One more Australian every 2 minutes: Rapid population growth a disgrace, says expert
Australia's population growth out of control
World leading reproduction expert Professor Roger Short, of the University of Melbourne, says Australia’s population growth is out of control, increasing the rate of global warming.
According to the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Australian population is increasing by one person nearly every two minutes.
“Australia is a disgrace. We have one of the highest rates of population growth of any developed country. What are we going to do about it?” he says.
Nature too stressed already without us adding to stress even faster
According to a paper submitted on to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “Nature is already under stress from human activities. The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment of 2005 concluded that two-thirds of ecosystems on which humans depend are currently being degraded or used unsustainably.”
The report recommends the Copenhagen conference acknowledges the importance of population as a key driver of climate change and places the issue high on the agenda.
The latest population projections from the United Nations, reveal that the world’s population at 1 July 2009 will be 6.8 billion and by 2050 will be 9.1 billion.
Governments need to instigate population control policies sooner rather than later
Professor Short spoked at the University of Melbourne Festival of Ideas on 16 June. He said that the planet is already stretched for resources and space and governments need to instigate population control policies sooner rather than later.
Professor Rob Moodie
Fellow presenter Professor Rob Moodie, says Australians need to start their own internal carbon trading scheme by “getting out of the car and off the couch at every opportunity”.
Professor Moodie, who is Chair, National Preventative Health Taskforce and Professor of Global Health Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne, says we have the irony of burning too much fossil fuel, but not burning enough of our own personal fuel.
“Addressing climate change will require cultural shifts in the way we treat our planet, the way we treat each other, the way we treat ourselves, and the way we build our cities and towns,” he says.
“We have been lulled into a false sense of sedentariness. One hundred years ago we had to stop our work every so often to rest. Now, because sitting still for long periods increases our risks of heart disease we actually have to get up every few hours and move.”
Need for different land-use planning focus - 'Sub'-suburban
He says the design of cities and towns must go sub-suburban by re-creating local villages – “metropolettes” - where we can get to shopping, food, recreation, entertainment and schooling on foot.
Source: 'News' from the University of Melbourne, Festival of Ideas website Contact: Rebecca Scott, University of Melbourne, Mobile: 0417 164 791
Other speakers included Sana Nakata (University of Melbourne PhD candidate) and Associate Professor Catherine Bennett (Chair) from the School of Population Health at the University of Melbourne.
Tax-deductibility, Environmental Groups & NGOs
Time to ditch tax-deductibility for environmental groups?
Recent correspondence, where an environmental group asked other environmental groups to recommend voting against the government at the next election, has highlighted the problem of self-censoring by environmental groups which have tax-deductible status. Basically environmental groups with tax deductibility status cannot recommend that people vote for or against a particular political representative or party even if that person or party has promoted laws and activities which directly and negatively impact on the concerns of their membership.
Solutions to these constraints.
1. Abandon tax-deductibility status
or
2. Create or find another organisation or group which is not tax-deductible to use the information and advise on political choices accordingly.
Candobetter is an example of such a free-acting group
Candobetter.org - http://candobetter.org has remained informal and has not sought tax-deductibility so that it can comment freely. We like to get news and views and would be prepared to publicise a voting recommendation. Our platforms are: Reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy. We are basically a netsite with a variety of voluntary journalists who operate under their own names or pen-names. We love new authors. We also republish and publish reports on submissions or the actual submissions, which are so often wasted by being sent to the Government.
Candobetter has taken advantage of one of the few good things the Howard government did, and that was reform of Australia's defamation laws. It is now much safer to publish the truth, so it is much easier to write interesting and informative articles about what is really happening in this country. We publish from all around the country, with the aim of showing people that what is happening in a place like, e.g. Devilbend, is also happening in NSW, e.g to Cumberland Woodlands or with the Repco Rally in Tweed Valley. At the moment the editors support most of what we do from their own pockets and spare time. We are always very pleased if someone offers to pay some of the bills. The biggest cost is time, which is not billed for. The biggest financial cost is our independent server access. This independent server also means that our website is safer than most.
The disadvantages of tax-deductibility:
Tax deductibility for environmental organisations gained popularity and became a kind of criteria of respectability because it was felt that the deductibility might encourage wealthier people to contribute more donations and the respectability attribute might make people feel they were joining something mainstream and important. Goals included getting a reliable income so that the environmental organisation had a more solid foundation. Some organisations became so solid that they could employ people and fund permanent premises. They then frequently ran into problems where the secondary aim of employing people to do their work turned into a dominant need to continue to finance those peoples' salaries. In my opinion a number of big organisations have become little more than government departments because of this.
A few years ago the government overhauled its definition of tax-deductible groups and effectively outlawed independent political activism in tax-deductible environmental (and other) groups. What the government was saying was, 'We are not going to fund our potential enemies' political campaigns.'
This was the point where a lot of organisations should probably have decided to ditch their tax-deductibility status because our environment and wildlife protection are so threatened by government-supported corporate development that environmental activism generally requires opposition to most government programs.
Environmental and Union groups have lost power due to changes in laws affecting their traditional territory
Enviromental lobbying remains a discreet option but I would not think that this was directly tax deductible, albeit one assumes that members could deduct cost of membership if the lobby-group were furthering their income-gaining activities. But, overall, environmental lobbying has few places to go now, since our Federal and State laws are so antipathetic to environmental and wildlife aims, not to mention democracy.
Environmental lobby groups, like unions, have problems continuing to offer what they traditionally offered their members because the laws no longer serve the public. For instance, a union once could afford to fund a worker's legal defense because workers once had substantial rights at law in Australia. These days, unions tend simply to advertise referral to the services of legal firms, which then give the first consultation for free. In turn, the legal firms take up comparatively few individual cases because there is so little basis now upon which to fight them.
Similarly, where environmental groups could once point to planning laws that protected citizens' rights (and indirectly wildlife and vegetation), these democratic laws that served environmentalists are fast disappearing.
An indirect indicator of this situation is that Governments in Australia are eroding the concept of 'citizen' with the term consumer, and 'participatory democracy' is being replaced with commercial 'choice', with consultation reduced to public relations or outsourced to spin-doctors working for state/private partnerships or government corporate bodies, such as Victoria's water corporations (See for instance, a href="http://candobetter.org/node/1236">"Melbourne residents held to ransom on water"and the SEITA tollway projects.
Free Press: Where do you go when Government and the Media don't care?
This article is a spin-off from Tax-deductibility and Environmental Groups & NGOs, which talks about the role of candobetter.org and other independent alternative media in representing views and assisting citizens to organise at all levels, for instance on behalf of wildlife and vegetation or in state planning laws, or immigration policies.
Where do you go when government and the media don't care?
Disappointed in government departments and ministers, environmental organisations often try to take their cause to the mainstream press. But this is usually just as problematic in the end. Why? Because the press, like the government, dictates narrower and narrower parameters for what they will designate as 'newsworthy'.
How the press manipulate democratic protest
If you are using the press as a political forum, you need to be aware that the press is now so globally powerful due to its control of the market and market perception, that it controls elections and economies much more than ordinary citizens do. That means that it controls political parties, because parties rely on pleasing the mainstream press in order to get publicity of any kind. New political candidates, many of whom must be better than the politicians now in government, come and go and disappear every year without your ever hearing of them.
NGOs and citizens need to consider that both the opposition and the government represent the interests of the commercial media and that even the ABC has to reflect the interests which the commercial media owners define. For instance it officially preserves the two party system which many of us refer to contemptuously as Tweedledum and Tweedledummer.
A very good, and scary example of this was here:
"The ABC's approach to election coverage focuses on the Government and official Opposition on the basis that one of the two major parties will ultimately form government and thus represent the principal points of view. Whilst not discounting the views or policies of the other parties and independent candidates, coverage in respect to such parties and candidates is determined on the basis of newsworthiness. The Policies also note that the ABC reserves the right to withhold free broadcast time to political parties, including those not currently represented in the Parliament concerned, on the basis of the measure of demonstrated public support for the party." Quote from an official ABC radio response to a complaint in 2009. See: ABC dismisses complaint claiming privatisation not 'newsworthy' in 2009 Queensland elections"
Environmental groups have a similar problem to new political candidates - independents and parties. The problem is that the government and the press tend to use the inability of most environmental and other non-government groups to show that they have thousands of financial supporters as an excuse not to represent their concerns. Both the press and the government, if they were really socially concerned, would act to publish, publicise and help people organise over an important cause. But they don't.
It is usually difficult for NGOs to do their real work or for independent politicians to prepare their policies and simultaneously to find thousands of supporters, especially if they are just starting out. There may be thousands, indeed millions of people who potentially support a cause or a political swing against the status quo, but how do you find those people and how do they find you?
Neither the government nor the press will help you to become strong; they will only react to strength already acquired. Usually that strength can only be built up by groups with a strong commercial basis these days. It wasn't always so. In a small population where economic activity was more localised, people shared geographically common concerns and communicated face to face. These days people tend to form their opinions, even on local issues, from the dominant news-media, rather than asking their neighbours or attending local forums.
It has become so due to the commercialisation of our social infrastructure, the huge scale on which we now operate, and our reliance on government and the mainstream press to tell us what is happening. We rely on these mediums for communication. But they are not communicating on our behalf and the 'information' and 'news' the pass on is chosen according to different priorities than the public good. Clearly the ABC reflects the interests embedded in the status quo and does not seek or respond to public input in any consistant and significant way that might change this.
Hidden commercial interests affect presentation of opinion
The commercial press also have many commercial interests apart from just selling papers or television shows, but it is not easy or indeed possible to know what most of these are at any time. What we must realise is that the commercial press is really like a lot of big interconnected corporations that are advertising products they want you to buy, using articles which will create an environment to increase the market for those products, raise the price of shares on certain commodities and products in the short term (so that they can be bought and sold), and manipulate opinion as to what is really important and what is really happening in the reader's environment. The press - television, radio and newspaper - has to a large degree - substituted a manufactured reality for ordinary interpersonal networking and the individual's forming of an idea of their political, social, economic and biophysical environment.
This manufactured reality which tells us things like 'Most people don't care about wildlife or animal cruelty', 'Most people agree with overpopulation and overdevelopment, considering it reasonable', 'most people benefit somehow from overpriced real-estate', 'it is okay to privatise water and other vital resources' - is actually the direct opposite of what most people think, but how would most people know that? In this way the mainstream press alienates citizens from each other because those citizens believe that few people share what are actually widespread values. Those values become taboo and we are all silenced.
Flood gates of overseas migration to Australia highest on record: ABS
A media release from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) last September (2008) reported:
'Net overseas migration to Australia highest on record: ABS'
"Australia's net overseas migration is at an all time high, according to figures released today from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). In the year ended March 2008, net overseas migration to Australia of just under 200,000 people accounted for over half (59%) of Australia's population increase."
* "In March 2008 Australia's population reached 21,283,000 - an increase of 1.6% (336,800 people) from the previous year."
* "Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) contributed 137,700 people (or 41%)."
As at 31 March 2008, Australia's resident population was as follows:
NSW.......6,947,000
VIC.........5,274,000
QLD........4,253,000
WA.........2,149,000
SA..........1,598,000
TAS...........497,300
ACT...........342,700
NT.............218,400.
Topic:
2020 Summit - Rudd's population policy a year on?
[Image courtesy of the Australian Government, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet]
A year ago, back in April 2008 at Rudd's 2020 Summit, bundled amongst the popular topics of sustainability, climate change and water and youth summit, the issue of 'population' could only be described as a minor topic offered token reference.
The only question at the national summit posed on this core social policy issue was: "How do we plan future population growth at a national and regional level, given the constraints of water shortages and sustainability?"
The wording seemed hastily prepared and limited to water and that now cliched word 'sustainability', but anyway...
A submission to this question was made by The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (ATSE), which lists one of its key objects as the study of the effects of technology on the quality of life of the community and on the physical and sociological environment, and technology for ecologically sustainable development.
ATSE submission to Summit (extract): "ATSE considers that Australia’s future population growth requires better long-term planning to ensure the necessary investment in infrastructure. This view is supported by a 2004 ATSE study of the engineering, scientific and environmental issues associated with population growth in Australia, undertaken at the request of the Scanlon Foundation. The report of this study - The Technological Implications of an Australian Population of 30 million by 2050 (http://www.atse.org.au/uploads/Scanbro.pdf) – found that there are no inherent physical, resource or technological barriers to Australia’s population growth, provided there is appropriate long-term planning and government leadership in setting policy directions."
So the message was that open ended population growth is ok including immigration, provided the government has policy direction and plans for the long term. This is somewhat vague and dangerous, given that all demand pressures on all public infrastructure and services and demands on space, economic, social and environmental resources, finances and slice of the Australian way of life - all of which fundamentally hinge on population size.
I am yet to read the 78 page Scanlon/ATSE report '30/50 - The Technological Implications of an Australian Population of 30 million by 2050', but the first question that must be asked of the Rudd Government is, a year on from the Summit, what is the Government's long-term planning and policy direction for Australia's population?
Optimistically, like with all freshly elected governments, in the lead up to the Summit, The Australian newspaper ran an article 4 Feb-08 entitled '2020 summit not just another talkfest' in which it offered the following optimism:
"From water policy and open government to science and the future of rural communities, the scope of the 2020 Summit is vast. While such gatherings can run the risk of spreading discussion too thinly, if the summit is allowed to operate free of too much political manipulation it should produce more worthwhile outcomes than just another talkfest. The interesting question will be whether such a consensus-building exercise can give a booster shot to the political system's capacity to fix seemingly intractable problems such as homelessness and indigenous disadvantage, the broadband impasse and inflationary pressures. As participants define the problems and come up with answers, the onus will be on the political system to implement the solutions."
Well?
Meanwhile, the official Australian Bureau of Statistics confirms the following accelerating inflow of migrants through mainly Sydney Airport with an net migration thsi year of 190,300,and till without any plan of what to do with them and any thought of the impact on Australia?
2008-09 Australia's Migration Program Record
•73 900 in 1996-97
•67 100 in 1997-98
•67 900 in 1998-99
•70 200 in 1999-00
•80 610 in 2000-01
•93 080 in 2001-02
•108 070 in 2002-03
•114 360 in 2003-04
•120 060 in 2004-05
•142 933 in 2005-06
•148 200 in 2006-07
•158 630 in 2007-08
•190 300 in 2008-09
[Source: Migration Australia (ABS Cat 3412.0)]
And still Rudd has no population policy, or if he has it is secret and increasing annually. The Ruddgates are open and Australia's infrastructure isn't coping. At this uncontrolled rate we're heading toward a second world class-based society like has happened across the Tasman to New Zealand.
Topic:
New York City Coalition for Accountability files petition
On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) filed a petition containing 52,000 signatures calling for a referendum on the creation of a New York City independent commission to investigate the events of September 11, 2001.
9/11 Family Members Maureen Hunt and Manny Badillo, and First Responders Charlie Giles of the Feal Good Foundation and Bill Gleason of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation, arrived at the City Clerk’s office to deliver the petition and speak in behalf of all the proud and concerned citizens who deserve an unbiased, nonpolitical investigation of the tragedy that has affected us so deeply.
Thank you for getting us this far! City Council now has until August 24 to approve the placement of the referendum on the November 3 ballot. As hundreds more 9/11 family members, first responders and survivors join NYC CAN’s campaign for a new investigation, lobbying their council members to support the petition, our chances grow.
In the unlikely event City Council does not approve the placement of the referendum on the ballot, NYC CAN is prepared to deliver an additional 30,000 signatures on August 24 to guarantee it gets on the ballot. We already have 8,000 of the additional 30,000!
Now more than ever is the moment to stand with the families, first responders and survivors of September 11 and stand up for what we have worked so long for. This is how you can help:
DONATE. We need money to pay our amazing petitioners. We need money to pay a legal team. We need money to launch a full-scale PR campaign once the referendum is on the ballot.
TELL FAMILY MEMBERS, FIRST RESPONDERS and SURVIVORS. We have a Statement of Support on NYCCAN.ORG that every family member, first responder, and survivor is welcome to sign. We have already accumulated over 60 signatories in the last week. If you know someone who was directly affected and wants accountability, send them to NYCCAN.ORG. The more New York-based family members, first responders and survivors who sign on, the more City Council will hear from the constituents it simply can’t ignore.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS. Nothing works like word of mouth.
There is no better place than New York City and no better time than NOW to make a real investigation happen. Stand with us now.
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Executive Director
Executive Council
Donna Marsh O’Connor
Bob McIlvaine
Jean Canavan
Edith Beaujon
Janette MacKinlay
William Rodriguez
Also published on 911blogger.com.
Justin Madden calls democracy Cultural Snobbery
The Age, June 25th
Planning Minister Justin Madden should consult the people of Victoria if he wants a planning strategy with the needs of individuals and Victorian families at its heart. He would discover that a bulging Melbourne population is not in the interests of Victorian families at all, and adding to our urban obesity without considering what the people want is actually snobbery on his part! Why isn’t there a debate?
With 2000 new people entering Victoria each week, "sustainability" has become a throw-away word with no meaning, and “affordability” is something that most families are struggling with!
A burgeoning population will not bring "economic benefits" to the average person. Most people know that the contrary is true. As natural resources become increasingly scarce, they also become more expensive. Land and housing prices have soared, and water prices are set to sky-rocket.
We already have had the fatalities due to people choosing to live in more open outer suburbs, close to Kinglake National Park! Most people don't want to live in sterile and car-dependant outer suburban housing estates, and high density living is not "family friendly". Our parks and reserves are under threat from human impacts and fires due to the urban sprawl, and people seeking more open spaces.
Fertile farming lands closer to Melbourne are being consumed for housing, and vulnerable wildlife and biodiversity habitat will be become more threatened. Our connection with Nature will further diminish, and so will our ecological life-support system!
Adding more people to Victoria will not solve one problem , and the growth will continue to destroy our biodiversity and remaining wildlife habitat. Population growth with not stop at 5 million but will keep blowing-out to 6, 7...10 million!
Marvellous Melbourne, one of the most "liveable places in the world", under our Brumby's Melbourne@5Million plan, is under threat! Justin Madden’s accusations of “cultural snobbery” are because he wants to grow Melbourne boundaries, and our suburbs, as resources for land developers and the building industry, guaranteed Labor supporters!
FGA Hunters used stolen water to draw ducks to slaughter
Guilty plea to water theft in Sale Court
Field and Game Australia’s (FGA) Gippsland spokesperson, Gary Howard, today pleaded guilty in Sale Magistrates’ Court to illegally taking and diverting water under control of an authority. The water was diverted from the Latrobe River onto Heart Morass - the organisation’s private shooting property – just a week prior to the opening of the 2009 duck shooting season.
Magistrate Lou Hill fined Mr Howard $1,500 without conviction and was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.
The prosecution followed the Coalition Against Duck Shooting’s undercover survey of the property one week before the opening of the duck shooting season.
Campaign Director, Laurie Levy, today said: “This is a huge blow to Field and Game Australia’s credibility. It is not just a theft against the local Gippsland community, but a theft from all Victorians who are doing it tough due to the long 12-year drought.
“It is more than just a coincidence that the water theft took place in the lead-up to the 2009 duck shooting season, especially as approximately 100 Field and Game Australia members had paid to shoot on the property on the opening morning. It came as no surprise that the siphoned water had attracted around one thousand native waterbirds to the wetland,” Levy said.
“As Field and Game Australia entered into a partnership to purchase the property with the Hugh Williamson Trust, the West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (WGCMA) and environment group, Watermark, it remains to be seen whether these highly reputable organisations will risk their credibility by remaining in partnership with FGA.
“This year the Brumby Government gave hunters a duck-shooting season, despite the science and the Department of Sustainability and Environment recommending against one, and yet Field and Game Australia let them down by illegally taking water.
“The question that has to be asked is whether this is the first time FGA have taken water without a licence, or just the first time they’ve been caught?” Levy concluded.
For further information contact:
Laurie Levy, Campaign Director,
Coalition against duck shooting
Source: Coalition against duck shooting Media Release, "Guilty Plea to water theft", Tuesday 23 June 2009
Whaling conference ends in disarray
The commission's new chairman said the IWC should now question its role as the conference on the Portuguese island of Madeira wrapped up a day early with delegates agreeing only to extend negotiations on whaling for another year.
The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) said it "deeply laments the fact that not a single of the important whaling topics was resolved".
The 61st annual meeting of the IWC has seen 85 member countries come together in Madeira, Portugal, who unanimously decided yesterday that climate change is a key threat to the world's whales.
They have set forward a resolution urging governments to commit to reducing emissions at the UN Climate meeting in Copenhagen at the end of the year in order to address this issue.
Surely this conference was about protecting whales from commercial slaughter, not protecting themselves and whales from climate change!
"However, members did not take action that would stop commercial whaling outside of IWC regulation, which is a fundamental problem that the IWC must address, and which continues today." So there will be no further action to stop commercial whaling? The IWC has lost it's original aims - to protect whales from commercial killings!
Despite Environment Minister’s rhetoric about vowing to “stamp out scientific whaling”, there is not such thing as Japan's "scientific whaling".
Our "anti-whaling" Government has to take some of the blame for the proliferation of the whale meat trade! Before being elected, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd made many promises about "tough" action against Japan's illegal whale killers and stopping their slaughter, but nothing has happened!
All their procrastinations and rhetoric has meant that Japan has been able to successfully continue their thinly disguised commercial whaling!
The only "tough" action from our Government has been against the crew of the Steve Irwin when Japan got the AFP to raid their ship! Our so-called "anti-whaling" nation has actually encouraged the re-commencement of commercial whaling.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith indicated Australia was leaving open the option of taking legal action against Japan on whaling through the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. However, this action is not optional but a pre-election promise to stop illegal whaling! Fulfilling promises should not be "optional" unless there is a drastic change in events, but there hasn't been.
While our leaders procrastinate and make excuses, Japan will continue to flout international and domestic laws and continue their commercial whaling. They are not only violating CITES and Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary but are completely flouting the Antarctic Treaty that protects marine wildlife and environment and the permit system to even enter the territory!
By allowing Japan to continue their successful commercial whaling, other nations such as Norway and Iceland have followed. When are we going to take action as an “anti-whaling” nation?
Operation Waltzing Matilda is the 6th Sea Shepherd campaign to defend the whales of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary from Japanese poachers.
“This is a research project,” said Captain Paul Watson. “We’ve decided to demonstrate our solidarity with the Japanese, Australian, and New Zealand Research projects. Our primary objective is to research non-lethal means for defending whales. Of course this may include research into Japanese ship’s hull plate thickness, vessel stress tests, and paint chip analysis, as well as observation of whaler behavior in response to olfactory stimulation.”
Maybe there are deep-seated resentments due to the success of Sea Shepherd, lonely activists against the mighty economic powers of Japan, or maybe there are guilt issues regarding their affront to people's acceptance of violence towards animals. No doubt, Sea Shepherd and Captain Paul Watson upset the status quo!
There is more to whale killing than the desire for the meat and profits. It's about human lust to "manage" the oceans away from the Cetacean species who know how to live in harmony with their environment - not like our own species that are creating sewers and killing fields out of the oceans.
#10;<p><a href=" https:=""> Please sign the PETITION to help save whales
Sign the online petition against Repco Rally Australia
Sea Shepherd advocates embargo against Australian kangaroo products
'Kangaroo scrotum pouch from: http://www.australiagift.com/scrotum_shop/scrotum.htm
Captain Paul Watson, the Founder and President of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and Co-Founder of the Greenpeace Foundation, said recently.
“Thanks to the European Parliament, the Canadian harp seal hunt, the largest slaughter of a marine mammal species on the planet, has been brought to its knees and the market for seal pelts virtually abolished.”
“The merciless and cruel slaughter of the kangaroos in Australia”
"We must now focus our attention and our efforts to have economic pressure brought to bear on the largest slaughter of mammals on the planet – the merciless and cruel slaughter of the kangaroos in Australia.
"These wonderful animals that have inhabited Australia for tens of thousands of years before the arrival of their ruthless killers, are sentient social creatures that have a right to survive unmolested by the cruelty of humankind.
"Thirty years ago, Australia was a whaling nation and the blood of the whales stained the sand and the water of Australian beaches. Three decades later, Australia is one of the most powerful voices in the world condemning whaling. [But] what other nation slaughters its national symbol with such ruthlessness and indifference?"
"Is the kangaroo on the Australian coat of arms a symbol of cruelty or a symbol of respect? Australians must decide."
"Will Australia continue to allow Japanese whalers to scoff hypocritically at Australia’s opposition to whaling while condoning the mass slaughter of kangaroos?
"And will Australia be subjected to the humiliation of having other nations condemn the slaughter and embargo the products?"
Source: Statement from Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. May 12, 2009
Living with Wild Animals
Humans have moved into native animals' backyards yet many of us get upset when there is a possum in our roof and go to all ends to remove it by having it relocated. Some farmers even shoot these hapless animals that are only looking for somewhere to sleep during the day and something to eat. We have a responsibility to them because we caused this situation and it's possible to not only share our space but give back some habitat to them. Here's what happened to a friend of mine recently when a possum moved into his house..... See the sequel to this story.
Every time I talk to my friend, who lives in suburban Brisbane, he tells me of another encounter with a possum that happened in his house. Apparently there is a small part at the top of the window where this small possum can squeeze into. The first event was a loud crash and evidence of a microwave door window being smashed. The poor thing must have been sleeping in there! Lucky my friend didn't turn on the microwave...
Being an animal-lover, of course he had to offer the hungry creature some of his leftover birthday cake. After that, evening sortees into his house became more regular. I encouraged him to give the possum vegetable and fruit matter instead of highly processed food which could make a native animal sick in time.
The last encounter was yesterday when he went to get his haversack to take to work and who was sleeping inside but none other than Ms Possum. Unhappy to be woken from her snooze in such a nice dark, warm place obviously she would have been forced to find another dark warm spot to continue her rudely awakened and by this time much-needed sleep.
I suggested to my friend that he get a haversack especially for Ms Possum but then it occurred to me that a better solution would be to get a (available here possum house or simply make your own possum house
which is attached to a tree.That would be a nice dark location for the possum and its future offspring to sleep in by day. Perhaps position it in a shady spot so it won't be too hot in the summer. Possums should be encouraged to live outdoors and if they have a place to sleep and a food source there is no need for them to come into your house.
Relocating possums is not in the best interest of the possum. Possums are extremely territorial and if moved to another possum's territory may lose its life in a death struggle with the presiding possum.
Normally possums like to sleep in tree hollows but these are very rare and fiercely contended for by a variety of other animals. By providing a box for various native animals you will be allowing them to survive the damage wrought by tree felling over the years which has led to the destruction of their habitat.
Perhaps you could consider planting some trees in your backyard that it might like to climb in or some fruit trees. Possums feed on leaves, buds, flowers and fruits. Occasionally they eat insects, eggs, meat.
For those people who have orchards or vege gardens who object to possums eating the fruits of their labour, why not put a fence around the tree or the vege patch or at least part of it? The possums could at least have access to your compost pile. Possums come to my open, compost heap which is full of organic, unsprayed veges and fruit and must find something tasty in there.
Possums are native to Australia and therefore protected (which doesn't mean much in a country like Australia whose kangaroos are also 'protected'). However in NZ possums are regarded as 'pests' and number 70 million. They have no sympathy and are shot on sight by farmers.
Native animals have a right to live too. Without biodiversity we will all perish. Besides, possums can offer a pleasant diversion for people who live alone. Even though I live in the rainforest, the sound of the gutteral calls of the possum who comes around regularly at night and his funny way of running which reminds me of ladies in high heel shoes delicately prancing across my tin roof at top speed gives me pleasure.
There is something very satisfying about non-verbal interspecies communication. Fundamentally, we are all the same as all creatures seek happiness and avoid pain and suffering. Ultimately, nothing brings as much joy as helping provide another being its needs. For many native animals, their survival depends on our kindness, especially as they share our world.
Maybe the day will come when the lion will lay down with the lamb and man will no longer regard other creatures like kangaroos, possums, wombats and bats as pests but beings who share the planet with them in peace.
See the sequel to this story.
Victorian Bushfires – media reporting a causal link to bush arsonist arousal
The Australian Press Council has just dismissed a complaint against Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine about her opinion article back on 12-Feb-09 ‘Green ideas must take blame for deaths.’ Devine's provocative article dogmatically accused "the power of green ideology" for poor forest management practices and as the key reason for the exacerbated scale and ferocity of the Victorian bushfires in 2009. ['Complaint against Devine dismissed, SMH, 26-Jun-09, p.5] But although provocative, Devine's 'opinion' article pales in comparison to the social implications of headline media reporting of extreme bushfire risk immediately BEFORE the bushfires! See also "Victorian Bush-fires: ABC 7.30 Report ignores facts, creates scapegoats" and "Responding to incorrect fire information by joining the debate" and "Comments on recent fire-management in bush-fire areas" and "Greens, logging, forest fires and malaria" and "Deforestation drys continents - new theory explains how"
The Australian Press Council has just dismissed a complaint against Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine about her 'opinion' article back on 12-Feb-09 ‘Green ideas must take blame for deaths.’ But although provocative, Devine's 'opinion' article pales in comparison to the social implications of headline media reporting of extreme bushfire risk immediately BEFORE the bushfires! ['Complaint against Devine dismissed', SMH, 26-Jun-09, p.5] Note that the date of the article was made while fires still raged. Also, note that the article was published on the front page of the Herald, indicating that the editor was unusually highly supportive of it. Normally, the Herald's 'Opinion and Letter's' articles are printed way back around page 12.
The main inflammatory bits drawing criticism in Devine's article were:
“It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend…it was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts.” [and] “If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.”
Clearly, the article's emotive tone expresses anger, frustration, retaliation and spiteful provocation. Perhaps this is understandable given the scale of the disaster and public shock, disbelief and for many, the personal loss. People react in their own way to tragedy. Devine's article upset many and presumably it was intended to in order to unseat entrenched community complacency about bushfire management.
If so I agree with her motive, but not her method.
The Australian Press Council considered the article's lead paragraphs as 'dogmatic' and 'confrontational'. But the complainants asserted that the article breached a number of Press Council principles. Yet the Press Council's principles or journalism are vague and advocate the rights of journalists rather than prescribing responsibilities. The principles include noble motherhood ideals such as being accurate, fair and balanced, not being misleading, acting in the public interest and not being biased against minority groups. So then perhaps the complainants were misguided and it is not surprising that the Press Council found that publicising the article didn’t breach any of these principles.
Devine was accused of incitement in her article, which is a fair interpretation. On Crikey, Greg Barns questions whether Devine’s article incited violence. He suggests that in “these fraught times, where there is a smell of blood in the air as well as smoke, as communities, individuals and the media look to find someone to blame for the Victorian bushfires, are just the environment where incitement flourishes.” Barns goes on: “To date no one appears to have acted on the inflammatory statements of Ms Devine and her fellow sabre rattlers, but that does not matter, says the law. It is enough that the incitement to commit a offence occurs, it is irrelevant that no one acted on the statement made.” SOURCE: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/02/17/did-miranda-devine-incite-violence/
In the press at the time, local anger in Gippsland was palpable and vigilante feeling clearly was at breaking point. But it was targeted at the arsonists.
No-one rationally can blame the conservation movement and its ecological principles for the Victorian Bushfires. The bush and its creatures were innocent victims of the fires, just like people, livestock and houses. Many tend to forget this in the wake of such enormous tragedy. But one must blame the arsonists.
Yet it wasn't apparently just arsonists that caused the ignitions and it is the task of Brumby's Royal Commission to investigate and find out the causes of all the ignitions. However, thereafter, the real problem solving should start, but I doubt Brumby will have the will and instead will want to close the political door on the bushfire tragedy - just like the bushfire investigations of the past and interstate.
But let’s turn more importantly to the media incitement before the bushfires!
The Age newspaper in Melbourne during the Victorian heatwave through January and early February 2009 immediately preceding the bushfires, ran headlines repeating the extreme bushfire risk. On 6 February 2009, the day before the fires started, indeed the Premier of Victoria John Brumby issued a warning about the extreme weather conditions expected on 7 February: "It's just as bad a day as you can imagine and on top of that the state is just tinder-dry. People need to exercise real common sense tomorrow".
Was this wise?
To serial dormant bush arsonists and to would be arsonists, this frenzied media excitement about such pending doom surely would have been been read by arsonists and I suggest directly incited the bush arson. Yet at the time there was no complaining or realisation of this. If bush arsonists are found to have been the key causes of the ignitons and indeed of the most catestrophic firestorms that burt alive people for instance Marysville and Kinglake, then the investigation must focus on the root cause of the arsonist motivations. I argue that media arousal through its sensationalising of the bushfire risk and its portrayal of the bushfire threat is directly responsible and accountable for actual bush arson. Let's see what the Royal Commission concludes.
Getting back to the subject of press responsibility, let’s look at where the Press Council actually prescribes reporting restrictions on journalists. Take the subject of media reporting of suicide. In the Council’s General Press Release No. 246 (i) (July 2001) on Reporting of Suicide, The Press Council “calls upon the press to continue to exercise care and responsibility in reporting matters of suicide consistent with government attempts to curb the suicide rate. Research shows that an association exists between media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, and that in some cases the link is causal. So the Press Council recommends journalists avoid reporting which might encourage copy-cat suicides and which unnecessary references details of or the place of a suicide, or which uses language which trivialises, romanticises, or glorifies suicide.” [SOURCE: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/activities/guides/gpr246_1.html]
So on the sensitive topic of suicide, the Press Council is quite prescriptive, moreso than in its broader principles for journalists rights.
Serious thought needs to be given by all levels of government and by the Press Council as the media industry's representative body to the reporting of bushfire risks. Just as links can be drawn between the media portrayal of suicide and actual suicide, causal links can be drawn between the media portrayal of bushfire risk and bush arson arousal.
This is a matter for criminal psychology. Media sensationalising of bushfire risk and of bush arson is known to incite bush arson and copy-cat bush arson. This is a little known and neglected form of social deviant behaviour, yet it has become increasingly prevalent and deadly.
There is an urgent need for national level investment into bush arson criminology research and investigations. Media rights and responsibility for reporting bushfires play a critical role, perhaps more than many of us realise.
Australia facing loss of its language, culture and environmental sustainability to mass immigration
While I write about degrading conditions in the United States, the Internet allows my work to travel all over the planet. As you know, relentless immigration endangers America, but also Australia.
Incomprehensible forces push for more population additions in both our countries. Those ‘growthists’ at the power positions operate in a mindless vacuum. They create a Faustian Bargain with the only outcome manifesting in Hobson’s Choice.
Yet, a glimmer of hope exposes average citizens to their dilemma. Mark O’Connor and William Lines wrote Overloading Australia to give everyone an idea of the calamity engulfing Oz.
In the USA, I wrote a piece, “America Losing its Language & Culture without a Whimper” for my fellow citizens. It appears that an Aussie picked it up from the Internet. You may appreciate his response:
“Frosty, you are absolutely spot on! Unfortunately I am seeing the same thing happening in Australia, most of my country men are either walking around in a "fog" or are too caught up in materialism or have been sucked in by the crap being pushed by the multi-cultural/multi-racial industry,” Robert said.
“Over the last two weeks in Melbourne & Sydney there have been large protests (several thousand strong) by foreign Indian students claiming lack of action from government and police to protect them from violent attacks. There have also been protests in India where effigies of P.M. Kevin Rudd were burnt. Indian newspapers have been running stories about Australian racism and saying that the attacks could threaten the income Australia gets from foreign students. The funny thing is: video surveillance tapes and recent arrests have identified the culprits as being of Middle Eastern identity.
“Large groups of India students have taken to the streets of Melbourne armed with clubs and attacked young men of Middle Eastern appearance. The Middle Eastern community is now asking for protection, meanwhile our politicians and self appointed ethnic spokesman are claiming the attacks aren't racially motivated. The average Aussie of European decent is sitting back scratching their head wondering what the bloody hell is going on?
“Regarding fee paying foreign students, I noticed that this is just another back door scam for residency in Australia for Third Worlders, once they complete their University or a basic Cooking, Hairdressing or Assistant in Nursing course at a ”shonk" so called Technical School they get bonus points towards residency status as they are considered skilled workers. At the same time local kids can't get placements at University, the management of Universities prefer the foreign students because they pay higher fees.
“On other matters Sydney's first Water Distillation Plant will be online soon to cope with our demand for more fresh water, the politicians are still blaming Global Warming as the reasons for building the plant, they refuse to acknowledge the demands that an increasing population is placing on our environment, health care system and life style.
“Since retiring, I have been doing a bit of casual work in a hospital, I can't believe the number of elderly people from Third World countries who are using our system and costing the taxpayer a bomb! Most of them have come here under the Family Reunion Program, the taxes their children pay could never cover the cost of providing health care and welfare for their parents.”
Australians must ask themselves if they wish to import the poor of the world to become the new entrenched poor of Oz. In the USA, we’re importing two million poor annually and they are breaking our medical, educational and prison systems. They cannot be educated as their numbers overwhelm our educational systems. Additionally, every poor teenage girl becomes pregnant faster than a hummingbird can flap its wings.
Additionally, those poor immigrants seeking a better life in the U.S. cost our taxpayers $346 billion annually in housing, food, medical, educational and resettlement costs. Immigrants must be costing Oz a bundle of cash too!
Australians may well look toward a total moratorium on all immigration before they find their country devolved into a multi-cultural and multi-lingual polyglot of incoherent mush.
One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon-all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”
Kant said, “Religion and language are the two great dividers.”
The fact grows more apparent daily: multiculturalism and multilingual societies cannot and do not maintain a cohesive or viable future. Australia will become a nation of strangers.
Frosty Wooldridge has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com
Original article published on Australia.to News.
Topic:
Rees' backflip on protecting wildlife from perpetual open season
Just three days ago (Tuesday 23-Jun-09) NSW Labor Premier Rees publicly advocated his tough stance that Labor won't support a Shooters Party proposal that would allow the hunting of native animals in national parks and that his government would not be supporting the Bill in full. "Be very clear, we will not be allowing the hunting of animals in our national parks as proposed by the Shooters Party," he told reporters in Sydney. 'Mr Rees said NSW had a proud record of environmental credentials, including one of the most extensive national park systems anywhere in the world.' (Sydney Morning Herald 23-Jun-09)
But yesterday Rees backflipped, offering the Shooters Party "the right to help with culls in national parks under the supervision of environment department officials in the first stage of his efforts to woo back the two Shooters MPs." All because of another unrelated government agenda item - the proposed sell off of NSW Lotteries for $500M. Rees is worried that the Opposition and crossbenchers including The Shooters Party will oppose this sale.
SOURCE: SMH, 'Cull offer puts Shooters in sights' by Andrew Clennell, Brian Robins and Alexandra Smith, 26-Jun-09
The Shooters Party has effectively blackmailed the government as such - support our Game bill and we'll support your Lottery Sale bill. The standard and stewardship of New South Wales politics has descended into political deal making, taking precedence over principle and policy and at the expense of the public interest.
In Nathan Rees' inaugural speech as Member for Toongabbie back on 8-May-07, he proclaimed his commitment to principles: "Starting in 1975 my eyes were opened to those key elements of our social fabric: fairness, justice, accountability..." So what happened? Is politics starting to win over principle? Rees' opportunity to differentiate himself from his opponents is to take an uncompromising, principled position. Unprincipled maneuverings and back flipping will only put Rees in the same company of those who play cheap politics. A leader's legacy is recalled by the tough principled decisions that one has made.
Shooters Party - fanatical red necks pushing for open season in National Parks
Since May 2009, Robert Brown MP of the Shooters Party has been pushing for the GAME AND FERAL ANIMAL CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2009 to be passed into NSW legislation.
The spin of this Bill is so feral animals can be controlled in National Parks. But in reality the proposed changes would mean the following main changes:
* Many of Australia's native fauna across NSW would be condemned as 'game animals' just like in colonial times, when Australian native animals were despised as 'vermin'. Other native animals can be included in the shooters hit list so long as there is consultation with the Minister for National Parks (DECC).
* It would be lawful for sporting shooters to hunt and shoot native fauna in all National Parks, State Forests, Crown Land and 'private game reserves' across NSW. Killing wildlife is to be branded as 'conservation hunting' and basically would be permissible through most natural landscapes outside built up areas.
* The Game Council of NSW, which is a government body dominated by members of shooting and hunting clubs, and it would assume authority for granting shooting licences in National Parks.
* Shooters and hunters in National Parks would be immune from protesters trying to protect native animals and birds - as it would become "an offence to approach persons (within 10 metres) who are lawfully hunting on declared public hunting land, or to interfere with persons lawfully hunting game animals".
* Any environmental protection legislation that impedes shooting and hunting of native animals is to be overriden by the new changes - such as under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974.
* Hunting of native game animals can be done by non-commercial shooters - i.e weekend sports shooters. Using spot lights is optional and it is ok to leave the dead, dying and injured prey where they fall.
* In the case of native waterfowl, licensed game hunters will be required to pass an official identification test of native waterfowl. The record of shooters killing protected bird species is woeful, yet the proposed legislation won't make any difference.
SOURCE:Bill's second reading in the NSW Legislative Council
Professional safari hunters, recreational hunters, sports shooters, or weekend warriors? This Bill would overturn all environmental legislation protecting our remaining wildlife in NSW. It is repugnant. This proposal is nothing to do with noble gesture of taking on the task of the government's culling feral animals in National Parks.
The Game Council in this self-interested set of demands, simply wants to give its weekend warrior member base open slather access to shoot almost anything and everything in the bush. It would be 24/7 open season on wildlife perpetually across NSW every day of the year. Every weekend would be weekend warrior party time in the ute with the spotties and the beers and the guns - just like in the good old days eh? In doing so, The Game Council and the Shooters Party have shown their true colours. The Game Council's objective is to provide for the effective management of 'introduced species' of game animals. By advocating the hunting and shooting of native animals and birds is outside its 'introduced species' charter.
According to Greens MP Ian Cohen, if feral animals are to be culled then "it should be managed by trained Livestock Health and Protection Authority officers." "Recreational hunters are not helping when it comes to feral species - the reality is that hunters, with their dogs, are often a cause of pest species dispersal, driving feral animals into national parks."
Fortunately, NSW Cabinet yesterday backed away from supporting the bill.
NSW MP Moyes speech for the people against Motor Sport (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009
For MPs who voted FOR this awful bill, click here
NSW Bill to override local democracy and to privilege private business and protect Ministers from legal challenge
The following is from a speech to the Legislative Council of the NSW parliament by the Reverend Dr Gordon Moyes [1]. (Headings and new punctuation have been added by a Candobetter editor):
The Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 is a bill for an Act to facilitate the conduct of the international motor sport known as the World Rally Championship. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 override the Local Government Act 1993, the Forestry Act 1916, and the Water Management Act 2000 by allowing the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 to authorise people to take actions that are expressly not permitted by those Acts. Clause 20 protects the exercise of certain functions of the Minister, or any delegate of the Minister, or a public authority, from challenge or review before a court or administrative review body, or from being restrained, removed or otherwise affected by any proceedings.
An affront and an injury to Northern Rivers area in NSW
The Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is pristine and beautiful. It is incredibly rich in flora and fauna, with more species of fish, birds, amphibians and mammals than even the world-famous Kakadu area of the Northern Territory. The region also has many threatened fauna and plant species that need to be protected. The area is recognised as having diverse ecosystems, including different kinds of rainforest, wetlands, heath lands and important zones between the land and the water.
Area already officially consacrated as a national landscape icon
Some areas of Australia are so special and unique that they have received official recognition, and this is one of them. In 2008 the Federal Government launched the National Landscape Program, selecting only a handful of regions. Along with Kakadu and the Great Ocean Road, the Mount Warning Wollumbin Caldera was awarded special status as a national landscape icon by the Ministers for Tourism and the Environment. The green cauldron, as it is commonly called, is a designated area stretching from Byron Bay up past the State border into the Gold Coast, and was selected because of its distinctive natural features, including the world's second-largest shield volcano crater, which has shallow sloping sides, awesome environmental biodiversity and a very rich Aboriginal heritage.
Gordon Moyes MP: personal observations
I have wonderful memories of visiting this area on many occasions, particularly the area around Kyogle, which my family has visited several times. Kyogle is a town of approximately 4,000 people in the Northern Rivers region of northern New South Wales. It was founded as a lumber camp in the 1930s, with red cedar and hoop pine being the main timber trees. It is about 750 kilometres north of Sydney, quite close to the border. The Kyogle area has cattle grazing, dairy farming and forestry as its primary industries, and is a tourist gateway to many national parks. The mad rush of the modern lifestyle has lost so much of the simplicity and beauty of the more natural pace of life and the smaller scale of living on the land. The people living in Kyogle and Tweed shires have purposely set out to recapture this preferred quality of life and are living their vision in the most committed way.
REPCO Rally assails regional community world-view
The back-to-the-land lifestyle is a homey, environmentally based world view that embraces home-grown organic food, handmade items of daily life, eating actual cooked meals rather than fast food on the run, raising poultry and cattle, birdwatching, bushwalking and a philosophy that supports the ongoing daily work of a commitment to recycling and a deep love and respect for, and the protection of, wildlife. These are the kinds of quiet pursuits that they embrace and encourage in their region. The people of Kyogle and Tweed collectively have identified the environment and its protection and enhancement as their top priorities, and the extraordinary natural environment is the reason people choose to live there. I emphasise the fact that the people as a community and as a region have purposely chosen that natural, life-affirming, low-carbon-footprint, close-to-the-land lifestyle.
As part and parcel of that worldview, they have eschewed big, noisy, air- and water-polluting, old-fashioned, high-energy-using pastimes from the manic-paced cities, such as international motorcar racing. It is true that there has been a small Speed for Tweed race of historic motorcars for the past five years on the streets of Murwillumbah, but it is very small scale, low key and charming. It is run as a non-profit event by the locals for the benefit of locals. It has raised thousands of dollars for local charities and Murwillumbah hospital. The race is tiny in comparison with the major-event motor car races of a scale threatened by the Repco Rally, which is simply not welcome there for many reasons—one of which is that it is an international business. It does not even pretend to benefit or serve the interests of local people. It is merely a commercial enterprise, a business. It does not share the ethos of the region and will offer nothing of value to the community.
An insulting imposition on the locals by external parties
Most of all, the Repco Rally simply does not belong there; it is seriously out of place. If the rally proceeds, it is an insulting imposition on the locals by external parties with truly alien values who are apparently such arrogant people that they will not take the broad hint that they are not wanted. Indeed, the local people could hardly be more expressive of their point of view on this matter, having written to their representatives and to the newspapers, marched in their localities, attended consultations, and done everything else they could think of to get someone to pay attention to their concerns—which range from indignation at being treated shoddily by the State Government to concerns about damage to the environment, and to issues with the suspect economic claims behind the decision to hold this race in their vulnerable natural environment.
Same Rally cost WA tax-payers $6m+ p.a.
Previous speakers who praised the rally indicated that it will bring $100 million of value to the area. They do not understand what they are talking about. For example, $100 million over what period? It is certainly not for this one race that is coming up; nor for the one in two years time or the one in 10 years time. It is the accumulated value they think they might get if everything is done and all options are accepted between now and 2027. A more true picture comes from Western Australia. The Western Australian Government no longer wanted the rally, indicating that it was costing Western Australia $6 million a year and it was not getting economic value to make up for that $6 million.
Sham public consultation
I have received, as I guess have many members, hundreds of emails, letters and visits from people in the area pointing out many different aspects. Obviously I will not go through all of them now. However, one concerned citizen, Dr Jules Lewin of Stokers Siding, pointed out to me that Repco Rally's socioeconomic impact assessment was so poorly put together, without being substantiated or having verifiable projections or references, that in scientific, medical and management circles it would be flatly rejected. The methodology was inappropriate, the numbers were inadequate, the data presentation was obscure and the analysis was unsound and contradictory.
In the assessment there was no consideration of the current economic crisis; nor were there any references to current social trends, such as green driving, concern for many environmental issues, the concept of sustainability or the impact of peak oil. With such a lack of insight and grasp of elemental issues, the so-called impact assessment is utterly irrelevant. No multimillion-dollar contract meant to last a minimum of 10 years, plus a 10-year extension, should be allowed to proceed on the basis of the authenticity, accuracy or recommendations of this flimsy report.
Also, in the socioeconomic impact assessment the Repco Rally organisers claim to have consulted with the community, but a letter written to a number of local newspapers stated the following:
"We the undersigned wish to advise the community that our respective community associations have been totally misrepresented in the report entitled Rally Australia Socio-economic Impact Statement, which was committed by Repco Rally Australia. We have been listed on page 29 of the report as being the representatives of our respective community associations who were supposedly part of the community consultation process. We wish to advise that no such community consultation ever took place."
The letter is signed by a significant number of leaders of community organisations from the area. Claiming that community consultation took place might look good on paper, but it has now been completely discredited as an untruth. If the Repco Rally organisers have not provided meaningful background research, presented accurate information or genuinely consulted with the community, and they have misrepresented their own activities, what is their word worth on anything else? One lady wrote to me about Sargents Road in Kyogle, where she lives, which is a core koala habitat crucial for the survival of the species. She cited the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] November 2008 Recovery Plan for the Koala, which seeks to ensure the survival of the koala in the wild. This State report reinforces the need to recognise the value of koalas to the community in terms of their presence in the landscape and their potential to attract eco-tourism.
Chaotic policy causing wildlife calvary
How then can another State department come along and act in opposition to those interests already committed to by that department? Sargents Road is not the kind of road recommended for racing—not if we care about animals and their habitats. In fact, the busy local wildlife rescue volunteers say that already far too much wildlife is injured and killed on the roads by automobiles, and that more cars racing on those roads is the last thing the animals need. They also mention that the methods proposed to scare the animals away from the roads—I wonder how many Government members understand this—will likely lead to stress reactions and heart failure in the animals. There will be extremely loud noises, such as banging and so on, to frighten animals away.
Road carnage bad enough without Repco adding to it
Additional concerns have been reported to me in letters from people, such as problem driving and street racing. I will not comment on those. We all know that streets and roads are already deadly to innocent drivers and pedestrians. The news is always full of copycat racing in every area after it hosts such races. Do we really want to inspire more of them? The answer from the people of the North Coast is a resounding "No". The local Kyogle and Tweed Landcare teams, made up of people who give their time free cleaning up, salvaging and repairing damaged ecosystems, dread the havoc that will be wreaked by such an event in this area—one that they have tended with such devotion over the years. The members of the Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers and the Caldera Environment Centre, who have worked for decades protecting the natural environment, are sick at heart over this bill, which will force on the rally in an area where it should not be allowed.
So many reasons to scotch the Repco rally
I assure members that local residents in this area are informed and intelligent; they know their special environment is critical to the growth of tourism in the area and is, in fact, its greatest attraction. Any activities that are destructive of the environment are anathema to them. Some believe that the Government will be in contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was signed in 1992. Motor sports are an incompatible activity and irrelevant to the local agricultural industry, and can only undermine the World Heritage value of the area. Any anticipated profits from motor sport enthusiasts would be dwarfed by the year-round loss of ecotourists once the green branding of the area is tainted. In addition to the danger to wildlife at risk from the rally, there are also many companion animals and domestic stock living in this area that are very sensitive to noise and can be terrified by screeching, careening and unpredictable motor-generated noises. Even if they were able to stay safely indoors, they will be bombarded by noise, which to animals is perceived as a threat. Such noise permeates and penetrates residential walls as if they were not there. This kind of noise should be isolated away from population centres—and not allowed in an area known for its nurturing silence.
Noise pollution
The excessive noise pollution will be imposed on the human population too, of course. The standards set to protect people and animals will be overruled by this bill that we are considering passing, so that people will have no right to complain—and that is wrong. Those standards were established for a purpose, and to remove them casually in this way is a great wrong. Exposure to excess noise is known to raise the heart rate and blood pressure of many people and to contribute to anxiety; it should not be inflicted on populations as if it is of no importance. The wives, families, counsellors and companions of 4,000 war veterans living in the area have expressed their great concern over the anticipated helicopter noise—which they anticipate will cause psychological disturbance and deep anxiety as it triggers post traumatic stress episodes in the vulnerable, particularly Vietnam War veterans.
Solistalgia
Even the anticipation of one helicopter circling above them is unbearable, much less the dozens of helicopters that will be used over the three-day event. To put veterans through such stress is just unconscionable. Their absolute dread is really escalating into a serious mental health issue for them, their families and their communities. Previously I have mentioned that I was responsible for establishing a mental health facility in Taree to handle post-war traumatic syndrome. Hundreds of Vietnam veterans from the northern rivers came to the Wesley Mayo clinic at Taree for psychological services. In fact, the recently named psychological condition of "solistalgia" is now widespread in the North Coast area. Solistalgia is defined as "the deep distress induced by environmental change, which is exacerbated by the sense of powerlessness and loss of control over the changes that are occurring".
Copious chemical and atmospheric pollution
Then there is the spillage of oil, petrol and other wastes that will seep into the ground, into the atmosphere and onto roads, which is unconscionable in such a pristine area. The air pollution generated from motor racing is unhealthy for people and all other living things, including trees close to the track. The amount of dust that is raised is dangerous for asthmatics and people with respiratory conditions, not to mention dirty and distressing for the people whose homes it will fill. Advising them to go inside and turn on the air conditioning is not good enough. People have outdoor work and busy lives to live and cannot easily take refuge indoors, and many do not have the option of air conditioning. Nothing will help animals cope with the particulate matter in the air that will sicken them.
On the topic of pollution, it is reported that every member of the world rally racing team travels over 130,000 kilometres by air each year. Add that to all the carbon emitted by the activities associated with the rally and a thoughtful person cannot help but recognise that it is an unacceptable carbon footprint.
Car-racing anathema to crucial environmental concerns - Why is government encouraging them?
In fact, in this era of climate change, in response to the deadly global threat of increasing greenhouse gases, it would be far more sensible for the State Government to discourage all human activities that produce such a massive carbon footprint. Perhaps the rich race organisers think they do not have to worry about such matters, but climate change will eventually affect them too. There are also all the prudent economic arguments that many of my constituents have pointed out. Locals believe almost universally there will be far more irremediable damage than any possible benefit accruing from having full restaurants and accommodation for a few days every other year.
The proposed benefits of showcasing the northern area to an estimated 51 million people worldwide, who are supposedly going to watch the racing on television, is outweighed by the actual damage done to the whole fabric of society, the already ill-maintained roads, the environment and the people. Some things just do not bounce back that easily, and having had an event of this magnitude forced upon them is not going to sit easy with residents. Many are simply not resilient enough to cope with the magnitude of the change being thrust upon them.
It just does not make sense on any level
West Australian Government on record as saying it was deceived by rally organisers
I will say very little more. It just does not make sense on any level. The history of the rally in other States has been lacklustre, leading to large financial losses by taxpayers. The Western Australia Government expressed that by not being willing to let it continue in that State. It is on record as saying they it was deceived by rally organisers. Why have Suzuki and Subaru withdrawn their sponsorship of the rally? Why did Victoria or Queensland not want it? Why did the Welsh Assembly Government recently terminate its five-year contract after just two years? I will tell you why. Because all the promised benefits that have been presented to members of the Government and the Opposition were hyped to them were not forthcoming, after all—and if we in New South Wales are sold the same bill of goods, the same thing will happen on the North Coast.
People have asked me why are the taxpayers of New South Wales being asked to fund this rich-people's sport? Why is the State Government promising this international commercial enterprise free labour of hundreds of local volunteers, particularly, who are already overstretched by their efforts and services during two recent floods in the area? As well as the money paid to the Repco rally organisers the State intends to provide free of charge a number of bushfire brigades, 150 extra police, the services of the State Emergency Service, hospitals and all their associated staff on stand-by, on and on ad infinitum. This event will run at a loss for the State, but not for the organisers. Even though the people who thought the idea had some merit now recognise the contempt in which their region's concerns are being held by the arrogant rally organisers who act as if they have been given carte blanche to do whatever they like. The residents know full well it is not democratic, not respectful, not what they expect or deserve, and not right.
One wrote to me and said:
"Apart from being a very bad idea and unpopular with residents, this is a dangerous practice: taking control over events that the local councils should be regulating, in order to benefit outside elites."
Another wrote:
"Have our governing bodies become so anesthetised to the fact that they are elected to represent the citizens, and not given the divine rights of kings?"
Githabul Aboriginal women say attack on their sacred areas of life and death importance
There is one more group whose interests and concerns I have not yet mentioned, the Aboriginal women of the Githabul people, whose representative contacted my office when they heard that I was listening to all sides of the issue. The representative of the Githabul people explained that under the agreement reached in late 2007 the Githabul people were going to be allowed joint management of national parks and State forests with the New South Wales State Government. Regarding the Repco rally, there was consultation carried out with one sole male elder. But he, as a male, was not in a position to know anything about the areas that are sacred to the Githabul women and apparently the women are very distraught that they have had no voice in presenting their deeply honoured cultural concerns to the rally organisers and the New South Wales Government, and they call upon both to recognise that they too have a right to be heard. To them these issues are of life and death importance and they do not want the Repco rally to have access to particular areas on the race route as announced that are actually sacred territory.
Undemocratic bill to say the least
Forcing through the bill does not demonstrate respect for the opinions, needs and lives of people and their families in these areas. This is not good manners, it is not social justice, and it is not democracy. In fact it is a blatant flouting of the democratic process and does not represent the value system that Australians have gone to war to defend and protect. It is an insult to war veterans and families in that area. I am disturbed to note that this is becoming an all too familiar pattern, with bills being used by the Government to disregard other tiers of government or authorities in order to force its own way without regard for the feelings or safety of the people on the receiving end. Our political system has been built up over many years with multiple layers of power and checks and balances, and we must not give them away.
Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament
I conclude, Mr President, by reading a passage from the Code of Conduct for Members, which you signed and sent to every member of this House. I am sure that it has been quite a while since many of us read or thought about it. It states:
Members of Parliament acknowledge their responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with honesty and integrity, respecting the law and the institution of Parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of New South Wales.
Dr Gordon Moyes (MP) draws the line
I will not support any bill that allows large-scale events unwanted by the people who would have to host them.
Not all of my constituents are against motor racing per se, if it can be held in an area that will be undamaged by it and if nearby residents actively want it happening there. It is a hard ask, though. No residents that I have spoken to in the area, or anywhere near it, want motor races to be held near their children's schools, on their village streets or on rural roads. I do not approve of anything that can be construed as a misuse of power and, therefore, I will not support any bill that allows large-scale events unwanted by the people who would have to host them. I encourage any other members here today who still think they have either an environmental or a social conscience to join me in refusing to support what I believe is an ill-conceived bill. I thank you, Mr President, for extending me the privilege of being able to speak.
Which MPs voted for and against the REPCO Rally law in NSW Parliament?
Candobetter Ed. Record of debate, remarks and conduct below has been edited, for instance, headings have been inserted to highlight parts, and some repetitive items have been left out, as indicated by square brackets. The source of the entire document may be accessed in its original form here http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/hanstrans.nsf/V3ByKey/LC20090623:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Tuesday 23 June 2009
[...]
__________
MOTOR SPORTS (WORLD RALLY CHAMPIONSHIP) BILL 2009
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 17 June 2009.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [6.15 p.m.]: The Liberal-Nationals will not oppose the bill, but at the outset I make it clear that we will seek to ensure that there is a full and independent review of the rally following the initial running of the event this year. It is anticipated that the Government will support the amendment. I clearly state that the amendment directly reflects the hard work and quite intense lobbying conducted by the member for Tweed, Geoff Provest, and the member for Lismore, Thomas George, both of whom have worked tirelessly to ensure that people who live in the Far North Coast have a voice at the table when Parliament is dealing with legislation relating to the rally. I commend both the member for Tweed and the member for Lismore for their effective advocacy on this issue.
The object of the bill is to facilitate the conduct of a major sport known as the World Rally Championship. It is worth noting that in September 2008 Events New South Wales and the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport announced that the northern rivers region of New South Wales would host the Australian round of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile [FIA] World Rally Championship in 2009 and then every two years until 2027. It is worth noting that only now has the legislation been introduced after many months of relatively little action. That is one of the issues that has motivated the Far North Coast community to express concern.
Nevertheless, it is estimated that the rally will generate up to $100 million in direct economic benefits to New South Wales over the life of the agreement through the creation of up to 2,000 new jobs and an estimated 92,000 visitor nights. These are significant benefits to the local community and, self-evidently, also for the entire State of New South Wales. The first event, the Repco Rally Australia, will be held in the Tweed and Kyogle local government areas from 3 to 6 September 2009. This bill provides that the legislation will be reviewed five years after it receives assent. The Liberal-Nationals, understanding the need to give certainty to the local community, to the rally proponents and to millions of World Rally Championship fans throughout the world—and I have to admit to being one of them—will not oppose the bill but will seek to move an amendment in Committee that is aimed at producing a full and independent review of the rally following the initial 2009 event.
One of the purposes of the amendment is not only to ensure that the review takes place but also to ensure that the review includes, in a spirit of cooperation, the Kyogle Council and the Tweed Shire Council, thereby remitting some ownership of the event to the local community and ensuring a degree of transparency that presently is lacking. The Liberal-Nationals believe that the amendment will give the legislation reasonable balance between the need for the proponents to get on with the job of planning this year's event and the local community to determine what impact an event such as this will have on their region in the future.
Liberal-Nationals are advised that the Kyogle Council supports the rally, but has requested that a review mechanism be built into the legislation to enable any issues that may arise from the initial event to be examined and resolved. The Liberal-Nationals are advised that the Tweed Shire Council also wants a review mechanism built into the legislation. In a press release dated 10 September 2008, the Tweed Shire Council's general manager, Mike Rayner, welcomed the announcement, saying that the event would boost the local economy and showcase the Tweed to a worldwide television audience as a tourist destination.
Mr Rayner is quoted as saying:
This event has a massive audience—last year 50 million people in 180 countries watched each round of the World Rally. That will bring immeasurable exposure to the Tweed and northern rivers region, both nationally and internationally.
In a press release dated 3 June 2009 Tweed Shire Council's mayor, Councillor Joan van Lieshout, indicated that on 3 June representatives from Tweed and Kyogle councils met with the Minister for State Development. Councillor van Lieshout is quoted as saying:
We were advised that the decision was made by the Department in order to secure the event following commitments for the delivery of relevant equipment from overseas.
While I am obviously very disappointed that the event has been taken out of the hands of local government, I have uppermost in my mind the concerns of the community in regard to transparency and full communication with all negotiations.
It has been on the agenda for many months awaiting relevant development application and during this time community members have expressed their concerns that a 'fast car rally' is not within the vision for the "Tweed Naturally" imagine which is foremost in our strategic tourism planning for the future of the Tweed.
I am determined that the process will be fully transparent and have requested that a review of the whole event be taken prior to any further agreements for the future.
We have the opportunity now to set the forum for all future events of this nature through the democratic examples set by this event.
Members of the local community are angered by the course of action taken by this State Labor Government. There has been a lack of proper process and the community has been locked out of the decision-making process. While the Liberal-Nationals support the rally and will not oppose the bill, we condemn the State Labor Government for its heavy-handed approach when dealing with the local community. The role of the Government is to ensure that the local community is fully informed and taken through the process, rather than railroaded. Clearly, there are benefits to the local community and to the entire State. That is why the Liberal-Nationals will not oppose the bill.
However, this does not excuse the State Labor Government from locking the community out in the manner it has. All too often that is what we see from this State Labor Government. We see a lack of proper process, a lack of planning and a lack of infrastructure, and now we see tourism projects drawn up on the back of a desire to achieve positive headlines in the paper. This is not how our State should be run, and the local community is justified in its anger that once again the State Labor Government has demonstrated that it is more interested in a headline than what is right for the local community and, indeed, the State. Once again I congratulate the local member for Tweed and the local member for Lismore on their considerable advocacy on this matter.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [6.22 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009, the purpose of which is to facilitate the conduct of the Australian rounds of the motor rally known as the World Rally Championship on a biennial basis in the northern rivers region of New South Wales. The Christian Democratic Party support the bill because of the advantages to the economy and to tourism—I am a bit surprised by the criticism of the tourism aspect—and in terms of jobs. The world rally championship organisation is one of the highest profile international four-wheel motor sport championships after Formula One, with approximately 51 million people viewing each round of the televised world rally championship. In September 2008 Events New South Wales and the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport announced that the Australian round of the world rally championship would be staged every second year in the northern rivers region of New South Wales from 2009 until 2017, with an option to extend until 2027.
Events New South Wales estimates that the event will generate more than $100 million for the New South Wales economy over the duration of the agreement. It is also anticipated that it will boost tourism and jobs and deliver major economic benefits to regional New South Wales. The first event, Repco Rally Australia, will be held in Kyogle and Tweed local government areas from 3 to 6 September 2009. Obviously, when putting on such a large event—as was necessary for the staging of the super 8 event at Olympic Park—special legislation is necessary to streamline what has become a complicated maze of approval processes. If one were forced through the maze of approval processes, the first Repco event would probably not take place until 2027, if at all. It is important to have legislation that will allow a similar approval process to operate but still ensure that appropriate conditions can be imposed to address matters such as public safety and environmental protection.
I have received many requests to oppose the legislation. When I read those requests it became clear to me that it is easy to stir up opposition, as happened recently with mining legislation that was before the House. It is easy to create an atmosphere of fear and concern, and that has been happening with this event. Some have even said that many teenage drivers will go mad and kill each other after this event. In my view what encourages dangerous driving in teenagers are video games which are played by children—not necessarily teenagers—that encourage the smashing of cars and the ramming of police cars and so on. Many children engage in that form of entertainment day after day. I think that video games will have more effect to encourage speed and carelessness by teenage drivers, than will a Repco event that will take place between 3 and 6 September. The Christian Democratic Party supports the bill as it will facilitate this event.
[The Deputy-President (The Hon. Amanda Fazio) left the chair at 6.27 p.m. The House resumed at 8.00 p.m.]
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.00 p.m.], in reply: I thank members for their contributions to this debate. The Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 is designed to facilitate the conduct of the Australian round of the World Rally Championship, an internationally popular motorsport that was watched by 860 million people around the world in 2007. The bill puts in place a mechanism to consider important matters such as the environment and public safety. It provides certainty for the event and secures the estimated $100 million boost to the New South Wales economy. The boost to the economy is recognised by the Murwillumbah and District Chamber of Commerce and Tweed Tourism. Tony Zuschke, business owner and President of the Murwillumbah and District Chamber of Commerce, said:
This event has the potential to deliver massive economic benefit to the region and, recognising that, the Chamber is working with business and with the community to ensure we're geared up fully to make the most of the opportunity. Visitors to the rally can expect a fantastic experience during their stay here, and we're confident that they will take away plenty more reasons to keep coming back.
Phil Villiers, General Manager of Tweed Tourism, said that the rally would give a huge boost to tourism in the region. He said:
From a marketing and promotional perspective the rally will provide the Tweed and surrounding area with a tremendous opportunity to showcase our story to the world. With major corporate attendance expected at the event, we will also be working actively to encourage businesses to discover the Tweed for many other reasons besides the rally, for instance for conferences and events.
Mr Ian Cohen: This is the biggest shaft I've ever had. Were you shafted as well, Reverend Moyes?
[Interruption]
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: Mr President, as we will consider the bill in Committee, I am sure that Mr Ian Cohen can make his comments at that time. Is that all right?
Mr Ian Cohen: No, it is not all right.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You were not here—
Mr Ian Cohen: You knew that I wanted to speak on this bill.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You were not here.
Mr Ian Cohen: You knew I wanted to speak.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You were not here.
Mr Ian Cohen: You and the Liberals wouldn't give me the opportunity to speak.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: The bell was ringing and you were not here.
Mr Ian Cohen: I thought Fred was still speaking.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: You may have thought that, but he was not speaking. The member will have the opportunity to speak in Committee.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Members will speak through the Chair.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: As I said, the House will give Mr Ian Cohen the opportunity to comment on whatever he likes. He should not get so angry; life is too short. Consultation with the community and with councils is a priority. The Minister for State Development met with Tweed and Kyogle councils, and is committed to ongoing close consultation with them. I commend the bill to the House.
Question—That this bill be now read a second time—put.
The House divided.
Ayes, 21 [i.e. those in favour of a second reading of the bill]
Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Mr Gallacher
Ms Griffin
Mr Khan Mr Lynn
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe
Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin
Noes, 5 [Ed. i.e. those against a second reading of the bill.]
Mr Cohen
Reverend Dr Moyes
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Question resolved in the affirmative. [Ed. i.e. Moyes and the other five who voted against the bill lost the motion, so the bill was put to the house a second time.]
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG (Parliamentary Secretary) [8.09 p.m.]: I move:
That the President do now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill in detail.
Question put.
Division called for.
[In division]
Member Gordon Moyes physically locked out of debating Chamber
The PRESIDENT: Order! An unfortunate situation has suddenly arisen. A member who intended to contribute to the second reading debate on this bill was locked out of the Chamber at a time when he, if present in the Chamber, could have sought the call. The member sought to gain entry to the Chamber through a side door but the door was locked. The member then knocked on the door but was unable to gain entry to the Chamber. Because no member at that time sought the call, I gave the call to the Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the second reading debate.
That members are not present to participate in debate when the bells have been rung and the House begins to sit is neither here nor there: that is a matter for members. If members wish to contribute to a particular debate, they should be present when that debate is called on. However, if a member is prepared to speak and intends to do so but is physically unable to enter the Chamber, a matter of privilege arises.
I propose to call off the division and to give the call as a matter of privilege to Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes, the member who was unable to enter the Chamber, to allow him to contribute to the second reading of the bill. At the conclusion of that speech I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to move again the motion to enable the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill in detail.
Division called off.
Privilege
The PRESIDENT: Order! I call on Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes to address the House, as he wished to do earlier but was unable because he could not enter the Chamber.
[Candobetter Ed. Note that the speech below is published here, with editorial headings and punctuation changes. Scroll to end of speech here for more interesting comments, conduct and debate]
Gordon Moyes' Speech against the Bill
Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES [8.17 p.m.]: I thank the House for extending this privilege. It is very rare that one gets the opportunity, in an institution as old as State Parliament, to set precedent in the regulation and conduct of the House. The Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 is a bill for an Act to facilitate the conduct of the international motor sport known as the World Rally Championship. Clauses 13, 14 and 15 override the Local Government Act 1993, the Forestry Act 1916, and the Water Management Act 2000 by allowing the Motor Sports (World Rally Championship) Bill 2009 to authorise people to take actions that are expressly not permitted by those Acts. Clause 20 protects the exercise of certain functions of the Minister, or any delegate of the Minister, or a public authority, from challenge or review before a court or administrative review body, or from being restrained, removed or otherwise affected by any proceedings.
The Northern Rivers area of New South Wales is pristine and beautiful. It is incredibly rich in flora and fauna, with more species of fish, birds, amphibians and mammals than even the world-famous Kakadu area of the Northern Territory.
The region also has many threatened fauna and plant species that need to be protected. The area is recognised as having diverse ecosystems, including different kinds of rainforest, wetlands, heath lands and important zones between the land and the water.
Some areas of Australia are so special and unique that they have received official recognition, and this is one of them. In 2008 the Federal Government launched the National Landscape Program, selecting only a handful of regions. Along with Kakadu and the Great Ocean Road, the Mount Warning Wollumbin Caldera was awarded special status as a national landscape icon by the Ministers for tourism and the environment. The green cauldron, as it is commonly called, is a designated area stretching from Byron Bay up past the State border into the Gold Coast, and was selected because of its distinctive natural features, including the world's second-largest shield volcano crater, which has shallow sloping sides, awesome environmental biodiversity and a very rich Aboriginal heritage.
I have wonderful memories of visiting this area on many occasions, particularly the area around Kyogle, which my family has visited several times. Kyogle is a town of approximately 4,000 people in the Northern Rivers region of northern New South Wales. It was founded as a lumber camp in the 1930s, with red cedar and hoop pine being the main timber trees. It is about 750 kilometres north of Sydney, quite close to the border. The Kyogle area has cattle grazing, dairy farming and forestry as its primary industries, and is a tourist gateway to many national parks. The mad rush of the modern lifestyle has lost so much of the simplicity and beauty of the more natural pace of life and the smaller scale of living on the land. The people living in Kyogle and Tweed shires have purposely set out to recapture this preferred quality of life and are living their vision in the most committed way.
The back-to-the-land lifestyle is a homey, environmentally based world view that embraces home-grown organic food, handmade items of daily life, eating actual cooked meals rather than fast food on the run, raising poultry and cattle, birdwatching, bushwalking and a philosophy that supports the ongoing daily work of a commitment to recycling and a deep love and respect for, and the protection of, wildlife. These are the kinds of quiet pursuits that they embrace and encourage in their region. The people of Kyogle and Tweed collectively have identified the environment and its protection and enhancement as their top priorities, and the extraordinary natural environment is the reason people choose to live there. I emphasise the fact that the people as a community and as a region have purposely chosen that natural, life-affirming, low-carbon-footprint, close-to-the-land lifestyle.
As part and parcel of that world view, they have eschewed big, noisy, air- and water-polluting, old-fashioned, high-energy-using pastimes from the manic-paced cities, such as international motor car racing. It is true that there has been a small Speed for Tweed race of historic motor cars for the past five years on the streets of Murwillumbah, but it is very small scale, low key and charming. It is run as a non-profit event by the locals for the benefit of locals. It has raised thousands of dollars for local charities and Murwillumbah hospital. The race is tiny in comparison with the major-event motor car races of a scale threatened by the Repco Rally, which is simply not welcome there for many reasons—one of which is that it is an international business. It does not even pretend to benefit or serve the interests of local people. It is merely a commercial enterprise, a business. It does not share the ethos of the region and will offer nothing of value to the community.
Most of all, the Repco Rally simply does not belong there; it is seriously out of place. If the rally proceeds, it is an insulting imposition on the locals by external parties with truly alien values who are apparently such arrogant people that they will not take the broad hint that they are not wanted. Indeed, the local people could hardly be more expressive of their point of view on this matter, having written to their representatives and to the newspapers, marched in their localities, attended consultations, and done everything else they could think of to get someone to pay attention to their concerns—which range from indignation at being treated shoddily by the State Government to concerns about damage to the environment, and to issues with the suspect economic claims behind the decision to hold this race in their vulnerable natural environment.
Previous speakers who praised the rally indicated that it will bring $100 million of value to the area. They do not understand what they are talking about. For example, $100 million over what period? It is certainly not for this one race that is coming up; nor for the one in two years time or the one in 10 years time. It is the accumulated value they think they might get if everything is done and all options are accepted between now and 2027. A more true picture comes from Western Australia. The Western Australian Government no longer wanted the rally, indicating that it was costing Western Australia $6 million a year and it was not getting economic value to make up for that $6 million.
I have received, as I guess have many members, hundreds of emails, letters and visits from people in the area pointing out many different aspects. Obviously I will not go through all of them now. However, one concerned citizen, Dr Jules Lewin of Stokers Siding, pointed out to me that Repco Rally's socioeconomic impact assessment was so poorly put together, without being substantiated or having verifiable projections or references, that in scientific, medical and management circles it would be flatly rejected. The methodology was inappropriate, the numbers were inadequate, the data presentation was obscure and the analysis was unsound and contradictory.
In the assessment there was no consideration of the current economic crisis; nor were there any references to current social trends, such as green driving, concern for many environmental issues, the concept of sustainability or the impact of peak oil. With such a lack of insight and grasp of elemental issues, the so-called impact assessment is utterly irrelevant. No multimillion-dollar contract meant to last a minimum of 10 years, plus a 10-year extension, should be allowed to proceed on the basis of the authenticity, accuracy or recommendations of this flimsy report. Also, in the socioeconomic impact assessment the Repco Rally organisers claim to have consulted with the community, but a letter written to a number of local newspapers stated the following:
We the undersigned wish to advise the community that our respective community associations have been totally misrepresented in the report entitled Rally Australia Socio-economic Impact Statement, which was committed by Repco Rally Australia. We have been listed on page 29 of the report as being the representatives of our respective community associations who were supposedly part of the community consultation process. We wish to advise that no such community consultation ever took place.
The letter is signed by a significant number of leaders of community organisations from the area. Claiming that community consultation took place might look good on paper, but it has now been completely discredited as an untruth. If the Repco Rally organisers have not provided meaningful background research, presented accurate information or genuinely consulted with the community, and they have misrepresented their own activities, what is their word worth on anything else? One lady wrote to me about Sargents Road in Kyogle, where she lives, which is a core koala habitat crucial for the survival of the species. She cited the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change [DECC] November 2008 Recovery Plan for the Koala, which seeks to ensure the survival of the koala in the wild. This State report reinforces the need to recognise the value of koalas to the community in terms of their presence in the landscape and their potential to attract eco-tourism.
How then can another State department come along and act in opposition to those interests already committed to by that department? Sargents Road is not the kind of road recommended for racing—not if we care about animals and their habitats. In fact, the busy local wildlife rescue volunteers say that already far too much wildlife is injured and killed on the roads by automobiles, and that more cars racing on those roads is the last thing the animals need. They also mention that the methods proposed to scare the animals away from the roads—I wonder how many Government members understand this—will likely lead to stress reactions and heart failure in the animals. There will be extremely loud noises, such as banging and so on, to frighten animals away.
Additional concerns have been reported to me in letters from people, such as problem driving and street racing. I will not comment on those. We all know that streets and roads are already deadly to innocent drivers and pedestrians. The news is always full of copycat racing in every area after it hosts such races. Do we really want to inspire more of them? The answer from the people of the North Coast is a resounding "No". The local Kyogle and Tweed Landcare teams, made up of people who give their time free cleaning up, salvaging and repairing damaged ecosystems, dread the havoc that will be wreaked by such an event in this area—one that they have tended with such devotion over the years. The members of the Tweed Valley Wildlife Carers and the Caldera Environment Centre, who have worked for decades protecting the natural environment, are sick at heart over this bill, which will force on the rally in an area where it should not be allowed.
I assure members that local residents in this area are informed and intelligent; they know their special environment is critical to the growth of tourism in the area and is, in fact, its greatest attraction. Any activities that are destructive of the environment are anathema to them. Some believe that the Government will be in contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which was signed in 1992. Motor sports are an incompatible activity and irrelevant to the local agricultural industry, and can only undermine the World Heritage value of the area. Any anticipated profits from motor sport enthusiasts would be dwarfed by the year-round loss of ecotourists once the green branding of the area is tainted. In addition to the danger to wildlife at risk from the rally, there are also many companion animals and domestic stock living in this area that are very sensitive to noise and can be terrified by screeching, careening and unpredictable motor-generated noises. Even if they were able to stay safely indoors, they will be bombarded by noise, which to animals is perceived as a threat. Such noise permeates and penetrates residential walls as if they were not there. This kind of noise should be isolated away from population centres—and not allowed in an area known for its nurturing silence.
The excessive noise pollution will be imposed on the human population too, of course. The standards set to protect people and animals will be overruled by this bill that we are considering passing, so that people will have no right to complain—and that is wrong. Those standards were established for a purpose, and to remove them casually in this way is a great wrong. Exposure to excess noise is known to raise the heart rate and blood pressure of many people and to contribute to anxiety; it should not be inflicted on populations as if it is of no importance. The wives, families, counsellors and companions of 4,000 war veterans living in the area have expressed their great concern over the anticipated helicopter noise—which they anticipate will cause psychological disturbance and deep anxiety as it triggers post traumatic stress episodes in the vulnerable, particularly Vietnam War veterans.
Even the anticipation of one helicopter circling above them is unbearable, much less the dozens of helicopters that will be used over the three-day event. To put veterans through such stress is just unconscionable. Their absolute dread is really escalating into a serious mental health issue for them, their families and their communities. Previously I have mentioned that I was responsible for establishing a mental health facility in Taree to handle post-war traumatic syndrome. Hundreds of Vietnam veterans from the northern rivers came to the Wesley Mayo clinic at Taree for psychological services. In fact, the recently named psychological condition of "solistalgia" is now widespread in the North Coast area. Solistalgia is defined as "the deep distress induced by environmental change, which is exacerbated by the sense of powerlessness and loss of control over the changes that are occurring".
Then there is the spillage of oil, petrol and other wastes that will seep into the ground, into the atmosphere and onto roads, which is unconscionable in such a pristine area. The air pollution generated from motor racing is unhealthy for people and all other living things, including trees close to the track. The amount of dust that is raised is dangerous for asthmatics and people with respiratory conditions, not to mention dirty and distressing for the people whose homes it will fill. Advising them to go inside and turn on the air conditioning is not good enough. People have outdoor work and busy lives to live and cannot easily take refuge indoors, and many do not have the option of air conditioning. Nothing will help animals cope with the particulate matter in the air that will sicken them. On the topic of pollution, it is reported that every member of the world rally racing team travels over 130,000 kilometres by air each year. Add that to all the carbon emitted by the activities associated with the rally and a thoughtful person cannot help but recognise that it is an unacceptable carbon footprint.
In fact, in this era of climate change, in response to the deadly global threat of increasing greenhouse gases, it would be far more sensible for the State Government to discourage all human activities that produce such a massive carbon footprint. Perhaps the rich race organisers think they do not have to worry about such matters, but climate change will eventually affect them too. There are also all the prudent economic arguments that many of my constituents have pointed out. Locals believe almost universally there will be far more irremediable damage than any possible benefit accruing from having full restaurants and accommodation for a few days every other year. The proposed benefits of showcasing the northern area to an estimated 51 million people worldwide, who are supposedly going to watch the racing on television, is outweighed by the actual damage done to the whole fabric of society, the already ill-maintained roads, the environment and the people. Some things just do not bounce back that easily, and having had an event of this magnitude forced upon them is not going to sit easy with residents. Many are simply not resilient enough to cope with the magnitude of the change being thrust upon them.
I will say very little more. It just does not make sense on any level. The history of the rally in other States has been lacklustre, leading to large financial losses by taxpayers. The Western Australia Government expressed that by not being willing to let it continue in that State? It is on record as saying they it was deceived by rally organisers. Why have Suzuki and Subaru withdrawn their sponsorship of the rally? Why did Victoria or Queensland not want it? Why did the Welsh Assembly Government recently terminate its five-year contract after just two years? I will tell you why. Because all the promised benefits that have been presented to members of the Government and the Opposition were hyped to them were not forthcoming, after all—and if we in New South Wales are sold the same bill of goods, the same thing will happen on the North Coast.
People have asked me why are the taxpayers of New South Wales being asked to fund this rich-people's sport? Why is the State Government promising this international commercial enterprise free labour of hundreds of local volunteers, particularly, who are already overstretched by their efforts and services during two recent floods in the area? As well as the money paid to the Repco rally organisers the State intends to provide free of charge a number of bushfire brigades, 150 extra police, the services of the State Emergency Service, hospitals and all their associated staff on stand-by, on and on ad infinitum. This event will run at a loss for the State, but not for the organisers. Even though the people who thought the idea had some merit now recognise the contempt in which their region's concerns are being held by the arrogant rally organisers who act as if they have been given carte blanche to do whatever they like. The residents know full well it is not democratic, not respectful, not what they expect or deserve, and not right. One wrote to me and said:
Apart from being a very bad idea and unpopular with residents, this is a dangerous practice: taking control over events that the local councils should be regulating, in order to benefit outside elites.
Another wrote:
Have our governing bodies become so anesthetised to the fact that they are elected to represent the citizens, and not given the divine rights of kings?
There is one more group whose interests and concerns I have not yet mentioned, the Aboriginal women of the Githabul people, whose representative contacted my office when they heard that I was listening to all sides of the issue.
The representative of the Githabul people explained that under the agreement reached in late 2007 the Githabul people were going to be allowed joint management of national parks and State forests with the New South Wales State Government. Regarding the Repco rally, there was consultation carried out with one sole male elder. But he, as a male, was not in a position to know anything about the areas that are sacred to the Githabul women and apparently the women are very distraught that they have had no voice in presenting their deeply honoured cultural concerns to the rally organisers and the New South Wales Government, and they call upon both to recognise that they too have a right to be heard. To them these issues are of life and death importance and they do not want the Repco rally to have access to particular areas on the race route as announced that are actually sacred territory.
Forcing through the bill does not demonstrate respect for the opinions, needs and lives of people and their families in these areas. This is not good manners, it is not social justice, and it is not democracy. In fact it is a blatant flouting of the democratic process and does not represent the value system that Australians have gone to war to defend and protect. It is an insult to war veterans and families in that area. I am disturbed to note that this is becoming an all too familiar pattern, with bills being used by the Government to disregard other tiers of government or authorities in order to force its own way without regard for the feelings or safety of the people on the receiving end. Our political system has been built up over many years with multiple layers of power and checks and balances, and we must not give them away.
I conclude, Mr President, by reading a passage from the Code of Conduct for Members, which you signed and sent to every member of this House. I am sure that it has been quite a while since many of us read or thought about it. It states:
Members of Parliament acknowledge their responsibility to maintain the public trust placed in them by performing their duties with honesty and integrity, respecting the law and the institution of Parliament, and using their influence to advance the common good of the people of New South Wales.
Not all of my constituents are against motor racing per se, if it can be held in an area that will be undamaged by it and if nearby residents actively want it happening there. It is a hard ask, though. No residents that I have spoken to in the area, or anywhere near it, want motor races to be held near their children's schools, on their village streets or on rural roads. I do not approve of anything that can be construed as a misuse of power and, therefore, I will not support any bill that allows large-scale events unwanted by the people who would have to host them. I encourage any other members here today who still think they have either an environmental or a social conscience to join me in refusing to support what I believe is an ill-conceived bill. I thank you, Mr President, for extending me the privilege of being able to speak.
The Hon. HENRY TSANG: I move:
That the President now leave the chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the bill in detail.
Question put and resolved in the affirmative.
In Committee
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I propose to deal with the bill by parts. There being no objection, the Committee will proceed to consider part 1.
Mr IAN COHEN [8.44 p.m.]: On behalf of the Greens, I say in Committee that I strongly oppose the Motor Sports (World Rally Championships) Bill 2009, which is a burning indictment of the pervading culture of the New South Wales Labor Party. I am constantly amazed by the amount of special legislation that the New South Wales Labor Party regurgitates in this Chamber to facilitate all manner of incursion on basic rights. However, I was not at all surprised at the Government putting forward special legislation to enable this rally to go ahead. As I feared when I spoke in this Chamber in May, the rally deal was stitched up a long time ago. The rally organisers have been taking bookings and proceeding with great confidence without even lodging a development application.
The people have been robbed of their capacity to determine what happens in their area
The people of the North Coast have been waiting to see the rally be considered by their local council, which should be the determining authority. But it has been robbed of its capacity to participate in determining what happens in its area. The bill has the usual grubby and sleazy hallmarks of Labor's special legislation turning off key environment and land use planning legislation because there is one rule for the New South Wales masses and one for the international racing crowd. Taking away residents' common law rights and usurping the will of local communities is all encompassed within the bill—all hallmarks of this brave and noble Labor Government.
The bill overrides the National Parks and Wildlife Act, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, the Threatened Species Conservation Act, the Forestry Act, the Water Management Act, the Fisheries Management Act and the Local Government Act.
The special legislation will foist a car rally on the Tweed and Kyogle shires of northern New South Wales this September and a further four more rallies to be held biannually until 2017. On top of turning off the State's key environmental legislation, the bill will also allow the Minister to accommodate any requirements of the rally organisers. The legislation is not restricted to the northern rivers region. It will allow the Minister to prescribe any area in New South Wales as part of the declared rally area by regulation. This means technically that the Minister can declare the whole State one big rally course and turn off every key piece of environmental legislation, and the decision to do so would be immune from any judicial review at all. Some might say it is total insanity. Has this Minister gone mad? Is he somewhat of a modern-day Nero? There is no personal advantage, or will the Minister gain some personal advantage by building up his credit and riding off to some corporate retirement? Worst of all, Minister Macdonald has inserted a double-glazed privative clause in proposed section 20—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The member should be speaking to part 1 of the bill, which incorporates clauses 1, 2 and 3, and should not be making reflections on other members.
Mr IAN COHEN: I am expressing myself in Committee due to circumstances somewhat outside leave—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I am aware of that. Please proceed.
Mr IAN COHEN: If that means that I have to go through every section of my speech at every point of the Committee, I will do so. I would ask the indulgence of the Committee to allow me to at least express myself, which is a right that I have as an elected member of this House—
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Nobody is disputing the right of the member to speak to different parts of the bill, but in doing so he must not make reflections on other members.
Mr IAN COHEN: Even the improper exercise of functions by protected persons is exempt from any judicial or administrative challenge whatsoever. This is probably one of the most extreme privative clauses crafted by the hands of Minister Macdonald, who refuses to be accountable for his decisions. It is a total joke and this level of legislative extremism to secure commercial certainty should be thrown out.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: I do not mind the member making points about the bill, but he should not use the Committee stage to say outrageously stupid things about me. He should be brought to heel. There are other forms of the House available to him if he wishes to attack, and the Committee is not one of them. It was not my fault that he missed the call.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): I remind Mr Ian Cohen that he should not make reflections on other members unless by way of a substantive motion. It is in order for him to speak about his concerns about the bill, but he must not speak about the Minister who has carriage of the bill.
Mr IAN COHEN: Thank you, and I must apologise to the Minister. I did not realise he was such a sensitive character.
The Hon. Rick Colless: Precious.
Mr IAN COHEN: It is rather precious, and I acknowledge the interjection of the Hon. Rick Colless. The Minister is good at dishing it out but cannot take a little bit of criticism. I am surprised he finds this such a sensitive issue.
I read on the Rally's website that the world controlling body for motor sport, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile [FIA], was understood to have been concerned with media reports about the event and sought an assurance from the Government that it would proceed. With this legislation it will do more than just proceed.
The FIA and Rally Australia, a private company, can just sit back and let the Government do all the work. Inconvenient local planning laws? Consider it solved. This proposed legislation will sweep them under the carpet. Endangered wildlife getting underfoot or under a wheel? This legislation will override the National Parks and Wildlife Act and the Endangered Species Act, and hopefully the helicopters will scare the koalas away. Annoying local council and residents? Do not worry, just go over their heads.
I would like to commend the Hon. Gordon Moyes for his speech on this bill in which he raised a number of issues that I was not aware. He referred to the number of Vietnam War veterans living in that part of the world, and I commend him for raising that issue. It shows how in touch he is as a church representative, as well as a representative of this House, about the problems and issues in country areas. There is the clear example of the Vietnam War veterans, but many others with all sorts of problems retire to the country for a quiet life. They go there deliberately for that reason and, as the Hon. Gordon Moyes said, to get away from the rat race in the city. People go to these areas to escape the insanity that is highlighted by this type of event. There has been no development application, no council meetings and no problems. Funding from Events NSW? "No problem again. Just keep it commercial in confidence so no-one knows how much we are spending." This is said to be commercial in confidence but where are the competitors? There are none.
The Hon. Matthew Mason-Cox: Queanbeyan.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the honourable member. But where are the competitors who would demonstrate the commercial viability of this event? There are none. It is a sewn-up deal, so why is it commercial in confidence? Why do we not have some degree of transparency from this Government? It is certainly quick to assess the profit to be derived and to make a statement about that. It just tosses up the figure of $100 million to indicate the sort of money that will be made. Is there a proper assessment of the event? No. It is commercial in confidence even though there is no competition for the event. We are heading in the right direction if we are heading for a State built on cheap, snake oil salesman-style entrepreneurialism. The Minister is looking like some sort of corporate Rambo. He has gone way beyond the principles that the Labor Party once stood for so that not even the hard Left can reel him in.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Ms Lee Rhiannon has certainly stirred you right up.
Mr IAN COHEN: I acknowledge the interjection by the honourable Minister claiming that my reaction is somehow caused by my fellow Green Lee Rhiannon. I have to say that everything that has occurred recently has had no input into my feeling of revulsion at what this Government is doing and the way it is acting. Talks about the rally are reported to have been going on for two years yet Repco Rally Australia [RRA] could not manage to prepare a development application that could possibly justify this event. The FIA, headed by Max Mosley, applied a bit of pressure and the caped crusader, Minister Macdonald, stepped in to save the day. As I pointed out in the question to the Minister—
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: The member should stop the gratuitous slights he is making in this contribution. He is absolutely abusing the forms of this Chamber. If I had the right to reply to his comments, as I would in a second reading debate, I would certainly make a few comments about the nonsense he is talking. After all, the first I learnt about all of this was on 17 May.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! As I ruled earlier, the member should not make comments about the Minister who has carriage of the bill. He should confine his remarks to the bill.
Mr IAN COHEN: I withdraw the comment. The Minister is no caped crusader. As I pointed out in a question I asked Minister Macdonald last week, I find it curious that a New South Wales Government that has become obsessed about marketing and branding our iconic natural tourist attractions, such as the Green Cauldron, could then turn around and hold a rally car race through the same areas. It is totally illogical. There are no criteria put forward by the Government to indicate that this rally is a good idea. It is simply a case of the Minister trying to circumvent our environmental planning laws for a corporate patron's convenience. The event will not be a boost to the economy. A bit of research would have shown the Minister that Western Australia withdrew its support for the rally in that State because as the Western Australian tourism Minister said—and I would suggest he would be pretty much in favour of a profit-making event:
$6 million for one single event that returns $1.60 for every dollar invested by the state, when the average return is about $8 for every dollar invested by the state, is not a good return on investment.
The Minister for State Development, Ian Macdonald, says it will boost the economy by $100 million. It is a dubious figure and I would like to know how it was arrived at and how much the taxpayers of New South Wales are expected to shell out to get this return. As I said earlier, it is commercial in confidence; despite the fact there is no competition the details are protected. The same amount is quoted as the return that we can expect from the V8 Supercars event. I wonder if this is just a shelf figure that is trotted out for such events. It seems to have the consistency of an Iranian election result.
Elsewhere throughout the world such rallies are increasingly on the nose. Rally Finland is reducing the organising budget for this year's event by as much as 40 per cent after the loss of 1,000 pre-booked VIP guests. The Welsh Assembly Government served notice of termination of its agreement with the FIA World Rally Championship organisers, and the British Motor Sport Association has had to jump in with £2.2 million to ensure the events go ahead. In referring to the 2006 Wales Rally, Mr Ieuan Wyn Jones, the Deputy First Minister and Minister for the Economy and Transport in the Welsh Assembly said:
… the event has only had a marginal impact on the development of the Welsh motorsport/advanced engineering sector, and in terms of repeat visitation generates a modest tourism spend of circa £1 million per annum. The report confirmed that the 2006 Rally generated £3.3 million of gross value added, which represents a return on investment of less than 2:1. In comparison, even Event Scotland, the national events agency in Scotland aim for a return on investment of 8:1 across their portfolio of supported events.
So-called motor sports increasingly irrelevant in energy constrained world: Restoring a rail link would help people become more mobile and travel to work and between towns
If New South Wales is to have five of these events over the next 10 years, how reliable is the supposed revenue likely to be? The so-called motor sports—and I do wonder about this being a sport at all—are increasingly unpopular and irrelevant in an increasingly energy constrained world. If this Government were really serious about boosting the local economy of northern New South Wales, it would restore the Casino to Murwillumbah rail link. An event that occurs for a few days every two years is not going to sustain the local economy. The return of the rail link would help people to become more mobile and allow them to travel to work and between towns for commercial purposes.
With good transport links so many opportunities would arise and businesses would be facilitated. The whole community and the local economy would flourish. The funds this Government is committing to a brief and intermittent so-called sporting event would be better diverted to restoring that rail link. The people of the Tweed and Kyogle shires are really angry about this legislation. Mr Rick Wagner, a resident who lives along the proposed route writes:
Since this event was brought to the Public attention I have been in contact with RRA [Repco Rally Australia], Kyogle Council and Councillors on a regular basis to try and find out how this event will affect my life. I live on the route, in fact my property is on both sides of Sargent Rd which is on one of the special stages of the event.
All along RRA have said trust me and wait for the Development Application to be lodged with Council. Council has said I have to wait for the DA to be lodged before I can make any submission in regard to how it will adversely affect my life.
It now appears that any rights I may have had in this regard are being taken away by this legislation which will just about allow Repco Rally Australia to do anything they wish. The proposed legislation certainly appears to waive many other existing legislations that have been put in place to protect ordinary people and their civil rights. Noise, Dust Intrusion in the use of my property, environment, ecological even my own access to my property are all things that will be over-ruled by this legislation.
RRA is going to make millions of dollars from this event but for them to do this I, and many other residents along the route, will be severely inconvenienced and impacted not only financially but in the quality of our right to enjoy the environment in which we live. Many are already sick with worry about the impact of this event. Communities have become divided over the event and this in itself is unhealthy.
Denise Ewin from Tweed shire wrote:
I am a retired teacher with over 30 years as a practising pastor and teacher and 15 years during that time as an assistant principal. I was also the accredited manager in New South Wales and Queensland of our family-owned business operating tours, which encompassed many areas of the Tweed Valley, the granite belt and the outback town of Lightning Ridge. All our tours went to the world heritage listed Border Ranges National Park in the Kyogle Shire.
Whilst I am not in favour of this type of rally in any environment I am particularly opposed to it being held in this unique area of physical beauty which should not be intruded upon by speeding cars, helicopters and all that goes with this type of event causing havoc to the environment and to the people who live there.
Most people come to this area because of the special beauty and serenity, which is not only in this very scenic area but which also has some of the most diverse wildlife in New South Wales. This is indeed a blow to the people of the shires involved and might I say a very big mistake by our Government. The Government would do well to remember who elected it and to care for all the people of the State regardless of political affiliations.
The people who are writing to me are not the hysterical ferals that the Minister would like to dismiss; they are ordinary people with a genuine grievance.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: The member is straying outside the legitimate issues to which he should be confining himself. He just made another gratuitous insult and he should withdraw it.
Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order—
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I have never accused anyone of being a feral in relation to this bill or in relation to any other area.
Mr IAN COHEN: To the point of order: It is reasonable to say that on a number of occasions the Minister has insulted people that I represent. I would have to go through the Hansard to verify it, but on a number of occasions the Minister has spoken disparagingly about them. It is reasonable to raise issues that have occurred in the past in this House.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I ask him to withdraw it.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! The Minister has advised the Chamber that he has not referred to anyone in relation to this matter in the terms referred to by Mr Ian Cohen. The Minister has asked Mr Ian Cohen to withdraw that comment and I suggest that he does so.
Mr IAN COHEN: I withdraw the comment. These are ordinary people with genuine grievances. John and Janet Townsend of Murwillumbah—a community-minded couple in their late sixties—wrote to me and to the Minister. They are disgusted about what they call the most breathtaking subversion of the democratic process that they have ever seen in Australia. They also said in a letter to the Minister, of which I received a copy:
You know perfectly well that this would not have been necessary if our Shire warmly welcomed the destructive event in the middle of one of the two most important areas in the east coast of Australia ...
The opposition to the event is NOT a rabble of 50 ratbags ...
We hope you have not been taken in by Garry Connolly of Repco Rally Australia telling you that the rally organisers have been collaborating on a carbon offsetting plan with Tweed LandCare Inc. ... or that esteemed consultant ecologist Dr Stephen Phillips has given the rally the go-ahead after completing his environmental assessment of the impact of the event.
Both these claims are made by Repco Rally Australia and seriously backfired on them. Angry Landcarers phoned them (we know, as we were two of them) and wrote letters to local newspapers refuting the implied association of Tweed LandCare Inc. ...
Doctor Philips for Kyogle Shire ... his brief has been limited to assessing "which particular threatened species may be at risk along a given stage, and why", and really all he has been able to conclude is that the rally will not kill enough rare or threatened species this year as to jeopardise the viability of the local species.
This Government has shown scant regard for indigenous cultural heritage and the rally shows a continuation of that pattern, with indigenous people shabbily treated in consideration of the rally. One person was selected to represent all Aboriginal interests. The draft Cultural Heritage Assessment [CHS], which should consider the possible impacts on significant Aboriginal sites, has been considered for only three of the rally's 15 competitive stages. The Cultural Heritage Assessment for the rally has not yet been finalised but decisions have already been made. This Government is prepared to trash Aboriginal cultural heritage and ignore Aboriginal people's concerns just to make a quick buck, if indeed there is a buck to be made.
I commend Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes for elucidating that issue in his earlier speech. This Government proposes to override State planning laws to allow this rally to carve through an area designated under the National Landscapes scheme and named Australia's Green Cauldron—an internationally renowned biodiversity hotspot. This very spot was recognised by the New South Wales Government's task force on tourism and national parks. The task force made 20 recommendations that were all adopted by the Government and reinforced the importance of branding and marketing iconic sustainable nature tourism experiences in our national parks. I doubt whether anyone would come to the conclusion that this rally was an iconic sustainable nature tourism experience.
The Government's failure to heed the recommendation of its own task force and instead foist this utterly unsuitable event on the area shows an incredible lack of understanding of what north-east New South Wales is about. Tourists go to that part of New South Wales because of its natural beauty. They go to see the beauty of the rainforests, the beaches, the rivers and the wildlife; they do not go to see cars carving through these beautiful places. The Green Cauldron is so named by government agencies because people who live in that area have fought long and hard to protect it from logging, mining and now car rally racing. Those who live in the area have long known the incredible value of this place now recognised under the National Landscapes scheme.
This car rally is not only completely dissonant with the spirit of this landscape; it is also a blunt instrument carving through a masterpiece. Local people are genuinely concerned about the rally going through habitats of threatened or protected species. One hundred vulnerable species of wildlife and 23 endangered species in the Tweed area will be placed at greater risk as a result of this rally that will occur in September, coinciding with the breeding season of many animal species. The death of animals is a terrible thing, but the death of young people is a tragedy. I have seen horrific accidents involving young people on the roads where I live. I quote from the Roads and Traffic Authority website which states:
... the aim of the "Speeding—no-one thinks big of you" campaign is to make speeding socially unacceptable. In NSW speeding is a factor in about 40 per cent of road deaths each year. This means more than 200 people die each year in NSW because of speeding. In addition to those killed, more than 4,000 people are injured in speed-related crashes each year. The estimated cost to the community of speed-related crashes is about $780 million a year.
That is more than seven times the expected revenue from the rally, but we cannot put a price on the suffering caused by motor vehicle accidents.
There is a proven correlation between the interest in motor racing and risky driving behaviours of young male drivers. "Life in the Fast Lane: Environmental, Economic and Public Health Outcomes of Motorsport Spectacles in Australia" is a study co-authored by Paul Tranter of the Australian Defence Force Academy [ADFA].
The study, which was published last month in the Journal of Sport and Social Issues, shows the negative social effects of motor racing as well as citing a number of studies that directly link motor racing to dangerous copycat driving behaviour in Adelaide and Melbourne after the Grand Prix. I cite another study by Paul Tranter and James Warn from the Australian Defence Force Academy entitled "Relationships between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes and behaviours amongst mature drivers." The study states:
As well as the obvious dangers to drivers and spectators from crashes during motor racing events, there is evidence that motor racing events are linked to an increase in road accidents off the racetrack ... Accident rates can also be higher in localities that have been associated with motor racing events. Road accidents in South Australia around the time of the Adelaide first Grand Prix increased significantly. This increase, which could not be explained by variables such as traffic volumes and weather conditions, was believed to be due to the glorification of speed and daring associated with the motor racing event. In another instance, casualty accident rates on public roads more than doubled after the roads around Melbourne's Albert Park more than doubled after the roads were used as a Formula One race circuit. A New Zealand study found that young males who were interested in legal motor sport events were more likely to engage in risky driving behaviours (as measured by a violations scale) as well as more likely to be involved in illegal street racing.
The Minister for State Development has chosen to ignore the experts and his Government's own anti-speeding message.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I haven't chosen to do anything.
Mr IAN COHEN: Well, you certainly have not taken any notice of it.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: This is Government legislation.
Mr IAN COHEN: You still have not taken any notice of it. This is something I have raised in this House before.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members should not interject, and members with the call should not respond to interjections.
Mr IAN COHEN: I have raised in this House a number of times issues about speed driving and impressionable young people who are vulnerable to that sort of behaviour. The fact is that we do not measure the resultant cost of hospital and medical bills. It seems as though there is an inability of government to say, "Look, we've got issues here" that spin off from a particular project. I shall refer to that in more detail shortly. I received an email from a person named Wayne Smith who said simply:
Drivers are already practicing the rally course on Byril Creek road. There are many people living along this road who report that they are practicing late at night with their number plates covered or removed. This has been reported to the police on several occations who ignor the reports.
The proposed rally already is having an impact. I guess young people will do what young people do: they are practising at night along this bush rally route, not taking into account any road kill along the way. I hope a serious accident does not occur on those very narrow and dangerous roads. I can stand being abused in this House for all manner of things, including being irrelevant, but I do question priorities in this House when compelling evidence against a proposal is ignored. I ask the Minister for Police to at least investigate the situation. I understand that police have a huge task patrolling the Murwillumbah area and they are understaffed. The rally route is a fair distance from the town and the chances of catching these young people may be remote, but they are covering up their registration plates and are revving along the road at night with no controls. This is happening months before the rally is even scheduled to start. One can only imagine what will happen after the event. I hope no serious accident results from this behaviour.
It is difficult for police to be patrolling that bush rally route area because they have many other activities and responsibilities. Residents beyond the route have complained to me about the current activities, yet somehow it is not the responsibility of the decisions or actions of this Government; somehow it does not count.
This is a despicable situation.
I hope the police Minister's office can at least go a small part of the way to remedy the problem. Perhaps the cost of providing a police presence to curtail this activity this can be taken from the profits the rally organisers claim will be made. Perhaps they would like also to take into account some of the other impacts of this dangerous activity, particularly hospitalisation, motor accidents and also wildlife destruction.
Many community people give selflessly of their time to protect our wildlife. Sometimes the priorities in this Parliament are quite farcical.
This bill takes away the power of the people most affected by this rally to have any say through the normal planning process. The New South Wales Government wants this event irrespective of environmental or human concerns. If this event is such a good thing, as the Minister said recently in Parliament, why does the Minister need special legislation? The people of northern New South Wales should not have to cop deals this Government has done to appease an international motor racing organisation and underwrite a private company, Rally Australia. The State should not be creating special legislation for one single corporate beneficiary—it is undemocratic. The unique environment of the North Coast cannot be rented out to whoever wants to use it. The due planning process should be allowed to proceed. I was ridiculed by the Minister a few weeks ago when I asked a question on this very matter, and the Minister invited himself to my residence. It is okay to dish it out.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I wasn't dishing it out.
Mr IAN COHEN: The Minister assumed somehow that he was going to be welcome at my residence. There are a number of reasons why you are not welcome to my house, Minister. I do not accommodate an abject hypocrite and leader of the hard left doing the bidding of the extreme right. You are not welcome as a Minister who is engineering the most environmentally destructive action against forests in New South Wales at this point in time. Minister, you are a man who ridicules safety issues and is abusing his power.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: When?
Mr IAN COHEN: Right now with this Repco Rally.
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: the Committee is indulging this member. Through his incompetence he missed the second reading debate. We have allowed him to speak in the Committee stage, totally outside the rules of the House. He now is personalising this debate by having a go at me all the time. I do not mind, generally. If he did it in the second reading debate, it would not worry me. However, he should not be doing it in Committee. For all his animated carry-on, he fails to grasp the point that the first I heard of this race was in May when I was asked to propose it by the Premier. The Premier is responsible for Events New South Wales. I am just carrying this legislation forward as a member of the Government. I have had nothing to do it other than that.
Mr IAN COHEN: So you are retracting what you said about me in the House?
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: I just made a joke at the end of the speech.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Both members will sit down.
Ms Lee Rhiannon: To the point of order—
The CHAIR: Order! I will not take further argument on the point of order. When members contribute to debate they must confine their comments either to the bill or to a point of order. They should not engage in slanging matches across the table with other members. They must also direct their comments through the Chair. I ruled previously that Mr Ian Cohen should refrain from making imputations about other members in his speech. Equally, it is not appropriate for the Minister, when taking a point of order, to make imputations about Mr Ian Cohen. The member may proceed but will not make further imputations about the Minister or his carriage of the bill.
Mr IAN COHEN: Thank you, Madam Chair, for your balanced assessment of these points of order. I thank you also for allowing me in these rather unusual circumstances to at least place on record what I believe is a reasonable representation of the many people in northern New South Wales who are quite abhorred at this proposal. I agree with the Minister wholeheartedly: I have been incompetent. Yes, I missed the opportunity to contribute to the second reading debate and I feel frustrated at the resulting circumstances: my incompetence created that. At times I have been incompetent—I agree with the Minister—in that I have failed to convince my fellow Greens party members across New South Wales to desist from giving preferences to this Labor Government. I will not be so incompetent at the next election.
Dr JOHN KAYE [9.18 p.m.]: I support the remarks of my colleague Ian Cohen and Reverend the Hon. Dr Gordon Moyes. I doubt whether I can match their eloquent passion on this matter, but I certainly match them unequivocally in that I and Greens members to whom I have spoken around New South Wales oppose this legislation and this rally.
I will begin by referring to the opposition from the local community. I notice that once again Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile suggested that opposition to the rally was stirred up and, once again, Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is wrong. Just nine days ago I attended an environment fair in Murwillumbah and I have to say that opposition to the rally was palpable.
Everywhere I went, and not just at the environment fair, but especially when I walked down the street and spoke to people in the street at Murwillumbah, there was no question of overwhelming opposition to the race and overwhelming support for the work of the groups and members of Parliament who have opposed the rally as well as absolute and utter concern for the impact of the rally on the community. Northern Rivers people constitute a community that strongly values its natural environment, its peace and quiet, and personal safety—all of which will be undermined by the Repco rally and this legislation.
Reverend the Hon. Fred Nile is wrong in suggesting there is any need to stir up anger: the anger was stirred up by the Rees Government, by the proposal for the rally, and by this legislation. Moreover there is anger that the community has been ignored. One of the recurrent themes was a complaint about the complete absence of any meaningful community consultation. Many members of the community mentioned to me that a great degree of deception had been perpetrated on the community about the level of community consultation. The community is not only angry about being ignored but also angry about the consequences of the rally for their community.
One of the recurring themes was concern for the natural environment and for the values of the Green Cauldron. High speed vehicles and low speed marsupials and other fauna are an inherently bad mix. Particular concern was expressed for koalas and the way in which koalas will suffer both from the noise and the risk of impact as well as from chemical pollution. The koala population in the area has declined. The koalas are vulnerable in that area and could be savagely damaged—all for a car race. The environmental concerns relate not only to noise and animal strikes but also to air and water pollution and road run-off. These types of assaults and insults to the environment have no place in areas with high degrees of natural values and natural beauty.
There is no question that if nothing else happens, the noise that will scare the animals away will have an impact per se. There is an overriding concern that the flora and fauna of the area around the race will be damaged to the extent that some may never recover. They will be damaged by one race, by another race two years later, and they will continue to be damaged as long as the race goes on, with cumulative effects on the ecosystem. The only way that the race can be justified is if people admit they have no concern for the natural environment and for the natural values of the Green Cauldron.
Another matter of huge concern is the almost complete absence of meaningful consultation with the local Aboriginal people. The Githabul people, for whom the Green Cauldron has deep and lasting social and religious significance, have not been appropriately consulted. For many of them, a car race through the Green Cauldron will be like a car race through a cathedral. We owe a great debt to the Aboriginal people of the State, and we are exacerbating that by hosting a car race without even bothering to appropriately consult with the traditional owners of the land.
Both Mr Khan and Reverend Moyes spoke about the encouragement of copycat high-risk driving behaviour. Rally driving, however highly skilled it is, clearly encourages emulation, particularly by young and adolescent males. What we are doing with this car rally is sending an appalling message to young men and young women whom we are trying to discourage from risky driving behaviours. The Government has invested heavily in the prevention of hoon driving, but by officially sanctioning a car race and ramming through legislation that will put on display what can only be described as risky car driving behaviour, it sends an appallingly mixed message.
The poor quality of the socioeconomic and cost benefit analyses of this race are outstanding. Not only are the methodology and data dodgy, but so is the way the results have been interpreted to justify supposedly a $100 million benefit from the car rally. The figure of $100 million is highly questionable, if not entirely fictitious, but even if there were $100 million in supposedly economic benefits, the proposal ignores the social and environmental impacts, and the impacts upon the longer-term economy of the region. Western Australia had the right idea by kicking out its Repco rally because the Western Australian Government recognised that when all matters are taken into consideration, the dollars simply do not stack up.
To the extent that any money is to be made from this rally, it will be purchased at the expense of the local amenity of residents, the future of green tourism and other natural values that are derived from the green branding of the area and from the integrity of the environment. In reality, any proper analysis of this car race would result in the conclusion that it is simply not worth doing. When the damage inflicted on the environment, the community, and the individuals within the area are all taken into account, the proposal simply cannot be justified by a fistful of dollars, especially when the magnitude of the profit is questionable. Reverend Moyes and Ian Cohen have referred to the appalling process that has led to the introduction of this legislation; the way the legislation will undermine important protections for people, animals and the environment; the way it takes away a right of appeal; the way it takes away the ability of a community to stand up for the environment and the way in which it rides roughshod over the important protections that exist in other legislation.
From my point of view and for many Greens, the worst aspect of this legislation and the car rally is the absolute and complete lack of vision for the region. It is a lack of vision that could come only from a total misunderstanding of the environmental values of the region and the values of the population of the region. Surely anybody who has spent any time in the Tweed and in Kyogle would automatically start thinking about ecotourism, cycle tourism, and tourism that includes activities based on respect for the environment.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: Point of order: I have listened to the contribution being made to debate by the member. I know the amendment that is before the Committee. I have a sneaking suspicion that the member is making a second reading speech.
Dr John Kaye: You were not here. We decided we were going to do this.
CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda FAZIO): Order! Dr John Kaye will not interrupt the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Duncan Gay, when he is taking a point of order.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: I have just arrived in the Chamber and I am saying what I am seeing—a member making a second reading speech during the Committee stage. There is an amendment before the Committee and, from what I could hear, the member's remarks were not even close. I request that he be directed to confine his remarks to the amendment that is before the Committee.
CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda FAZIO): An amendment has not been moved. We are dealing with part 1 of the bill. In a very roundabout way, members are speaking against the adoption of part 1 of the bill. Dr Kaye may proceed.
Dr JOHN KAYE: I oppose part 1 of the bill, which is the long title of the legislation. The Greens oppose the legislation not only in detail but also in its substance. Our opposition to the bill includes part 1 of the bill. I appreciate the ruling of the Chair. I conclude my speech by pointing out that the Repco rally is not a sensible use of the landscape or a sensible imposition on the people of the area, and it is not a sensible imposition on the environment. I urge all members to vote against this part of the bill.
Ms LEE RHIANNON [9.28 p.m.]:
I congratulate my colleague Ian Cohen on his speech in the Chamber and his work with the community and the No Rally Group Inc., which has set out very clearly why this legislation should not be passed. The Repco rally should not be held in northern New South Wales. That would be a huge mistake and would result in a huge setback not only for the region but also for the standing of New South Wales. It will just make us look even more of a laughingstock and show that this Government is more dysfunctional than people realise.There are many reasons the event should not go ahead, and the environmental concerns have been well set out.
More than a decade ago I did a great deal of work with the Rainforest Information Centre based at Lismore. Obviously I had an opportunity to enjoy the delights of that area. The green cauldron, as many speakers have referred to it, is wondrous. I imagine that when people stand on the lip of the crater, which is millions of years old, they are spellbound by the sheer beauty of what they see when they take in the full panorama. And the Government is pushing this madness onto the local environment and the local community. This is not the area in which to hold this rally. Again, the Greens are not saying we are against all car races, but holding street car races particularly through natural areas is a deeply flawed policy that reflects on the Minister. One must wonder how many long lunches he had to participate in—
The Hon. Ian Macdonald: Point of order: I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to withdraw that comment. Dr John Kaye made his second reading contribution in Committee with a great deal of dignity. Ms Lee Rhiannon is straying into sleights, insults and imputations. Obviously she missed the point that my involvement with this event began in May. I do not have carriage for Events New South Wales. So I ask the member to withdraw those imputations.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio)
: Order! I ask Ms Lee Rhiannon to withdraw the comments to which the Minister objected. I advise the member that at this stage she should be speaking only to the reasons she is opposed to part 1 of the bill. She should not be making imputations against other members.
Ms LEE RHIANNON
: As requested by the Minister, I withdraw those comments. There are many reasons to oppose part 1 of the bill. Madam Chair, I appreciate that you have highlighted the need to set out those reasons. One issue that should be of concern to any responsible government is public safety. Many scientific studies have demonstrated that there is a clear association between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes. Surely the Government should recognise and respond to that, and recognise that this event should be cancelled. Paul Tranter and James Warn established this disturbing link in an article entitled "Relationships between interest in motor racing and driver attitudes and behaviour amongst mature drivers: An Australian case study", which appeared in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008). They stated:
Results indicate that the level of interest in motor racing is significantly related to attitudes towards speeding, controlling for age, education level and sensation seeking propensity.
I recommend that the Minister and members make themselves aware of that detailed paper. When street races are held, the impact on public safety is considerable. My colleague Ian Cohen also spoke about this in his contribution and I want to add some comments because it is one of the disturbing aspects of the legislation. On top of extreme environmental damage and damage to local communities, there is the wider issue of public safety. When people attend these events and then leave to travel home or wherever they are going, often there are terrible accidents. J. R. Warn, P. J. Tranter and S. Kingham wrote a paper entitled "Fast and Furious 3: illegal street racing, sensation seeking and risky driving behaviours in New Zealand", which was presented at a forum held in Adelaide.
The authors of the paper looked at how motorsport influences risky driving behaviour through the influence on attitude to speeding. It should trouble members that it has been clearly established that after such events have been watched and enjoyed, particularly by young men, when people get in their cars and travel on public roads the level of speeding becomes dangerous. We cannot deny that involvement in motorsport has an impact on driving behaviour. These are some of the conclusions set out by Warn, Tranter and Kingham. They detail how involvement in motorsport produces a negative effect for road safety. The effect of motor racing on attitudes to speeding can be wide ranging. Motor racing enthusiasts are more likely to believe that speed limits are too restrictive or that driving over the speed limit is acceptable if they are skilful drivers.
Others who have written in this area include P. Ulleberg and T. Rundmo, who produced a paper in 2003 for Safety Science. They reported that risky driving behaviour is influenced by attitudes to speeding. Also, research in America has found that racing car drivers are more likely to have been fined for speeding and involved in accidents than other drivers. The findings of the research undertaken by Warn, Tranter and Kingham demonstrate that it is important to counteract the pro-speeding messages such as the glorification of speed and risky driving behaviour emanating from motorsport. This has to be undertaken in order to shape attitudes about driving behaviour on public roads and to reduce risky driving.
We hear many messages and have had some good campaigns about reducing risky driving behaviour. However, those messages and campaigns are undermined by events like this. Good work to make our roads safer is periodically undertaken, with expensive campaigns run by the Roads and Traffic Authority. But these sorts of events are a setback. One problem with motor racing as a sport is that spectators who wish to emulate the behaviour of motor racing drivers can emulate this behaviour only on public roads. That is the essence of the problem. The risky behaviour ends up occurring on public roads, putting the public at risk. The burden of risk is then redistributed to other road users who may happen to be in the vicinity of any illegal racing activity.
The broader response that is put forward by these authors is the need to deglorify the car, and they argue that one way to do this is to ensure that motorsport events are never allowed to be staged in significant public spaces as this signifies that such events are an accepted part of the culture of a city or a society. That point has been taken up by P. J. Tranter and T. J. Keeffe in a paper published in 2004 in the Urban Policy and Research journal. Members can see that the extensive work on this issue is thorough and evidence based. It is time the Government took notice of the research and brought some balance to how it is managing this sport. Again, I acknowledge that many people enjoy the sport, but it does not need to take place around northern New South Wales in the Tweed and Kyogle shires.
Another aspect that is relevant to this debate is how the socioeconomic impact assessment report was drawn up. It is extremely difficult to analyse the report critically because it is much poorer than the environmental report. The socioeconomic impact assessment report is entirely unreferenced. It is unbelievable that something so central to establishing the case for this Repco Rally, the socioeconomic impact assessment report, is not referenced.
Without citations of any source material in the report, all claims and projections are unsubstantiated and unverifiable. In scientific circles at least such a report would be rejected out of hand. The terms of reference lead one to conclude very quickly that the report is inadequate.
I thank Dr Jules Lewin for providing material, which I acknowledge I have not gone through in detail, on the socioeconomic impacts. Terms of reference No. 2 refers to analysing the feasibility alternatives to carrying out the development, which did not occur. No. 3 refers to identifying likely impacts, in relation to which the underlying research was flawed and the likely impacts were not explored. Terms of reference No. 4a refers to identifying issues and affected groups. The key issues identified were unreferenced, which demonstrates the inadequacy of the report. No. 4b refers to looking at historical trends and social and economic issues. It is extraordinary that the global economic crisis was not mentioned once. Surely that trend should have come into that term of reference. Again, there is no mention of the issue of peak oil—the price of oil is increasing—and that we are facing severe oil vulnerability for which our societies need to plan.
That demonstrates the poor way in which the project has been managed at every turn. Dr Lewin said, "Last week I attended the latest public consultation gathering". As other members have said, people have become very angry not only about this outrageous event that is being imposed on them but also because of the meaningless consultation. Dr Lewin attended the so-called third public consultation—the first since the reports were released—and states:
Besides the fact that there was no-one qualified to discuss the SEIA or answer some fairly basic questions, notice of the meetings was only released on the Sunday of a long weekend, with the first meeting scheduled at 9am Wednesday.
That is just one small example of how poorly the preparations for this project have been managed. It draws one to the conclusion that the proponents knew they had this project in the bag. They went through the motions of ticking the boxes, producing a report that did not need to be referenced, and conducted consultation that did not need to be advertised because they were confident that the legislation would be passed and the project would be up and running because the Government is onside. This bill should be defeated. We understand that the Government has the numbers—the Government, the Liberals and The Nationals, and some conservative crossbenchers are backing the legislation. It is shameful that we have arrived at this point. Any part of New South Wales that is open to the public should not have this project thrust upon it, but it should never have even been proposed for the far north of New South Wales, which is so exquisite and unique.
Parts 1 to 4 agreed to.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! There are two amendments to clause 25 that are in conflict. Greens amendment No. 1, on sheet C2009-058, was lodged first so it will take precedence over The Nationals amendment No. 1, on sheet C2009-064.
Mr IAN COHEN [9.44 p.m.]: I have had a productive discussion with the Hon. Trevor Khan and he has agreed to modify The Nationals amendment. Having reconsidered the matter, I am happy to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the amendment.
Greens amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn by Mr Ian Cohen.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN [9.45 p.m.]: I move The Nationals amendment No. 1:
No. 1 Page 12, clause 25, lines 10-17. Omit all words on those lines. Insert instead:
25 Review of Act
(1) The Minister is to conduct a review of the impact in the Northern Rivers region of the rally event to determine whether future rally events should be conducted in that region. The review is to include, but not limited to, the impact of the rally event on:
(a) the tourism industry, and
(b) the environment, and
(c) Aboriginal cultural heritage, and
(d) public safety, and
(e) the local community.
(2) The review is to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the declared rally period in 2009.
(3) The Minister is to ensure that the review includes consultation with the local community of the Northern Rivers region, Kyogle Council and Tweed Shire Council.
(4) A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 12 months from the end of the declared rally period in 2009.
Clause 25 of the bill provides for a review of the objects and terms of the Act some five years after the commencement of the Act. The proposed amendment seeks a more precise review, as set out in new subclause (1), to deal with the impact upon the five specified areas, although not exclusive to other issues. Equally importantly, the review is to take place within 12 months and as soon as possible. It also provides that the review must include consultation with the local community of the Northern Rivers region, Kyogle Council and Tweed Shire Council.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! Members will not engage in conversations in the Chamber.
The Hon. TREVOR KHAN: I thank Mr Ian Cohen for his input into the matter. As he verballed me in a sense, I note that he acknowledges the appropriateness of subclause (3) in particular, in that it ensures that appropriate consultation occurs with the local community. When dealing with part 1, members expressed various concerns about different matters, which I will not canvass. But the proof will be in the pudding. The running of the event in early September 2009 will be an opportunity to see how the rally goes. The oversight of it will obviously reinforce people's views as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the event. The review is required to be tabled within 12 months from the end of the declared rally period, which will no doubt offer a further opportunity for discussion on the matter.
The CHAIR (The Hon. Amanda Fazio): Order! I ask members to set their mobile phones to silent alert, otherwise I will be compelled to call to order members whose mobiles are heard to ring in the Chamber.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [9.48 p.m.]: The Government supports amendment No. 1 moved by The Nationals. I note that the Government made a commitment to hold an informal review next year. The Government is happy to enshrine this amendment in the legislation and conduct the appropriate consultation.
The Hon. DUNCAN GAY (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) [9.49 p.m.]: I pay tribute to the two members of Parliament in the area, Geoff Provest and Thomas George.
[Interruption]
I know my colleague did, but the key to the amendment—which the Minister has gracefully accepted—comes from those two men acting on behalf of their communities.
We certainly appreciate the pressure that they put on us to bring the amendment forward. At this stage I believe it is proper to recognise the role that these two great local members have playing in supporting their communities, and we thank the Minister for accepting the amendment when we approached him on their behalf.
Mr IAN COHEN [9.50 p.m.]:
As I said earlier, The Nationals amendment No. 1 is very much in the same spirit as the amendment that my office had prepared. It replaces the existing provision for review of the Act, which was a standard five-year legislative review. I am pleased that all parties are supporting the amendment. It certainly does not resolve the many problems that I and other members have raised with the project or concept. Nevertheless, I am sure that conducting a proper review within a period before any further rallies are held will unearth some worthwhile information. We can examine whether the economic benefits put forward by the Minister stand up, and whether those benefits compensate for the environmental damage. The report will be required to consider impacts on the tourism industry, the environment, Aboriginal cultural heritage, public safety and the local community. I think it is a worthwhile amendment, and the Greens support it.
Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [9.51 p.m.]: The Christian Democratic Party supports The Nationals amendment No. 1. It is reasonable to review the Act to take into account the impact of the rally on tourism, the environment, Aboriginal cultural heritage, public safety and the local community. Will the Minister confirm that this event will be held between 3 and 6 September, and not every day of the year? I got the impression from most speakers that the rally will tear New South Wales apart.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [9.52 p.m.]: The rally will be held on 3 to 6 September this year, and the next event is in 2011.
Question—That The Nationals amendment No. 1 be agreed to—put and resolved in the affirmative.
The Nationals amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Clause 25 as amended agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee with an amendment.
Adoption of Report
Motion by the Hon. Ian Macdonald agreed to:
That the report be adopted.
Report adopted.
Third Reading
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD (Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Energy, Minister for Mineral Resources, and Minister for State Development) [9.52 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question—That the motion be agreed to—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 27 [Those in favour of the bill]
Mr Ajaka
Mr Catanzariti
Mr Clarke
Mr Colless
Ms Fazio
Ms Ficarra
Miss Gardiner
Mr Gay
Ms Griffin
Mr Hatzistergos Mr Kelly
Mr Khan
Mr Lynn
Mr Macdonald
Mr Mason-Cox
Reverend Nile
Ms Parker
Mrs Pavey
Ms Robertson
Ms Sharpe Mr Tsang
Mr Veitch
Ms Voltz
Mr West
Ms Westwood
Tellers,
Mr Donnelly
Mr Harwin
Noes, 5 [Those AGAINST the bill]
Ms Hale
Dr Kaye
Ms Rhiannon
Tellers,
Mr Cohen
Reverend Dr Moyes
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time and transmitted to the Legislative Assembly with a message seeking its concurrence in the bill.
[...]
Source dated as Last modified 24/06/2009 14:05:20
Urban Democracy & Environment movement stops rotten DACs law - Victoria, Australia
"Dave the Developer" at the Restore Residents' Rights protest rally, June 10, Photo: Progress Leader
Development Assessment Committees' Legislation Stopped In Upper House
Ed. The following story is adapted from the MRRA Macedon Ranges' Residents Association site: It describes a really important battle in the ongoing war for democracy in Victoria which will probably be reported on in other articles at candobetter.
Where to from here?
'Where to from here' depends on whether government finds a way around needing parliament's consent to change the law
The day after the "Restore Residents Rights" rally at parliament house on June 10, which was attended by 600 [1] people, Victoria's upper house rejected changes to the Planning and Environment Act that would have introduced Development Assessment Committees [DACs] to the State.
Initially proposed for a limited number of metropolitan areas, the government's aim is to have this system of decision-making apply more broadly. The DAC system takes planning powers off Councils and hands them to majority government-appointed committees which then make planning decisions in Council's place, while Councils and community carry the financial costs of having DACs make the decisions for them.
Lack of transparency key concern for democracy
Key concerns with DACs include a lack of clarity about accountability and transparency mechanisms, the breach of fundamental democratic principles and the community's right to know, and the potential for planning decisions to be driven by party politics, and implementing specific development agendas without any obvious ability by the community to express their views to the decision-makers.
In their present proposed form, DACs are vulnerable to being 'stacked' politically, while cutting off Councils and communities from decisions that affect them. Another concern is the inadequacy of the current planning system to produce outcomes that the community, as opposed to the developer, wants.
DAC Ideology
The whole DACs ideology captures and builds on a belief held at governmental level that all it takes to make a "good" planning decision is some 'tick boxes' and for applicants and decision-makers to settle it between themselves - no such thing as "no", just "whatever it takes". You get to know about it when it happens. So much for community ownership of decisions that affect the community! And they wonder why we are all getting peed off!
As "Dave The Developer" said at the RRR rally, this a fantastic government - when us developers go in with 12 storeys in a 5 storey area, all they say is, is 12 enough?!!
Chris Gaffney played the part of Dave the Developer and put on a great comedy act. The whole show was the idea of the Darebin Appropriate Development Association and they had working bees to make the little houses and garden that were knocked over by the Bobcat. In the photo you see the splendid high rise blocks called Brumby Towers and Villa de Maddening that rose in their place.
[1] A reestimation based on the known number of people carrying balloons (300) plus the number of people not carrying balloons, puts the total around 600 people, which is huge for the sprawling, socially disorganised and transport-disconnected city of Melbourne, where, although population is growing, democracy and communication are shrinking.
Unusual lost cat found by Japanese students
Australian-based Japanese students mistaken possum for cat!
I recently received the photograph above with the following email message:
"Subject: Lost Cat found........... posted by Japanese students renting in Brunswick,VICTORIA
AND FEEDING IT CAT FOOD TOO !"
The students had apparently posted a picture of a possum they had found in the street, believing it was a lost domestic cat. Admirably, they were feeding it and looking after it, whilst seeking a rapid return to its owner. Perhaps even more incredibly, the possum seemed to have adapted to its new role as a rescued domestic cat.
Incredible - yes!
Incredible, eh? What cute naivety on the part of those Japanese students. What must the possum think of the whole thing, you wonder? Did it stay with the students? Did it manage to get them to enlarge its diet to include seaweed salad and radishes? Did the students eventually realise that what they had was not a cat, and change the possum over to its rightful diet of gum-nut flowers and coastal tea-tree, perhaps with the occasional desert of red geraniums?
The real story
Actually, this poster is a fake. Sandy Fernee writes, "The possum is one that was in a shelter over 10 years ago, in fact the picture was stolen from the shelter operators' posting."
But the real story is a nice one too. "The possum was released 10 years ago and has probably had lots of babies in the wild [...] This fake poster has been going around for about 2 years now."
She adds, "Please remind people with injured possums that they should call their local wildlife rescue group."
Sandy is the Executive Officer at Wildlife Victoria www.wildlifevictoria.org.au and a licensed wildlife carer.
Photo by Julia Buch
Totoro or Pokemon possums
Come to think of it, while we are on the subject of Japanese view-points, possums look a bit like Tortoro, a giant friendly Japanese wood-spirit made famous through the Japanese anime, film, My Neighbour Tortoro.
And Tortoro looked like a great big Pokemon, the Japanese cartoon animal hero.
It would in fact be nice if the Australian Brushtail Possum were to have the same support that Pokemon has, world wide. As it is, in many places in Australia our brushtail possum wood spirit look-alike is atrociously treated and disrespected. Anyone who has formed a relationship of mutual trust with a brush tail possum - through raising one or looking after an injured one for a long time, knows what fun they are - and how cute - as well as courageous and social. They are, however, mistreated by many councils in Australia, treated as 'pests' by the state government, and seen as a target for cruelty by some members of the public.
The possum is a powerful suburban advocate for all Australian wildlife and so many Australians and Australian visitors miss out on possum magic. Tortoro was a kind of animal god who made friends with some children and protected them and was remembered all their lives. How much richer our lives in Australia would be if we gave that kind of respect to that curious and sociable, playful and mischievious, but independent creature, who tries to get along with us in the suburbs - our friend - the common brush-tail possum.
National investment overdue into co-ordinated airborne bushfire response
We need to dig deeper if we are serious about the bushfire threat, and this doesn't mean just more charity to prop up the existing but failing system, as the PM seems to perpetuate. This goes beyond the Victorian Bushfires. Under-resourcing is a fundamental problem with Australian bushfire management nationally.
The bushfire problem is only going to get worse given the trend toward hotter summers, prolonged droughts, climate change, arsonists and millions of houses now situated in bushfire prone areas. The answer is not to destroy vast swathes of bushland, which embers jump anyway sometimes spotting beyond 10km ahead of a fire front.
Detection, response and suppression are the measures of firefighting success criteria. Yet to adequately perform these, current bushfire management remains chronically under-resourced by all levels of government across Australia.
A fleet of Bombardier 415s (formerly Canadair CL-415) would be a cost effective proactive investment in bushfire response and without doubt preferable to the $2B economic cost of Vic Fires, after the fact. Check this out: http://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/bombardier_415/bombardier_4152.html
But also more manoeuvrable water-bombing rotary-wing aircraft like the Erikson Aircrane plus the dropping in of RAFT crews also deserve consideration particularly in rugged terrain, where Bombardiers would not be able to achieve water-bombing runs low enough to be effective.
The cultural problem is that bushfire management is typically fire-truck centric in its thinking, planning and response. And beware of pollies and their devoted fans lobbying red herrings and porkies to try to stimie investigation into these options, when really the debate is simply one of cost.
But research needs to precede any investment. Australia's peak bushfire research organisation, Bushfire CRC, in its August 2006 report on the merits of aerial suppression made the following key findings:
- Aerial suppression can be effective in providing support to ground crews and improving the probability of first attack success by 50 percent or more. (so relies on fast detection of ignitions)
- For an aircraft to provide effective assistance it must be available at call, rapidly dispatched with minimal travel time and with logistical systems in place.
- Air operations effectively integrated into the incident management structure and competent personnel are needed to be available to direct the operations for good outcomes.
- The use of ground resources with initial aerial support is the most economically efficient approach to suppression.
- The use of aircraft for first attack until ground resources reach the fire produces the best suppression outcome.
- Large fixed wing air tankers such as a DC 10 are at a cost disadvantage. This is particularly the case for first attack when fires are small and where water drop accuracy is required. (But no-one could argue that Victoria is now at a cost disadvantage without them..the economic bill alone is $2 Billion, which excludes the psychological, social and ecological costs).
The airborne response is just one strategy to consider. The bushfire management solution is complex. Yes Les, to be effective in preventing a repeat of 7-Feb-09, it demands massive investment and organisation at a level only federal resources can muster.
Tigerquoll
[licensed commercial helicopter pilot]
NSW cabinet national parks trade-off with shooters party for lottery privatisation delayed
Sustained protest delays nasty political act
Sustained protests from Australians who are horrified at the cold-blooded policies pushed by the NSW Cabinet seem to have had an effect for the moment. It is believed that public reaction to this bill has put the wind up members in marginal seats. The proposal has the obvious 'pay-off' for a cash-strapped spendthrift government of pushing through another unpopular privatisation - this time of a state lottery.
"A decision was deferred until further talks could be held with the Shooters. The Opposition, the Greens and environmental groups oppose the bill and the Government had been accused of supporting it because it relied on the Shooters Party for critical support [to sell off a state lottery] in the upper house."Source:The Sydney Morning Herald
Shooters Party & NSW Labor - Rees Government
The Shooters Party had introduced a private member's bill to "allow recreational hunters to shoot native animals and birds and to allow for private game reserves to be set up for professional safari hunters."Source:The Sydney Morning Herald
NSW Liberal Nationals declare strong opposition to notion of sporting shooting in National Parks
The NSW Liberal Nationals portray themselves as strongly opposed to the shooting of Australian native species in National Parks, and the establishment of private shooting reserves. SourceThey say they will introduce amendments to the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill to ban it, according to Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Catherine Cusack MLC, and the Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay.
"The NSW Liberal / Nationals' move comes following a backdoor attempt - with the apparent support of the NSW Labor Government - to introduce unprecedented shooting of Australian native animals, including in National Parks, as well as private game reserves,” said Ms Cusack.
“We will oppose this and introduce other amendments aimed at genuinely managing the real environmental and other threats posed by feral animals - not Australian native species.
"The shooting of Australian native species in our National Parks or exotic species in private 'game parks' are offensive concepts. If this legislation is brought on the NSW Liberal / Nationals are armed and ready to move legislative amendments to make sure it doesn't happen.”
Illegal release of animals for hunting purposes & feral pig and deer problem
One of these amendments includes changing the Game Act to increase the penalty by four times as much for anyone caught illegally releasing animals for the purpose of hunting. The fine will now be $22,000 for persons caught illegally releasing animals.
“The feral pig problem in NSW is due to the deliberate release of piglets and juveniles for the purposes of hunting,” said Ms Cusack.
“We are also seeing deer being released in many National Parks - they are spreading weeds and are an incredible threat to agriculture as well as the environment.
“I challenge the NSW Labor Government to support our tougher penalties.”
Mr Gay said NSW National Parks and their neighbours needed a comprehensive and strong approach to managing the threat of feral animals - especially as the State comes out of drought and feral animal numbers go up.
“Strongly regulated professional shooting is part of that - unprecedented and unrelated new rights for people like wealthy overseas hunting tourists should not be," Mr Gay said.
"We need comprehensive and strong management of feral species including professional conservation shooting - we don't need for NSW to inadvertently become the Safari State of the Southern Hemisphere.”
Details of Other legislative amendments to be moved by the NSW Liberal / Nationals
Other legislative amendments to be moved by the NSW Liberal / Nationals will:
* Put strong regulatory limits and controls on the use of professional, limited shooting for the appropriate management of feral animals;
* Give Forestry and DECC officers stronger powers to oversee feral animal shooting - rather than the proposal to make it an offence for them to approach hunters;
* Give the Minister for Environment the regulatory power to classify in which National Parks feral animal shooting should take place - rather than the proposed 'one size fits all' approach that makes all National Parks - be they urban or rural - public hunting lands;
* Continue to allow farmers to appropriate manage feral animals on their properties - rather than requiring the proposal that they be forced to pay for licences;
* Ban trap shooting with live birds
Mr Gay said the NSW Liberal / Nationals would fight strongly for these and other amendments because of the need to protect Australian native animals and manage feral animals.
“That's in the best interests of both the environment and rural communities that border National Parks,” he said.
Ms Cusack urgently called on NSW Labor to do the right thing and support the Coalition’s amendments.
Sustainable population business breakfast: When is enough, enough?
Is there no end to growth?
Queensland and the rest of Australia sure have problems associated with growth, but the growth lobby appears completely addicted to entropic speed and there are dealers in real-estate activity on every corner and lurking all over the internet, financing the commercial media and even advising the ABC. What hope does Andrew McNamara have, or even Simon Baltais (Sustainable Population Australia) of affecting this scourge on koalas, quality of life and democracy? Well, there may be a window, since growth is costing many businesses more than they can afford, in terms of rising prices for land, water, petroleum and electricity. Stay tuned.
A new self-help movement for growth-addicts?
Former environment minister, Andrew McNamara will join some 150 business leaders from across Brisbane as keynote speaker at a business breakfast forum. The Queensland Conservation event looks at when enough is enough in terms of population in Southeast Queensland and Australia more broadly. McNamara is excited about the opportunity to share his views about population with a diverse audience.
“Every day, the front pages of our papers are covered in variations on the same problem. Whether the issue is traffic congestion, overcrowding on trains, waiting lists for hospitals, skills shortages, social alienation in urban sprawl, food security, water security or global warming," McNamara says.
“There is only one problem,” McNamara says. “There are too many of us.”
The forum, with tickets at $120 per person or $1000 per table takes place on Friday 17 July from 6.50 am - 9.00 am at the Gabba. The event also features the following panel:
* Brian Stewart, CEO Urban Development Institute of Australia
* Melva Hobson, Mayor Redland City Council
* Glen Elmes MP, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Sustainability and Member for Noosa
* Simon Baltais, Sustainable Population Australia
Registration is now open for the event, which is sponsored by SEQ Catchments. For more information, contact [email protected] or at register online
Saving our Earth or Defending our Right to Eat Animal Products?
I live in a small town and every year for the last three years we have celebrated World Environment Day with an information day organised by the local environment centre. Dozens of groups set up tents and disseminate information about what they are doing to help the planet. There are workshops, speakers, live music, fun events for kids and healthy food. This was the first year we had a meat-free festival.
Months ago I was promised my usual speaking spot which somehow got forgotten by the organisers. Then a week before the nod was given and I set to prepare my talk. The subject was 'Biodiversity-How can we Protect it?' Given that I only had five minutes to cover this rather large subject, many hours were invested in practising and shrinking down what I wanted to say. This is what I ended up with (a variation on the speech I gave to council just last month except tailored to the audience):-
THE IMPORTANCE OF BIODIVERSITY
I don’t know about you but I feel so blessed to be on this incredibly beautiful planet. Such a myriad of exquisite animals living on the land, flying in the sky and swimming in the ocean. Boundlessly abundant flora healing our bodies and spirit spring up effortlessly from beneath our feet. It pains me so deeply to know that this blue-green jewel floating in space that we call planet Earth is in deep trouble. There are 16,000 species at risk of extinction today. This mass extinction is caused by one species – us.
Australia has the worst reputation having driven 38% of its mammal species extinct in just over 200 years. The Tweed Shire has probably the most biodiversity in Australia yet a whopping two thirds of our species are at risk of extinction.
Biodiversity loss is a much bigger problem than climate change, because climate change could be turned around in 100 years, but biodiversity loss could take between 10,000 to 100,000 years to turn around.
Somehow we forget that all species are interdependent. E.g. if bees became extinct all of life on this planet would end in just four years. If plankton became extinct, we wouldn’t have enough oxygen to breathe.
We forget that healthy ecosystem needs diversity, many species each with large populations and strong gene pools – like a jungle teeming with life. Instead we clearcut land and overfish the oceans and wonder why we are in ecological crisis.
We forget our resources are finite acting like they will be there forever – if we keep consuming and populating at the rate we are going we will hit a wall where life won’t be worth living.
The Convention on Biodiversity aims to significantly reduce biodiversity loss by 2010. Every loss of species is a threat to global biodiversity. The Convention is concerned with the moral and ethical aspects of biodiversity loss.
What does that mean? I think it means having reverence for life. Animals have feelings, just like us. They feel happy, sad, lonely, they grieve. They fear death and they love their families. When their habitat is destroyed, they die – in terror.
In Queensland between 1998 and 2004 a total of 104 million animals died as a result of land-clearing. If we had reverence for all creatures, we could coexist with them instead of paving the planet. There would be no species loss and no extinctions.
But the bottom line is, humans regard animals as resources to harvest instead of sentient beings with feelings and the right to live in peace.
So how do we change human consciousness on such a profound level? How do we make a paradigm shift away from being anthropocentric to being biocentric? It depends on you and me making that shift on a personal level and political level and it’s very important to do both.
POLITICAL LEVEL
Demand that Governments and councils enforce laws to protect biodiversity + stop developments from destroying koala and endangered species habitat such as Kings Forest. Such as helping NRG stop the ridiculous Repco Rally tearing through national parks in the wildlife breeding season.
PERSONAL LEVEL
Do obvious things like driving slowly in the country at dawn and dusk to avoid roadkill, restrain your pets or become a wildlife carer. But more importantly, the most fundamental thing you can do to stop biodiversity loss is stop eating animals and eat plants instead. Why? Livestock Industry causes most damage to the planet - DEFORESTATION, DESERTIFICATION, SPECIES EXT. WATER SHORTAGES, GHG, POLLUTION WATER). 7 billion people eating fish is causing a dire crisis to the oceans. And don’t even think of eating kangaroo to save the planet because they are on track to extinction too.
Will Tuttle’s book The World Peace Diet talks about not only the environmental destruction a meat/dairy diet but also the profound social fragmentation and spiritual disconnection it causes from being in denial about the suffering of non-human animals on our dinner plate. We cannot have peace until we embrace kindness to all creatures.
Yes I am asking you to do probably the most difficult thing you have ever done in your life – but the situation on Earth is dire and unless we all shift to a plant-based diet this earth is doomed. We must act today – tomorrow it will be all gone.
This earth is too precious to lose. For the sake of your grandkids, for the animals who want to live here and the planet, please take one small step in this direction. Make the effort to overcome a lifetime of social conditioning and habits. You’ll be so glad you did.
***********
Then a day before the event I was contacted by one of the organisers asking me for my bio. I sent him my speech and this was his reply:-
Dear Menkit
After reading through your talk, it is obvious to me that you are gifted with a strong commitment to our communities' moral and ethical evolution.
So I hope that you will read my opinions, below, not as a personal offence of any kind, but rather as a loving pointing-out of aspects that could be sabotaging your true aims.
To this end, I have not pulled any punches. (Also, please note that when items from your talk appear 'in single quotes', they're being paraphrased, not quoted.)
The festival is intended to encourage a wider audience of non-environmentalists to take a simple first step or two. (Thereby gaining a sense of achievement and pride that can fuel ongoing and larger committed actions.)
Indeed, my intuition is that your talk would neither serve the festival audience nor help to achieve your own aims, were you to deliver this talk on Sunday.
'flora heals ... our spirit'
'all animals feel love, fear death, are sentient beings, and live by choice'
'eating yoghurt causes a profound spiritual disconnection'
Perhaps an environmental festival for the general public is not the appropriate place to air one's own spiritual or religious beliefs?
'mass extinction of 16,000 species caused by one species - us'
+ 'Australia has the worst reputation' + 'Somehow we forget'
+ 'we forget' + 'we forget' + 'life won't be worth living'
+ '104 million Qld animals died in terror' + 'buried guilt'
+ 'we're all doomed unless we all become vegans'
+ 'you are all lazy and socially conditioned'
Such a collection of accusatory, punitively worded facts and statements (many of them unsupported) is unlikely to achieve anything other than to overwhelm, upset, and destroy hope in the festival's audience. (Many of them could well be taking their first, furtive step towards assuming greater environmental responsibility).
Also, using the words "us" and "we" is really only authentic when they're used to describe something that the speaker and their audience share in common. Throughout the talk, "us" and "we" are almost never used this way. Rather, they're code-words for "all of you out there", "ignorant consumers", and so on. As such, they foster a vague sense of alienation and anger, the very antithesis of the sense of inclusion that's intended.
'humans have caused all animal extinctions'
'biodiversity loss is a much bigger problem than climate change'
'if plankton became extinct, we wouldn't have enough oxygen to breathe'
'changing our attitude guarantees no species ever becomes extinct again'
'we're all doomed unless we all become vegans'
'tomorrow [the earth] will be all gone'
Many of your talk's statements I found either deceptive, unqualified, or exaggerated.
"demand governments enforce laws to protect biodiversity"
Vague statements like these sound impractical to a general audience, so they're unlikely to motivate ordinary people into action. In fact, I found only one concrete, feasible solution to the plethora of problems that your speech raises (to drive slowly on country roads to avoid roadkill).
Unfortunately, your talk amounts to scare-mongering.
I invite you to re-examine your motivations for wanting to tell people the specific information that you do,
*****
Frankly I found this response baffling, given that I could back up with references everything I wrote. Was he saying that my information was incorrect or that I was expressing it in an offensive way? I asked repeatedly how I could say it in such a way as to not offend but no reply was forthcoming.
It seems odd that an environment group, whose purpose is to help save the planet, would be deliberately repressing the very information that is needed to create a radical transformation of our world. Changing light bulbs, recycling and riding bicycles isn't going to do it fast enough.
What hope is there if people won't even listen to the pros of a plant-based diet? Why are people so terrified to question their dietary habits and make a shift? Its not that hard. It can be taken very slowly, in baby steps, and in a short time people feel terrific.
In short, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
See http://www.goveg.com
Rees' 'red hot go' hunting in our National Parks
NSW Premier Rees is set to pass into law a 'Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009' to permit recreational hunters shooting everything and anything in protected National Parks across NSW including native wildlife.
Controlling feral animals is a science, not a sport. Rees' passion for sport is compromised by influential cronies and naivety. Problem is, Rees has no knowledge, experience in or aptitude for science. His inaugural 'red hot go' says it all and threatens to be his legacy.
Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission will fail to protect Victorians and fail to stop history repeating itself
The Victorian Premier Brumby's Royal Commission into the January-February 2009 bushfires is a mere incident review. If Victoria is to be protected from firestorms in future, it should undertake a root cause analysis, including the numerous past investigations into bushfires, with a view to achieving a cultural shift in rural fire fighting methods, resourcing and emergency management and into ecology management, housing approvals in bushfire prone areas, building design in bushfire prone areas, bush arson criminology and into serious resourcing of rural fire management.
Indeed, given the repeated history of bushfires across Australia and the repeated uncontrolled nature of many of these leading to extensive property damage, the loss of thousands of livestock, widespread ecological destruction, the human lives lost and injuries, and the massive costs incurred every year, the scope of the enquiry should be escalated to a national level.
But the Victorian Commission's terms of reference focuses on the immediate causes and circumstances of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires. It focuses on the immediate management, response and recovery. This is a start, but the real start occurred in 1939 with the shock of Black Friday. It lead to the Stretton Enquiry, but many large and damaging firestorms have occurred since - so the Stretton Enquiry showed that lessons were either ignored or the application of those lessons were ineffective. The Esplin Inquiry of 2003 identified striking parallels between 1939 and 2002-3 bushfires. Now we have the 2009 Bushfires, but each investigation is disconnected from the previous one, almost as if to intentionally ignore history and any prior lessons learnt. Interstate and overseas, many major bushfires and their subsequent investigations have amassed research, insight and lessons. Why limit the investigation to one event?
Incident investigation will uncover causes and flaws and will likely make specific recommendations in the hope of preventing similar incidents. But root cause analysis goes beyond identifying the symptoms of a problem. But the Commission has not started with identifying the problem. Let's say that that at the core is the problem of preventing ignitions becoming firestorms. What are the causes of uncontrolled ignitions in the bush. Where are they typically lit? How are ignitions detected by fire authorities? What is the time lapse between ignition and detection? What is the time lapse between detection and response and eventual suppression? Which causes and interventions would mitigate the risk of these ignitions developing into uncontrollable firestorms? Are the ignition detection tools adequate? Are the communications tools adequate? Do we have the right tools and trained personnel in the right places to effectively respond? Is the entire detection, response and suppression system sufficiently integrated to deal with multiple igntitions in extreme conditions across the State at the same time? How would this be achieved? What budget would be required to have such resources and technology in place to achieve this standard? Is the problem indeed too big for Victoria by itself to adequately deal with and so is the problem in fact a national one?
How would a satisfactory solution be achieved without causing other problems like ecological damage and local wildlife extinctions? Then implement the recommendations and scientifically monitor their effectiveness. But the Commission is looking at what caused the specific ignitions, what damage the specific bushfires caused and specific responses. It will conclude what specifically should have been done in these specific incidents. It will lead to a blame game that will solve nothing. Subsequent ignitions if not predicted, detected, responded to and suppressed to prevent firestorms, will likely have different circumstances in different locations. So how will the problem have been solved by this Royal Commission? How will the Victorian Royal Commission prevent bushfire history repeating itself?
Vic Govt's own Office of Water exposes "The Great Brumby Pipeline Lie"
In "North-south pipeline figures all at sea" in the Melbourne Age of 21 Jun 09, Melissa Fyfe reported:
"The basic assumptions used to predict the amount of water to be delivered to Melbourne from the north-south pipeline have 'now proven to be wrong', Victoria's top water adviser has admitted."
This further confirms what the group Plug the Pipe, a group representing Goulburn Valley farmers, whose water the north-south pipeline is intended to steal, have argued all along. Here is their response.
Victorian Government's own Office of Water exposes "The Great Brumby Pipeline Lie"
Our View:
From the very beginning, Plug the Pipe has always maintained the 'irrigation savings don't exist' to supply 75 billion litres of water to Melbourne through the North South Pipeline. DSE's acknowledgement of this fact under present conditions in yesterdays AGE article by Melissa Fyfe simply confirms The Great Brumby Pipeline Lie. Also in that article, DSE claimed that conditions have only recently changed which is blatantly false and is a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the enormity of their deception or blunder. The water lost from the irrigation districts has not significantly changed since the announcement of the project. Equally offensive is DSE's defence in blaming the errors in water saving calculations on junior staff, a cowardly statement of low credibility considering the magnitude and complexity of the multi-billion dollar water plan.
The Brumby Government has acted with either unfathomable incompetence or with extreme dishonesty by its unwavering line that irrigation water savings will be achieved to supply 'new water' for Melbourne, the Murray Darling Basin crisis and Victoria's drought affected food producers.
The North South Pipeline was painted as the saviour through the Premiers 'New Water' for all but has turn out to be just a cruel deceptive trick that even the originally misguided can now see through.
The question remains, how many lies and blunders can a Government make on water before it damages their credibility and electability?
The North South Pipeline will be a major election issue in the minds of the average Victorian as they head to the polls next year. They will be thinking the promise of water nirvana and the reality of water hell as the pay more for water they did not receive from a dry pipe. Farmers and environmentalists will be thinking the same thing and we will be there to remind them all not to forget.
Jan Beer
0407 144777
Topic:
Dorothy Pratt speaks out against Queensland Government fire sale
Dorothy Pratt, independent member for the rural Queensland state electorate of Nanango in a speech to State Parliament on 18 June, tears apart the Queensland Govenment's justification for its fire sale of publicly owned assets and exposes its past mismanagement of the Queensland economy. Her informative and cogent speech is typical of of many that go unreported by the pro-privatisation Queensland newsmedia.
The speech can be found in Hansard of 18 Jun 09 The pdf document is here and the XML document is here. It is also published on privatisationistheft.net. I have added the headings and footnotes. - JS
Mrs PRATT (Nanango---Ind) (6.03 pm): Before I start with my speech proper, I want to acknowledge that we are going through adverse economic times, but I cannot dismiss the fact that Queensland has been riding on a wave---hanging five, so to speak, and enjoying the ride. But this government has been so engrossed with the ride that it has forgotten that there is always a dumper behind the wave. It is something it has overlooked. I know what it is like when it comes to balancing a budget. I know what it is like to prepare for hard times, because when you are a farmer you know that there is a boom-and-bust cycle continually going on. If you deal on the stock market, it is the same thing. It is just an everyday occurrence. It is boom and bust and it goes on and on.
Unreasonable limits of Parliamentary scrutiny of Budget, privatisation and other bills
I rise to speak to these cognate bills which include the Appropriation (Parliament) Bill and the Appropriation Bill which address the budget of this state---bills that I would have thought would be enough on their own to debate without having to lump them in with other bills. Each MP in this House should be entitled to 20 minutes to voice their opinions on the budget and how it will impact on or benefit their constituencies and the electorate as a whole. But the government has chosen to include other bills---namely, the Infrastructure Investment (Asset Restructuring and Disposal) Bill and the Fuel Subsidy Repeal and Revenue and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Each and every one of these bills could have and would have in their own right created enormous debate in this chamber for at least 20 minutes each per member, but we have been restricted to just a few minutes per bill if we want to address each one.
Privatisation
These bills have also created a lot of very heated debate in the general public as well. Without exception, every single person who has raised with me the sale of assets has been in total opposition to the sale of what they call the people's assets. Each member in this House should be aware that Labor does not look good. I can assure members that the Premier has not come out smelling of roses and if she came to my electorate---and I know after speaking with people that many other electorates feel the same---she would definitely need her hard hat. As I said, each member in this House could easily use
and should have been given a full 20 minutes for each of the bills that we are debating tonight.
Selling off state assets is a serious business and should be treated as such. I have some questions that I would like to get answers to, and so would the people. Is there a limit to the eligibility of people or countries that could buy these assets? Will they be foreign owned? What exactly is involved and what has been decided? Where will these assets end up? It is time the people were told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
The unions saw the problems which would come from the sale of these assets and I remember hearing the words 'it is madness' when referring to the sale of these assets. They knew and understood that from the beginning, but I have never, ever seen anybody or any group of people cave in as quickly as they did. They were like soggy white bread. Believe me, I have never, ever seen a group of people cave in in such a quick fashion.
I had to ask myself why. What did they trade the security of workers? jobs for? Was it perhaps a political future? Were they told that if they did not pull their heads in they were jeopardising the future of the Labor government because it was election time? What was their price? The price is one the workers will ultimately pay. The sale of these assets will impact on Queenslanders---be it in jobs or in the cost of goods. The union bosses will be okay. I have seen it before in my electorate: the union bosses looked after themselves but it was the workers who paid the price. I have seen it before and I will possibly see it again. They sold out the workers in my electorate once before and they have now sold them out again. As far as I am concerned, any union member should tear up their union ticket to show how disgruntled they are.#main-fn1">1
This government has relegated these important bills to the position of what we in the country call a job lot. For those members who do not know what a job lot is, it is a lot put up at an auction which is made up of bits and pieces deemed unable to be sold on their own. It is the case here that they have been put up in a job lot so that these bills can pass through this House in a very short amount of time. Every member in this House who is entitled to speak on every bill for 20 minutes is really only getting possibly five minutes per bill tonight.
The proposed sale of Queensland Motorways will affect everybody, as will the sale of Queensland Rail's haulage business and the port of Brisbane. The sale of Forestry Plantations Queensland will affect my electorate quite substantially. These assets and the Abbot Point Coal Terminal are not job lot assets, and these bills should have been given the debating time that they are due and that they deserve.
These assets need to be recognised as very important assets of the state. They are major pieces of infrastructure. They are important assets of the people and this government has relegated them to being worth but a few minutes debate. I find that particularly shameful. The people may have been appalled on learning that the government is intent on flogging off the farm, but they should be even more appalled by the government?s actions of limiting proper debate on these bills. I have not heard one person who voiced their opinion agree---
Ms Struthers (Ms Karen Struthers, Minister for Community Services and Housing and Minister for Women) interjected..
Mrs PRATT: The members on the other side of the House who are willingly selling our assets can interrupt all they like because the opinion of the majority of my electorate is that the government is not worth two bob at this particular moment. I have not heard one person who has voiced their opinion agree with this asset sale. The people have been bitten before by the promise of low prices brought about by privatisation as there was a promise of more competition.
Ms Struthers interjected.
Mrs PRATT: I know for a fact that you do not sell off your assets. If you sell the cow, you do not get the milk.
Ms Struthers interjected.
Mrs PRATT: You sell the milk and you maintain the cow and you improve on it. You just do not get the milk. You sell the milk and you maintain the cow and you improve on it.
Ms Struthers interjected.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The minister will allow the member to speak.
Mrs PRATT: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have always been told that privatisation brings more competition and lower prices. To date, in the area that I live I have not seen that. People may see that occur in the city where fuel is a lot cheaper and freight is very cheap, but I have not seen that occur in the rural sector. With privatisation, in most cases competition did not occur and the prices definitely did not come down; they rose quite substantially.
The combining of the debate on these bills takes time away from being able to dissect the budget. I believe it is a devious and sneaky tactic to push all of these bills through the House in one hit. It is expected that $15 billion will be raised from this fire sale, but Queensland will have a $44 billion debt and in four yours time Queensland's debt will be over $80 billion. So I cannot see this relatively paltry $15 billion making much of a difference in the future. It is the people of Queensland who will be asked to pay.
Removal of 9.2c/litre fuel subsidy
It was stated earlier in this chamber that Queenslanders will be required to pay $14 million per day in interest alone on this debt and they will pay it in the form of increased fees, increased levies, increased old taxes and new taxes. The government has stated that the fuel subsidy is to be abolished, but if it were honest it would refer to it in its proper form. It is really the introduction of a new tax. The people will be forking out 9.2c a litre in extra tax.#main-fn2">2 For an average household, that is an extra $200. This new tax raises a lot of questions for my constituents and, no doubt, every other rural person who needs to travel for health, medical and other services. Will this government lift the Patient Travel Subsidy Scheme rebate? It is currently 15c a kilometre and $30 per night for accommodation. But I did not see any mention of an increase in the PTSS to assist the most vulnerable in these harsh economic times. All I have seen to date is this government adding to the hard times.
Recently, a small operator stopped me in the street and stated that, with the implementation of this fuel tax, his fuel costs will increase by $1,000 a week. Just in case members do not know, that is $52,000 a year. He has to pass on those costs and will continue to pass on those costs to the consumer. The consumers will pay for this tax through every service they receive, every piece of goods they buy and every bit of food they buy to feed their families.
I would like to quote from a letter that I received from the RACQ. It states---
RACQ's Fight the fuel tax campaign... This new tax, combined with increases in vehicle registration fees of 17 to 22 percent from 1 July, will contribute to making Queensland the most expensive place in Australia in which to own and operate a motor car. In the current recession, RACQ believes it is more important than ever to ensure that motoring is as affordable as possible, especially in a state as large and decentralised as Queensland.
Major industry groups AgForce, Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, Marine Queensland, Motor Trades Association of Queensland and Queensland Trucking Association, have all lent their support to the campaign because of the major negative impact the fuel tax will have on business. It has been estimated that the increased fuel costs would add about three percent to transport costs, leading to a rise of about one percent in the final cost of goods and services generally.
One per cent may not sound much, but when it is added to all the other increases that will be added over the next few years it will be quite a considerable amount.
Car registration increases
Registration is up 17 to 22 per cent, depending on the number of cylinders of the car. That increase is equivalent to the combined increases that have occurred over the past six years. People will pay, pay and pay again. It is this level that people can relate to---the level of the hip pocket. The Premier and the Treasurer are the modern day Fagins---picking the pockets of everyday Queenslanders. But the difference is that, although Fagin was subject to the laws of the day as he picked people's pockets, the Premier and Treasurer are making the laws to allow them to pick people's pockets legally.
The burden of this debt will be felt the greatest by the regional and rural sectors. People in those areas travel more, as there is often no public transport for them. The people in those areas have large vehicles owing to poor road conditions or virtually a lack of roads at times. The freight bills for people in those areas are higher. Their fuel is often up to 10c or more per litre dearer than it is in the city. So yes, people in rural and regional areas will pay. The unemployment that will ensue will impact on the rural sector as well. Members should not think that unemployment will not be exacerbated, because as I speak people in small businesses are laying people off and they and their families are carrying out much of the work themselves.
Ms Struthers: Tell us your answer.
Mrs PRATT: I would not have got myself in this situation, because I have always saved for a rainy day. This government failed to save for a rainy day in the boom times. If the minister cannot save for her own future, she should not start throwing comments across the chamber.
Council subsidies capped
The capping of the annual subsidies paid to councils will be picked up by the ratepayers, too. Some of the shires in my electorate have found that, with the government's insistence on fluoridation, their water systems need to be upgraded. That is going to cost us money. But with this cap on subsidies, how many other services will be lessened, will not be delivered at all, or just shelved forever? Will the government consider, for instance, relaxing the fluoridation implementation time so that the money can be raised in due course? Will the government offer assistance in other forms? Again, the public will pick up the shortfall. The rates will go higher. Just because the amalgamated councils now have a larger rate base does not mean that their overall income will be greater. It will only be greater if the subsidies are increased. Again, the people will pay.
Repayment of debt
We are expected to be in debt until approximately 2017. I am old enough to have grandchildren---and I do have grandchildren---and they will be in the workforce by then and they will be paying off this debt. If the repayment of this debt does not go to plan---and we have found over the years with this government that most things have not gone to plan and just about everything has doubled in price---I can see my great-grandchildren paying this debt.
Unemployment rate
We have a 7.25 per cent unemployment rate---175,000 people. People are paying very dearly for the squandering of the money over the past decade. They are losing their jobs and they are paying more and more in fees, levies, charges and taxes. They are doing it extremely tough and then the Treasurer releases a statement that says that ministers will no longer get free lunches, which will save $28,000 per annum. Can anyone blame the general public for being cynical about politicians? I certainly do not.
Funding of programs in Nanango electorate
At this point I should acknowledge a couple of questionably good things in the budget. One was the annual rise in the electricity rebate for pensioners, which will rise in line with the increase in power prices. So pensioners will not be out of pocket in terms of their electricity bills. The other one was the rise in the stamp duty threshold for first home buyers purchasing land, which should save first home buyers $5,600. I cannot help feeling very cynical. These are good ideas and I commend the government for them. But I wonder how much the first home buyers will save when freight, fees and other charges continue to rise. Will their Australian dream become a nightmare?
The Nanango electorate will benefit from this budget to the tune of more than $200 million, but that funding is primarily for the continuation of Tarong Energy to secure its future fuel supply and to continue the supply of energy to the state. Tarong Energy provides an essential service. But it worries me that in due course even that may be put as a job lot. There are other projects that I will refer to later in this speech but I believe it is necessary to outline that this budget is basically letting my electorate down.
In relation to health, there is 80 per cent more funding than last year, which is definitely needed. There are 646 more doctors and nurses. How many will go to rural and regional areas? The planned Sunshine Coast Hospital has been postponed. In rural areas we dream of having a new hospital and we dream of not having other hospitals closed down. I can see that each day people from my area will be forced onto the congested roads of Brisbane as they try to seek services.
In relation to education, it was pleasing to see in the budget that Kingaroy State High will get $2,600,000 towards the Burnett trade training centre. This is a very worthwhile program and has been beneficial to the area.
Ms Struthers interjected.
Mrs PRATT: It is a perfectly good school and it has got great leadership. That is to be acknowledged. Nanango State Preschool will receive almost $2 million for construction of an early childhood education centre. Their community will thank the government for that. But we do not thank the government for overlooking the Kingaroy 'dump-of-the-month' Police Station. It is only so often one can putty and paint over termite damage and crowd police into small rooms. I believe that if the government spoke to those police officers they would be begging them to give them a decent place to work to do the job of protecting the community as is expected of them.
Registration increases not to be spent on roads
Roads are another major problem. I note that this budget is $300 million down on previous funding. It is mostly federal funding that we are talking about and it is mostly going to the south-east corner. I will not argue with that because I have no problem with roads being built anywhere and I am very grateful when I see them in my area. I do ask: why is it that the government has not been able to keep up many of our bridges on the major highways like the New England Highway, the D'Aguilar Highway, and the Brisbane Valley? Why has the government not kept them as dual carriageways? It has been reducing them steadily to single-lane bridges. These are major thoroughfares in Queensland that are seen by people from other states and visitors from overseas. The government tells me that it is to do with the safety of the bridges and their carrying capacity but it is a retrograde step to let our bridges fall into such disrepair.
Recently the Treasurer stated that there would be a 20 per cent rise in registration costs and that that money would not go into the roads budget as would normally occur but into consolidated revenue. The government also touts very strongly its desire to reduce our road toll. But this money grab, to me and to my constituents, puts the lie to that professed desire to reduce our road toll.
Mr SPEAKER: The word 'lie' is unparliamentary. You will withdraw it immediately.
Mrs PRATT: It puts an untruth to that desire. The government is going nowhere but backwards. If it was possible I would like to see much, much more money going into roads. Those opposite might ask where it would go. The point I make is that it should be spread around a little bit more. The member for Chatsworth was quite honestly standing up in this House and stating how happy he was with the government's performance. I have to say to the member for Chatsworth: you have the benefit of being on the governing side.
Mr SPEAKER: Talk through the chair, please. Do not talk to the member. You will address your comments through the chair.
Mrs PRATT: The member for Chatsworth might be big enough to recognise the fact that he has a distinct advantage over any electorate that is on the opposing side.
(Time expired)
Footnotes
#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ Whilst we think Dorothy Pratt's advice to union members that they tear up their membership cards is perfcetly understandable, given the cowardly capitulation of most union leaders before the state Government over privatisation. Nevertheless, we would counsel disgruntled union members to remain as members and fight to replace their current union leaders with leaders who are prepared to stand up for their members' best interests.
#main-fn2" id="main-fn2">2. #main-fn2-txt">↑ There is a view amongst most environmentalists that the fuel subsidy was unjustified because it encourages consumption of a resource that can only become increasingly scarce after the world production of petroleum inevitably peaks. Nevertheless, the Labor Party made a solemn promise to retain the fuel subsidy at the 2009 election. Whatever claimed justification for the abolition of the fuel subsidy exists now would have been just as valid prior to the elecctions.
Victorian Bushfires - Government gross neglect of emergency management
This was originally a post in response to the article "The climate nightmare is real and it is happening now" of 20 Jun 09. - JS
The analogy of the Titanic is apt in relation to rural communities entrusting those in charge to be able to deal with emergencies. Trust in government is appropriate (why we pay our bloody taxes), but government systemically neglects its responsibility and abuses that public trust. Government has the nerve to entice volunteer members of the community to do its dirty work - aka the CFA.
So individuals have given up on their government to be able to respond adequately to emergencies (bushfires, floods, droughts, etc) feel compelled to take measures themselves. Building a bunker is a vigilante response. I'm not saying its not a constructive response, but it is indicative government failing to protect bushfire-prone communities. It's like residents losing faith in the police and feeling compelled to being vigilantes. It's akin to Titanic passengers bringing along their own liferafts.
To attribute blame on climate change ignores the role of government and in the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires lets government get away with manslaughter - literally.
Look into the history of the causes of the Titanic sinking and one can draw many comparisons with the failures of Emergency Management Australia in how it failed to protect life, property and ecological values from the bushfires across Victoria last January and February. The root causes of the (a) 1914 Titanic's sinking and (b) the loss of 1495 lives were: management culture, poor contingency planning, design flaws, poor governance (e.g. inadequate safety regulations), poor operational response, amongst others.
The root causes of (a) the 2009 Victorian Bushfires being allowed to grow into unstoppable infernos and (b) the tragic loss of 127 lives were: management culture, poor contingency planning, design flaws, poor governance (e.g. inadequate safety regulations), poor operational response, amongst others.
The basic question is what emergency strategy was adopted to deal with the Victorian bushfires and why didn't it work adequately to achieve a best practice outcome - no lives lost, no houses lost, no wildlife killed?
A root cause of the firestorms being allowed to become firestorms from multiple ignitions is that insufficient dedicated resourcing was provided to deal with the hundreds of ignitions in extreme tinder dry conditions with high winds. The government agencies (CFA, et al) knew the fire index was 300, that this was the worst on record, yet did stuff all to prepare or warn the public. There was a wind change forecast, yet this was not communicated to residents. Relying upon volunteers to drive fire tankers to remote ignitions is proven as ineffective as pissing into a wall of flame.
The 1940's fire fighting thinking needs to be overhauled - by the time the 000 call is received, the volunteers are called in, drive their fire trucks out to an ignition, two hours later, that ignition has spotted into a fire front and its too late! Happens all the time!
Another root cause is government allowing people to build in the bush in extreme fire risk locations and in houses that are not bushfire resistant.
The tragedy is that after the Royal Commission, the likely response is to incinerate the bush like no tomorrow - destroy the natural environment that people yearn to be near. It will fail to recognise the complexity of the causes and the solutions and will advocate a knee-jerk - troglodyte ('ugg ugg') burn the lot approach. The Commission's verdict will fuel Brumby's Final Solution to prescribe Victoria back to the Stone Age.
A key question is what is government leadership in fire fighting to do - i.e Emergency Management Australia? How about four fundamental approaches:
1. Introduce world-leading scientific research and monitoring of bushfire threats - climate and weather conditions, bush conditions, arson investigation, lightning, and integrate these with bushfire fighting.
2. Obtain state-of-the-art monitoring of bushfire-prone areas across South Eastern Australia to the point where ignitions and plumes in the remotest of locations can be detected within minutes of them starting, feeding this data to a central database and to a standby emergency professional and national response unit.
3. Employ military-esque emergency services professionals to respond to ignitions within an hour of starting - airborne professionals, not a volunteer 'dads army' sitting in trucks.
4. Resource Australian Firefighting with serious air resources to combat bushfires with military efficiency and scale. A chunk of Rudd's $26 billion budget on Defence should have gone to setting up a national airborne fire fighting response division and an integrated satellite detection, alert and response system/unit. Isn't this defence at home?
Unless the above is done, nothing will change, but now that Titanic has sunk (Victorian Bushfires have killed 127, cost billions in property losses and contributed to many local extinctions) we no longer should be shocked when it happens all over again.
As for bunkers, no government will guarantee a bunker to protect life ever.
One must attribute responsibility to the top of government, down. I hold Kevin Rudd accountable for the next bushfire tragedy and we are six months before next January.
See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives", "Fire bunkers could have helped in the Victorian fires", "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end", and associated comments.
Recent comments