THE BATHURST DROUGHT – 1837 -

The drought, which commenced in '37, stayed the unhealthy conditions caused by the wet seasons, but it brought its own troubles with it. One of the first of these was the breaking up of the Bathurst Carrying Company, an association of citizens and settlers who had purchased their own horses and drays, and organised a better system of carriage of goods from Sydney. At first the "Conveyance Company" thought to weather the drought, but the price and carriage of fodder, and the losses among the horses, necessitated its selling out. This was done, and the shareholders had to meet a considerable deficit. Many of them paid up with reluctance, looking upon the call as not only burdensome but unjust--ample evidence of their ignorance as to the responsibilities of public companies. The effect of the drought was to reduce the price of stock to almost nothing. Sheep went down from £2 to 4s. a head, and a number of settlers in the district, who had borrowed the money to buy large quantities at the former price, suffered greatly, may of them never being able to recover from the loss. Later, when most of the stock had died, prices rose--milch cows could not be had for money, and a resident gave £5 for a goat to provide milk for a young child. Food became scarce, and prices for all food stuffs went up to famine rates. Many of the settlers sought to send back their servants to the authorities, but were told that they had them in the times of plenty, and must keep them through the period of scarcity. Children suffered perhaps most of all, and it was the custom of people, visiting with their children, to carry their children's bread with them, knowing how small might be their friend's store. Most of the flour to be had was almost unfit for human use, and could not be baked into palatable bread. It was made from American wheat, which, thrown loosely into ship's holds, malted on the voyage, and at the end had to be washed before being sent to the mill. For three years not a shower of rain fell in Bathurst. Early in the '40s, however, the clouds, which had often gathered, but always dispersed without rain, brought copious torrents, which flooded the river, and turned the wilderness into a garden. From Bathurst Times 11/1/1902 – by an anonymous widow

How is Your Water Footprint?

Not a reference to the human ability to maybe walk on water in times of flooding, but a concept currently being dreamed up by possibly unfunded academics looking for research grants.

This follows along the lines of our now familiar carbon footprint in that it seeks to expose how much water we use to produce our food and to include it in labelling at the supermarket.

From a Farm Online article in January 2011 by Colin Bettles: 

“If a leading a soil and environmental scientist gets his way, consumers will soon be able to identify how much water is involved in production of their favourite goods with ease at the point of sale and identify what region the water comes from.

Its all part of a push to bring about greater understanding and awareness of the water volumes used to make food and fibre products, especially on-farm and irrigated items, through the introduction of a new water labelling footprint”.
UWA Adjunct Professor, Dr Brent Clothier, urged the introduction of a water labelling footprint, while presenting at an agronomy conference in New Zealand in mid-November, titled “Food Security from Sustainable Agriculture”.

One commentator wondered how many millions of litres would be labelled on fish.

The link below provides and interesting insight into the scientific brain that believes that water is a finite resource and that as it is used up it goes POOF and disappears.

It completely overlooks the fact that there is a precipitation cycle.

The world’s total rain precipitation in a year is about one meter and about 200 metres have fallen on the Earth since the Industrial Revolution.

Since the Ice Age ended, enough rain has fallen to fill all the oceans four times.

Since the Dinosaurs died, rainfall has been sufficient to fill the oceans 20,000 times.

So one has to wonder, where the overflow runs to, and where is earths great spillway.

It seems the amount of water on Earth probably hasn’t changed significantly over geological time.

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/push-for-water-footprint-labelling/2037234.aspx

Gladstone fishers unimpressed by compensation offer

Gladstone commercial fishers are unimpressed by a new compensation offer from Gladstone Ports Corporation announced yesterday.
The scheme explained by GPC chief executive Leo Zussino basically offers eligible fishers the equivalent of 1.5 years earnings based on their best production figures in recent years for loss of access to fishing grounds as a result of the massive Western Basin Dredging Project, but does not take into account any compensation for the ongoing fish disease. It also makes no mention of seafood businesses affected, and applications from fishers will be considered on an individual basis.
Mr Zussino maintains that the diseased seafood is linked to the floods two years ago, a theory which was recently soundly refuted by aquatic disease expert Dr Matt Landos following extensive investigations in Gladstone Harbour. He found that the disease problem was most likely linked to the dredging.
Commercial fisher Trevor Falzon has described the GPC offer as a slap in the face, and owner of the Gladstone Seafood Markets, Ted Whittingham, said it was a token offer, given the volume of diseased seafood still being caught in the harbour.
The GPC's clumisly worded media release can be read in full here http://www.gpcl.com.au/Portals/0/2012%20media%20releases/19_December_2012_GPC_to_compensate_commercial_fishers.pdf

 but the ABC's PM program had this comprehensive report yesterday:

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3657947.htm  (ABC’s PM)

  

SALLY SARA: Gladstone's commercial fishing industry has rejected millions of dollars in compensation for a dredging project in central Queensland. Gladstone Harbour is being transformed to make way for the growing liquefied natural gas industry. 

The local fishing industry is being compensated for reduced access in parts of the harbour as the project develops. But fishermen say they should also be compensated for an outbreak of diseased fish which they blame on the dredging.

Stephanie Smail reports. 

STEPHANIE SMAIL: The port of Gladstone is shaping up to be one of Australia's busiest liquefied natural gas hubs. To make way for the new industry, the harbour is undergoing one of the biggest dredging operations ever attempted inshore from the Great Barrier Reef.

The project was only given approval if fishermen were promised compensation for reduced access to the area.

The Gladstone Ports Corporation's chief executive, Leo Zussino, announced the package today.

LEO ZUSSINO: For those fishers who have fished in the affected areas around the Western Basin, they will effectively receive one and a half years of their gross revenue as compensation for this temporary loss of access because of the dredging project.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: But Mr Zussino stresses the compensation has nothing to do with the outbreak of sick fish in Gladstone Harbour last year.

Local fishermen blamed dredging and development in the harbour when fish with sores, rashes and infected eyes were found in the region. More than 60 affected fishermen and business operators lodged a multimillion dollar compensation claim, but it was rejected by the courts.

Leo Zussino says there is no scientific evidence linking the dredging and the diseased fish.

LEO ZUSSINO: We will put all of our weight on that scientific evidence, and very clearly there were diseased fish in Gladstone Harbour. From all the information we have been given, it all related to the barramundi that came over the Awoonga Dam and the lack of food and the stressed conditions and the lack of salinity in Gladstone Harbour. And so we accept that, but it wasn't caused by the dredging project.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: Gladstone's commercial fishing industry has rejected the Ports Corporation's compensation package.

Local fisherman Trevor Falzon says it's not enough money and he won't bother applying for it.

TREVOR FALZON: It's just not worth it in its form now. If GCP (Gladstone Ports Corporation) come up with a better offer, we're willing to negotiate.

But the thing is, GCP have released it today just before Christmas, thinking it was a merry Christmas for all the commercial fisherman - in fact, it was just a slap in the face.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: He insists there is evidence linking the dredging to the diseased fish and says ultimately, the Gladstone Ports Corporation is to blame. 

TREVOR FALZON: They've just got their heads in the sand and don't want to know anything about it because they do realise what they're up against as far as compensation for not only commercial fishermen but anybody who has anything to do with this development, who worked on the harbour. They know they're liable for that.

STEPHANIE SMAIL: Applications for compensation will be assessed from early next year. But many in Gladstone's commercial fishing industry have vowed to keep fighting to prove the diseased fish outbreak was linked to the dredging. They're determined to win the compensation package they say they deserve.


“Duchessing” of Industry Organisations?

I read a comment, the other day, that one of the problems facing industry bodies was the “duchessing” of their representatives by governments.

Being part of a democracy and not an aristocracy, I was not sure what this meant, so had to go to Google.

For the interest of members, I have posted some of the definitions below:

“To court or curry favour for political or business advantage”

 “Heaped with insincere praise”

“Overwhelm with flattering attention”

“Flatter or obsequiously (servile, compliant) fawning”

To curry  favour?

Apparently this has nothing to do with Indian food. It comes instead from an Old French verb conraier - 'to prepare', 'to put in order'. This is the same source as the name for the rubbing down and dressing of horses - curry-combing.

Then, the second word was originally not 'favour' but 'favel'.

John Palsgrave's Lesclarcissement de la langue françoyse [The clarification of

the French language], 1530, records a curryfavell as 'a flatterar'.

Favel comes from the 1310 poem by the French royal clerk Gervais du Bus - Roman de Fauvel [The Romance of Fauvel]. That morality tale relates the story of Fauvel, an ambitious and vain donkey, who deceives and corrupts the greedy leaders of church and state. The name Fauvel or Favvel, which is formed from 'fau-vel' (in English 'veiled lie'), is an acrostic made from the initial letters of a version of the seven deadly sins: flaterie (flattery/pride), avarice (greed/gluttony), vilanie (wrath), variété (inconstancy), envie (envy), and lacheté (cowardice).

In the poem, the rich and powerful humiliate themselves by bowing down and stroking the coat of the false leader, i.e. by 'currying Fauvel'.

So to Curry Favour is to try to make someone like you or support you by doing things to please them.

Now, getting back to the Duchessing and Aristocrats caused me to recall Peter Spencer’s comment whilst on the Tower of Hope, that we “are in a democracy not an aristocracy”, although this is becoming much harder to believe, given the decisions that are being made by the Government without any “real” consultation.

Home on the Sheep’s Back - Home on Ponzi Finance - or Home & Away?

Is Australia is experiencing an unsustainable housing bubble?

Is the growth in house values based upon sound fundamentals or are Australian house prices severely overvalued and due for a correction?

The property industry and industry experts and real estate “spruikers” would have you believe that Australia is different to the rest of the world and that our housing market is underpinned by a strong economy, high population growth and housing shortages as well as a strong banking system.
 
So who is correct?

Australia’s housing market is being underpinned by, what could be called, “Ponzi finance”, whereby the rental income from a property does not cover the debt expense incurred to purchase the asset, therefore, requiring perpetual capital growth, a supply of “greater fools” or subsequent investors to eventually purchase and ever-increasing levels of debt to perpetuate it?

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, real rents have increased by around 15 per cent since 1987 whilst real house prices have risen by around 165 per cent over the same period. It is no surprise, then, that yields on rental houses have plummeted from around 8 per cent in 1987 to 3.5 per cent currently.

Could our housing market then be a debt-fuelled time bomb or a bubble in search of a prick?

Prices of productive rural properties such as cattle and grain farms have, historically,   always enjoyed capital gain regardless of the return to capital being generated and over decades, prices rose and then levelled out but never dropped – until now where we have seen reductions in market value of around 20% common.

Rural valuers HTW report that “Throughout the year (2010) we have seen varying stages of value corrections, with most areas back a minimum of 10%, and up to 30% or more in some cases. Values may continue to decrease until they are at a level where purchasers can acquire these assets and achieve a reasonable rate of return….”

So back to the housing market and the “Ponzi finance” theory, where investors and owner occupiers have been leveraging up, and “negative gearing”  to buy property in the hope of achieving continued rapid capital growth  or ‘getting in’ before prices increase further.

With the significant low or negative income returns from holding residential property, the only way that house prices can continue to increase faster than incomes is if buyers believe that prices will continue rising and that large capital gains can be made by selling the same asset to other buyers (the ‘greater fool’ theory). Such a scenario requiring ever-increasing debt levels, could well be unsustainable.

Just Terms Compensation and Foreign Investment

In a recent Senate Enquiry into the effects of the Vegetation Management Acts, farmers and graziers sought Just Terms compensation for any new law, restriction or activity on their property that restricted their production or potential production.

Although historically never offered, it was felt that compensation should include the loss of market value of the land as well as annualised value of the loss of production $’s from that land over a reasonable term say 10 years as well as the devaluation of any capital infrastructure that was previously required to support the production from that land. ie: water improvements, fencing, stock yards, employee quarters. For example yards may have been constructed to handle 500 head but now only required to handle 300 head; fencing and waters were constructed to serve the land and are no longer required; the property may not longer need to employ as many workers.

Failing any adequate “Just Terms” compensation it was felt that the only effective outcome would be for whoever places a blot (encumbrance) on a property then they should buy it (not just offer compensation) and the purchase price should include a premium above market value to allow for re-location.

We are now seeing this type of outcome as mining companies purchase properties over which they have leases and the prices they are paying are in excess of reasonable market value within the rural industry.

The flip side to this is the subsequent loss of prime farming land to mining and the difficulty for the displaced farmer in finding a suitable replacement property.

The other disturbing outcome is the purchase of farming country by mining companies that are foreign owned. Recently a Chinese mining company purchased 43 properties in the Liverpool Plains area, near Gunnedah in NSW at individual values that came under the criteria for approval by the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB).

Legal challenge over LNG funding launched in US

The following article was published recently in The Great Barrier Reef Blog. Anyone who thinks the Gladstone developments are of local interest only is deluded at best. UNESCO is also being kept informed of events unfolding, including the damning reports by aquatic disease expert Dr Matt Landos who points to the massive dredging project associated with the developments as the most likely cause of the continuing diseases affecting marine life :

Lawsuit Launched Against Multi-billion-dollar U.S. Subsidy of Fossil Fuel Projects in

Australia‘s Great Barrier Reef

Facilities Would Threaten Sea Turtles, Other Endangered Species

Contact:

Sarah Uhlemann, Center for Biological Diversity, (206) 327-2344
Doug Norlen, Pacific Environment, (202) 465-1650
Teri Shore, Turtle Island Restoration Network, (707) 934-7081

SAN FRANCISCO— Three conservation groups initiated a legal challenge today to the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s nearly $3 billion in financing for two massive fossil-fuel facilities in Australia’sGreat Barrier Reef. Construction and operation of the liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities will threaten dugongs, sea turtles, saltwater crocodiles and numerous other protected marine species within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area..

“The U.S. really shouldn’t be subsidizing new fossil fuel projects anywhere on the planet, but for the Obama administration to fund a project that will despoil a fantastic World Heritage Area like theGreat Barrier Reef is unforgivable,” said Sarah Uhlemann, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Dirty fossil fuel projects don’t belong in this world-famous marine sanctuary.”

The Export-Import Bank, a federal agency that funds international projects to promote U.S. exports, is currently approving financing — including direct loans — for the two LNG projects in Queensland, northeast Australia. The Australia Pacific LNG and Queensland Curtis LNG projects will involve drilling up to 16,000 gas wells in the Surat Basin, west of Brisbane, using controversial “fracking” techniques, construction of hundreds of miles of gas pipelines and two massive LNGprocessing and export facilities. The Bank is also reportedly considering financing a coal-export facility in the Great Barrier Reef as well.

“The Export-Import Bank has a sad history of funding environmental destruction around the world,” said Doug Norlen, policy director of Pacific Environment. “Ex-Im Bank should focus on renewable energy rather than projects that further the world’s addiction to fossil fuels.”

The LNG processing and export plants will be located within the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The Great Barrier Reef gained World Heritage status for its remarkable natural beauty, coral reefs and rare dugong and sea turtle habitat.  UNESCO, the international body charged with overseeing implementation of the World Heritage Convention, issued a report in June expressing “extreme concern” over the LNG projects’ impacts to the reef, noting that the reef may soon be listed as “in Danger,” a designation made when activities of the host country or outside entities threaten a World Heritage Area.

The LNG projects will also affect several species protected by the U.S. Endangered Species Act, including endangered dugongs and threatened green and loggerhead sea turtles.

“Sea turtles and dugongs are already imperiled due to the fossil fuel frenzy now underway acrossAustralia,” said Teri Shore, program director of Turtle Island Restoration Network. “To allow oil companies to industrialize this critical nesting and feeding haven in the Great Barrier Reef will push these vulnerable marine animals ever closer to the brink.”

The formal notice of intent to challenge Export-Import Bank’s funding of the LNG projects asserts violations of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, which implements U.S. obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The formal notice is a legal prerequisite before a case can be brought under theEndangered Species Act.