Scrutiny needed for Powerlink projects

Powerlink is proposing the construction multiple high voltage transmission lines in the north west of the Surat Basin in a web over the land of farming families to supply electricity to coal seam gas infrastructure. This site first covered this issue back in March with the post, Petition against abuse of power by Powerlink.

Congratulations to Kerry Ladbrook who in the 8th August edition of the Queensland Country Life was awarded issue of the week on the letters to the editor page. In the first sentence Kerry refers to Premier Campbell Newman's office asking the question about greater scrutiny for government owned corporations. To read this in full [click here]

 PREVIOUS RELATED POSTS

Petition against abuse of power by Powerlink

 

Power price rise link to Powerlink

 

.

Northern Australia should have a say in its own future

By Allan Dale, James Cook University
Cross post under The Conversation republishing guidelines 




Northern futures, northern voices: It seems everyone has ideas about how Australia’s north could be better, but most of those ideas come from the south. In this six-part weekly series, developed by the Northern Research Futures Collaborative Research Network and The Conversation, northern researchers lay out their own plans for a feasible, sustainable future.


Recently, Australia’s north has featured front-and-centre in national debates about the country’s future; the election campaign will likely see more claims about what the north can do for the country.
 
Some cast it as the frontier saviour, a source of bold new resource and agricultural developments both real and imagined. Others dream of securing the north’s expansive landscapes as iconic wilderness.
 
Northern policy has long been a source of conflict. Debates have raged about the success or otherwise of government interventions in indigenous communities. Quick-draw policy responses on complex issues like the live cattle trade have devastated many communities. Additionally, media images of coast-bound refugees keep the north’s strategic importance centre-stage, raising unresolved tensions about our Asian-Pacific relationships.
 
Those debates are often crafted by, and for, a southern audience. In my view, we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past until we rethink governance of northern Australia. Governance is not sexy, but it’s fundamental to making things happen. As a regional water official at a Mekong Basin workshop in northern Thailand recently stated, governance is “how society shares power, benefit and risk”.

The north needs a say too

In the 1930s, Australian treasurer Ted Theodore was calling for northern separatism; few suggest that now. But many in the north would argue there are major flaws in the south’s contribution to our governance and that major policy decisions are often made in the interest of a southern electorate.
 
The north is different to the south in many ways. It has a low population and institutional capacity. Land tenure is largely public rather than private. It is primarily an indigenous domain. It has enormous mineral and soil wealth, but resource limitations and a vastly different climate. Much of it is closer to populous Asia-Pacific capitals than to Perth, Brisbane or Canberra.
 
Northerners don’t want separatism, but they do want a genuine dialogue between northern and southern Australia; one focused on how the nation as a whole might secure better northern governance. Australian and state and territory governments should negotiate big policy decisions in the north and  manage government policy and programs in radically different ways.
This could emerge through a stronger northern Australian policy and delivery architecture integrated into COAG.
 
But to work, this kind of architecture must be powerfully engaged with a cohesive and strong pan-tropical alliance of northern Australia’s sectoral interests. It would have to include traditional owners, local government, industry, human service and conservation. Such an approach must also be independently informed by the north’s research institutions.

Problems that need attention

There are land use and tenure conflicts across the north (the dispute over what to do with Cape York is just one example), and we need innovation to solve them. This requires a long-term, cohesive and regionally driven approach to land use and infrastructure planning.
 
We also need a more consistent approach to negotiating major project development, to build the long-term foundations for regional community development.
 
Alongside this, we have an opportunity to create a northern-specific ecosystems services economy
– an economy that benefits from conservation. We could deliver land owners real economic benefit for managing extensive landscapes better.
 
Despite the Intervention, the fundamental (top down) model of both local government and indigenous community development has not changed much in 30 years. These approaches disempower and deliver stop-start progress. Fragmented, welfare-oriented, inflexible and annualised government programs simply do not build lasting human capacity.
 
Finally, to shift the whole economy from an historically boom-bust cycle, the nation must build a tropical knowledge economy. This could underpin productivity in existing industries (minerals, energy, agriculture, fishing, tourism) and help us think about export opportunities right across the globe’s tropical latitudes. This will rely on Australia investing in tropical knowledge development (such as tropical health, agriculture, environmental and disaster management, design and energy) within the north, brokered into the wider tropical region through long term partnerships, trade and innovation clusters and foreign investment.

A smart north is good for all Australians

A progressive and productive northern Australia, with a strong identity and great lifestyle, tightly integrated with its Asia-Pacific neighbours, should attract a diversity of people (with a wide skills base) interested in playing a strategic role in the Asian Century.
 
We can transform our reputation from the wild frontier on the northern margin of a vast empty continent, to a naturally blessed region providing high-value knowledge-based services in the south of a dynamic, rapidly growing region of 500 million people.
 
This is indeed about how society shares power, benefit and risk.
 
If we don’t get the governance right, we run big risks: we’ll entrench a boom/bust economy, whole regions of multi-generational disadvantage and degradation of the nation’s cultural and environmental jewels.
 
If we can more equitably share power and benefit across the north, we can capture opportunities that may hold the keys to the whole nation’s future.
***********


Allan Dale receives funding for a day a week under the Northern Futures Collaborative Research Network. He is Chair of Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland and Torres Strait.


This article was originally published at The Conversation
.

PRA: CSG companies $5 million advantage

Five million is the figure that the CSG companies & their industry lobby group APPEA are throwing into a campaign called, ‘Our Natural Advantage’. Apparently gaining that ‘social licence’ for the CSG industry to operate is $5,000,000 important. Perhaps those of us defending landowner’s rights and the future of food production should regard this campaign as a compliment that our many volunteer hours have to be countered by the natural advantage of the multinational companies many millions.

 On reading articles in various urban outlets some are making an attempt to be even-handed about the CSG issue. However last Saturdays  opinion article in the Queensland-based News Limited newspaper, Rivalries set aside as beef, wheat and gas prosper on the Downs, can only be classed as propaganda.

The ‘Our Natural Advantage’ campaign sells the availability of plentiful high paying jobs. It earnestly relates that people living in the gasfields are very happy with the situation and it is only a small vocal minority of outside ideological activists creating misinformation. An imaginative interpretation of the Underground Water Impact report is used to give assurance that science is on the side of the CSG industry.   The appalling and inaccurate old chestnut is used that because in excess of 3,000 contracts have been signed farmers are content with their lot.

These arguments were proclaimed at the May APPEA conference. In the Queensland Country Life article, Landholder response to APPEA conference, David Hamilton of Basin Sustainability Alliance and lawyers Peter Shannon and Tom Marland gave resounding evidence to the contrary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In another QCL report of the same conference, Coexistence relies on respect, the Gasfield Commissioner, John Cotter said. "Respect, trust and communication are the foundation stones of this industry's social licence to operate and ultimately its future."   The CSG industry’s latest communication and lack of respect in this campaign will hardly engender trust with landowners.

This week it was reported in the farmonline article, Doubling ag output - with CSG's help, John Cotter  telling a recent Brisbane Forum, “some genuine cross sector opportunities between food and energy were yet to be fully realised” and that “those opportunities could only be achieved with community trust allowing for ‘sustainable coexistence’.”   

Such trust can only be achieved with greater honesty and research replacing PR campaigns. Landowners are genuinely worried about future quantity and quality of underground water. Some will be affected. Concerns will be only be put to rest by science and generous compensation of affected businesses. Genuine concern must not be waved aside as alarmism.

The above article was also submitted as a letter to the editor to the Queensland Country Life.


Previous related post
Learn the realities for landowners when a CSG company wishes to establish their business over the top of your farming business in Richard Golden's presentation at the 2013 10th Anniversary Property Rights Australia conference. - Living and Working in a Gasfield

.

BOAT ARRIVALS IN AUSTRALIA - ADDITIONAL UPDATED FIGURES SINCE 1976

I have found a more recent chart since my original post of a few days ago which was updated in April 2013 and is supplied by the Parliamentary Library.

This total of asylum seekers now adds up to 48856. 

It is a little ambiguous (to me at least) because they only mention to end 2012 but say it was updated in April 2013 so I take it that those figures are only up to end of December, 2012.

All those who have arrived since then must be added on as well.

The figures on the right below are the numbers of refugees.  The figure on the left is the number of boats (Number of boats shown after 1989).
 
The figures: Boat arrivals in Australia since 1976
Updated Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:31pm AEST
Map:  Australia
This table shows boat arrivals figures going back to 1976. Data supplied by the Parliamentary Library.
Boat arrivals since 1976
Number of boats
Crew
Number of people (excluding crew)
Number of people

1976    111
1977    868
1978    746
1979    304
1980    0
1981    30
1982-1988    0
1989 1          26 
1990 2       198 
1991 6       214 
1992 6       216 
1993 3         81 
1994 18    953 
1995 7       237 
1996 19     660 
1997 11     339 
1998 17     200 
1999 86  3,721 
2000 51  2,939 
2001 43  5,516 
2002 1          1 
2003 1        53 
2004 1        15 
2005 4        11 
2006 6        60 
2007 5      148 
2008 7      161 
2009 60    141   2,726 
2010 134   345   6,555 
2011 69    168   4,565 
2012 278   392  17,202 
Sources: 1976-1988: K Betts, ‘Boatpeople and public opinion in Australia’, People and place, vol. 9, no. 4, 2001, p. 34. Numbers of boats and crew members not specified. 1989–2008: DIAC advice provided to the Parliamentary Library on 22 June 2009 (excludes crew members). 2009–2012: Customs and Border Protection advice provided to the Parliamentary Library on 7 January 2013.
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fnews%2F2013-04-13%2Fboat-arrivals-in-australia-since-1976%2F4627200&ei=SE33UYOiGMfOlAXJxYGwDA&usg=AFQjCNGhFfAsLC0zYLWz_8EQ8OcMvjOLRg&sig2=C6FZBMiFacf8_bHS_KhV3A

BOAT ARRIVALS IN AUSTRALIA SINCE 1976

There has been a lot of discussion about asylum seekers in recent times, if not for many years actually.

I looked to see if I could find the actual figures recorded anywhere and here is a link that does have the list up to - well I am not sure - but there is a statement at the bottom of the page of figures stating that they were given to the ABC by the Parliamentary Library on 7th January 2013. 

Obviously there have been a lot more arrivals this year, 2013.

The link to the figures:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-13/boat-arrivals-in-australia-since-1976/4627200

Here is a chart also that I found although only up to 2010.  It gives a very clear picture of how the Howard government had almost stopped the boats.  It reveals clearly how the numbers skyrocketed after Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister in 2008. 

Queensland Hospitals Leading the Way

Queensland is now leading Australian states with its Hospital targets according to National Health Performance Authority data.  (AAP, Sydney).

Health Minister, Lawrence Springborg, has had hospitals in his sights for years and understands what needed to be done to bring Queensland into this century.

"Queensland is leading the pack, with three out of 24 hospitals already achieving the 2015 target. These are Gympie, Gladstone and Mt. Isa.

The State also boasts the most improved hospital, the Princess Alexandra in Brisbane which has soared from being the country's worst performer at 33 per cent in 2011 to 62 per cent."

This outcome has come about because an LNP government is now in power in Queensland.  Since they were elected, seventeen local hospital Boards have been established which people have been crying out for over the years. This achievement would not have occurred under the previous dreary government that we had for two decades. 

Thank you Campbell Newman and the LNP team

 

 

PRA: July Newsletter

Report of Property Rights Australia Conference 2013

This year was the 10th anniversary of the inception of PRA. Ashley McKay gave us a brief history of the achievements of the organisation over that time. There is little doubt that without PRA many more families would have had their lives and businesses ruined by the Vegetation Management Act and the spiteful and often illegal way in which it was administered.

PRA stalwart Philip Sheridan gave a clear explanation of the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act. He does warn however that it is still not possible to pull your property from fence to fence. There are still laws and regulations for vegetation clearing although some actions have become self-assessable.

At the time of the conference the self-assessable codes under the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act were yet to be released. Subsequently the Queensland Government has released the Mulga Lands Fodder Area Management Plan. Those members in the mulga lands need to read this document closely.

http://www.nrm.qld.gov.au/vegetation/clearing/pdf/mulga-lands-fodder-amp.pdf.

There is no doubt that the Government has appreciated the public support by PRA of the amendments to the Vegetation Management Act in the face of a very vicious and sometimes very personal campaign against the Premier by the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) with respect to the amendments.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Dr. John McVeigh addressed our Conference as representative for the Premier and told us of the Governments plan for agriculture.

 

 

Powerlink was in the spotlight with Gary and Kerry Ladbrook telling us of their experiences.

Richard Golden in his presentation,Living and Working in a Gasfield, gave an account of the extra difficulty of dealing with multiple resource and infrastructure companies. There are many members who are trying to deal with multiple companies and it takes a great deal of time away from their farm businesses.

 

“Powerlines, Pipelines and Porky Pies” was the title of the presentation by Tom Marland, solicitor. Tom also summarised a case won on behalf of a client.

Anne Bridle of Basin Sustainability Alliance had a stunning visual presentation of the extent of CSG wells in the Surat Basin. One of her tips was to be very vigilant about testing bores before extraction, not only for what is in them but for what is not in them and for both quantity and quality of water. Basin Sustainability Alliance (BSA) has on their web site a tool that allows you to view CSG well maps and information at your fingertips, for more information click here>> http://www.basinsustainabilityalliance.org/researchlinks.html

or email BSA for the file - info@basinsustainabilityalliance.org

 

Trent Hindman spoke to the expert report prepared by DR. Bill Burrows for his appeal. 

The media, including social media, like it or not, is extremely important to the way rural industry gets its message across and it must become even more important or our voices will be lost in an avalanche of contra arguments put by environmental and animal welfare groups.

Queensland Country Life deputy editor Troy Rowling gave us some insights into how the urban media thinks and how we may be able to make an impression on them. Alex Sparkes of farmz.com.au, a web site dedicated to rural pursuits, told us of his site and the importance of social media in getting a message across.

Many who attended the Conference expressed appreciation of both the speakers and the opportunity of interaction with others with similar challenges and outlook.

End of report.

…………………………………………..

Local Government Referendum

Professor Suri Ratnapala has been a critic of the Vegetation Management Act as an example of extremely bad law from its inception. He is a former guest speaker at our Conference. He has now prepared an essay in opposition to the Constitutional Amendment giving formal recognition to local government to be voted on at election time.

Professor Suri Ratnapala goes on to say:

‘The proposed amendment may look innocent but, for the reasons that I have explained, is a calculated assault on the fundamental structure of the Australian Constitution. The Australian federation is a system of vertically divided power in which the Commonwealth and the states have their assured spheres of governance. The federal-state balance that the delegates of the Colonies painstakingly worked out has, since federation, been reweighted in favour of the centre by the High Court’s endorsement of the Commonwealth’s expansive legislative claims. Even so, there remain significant constitutional limits to the Commonwealth’s powers. It may only legislate on specified areas. It can only spend public money for the purposes identified with its legislative sphere. Its so-called nationhood power is limited to situations of national emergency. Importantly, it can make grants of public funds under s 96, as it stands, only to the states and only on conditions that the states are at legal liberty to reject. However, as I have explained, the proposed amendment if enacted will further erode the remaining capacity of the states to manage their own affairs and will further threaten their legal, political and economic existence. If enacted, it will cause irreparable harm to the Australian polity and economy.’

His essay can be found here:

http://freedomwatch.ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Reasons-for-opposing-the-LG-amendment-Ratnapala.pdf

…………………………………………..

Land Court

A recent decision of the Land Court involved the Keys, Erbacher and Edmonds families. Unfortunately the initial reports of the case had inaccurate and inflated amounts reported as having been awarded. Queensland Country Life has reported on this story in the past and they did report the decision accurately.

The amounts awarded, although fair were not as generous as originally reported by many media outlets and are only activated if and when Xstrata are given a mining lease which could be well into the future.

The link to the decision on the case is here.

http://www.landcourt.qld.gov.au/documents/decisions/MRA305-12%20etc.pdf 

Some resources and infrastructure companies are trying to make landowners fearful of going to the Land Court in order to rush them into signing an agreement.

PRA’s observation of the Land Court is that it tries to be fair but it relies on documentation and more documentation. It is essential to keep a diary up to date and a camera handy and record every inconvenience, how long it took to rectify and at what cost. Reasonably incurred costs for solicitors and other professionals are allowed by the legislation. This may require an affidavit from the professional as to why the cost was necessary but the final payout is decided by the Court and not the company.
.