Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been working hard recently to portray himself as a fair dinkum greenie, but I do have to wonder whether his enthusiasm for preserving nature extends to bats. Intrigued?
The story goes like this, shortly after entering Federal Parliament Tony Abbott was given the job of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, specifically looking after Green Corps.
Part of his responsibilities was turning up for launches and graduations, this did have it's hazards, one morning (according to a very trusted source) getting shat upon by a bat (well, flying fox, much bigger, much more shit) at Wingham Brush (near Taree, NSW), turning up to a following event at Lake Macquarie a couple of hours late and with bat shit very prominent on his shirt (and apparently neither tried to hide it nor make a joke of it).
I like bats.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
The Peter Spencer Case.
We've been hearing an awful lot lately about Peter Spencer, the farmer who's gone on a hunger strike wanting compensation for restrictions placed on him, and other farmers, by both State and Federal laws. There's been an awful lot of noise but very little actual information, so with just a little digging at http://www.austlii.edu.au/.
I've found both the decision of the Federal Court:
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2008) FCA 1256 (26 August 2008)
and the NSW Supreme Court:
Spencer v Australian Capital Territory and Ors (2007) NSWSC 303 (4 April 2007) (against the A.C.T., N.S.W. & Commonwealth Governments).
I'm no lawyer and it's fairly heavy reading and I've only skimmed over it though it is interesting reading, to me the Federal Court appeared more than fair and quite sympathetic to Spencer's plight allowing him to resubmit his statement of claim a number of times but ultimately finding:
I've found both the decision of the Federal Court:
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2008) FCA 1256 (26 August 2008)
and the NSW Supreme Court:
Spencer v Australian Capital Territory and Ors (2007) NSWSC 303 (4 April 2007) (against the A.C.T., N.S.W. & Commonwealth Governments).
I'm no lawyer and it's fairly heavy reading and I've only skimmed over it though it is interesting reading, to me the Federal Court appeared more than fair and quite sympathetic to Spencer's plight allowing him to resubmit his statement of claim a number of times but ultimately finding:
211 One cannot but feel the utmost sympathy for Mr Spencer if it be the case that Saarahnlee has been effectively sterilised by the State Statutes, with the effect that he can no longer carry on at Saarahnlee the activities which he was able to carry on prior to the enactment of the State Statutes. The question before the Court, however, is whether he has demonstrated that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether he is entitled to the final relief that he claims against the Commonwealth. Putting it the other way, the question is whether he has any reasonable prospect of obtaining that relief against the Commonwealth. Each question depends upon establishing that the Financial Assistance Act, the Natural Heritage Act or one of the Inter-Governmental Agreements is invalid in so far as it effects or authorises an acquisition or expropriation of part of Mr Spencer’s property in relation to Saarahnlee.
212 I have concluded that neither the Financial Assistance Act nor the Natural Heritage Act is a law with respect to the acquisition of property. Further, neither of those laws effects or authorises any acquisition of property of Mr Spencer’s that has been identified by him in the statement of claim. Similarly, none of the Inter-Governmental Agreements effects or authorises any such acquisition. It follows, in my opinion, that there is no reasonable prospect that Mr Spencer can obtain the final relief claimed in the proceeding. It also follows that there is no serious question to be tried as to whether Mr Spencer is entitled to that relief.
213 Accordingly, Mr Spencer’s application for interlocutory relief must be dismissed. Further, the proceeding itself must be dismissed.
The Spencer v Australian Capital Territory is interesting in that it combines action against the ACT Government for allowing feral animals onto his property with action against the NSW & Commonwealth Governments regarding native vegetation laws and for compensation for the sequestering of 100 000 Tonnes of Carbon/ year on his property (I may have missed it but I saw no mention of how this figure was arrived at).
The judgement concluded:
42 My conclusions may be summarised as follows:
43 The claim against
the State cannot succeed. The State has power to legislate with respect to the
use of land held in fee simple.
44 The claim against the Commonwealth cannot succeed. The claiming of political credit for a result obtained at the expense of a citizen founds no cause of action known to law.
45 The claim against the Territory is defectively pleaded, but it is not unarguable.
While the pleading in that respect should be struck out, there should be leave to replead against the Territory, and the proceedings against the Territory should not be summarily dismissed. However, as I am not satisfied that if the case goes to trial the plaintiff will obtain judgment for substantial damages against the Territory, the conditions for an interim payment are not satisfied.
46 It follows that I will dismiss the proceedings as against the State and the Commonwealth. I will strike out the statement of claim, but with leave to replead a cause of action in nuisance against the Territory. I will dismiss Mr Spencer’s motion for an interim payment.
47 My orders are:
1. Order that as against the second defendant, the State of New South Wales, and the third defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia, the proceedings be dismissed with costs.
2. Order that the statement of claim be struck out, with leave to replead against the first defendant, the Australian Capital Territory, upon condition that the allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the statement of claim, or allegations to substantially the same effect, not be repeated in any amended statement of claim.
3. Order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the second and third defendants of their motions filed respectively on 9 March and 28 February 2007.
4. No order as to the costs of the first defendant’s motion filed on 13 March 2007, to the intent that the plaintiff and the first defendant bear their own costs of that motion.
5. Order that the plaintiff Mr Spencer’s motion filed on 12 March 2007 be dismissed with costs.
48 Ms England suggested that if any part of the proceedings survived, Mr Spencer should be referred to the Pro Bono Scheme. I was myself inclined to share that view, in the hope that it might facilitate the production of an appropriate statement of claim. Mr Spencer, however, does not wish such a referral. That is a pity, since if he has a viable cause of action it is far more likely to be pleaded properly if he has the benefit of legal assistance. But I see little point in compelling him to seek it when he apparently does not want it. If he reconsiders, he can make his own application for a referral.
So the cases against the NSW & Commonwealth Governments were dismissed with costs, the case against the ACT was defectively pleaded however he was given leave to replead with the suggestion he seek Pro Bono legal assistance. There is far more interesting reading in this case but it would appear that between this and the Federal case there has been an improvement in his case pleading.
And there you go, info you're unlikely to find from the usual suspects.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Onya Carmel!
Sorry I haven't posted in a while, moving house, work etc has all gotten in the way but just watching ABC's Stateline it seems the Shooting Party's bill has been quashed by State Labor with a fair bit of input from Deputy Premier (& Environment Minister) Carmel Tebbut, of course it's all politics but if it quashes bad legislation then it's all good.
More later.
More later.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Media Release from the Invasive Animals CRC
New law creates springboard for feral animal problems
The new NSW Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 runs the risk of increasing Australia’s feral animal populations.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (IA CRC) is concerned with the new provision for game reserves to be established in NSW, where invasive game animals — many of which have been assessed by the national Vertebrate Pests Committee as ‘extreme’ risks — can be ‘housed’ and birds can be ‘released’ for private hunting.
"Game reserves could act as a potential springboard for invasive species. Some of the animals listed in the Bill are not established in Australia and are even listed as ‘high risk species’ in other jurisdictions. The biosecurity chain is only as strong as its weakest link and game reserves are set to be NSW’s weakest biosecurity link," said Professor Tony Peacock, Chief Executive Officer of the IA CRC.
The Bobwhite quail, for example, is prohibited in Western Australia. It is well suited to mixed habitats and known to compete with species of native quail, yet it is included in the proposed list.
"I’m somewhat flummoxed that we’re still having this debate 150 years after the ‘innocent’ proposal to bring rabbits to Australia. The rabbit has now become one of the most destructive invasive pests in Australia. The English gentleman responsible actually said at the time: ‘The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting’," said Professor Peacock.
The Bill also appears to conflict with the NSW Invasive Species Plan, the first goal of which is to prevent the establishment of new invasive species. The plan states: ‘The most effective way to minimise the impacts of invasive species is to prevent their initial incursion’.
Other species, such as feral spotted turtle doves, are already found in NSW and illustrate the risk of numbers of feral animals exploding. They first became established in Alice Springs in the early 1990s when just 10 birds were liberated from a backyard aviary. Since then, the population has steadily grown and today numbers are thought to exceed 8000 birds.
"Expanding the list could open a floodgate for possible establishment of problem animals. The biosecurity of the environment is a concern not only for the sake of Australia’s environmental assets, but also because of the scope for wild animals and plants to act as a reservoir for pests and diseases that have broader effects," said Professor Peacock.
"There’s a pretty basic cause and effect scenario that’s likely to result. By including these animals in the Act, there is an incentive to introduce populations that will create a new springboard for invasive animal problems," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to read the proposed legislation it is here
The new NSW Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009 runs the risk of increasing Australia’s feral animal populations.
The Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre (IA CRC) is concerned with the new provision for game reserves to be established in NSW, where invasive game animals — many of which have been assessed by the national Vertebrate Pests Committee as ‘extreme’ risks — can be ‘housed’ and birds can be ‘released’ for private hunting.
"Game reserves could act as a potential springboard for invasive species. Some of the animals listed in the Bill are not established in Australia and are even listed as ‘high risk species’ in other jurisdictions. The biosecurity chain is only as strong as its weakest link and game reserves are set to be NSW’s weakest biosecurity link," said Professor Tony Peacock, Chief Executive Officer of the IA CRC.
The Bobwhite quail, for example, is prohibited in Western Australia. It is well suited to mixed habitats and known to compete with species of native quail, yet it is included in the proposed list.
"I’m somewhat flummoxed that we’re still having this debate 150 years after the ‘innocent’ proposal to bring rabbits to Australia. The rabbit has now become one of the most destructive invasive pests in Australia. The English gentleman responsible actually said at the time: ‘The introduction of a few rabbits could do little harm and might provide a touch of home, in addition to a spot of hunting’," said Professor Peacock.
The Bill also appears to conflict with the NSW Invasive Species Plan, the first goal of which is to prevent the establishment of new invasive species. The plan states: ‘The most effective way to minimise the impacts of invasive species is to prevent their initial incursion’.
Other species, such as feral spotted turtle doves, are already found in NSW and illustrate the risk of numbers of feral animals exploding. They first became established in Alice Springs in the early 1990s when just 10 birds were liberated from a backyard aviary. Since then, the population has steadily grown and today numbers are thought to exceed 8000 birds.
"Expanding the list could open a floodgate for possible establishment of problem animals. The biosecurity of the environment is a concern not only for the sake of Australia’s environmental assets, but also because of the scope for wild animals and plants to act as a reservoir for pests and diseases that have broader effects," said Professor Peacock.
"There’s a pretty basic cause and effect scenario that’s likely to result. By including these animals in the Act, there is an incentive to introduce populations that will create a new springboard for invasive animal problems," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to read the proposed legislation it is here
More on the Game and Feral Animal Control bill
Tony Peacock, CEO of the Invasive Animals CRC weighs into it over at Feral Thoughts
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
NSW Shooters Party: What a pack of dickheads.
Hot on the heels of their fucking over of farming communities in Gloucester and the Liverpool Plains the Shooters Party are at it again. Their latest act of bastardry is introducing a bill called the "Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill 2009", now the aim of this bill is:
Overview of Bill
The object of this Bill is to amend the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002
(the Act) as follows:
(a) to enable the Minister responsible for national park estate land to make that land available for the hunting of game animals by licensed game hunters,
(b) to expand the list of game animals that may be hunted in accordance with the Act and, in the case of any native game animals that are listed, to impose special requirements in relation to the hunting of those animals by licensed game hunters,
(c) to provide for the operation of private game reserves under the authority of a licence granted by the Game Council,
(d) to make it an offence to approach persons who are lawfully hunting on declared public hunting land or to interfere with persons lawfully hunting game animals,
(e) to make a number of other amendments of an administrative, minor or consequential nature.
Basically they want to open up National Parks for "recreational hunting" (on top of the 2 million hectares of public land they already have available) and want to establish private game reserves where feral animals can be released for the purpose of hunting (and they'd never get out would they?). The Shooters Party and the Game Council like to claim that the hunting is good for controlling feral animals (and at the same time maintain that it helps keep a healthy population of native "game species" - how does that work?) the Invasive Species Council has examined their claims:
Feral animals killed 2007-08 2006-07 Total (average/year)
Deer 410 291 701 (350)
Foxes 724 519 1243 (622)
Goats 1037 1039 2076 (1038)
Pigs 1081 983 2064 (1032)
Cats 136 143 279 (139)
Dogs 55 51 106 (53)
Rabbits 4076 2078 6154 (3077)
Hares 242 244 486 (243)
Total 7761 5348 13,109 (6554)
Given the funding given to the Game Council this equates to $323/feral animal killed in State Forests, obviously a very effective excercise.
So lets look at a few more things in the proposed bill:
Offence of failing to contain game animals in game reserve
(1) The holder of a private game reserve licence must not cause or allow a game animal (other than a bird) to escape from the private game reserve to which the licence relates.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units in the case of a corporation or 50 penalty units in the case of an individual.
(2) It is a defence to prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) if it is demonstrated that the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the escape of the game animal and, after the escape, took all reasonable steps to capture or kill the game animal.
So it's fine for feral birds to escape from a private game park and a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units should your stock of feral animals escape, a penalty unit is (from memory) $110 dollars so for a corporation the most it will cost you is $11000 or an individual $5500.
"But we went an hunted them after they escaped but they got away" which is where part 2 comes in, great excuse, fuck all responsibility. Lovely.
And one of the ammendments of a minor nature is:
[8] Section 8 Membership and procedure of Game Council
Omit “New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council” from section 8 (2) (e). Insert instead “Minister administering the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983”.
Sounds like a great bit of legislation. I'll have a bit more of a read of it and throw up some links later (and tidy up the post) but if you feel like writing to someone, here's a start:
The Hon. Ian Macdonald, MLCMinister for Primary Industries Email: macdonald.office@macdonald.minister.nsw.gov.au
Street Address: Governor Macquarie Tower, Level 33, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, MP Minister for Climate Change & the Environment
Email: dp.office@tebbutt.minister.nsw.gov.auStreet Address: Governor Macquarie Tower, Level 30, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000
Overview of Bill
The object of this Bill is to amend the Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002
(the Act) as follows:
(a) to enable the Minister responsible for national park estate land to make that land available for the hunting of game animals by licensed game hunters,
(b) to expand the list of game animals that may be hunted in accordance with the Act and, in the case of any native game animals that are listed, to impose special requirements in relation to the hunting of those animals by licensed game hunters,
(c) to provide for the operation of private game reserves under the authority of a licence granted by the Game Council,
(d) to make it an offence to approach persons who are lawfully hunting on declared public hunting land or to interfere with persons lawfully hunting game animals,
(e) to make a number of other amendments of an administrative, minor or consequential nature.
Basically they want to open up National Parks for "recreational hunting" (on top of the 2 million hectares of public land they already have available) and want to establish private game reserves where feral animals can be released for the purpose of hunting (and they'd never get out would they?). The Shooters Party and the Game Council like to claim that the hunting is good for controlling feral animals (and at the same time maintain that it helps keep a healthy population of native "game species" - how does that work?) the Invasive Species Council has examined their claims:
Feral animals killed 2007-08 2006-07 Total (average/year)
Deer 410 291 701 (350)
Foxes 724 519 1243 (622)
Goats 1037 1039 2076 (1038)
Pigs 1081 983 2064 (1032)
Cats 136 143 279 (139)
Dogs 55 51 106 (53)
Rabbits 4076 2078 6154 (3077)
Hares 242 244 486 (243)
Total 7761 5348 13,109 (6554)
Given the funding given to the Game Council this equates to $323/feral animal killed in State Forests, obviously a very effective excercise.
So lets look at a few more things in the proposed bill:
Offence of failing to contain game animals in game reserve
(1) The holder of a private game reserve licence must not cause or allow a game animal (other than a bird) to escape from the private game reserve to which the licence relates.
Maximum penalty: 100 penalty units in the case of a corporation or 50 penalty units in the case of an individual.
(2) It is a defence to prosecution for an offence under subsection (1) if it is demonstrated that the defendant took all reasonable steps to prevent the escape of the game animal and, after the escape, took all reasonable steps to capture or kill the game animal.
So it's fine for feral birds to escape from a private game park and a maximum penalty of 100 penalty units should your stock of feral animals escape, a penalty unit is (from memory) $110 dollars so for a corporation the most it will cost you is $11000 or an individual $5500.
"But we went an hunted them after they escaped but they got away" which is where part 2 comes in, great excuse, fuck all responsibility. Lovely.
And one of the ammendments of a minor nature is:
[8] Section 8 Membership and procedure of Game Council
Omit “New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council” from section 8 (2) (e). Insert instead “Minister administering the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983”.
Sounds like a great bit of legislation. I'll have a bit more of a read of it and throw up some links later (and tidy up the post) but if you feel like writing to someone, here's a start:
The Hon. Ian Macdonald, MLCMinister for Primary Industries Email: macdonald.office@macdonald.minister.nsw.gov.au
Street Address: Governor Macquarie Tower, Level 33, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000
The Hon. Carmel Tebbutt, MP Minister for Climate Change & the Environment
Email: dp.office@tebbutt.minister.nsw.gov.auStreet Address: Governor Macquarie Tower, Level 30, 1 Farrer Place, SYDNEY NSW 2000
Thursday, June 4, 2009
And more bad news....
The drilling continues....
AGL drilling to go on in Hunter
DEBRA JOPSON
5/06/2009 5:36:00 AM
BOB KENNEDY'S five-bedroom house dropped 1.8 metres over six days when mining company Xstrata Coal moved into a seam under his 40-hectare vineyard near Broke in the Hunter Valley, but he is more worried about whether the nearby brook will keep bubbling.
He and fellow producers are concerned that the gas company AGL Energy's drilling will interfere with the purity and flow of subterranean aquifers which feed the area's agricultural lifeblood, the Wollombi Brook.
The people of the Broke Fordwich Winegrowers Association area have asked AGL to excise the 26 square kilometres that is home to 25 wine labels from the company's large exploration area.
"We market this part of the world as the tranquil side of the Hunter, because it really is unspoilt. Sydney Gas said there could be over 300 wells in our valley. We are concerned about the ambience and turning it into an industrial-type site," said Mr Kennedy, from the 400-member Hunter Valley Protection Alliance.
However, AGL, which recently paid $171 million to buy out its partner in Hunter exploration, Sydney Gas, intends to keep drilling, according to its group general manager of upstream gas, Michael Moraza.
(given that the asset - the gas - is estimated to be worth $10 billion at todays prices that's not a bad deal - SQ)
"Our intention is not to excise this area and we are not prepared to give any such undertaking to the community," he said.
Mr Kennedy says this makes the coal company and the laws which govern it look comparatively good.
AGL, armed with its exploration permits, Mr Kennedy says, has produced mainly "spin" in dealing with locals concerned about exploration drill holes disturbing coal bed methane gas close to Broke Public School, the effect on the water table and the prospect of a future gas plant.
Gloucester Council and its Hunter neighbours successfully put a motion to the Shires Association of NSW conference in Sydney this week calling on the Rees Government to forbid mining or exploration within scenic protection and urban and rural residential zones.
The motion said there should be special protection for agriculture and water, and environmental impact should be counted above economic benefit to the state when considering gas and coal extraction.
(any bets on their chance of succeeding? - SQ)
Any environmental impact of gas drilling around Broke would be minimal and transitory, Mr Moraza said. AGL has hired an independent consultant and project manager to deal with community concerns.
AGL drilling to go on in Hunter
DEBRA JOPSON
5/06/2009 5:36:00 AM
BOB KENNEDY'S five-bedroom house dropped 1.8 metres over six days when mining company Xstrata Coal moved into a seam under his 40-hectare vineyard near Broke in the Hunter Valley, but he is more worried about whether the nearby brook will keep bubbling.
He and fellow producers are concerned that the gas company AGL Energy's drilling will interfere with the purity and flow of subterranean aquifers which feed the area's agricultural lifeblood, the Wollombi Brook.
The people of the Broke Fordwich Winegrowers Association area have asked AGL to excise the 26 square kilometres that is home to 25 wine labels from the company's large exploration area.
"We market this part of the world as the tranquil side of the Hunter, because it really is unspoilt. Sydney Gas said there could be over 300 wells in our valley. We are concerned about the ambience and turning it into an industrial-type site," said Mr Kennedy, from the 400-member Hunter Valley Protection Alliance.
However, AGL, which recently paid $171 million to buy out its partner in Hunter exploration, Sydney Gas, intends to keep drilling, according to its group general manager of upstream gas, Michael Moraza.
(given that the asset - the gas - is estimated to be worth $10 billion at todays prices that's not a bad deal - SQ)
"Our intention is not to excise this area and we are not prepared to give any such undertaking to the community," he said.
Mr Kennedy says this makes the coal company and the laws which govern it look comparatively good.
AGL, armed with its exploration permits, Mr Kennedy says, has produced mainly "spin" in dealing with locals concerned about exploration drill holes disturbing coal bed methane gas close to Broke Public School, the effect on the water table and the prospect of a future gas plant.
Gloucester Council and its Hunter neighbours successfully put a motion to the Shires Association of NSW conference in Sydney this week calling on the Rees Government to forbid mining or exploration within scenic protection and urban and rural residential zones.
The motion said there should be special protection for agriculture and water, and environmental impact should be counted above economic benefit to the state when considering gas and coal extraction.
(any bets on their chance of succeeding? - SQ)
Any environmental impact of gas drilling around Broke would be minimal and transitory, Mr Moraza said. AGL has hired an independent consultant and project manager to deal with community concerns.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)