PDA

View Full Version : Ever wonder why we are in the poo!



FNQCairns
11-02-2010, 03:40 PM
Why was a our official delegation accompanied by even one of the gross number of NGO zealot organisations in this country.

IMHO corruption by any other name, wonder if they all shared a room:-*

Excerpts from Senate Estimates Hearings with DEWHA officials
Tuesday, 9 February 2010

Officials from the Department of the Environment:
Mr Stephen Oxley, Acting First Assistant Secretary (Marine Division)
Mr Peter Burnett, First Assistant Secretary (Approvals and Wildlife Division)

Consultation prior to the Rome meeting of CMS – December 2008
Mr Oxley—there was consultation undertaken with each of the state and territory governments or their departments that managed fisheries, in particular.
Senator COLBECK—You are not aware of any consultation with any of the recreational sector as part of the process prior to December 2008?
Mr Oxley—I can confidently say that I do not believe that at that time, which was in late 2008, there was consultation with the recreational fishing sector.

Feedback from State Governments
Senator COLBECK—Can you give me an indication of the feedback that you got from the states?
Mr Oxley—I can do that. I would describe the feedback from the states and territories as mixed. It ranged from support without any qualifications from some of the jurisdictions to statements that were not supportive of the listing taking place.
Senator COLBECK—Is it possible for you to give us an indication of which way each state went on that?
Mr Oxley— …In relation to those that were not supportive of it, New South Wales and Queensland did not support the proposals. There were two core reasons. Firstly, there was a concern that the listing could lead to increases in monitoring and stock assessment costs for the fisheries management agencies. The New South Wales government was also concerned that the species would become a no-take species for fishers, so they understood the operation of the EPBC Act prospectively….South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia were fully supportive of the proposals, and the Victorian government was not definitive one way or the other. I think their take on things was that the impact was likely to be limited…The notes I have in front of me indicate that Tasmania endorsed the listing and suggested that the impact would be negligible.
Involvement of HSI on official delegation to Rome meeting
Mr Oxley— …one of the environment NGOs did participate on the Australian delegation to the CMS meeting
Senator COLBECK—While that is being prepared so that you can have a look at it I should ask: how was the delegation selected?
Mr Oxley—I do not have information at my disposal that tells me how the delegation was selected, so I will need to take that one on notice.
Senator COLBECK—As we both agreed, Humane Society International is listed as an official member of the delegation. Were their expenses covered as part of that process?
Mr Oxley—No. They participated as a member of the delegation on the basis that they fully met their own expenses and that they abided by the rules of engagement for the delegation.
Senator COLBECK—Now that you have a copy of the document, by what process would interested
parties adjoin themselves to the delegation? This is not necessarily a historical thing. I think it is—
Mr Oxley—No, I will leave the historical context behind because I think we have the evidence in front of us as to what the membership of that delegation was—
Senator COLBECK—That is the membership of the delegation?
Mr Oxley—I believe it is. That would appear to be the case. If I can fast-track forward to now and the upcoming conference and parties for the convention on international trade in endangered species, the department has undertaken a broader consultation process in inviting a range of organisations to nominate to join the delegation. That opportunity went out to conservation NGOs and to a number of fishing industry organisations. In fact we have had the Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association put themselves up…as a desired member of the delegation.
I think it would be fair to say that the lesson we learned from the CMS process of 2008 is that it would be best to extend a broader reach out to our stakeholders in order to give them the opportunity to participate in the delegation but also to consult with them on their views in relation to the negotiating position the Australian government would take into any particular conference of the parties under these treaties.
Position taken by the Australian delegation to Rome meeting
Senator COLBECK—Can you give us an indication of the position that we took to the Rome meeting?
Mr Oxley—That we took to the Rome meeting in relation to makos?
Senator COLBECK—In relation to this particular listing, yes.
Mr Oxley—The Australian government position was to support the nomination for listing on appendix II of the CMS. I might add that that position was based on analysis of the nomination proposals that was undertaken by CSIRO. That advice to us indicated that the science was sufficiently strong to support a listing of those species under appendix II.
Hawke Review & Consultation during 2009
Senator COLBECK—My understanding is that indications were given to industry, both commercial and recreational, that the listing would not be proceeded with until after the completion of the review process for the EPBC Act. Can you confirm that or otherwise and then take us to, if that was the case, why the listing proceeded?
Mr Oxley— …My understanding of the discussions that occurred broadly in the first half of last year is that there was a disposition towards allowing the EPBC Act review to work its way through and for the issues about the non-differentiation under the EPBC Act between appendix I and appendix II listed species to be resolved through any broader set of amendments to the EPBC Act that would be made as a result of the government’s consideration of the report of the Hawke review.
That indication was broadly given to stakeholders. Then, as the year progressed, it would be fair to say that there became an increasing level of concern that, given the likely long time frame between the receipt of the Hawke review and the eventual passage of any amendments to the EPBC Act that might flow from it—and I should note that the Hawke review did make some specific findings in relation to the convention on non-migratory species—it was not a sustainable position for the species not to be listed under the EPBC Act given that it was a very black-and-white requirement that that occur and that, if there had been any legal move to force a listing, that would need to have occurred. In those circumstances, our advice to the minister was that the formal listing under the EPBC Act should be moved forward.
Senator COLBECK—Were there any threats to pursue legal action to force the issue?
Mr Oxley—The department or the minister—I cannot recall now which—received one representation from a legal body representing a conservation NGO asking that the listing be progressed.
Senator COLBECK—It was HSI that provided the legal letter, or it was on their representation, to the minister; is that correct?
Mr Oxley—I believe it was on behalf of HSI, yes.
Economic Impact on Recreational Fishing
Senator COLBECK—In the national interest analysis paper that was compiled—and the tabling date that I have got is 25 November—it stated that it is anticipated that the costs for most sectors will be minor. Can I ask where that assessment came from?...If anything stirred up the recreational sector more—apart from the fact that they could not catch a fish when they wanted to—it was the fact that they did not have much of an investment in it. I think they have come out to demonstrate that in terms that you might understand.
Mr Oxley—In those circumstances that assessment would have been based, I presume, on economic cost and I would suggest it would have been focused substantially on commercial fishing impacts. It may not have accounted for recreational impacts but, as I offered, I will take that on notice and come back.
Amendments to EPBC Act
Senator SIEWERT—Could you explain what the process is for that and when the minister is expecting to table the bill?
Mr Burnett—Obviously, the minister has announced the government’s intention to introduce an amendment to the EPBC Act to address this matter specifically. The drafting instructions have been issued, so the legislation is being prepared. The government has allocated a high priority to it and we expect that it will be introduced in the very near future.
Senator SIEWERT—Is that specifically related to any species to stop the automatic listing if a species is declared a migratory species?
Mr Burnett—No, it is specifically to deal with this issue about the mako shark.
Senator SIEWERT—So, it is specifically about the mako sharks?
Mr Burnett—Yes, mako sharks.
Senator SIEWERT—It is specifically about that and it decouples that from the process under the EPBC Act?
Mr Burnett—No, it does not change the listing system, so the shark would remain listed but it will amend another provision of the act close by that lists some exemptions, so it will formalise the exemption for this recreational catch and release.
Senator SIEWERT—And that is expected soon?
Mr Burnett—Soon, yes.

TimiBoy
11-02-2010, 05:13 PM
I received the same. So the ban won't be overturned now? Seems there's some doubt.

Wait for the backlash, Kev. Your Environment Minister is an abject failure, bud.

Tim

Xahn1960
11-02-2010, 05:30 PM
I got the email as well, So our government freely admits lying to us and makes it fairly obvious that they don't care that they lied... Nice one Krudd & crew......

Bill.

FNQCairns
11-02-2010, 05:40 PM
Possibly just a delay? Garrett seems to have a lot of trouble dealing with almost anything, he took ages to sign legislation quashing anglers criminal convictions.

Too many wine, cheese and back slapping nights to attend as a best friend of any number of zealot NGOs is the problem.

cheers fnq

Scott nthQld
12-02-2010, 12:23 PM
I can see another one of cRudd's election "promises" looming, you know all the ones he made last election and never kept a single one? Vote Labor and we will have the Mako Shark excluded from the EPBC Act!! What a load of shit.

As far as I'm concerned Garret should've been sacked ages ago, even more recently over th foil roofing insulation debacle. He knew the safety risks when it was introduced yet said nothing and did nothing to prevent the deaths of 2 individuals and injury to hundreds more. Assualt and manslaughter by inaction at the very least IMO