo conservation, there is no shortage of Alpine Dingoes. South eastern Australia is full of them; they should be governed humanely and protected as wildlife.

A lost opportunity

The Jane Goodall intervention was therefore a lost opportunity to communicate more widely the complexity of dingo conservation issues. However, the thrust of Jane Goodall’s intervention was at odds with what is, arguably, now the predominant perspective amongst dingo advocacy organisations in Australia, as well as the direction of much scientific research which highlights the beneficial ecological role of existing (‘modern’) dingo populations. This is unfortunate. Pastoral industry representative organisations are not likely to be perturbed at the basic message of the Jane Goodall’s intervention. Some may openly agree with it. It is a simplistic, purist view that some dingo advocates held around a decade ago, but have now left behind for a more mature perspective.

One is left pondering how this could have occurred. Was it an informed choice by the Jane Goodall Institute? Would not a high-profile international organisation, which would have invested considerable resources in preparing for Jane Goodall’s Australian visit, have been aware of the competing perspectives on dingo conservation in Australia, and the current state of play between them? Perhaps part of the explanation relates to the Goodall Institute’s focus on threatened species. Did the idea that dingoes are on the ‘verge of extinction’ fit more neatly with the Institute’s established focus? If the dingo is viewed as persecuted, but not in threat of immediate extinction, then the threatened species message loses leverage. Although the net effect on public awareness of dingo conservation has most likely been positive from the intervention, the specific message communicated may stand to frustrate the efforts of the leading dingo conservation organisations which do the heavy lifting in pushing for appropriate legislative change on the issue.

Demographers Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy of Monash University have released their most recent report, entitled Party for Freedom: ‘Scare Jobs: Migrants or Locals at the end of the Queue?. This damning report highlights the incompatibility of recent and current immigration policies sponsored by both Labor and Liberal governments.

Over 250,000 young people leave school each year. They are then faced with the task of competing with a similar number of those on Working Holiday Maker (WHM) visas, coupled with Australia’s population growth of 1.7% or 370,000 a year (including 214,000 permanent migrants) and a pool of over 1.1 million foreigners (excluding New Zealanders) on temporary work visas. This has created a dire situation for locals – especially the young local workers without post-school education.

University educated job seekers are also finding it increasingly difficult to secure employment. For example, Australia has an over-supply of accountants, and despite this, large numbers of foreign accountants are still being granted work visas.

Table 1 Temporary entrants in Australia as of March 2012 and March 2013

Full Total 92,490 more temporary workers in Australia from March 2012 to 2013, despite rising youth unemployment and heavy net overseas immigration.

Table 1 above details the full extent of temporary entrants and temporary visa holders with work rights in Australia. The 457 and WHM visa categories are rising drastically, taking away employment opportunities from Australians in low skilled service jobs, and the hospitality and construction industries.

There is a lot of misinformation being pushed by self-appointed demographers, government ministers, political parties and vested interests on the “need” for more foreign labour.

Self-appointed KPMG Demographer Bernard Salt is well known for his incorrect statements when commenting on demographics and the cry for ever-increasing levels of immigration. In his recent book, The Big Tilt, he claims: ‘2011 is a break point year. From this year onwards, more baby boomers exit the workforce than generation Ys enter’. The above excerpt from Bernard’s book is propaganda and not statistically correct.

The lack of genuine public discussion on the pressing issue of high levels of immigration, especially third world immigration is adding to our woes. More than ever the nation needs robust public discussion on the matter. Debate needs to come from a broad range of stakeholders, including the Australian workers who are being displaced and retired early due to successive governments’ preference for unsustainable immigration.

The negativity and incompatibility of successive immigration policies have contributed to growing dole queues, while increasing numbers of foreign workers on temporary work visas and new migrants displace Australians in the job market. Regrettably, it seems our government has been shackled to pro-population growth advocates and the lobbying of well-organised special interest groups.

Party for Freedom believes protection of the Australian worker is paramount. The Australian ‘battler’ worker deserves a better deal from our government. It does not make sense to import large numbers of foreign workers on temporary visas or maintain high levels of permanent immigration when real job growth has stalled creating an environment of lost opportunity for local job seekers.

It is time for the Australian government to ‘do the right thing’ and shut the gate on large-scale immigration, so that local workers, especially the young, are protected from the encroaching, foreign, job hungry multitudes.