The so-called “reform” which could spell death for koalas

Gregg says:

06:58am | 23/10/12

It probably makes little difference whether it’ll be a state or federal government, developments and some environmental stuff ups will no doubt occur hand in hand.
Maybe if we’ll just have a guy in a suit with a name on the door, we’ll just have to rely on facebook and twittering by all those people who mostly probably never hardly get out into a more natural habitat.

Meanwhile, with just a few over twenty million in our country I suspect we’ve got a long way to go with developments yet before we really endanger too much.

HC says:

07:36am | 23/10/12

This government lost an excellent opportunity to nationalise environment laws and remove a lot of the “green” tape that businesses have to go through when they introduced the carbon tax.  In fact a lot of businesses were critical of this lost opportunity, moreso than their objection to the tax itself.  Having one set of laws and one national department in charge of protecting Australia’s environment would create a great deal more certainty and massive reductions in costs to businesses instead of creating the toothless, impotent laws the government’s putting through now.

The laws don’t have to be toothless to support business, they just need to be clear.

Lauren says:

10:51am | 23/10/12

If we need an indication of the disastrous consequences of handing the states power to manage our environment and wildlife, we need look no further than the catastrophe of Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) - a bilateral arrangement that has seen the ongoing devastation of native forests, the continued dwindling of native wildlife, poor economic outcomes and a legacy of community conflict and angst.

Time and time again it has been federal intervention that has prevented the evisceration of our precious and iconic wild places as a result of short sighted state planning - The Franklin River, the Barrier Reef, Victoria’s Alpine National Parks. Our environment and unique wildlife is under unprecedented threat, and it is time to strengthen, not weaken our federal environment laws.

Jill says:

11:14am | 23/10/12

The Business Council of Australia (BCA) is claiming that adhering to commonwealth environmental laws costs it dearly – between $270 and $820 million over the life of the EPBC Act (2000-2009). This is why the laws need to go they say. But let’s put that in context …

To quote from the BCA’s own report - “there are around $900 billion of committed and prospective investment opportunities in large … scale projects, mostly in resources and economic infrastructure”.

This represent just 0.03% to 0.09% of the value of the current investment pipeline for large scale projects in Australia.

This plan shows that the Gillard Govt represents big business, above all else!

Ally says:

11:30am | 23/10/12

Thanks for your informative, eloquent article Larissa. I am deeply concerned about the ramifications of these law reforms.

baddog says:

11:55am | 23/10/12

A great article and I’m saddened this subject isn’t ‘sexy’ enough to make more headlines. I used to be a QLD Government Vegetation Management Offier. It was my job to ensure landowners did not clear endangered ecosystems. I have a relevent environmental degree and access to plenty of botantical/ecosystem mapping to assist with my job. Now the QLD Campbell Gov is scrapping this job and allowing landowners to decide what’s endangered and what isn’t. WTF? True story. What could possibly go wrng?? Yes, things really are this dire in QLD now.

St. Michael says:

11:58am | 23/10/12

So, Greens, with your primary vote plummeting, a carbon tax that doesn’t do anything you want it to do, and now Tony Burke basically divesting himself of the whole environment portfolio, how’s that whole Labor alliance workin’ out for ya?

Gordon says:

12:12pm | 23/10/12

Jill,  For the 900 billion (or whatever it is) to happen, there has to be 900 billion + coming back over the life of those projects. A lot of money gets spent already on compliance at a state level, if you add extra hundreds of millions of expenditure on Fed compliance pretty soon that + becomes -, and then it all falls over. $901 returned from $900 invested is OK(ish). If only $899 can be returned you’ll never get the $900 in the first place.

  In other words a loss might be a small proportion of the total investment, but why would you make the investment at all if it’s going to result in a loss? Much of that 900 billion dollar “pipeline” of future investments will simply disappear like smoke.

This is NOT to say that bad projects should get a free go, only that imposing what looks like modest overheads can make a bigger difference than you might think.

Imogen says:

12:28pm | 23/10/12

I have to think that the first few commenters on this article don’t fully grasp what is at stake here.

Take one example - The Great Barrier Reef. It provides over $5 billion to our economy, thousands of jobs.  Once it’s gone it’s gone, and all those jobs and economic wealth with it.

Ask the Gladstone fishermen who’ve lost their livelihoods thanks to the dredging of their harbour what that’s like. Are their jobs - good, long-term jobs that help us eat I might add - worth less than ultimately short-term jobs shipping out our coal?

I’m also trying to imagine an Australia where you can’t show your kids a koala, can’t see the total joy on their face when you take them for their first swim on the Reef, have to accept that Tasmanian Devils went the same way as the Tasmanian Tiger.

We are incredibly wealthy right now; and that’s because of our higher education and finance sectors just as much as mining. Why on earth would we focus on a short-term economic gain that costs us the Great Barrier Reef and our tourism industry?

Thanks Larissa, for speaking sense.

Willie says:

01:00pm | 23/10/12

Wow what happened at 10.
Someone called in the cavalry, sounds like any second now captain planets going to turn up.

Corinne says:

01:18pm | 23/10/12

I actually opened this article thinking that I was going to read a sob story about how we’re going to cull one of our iconic species and had my argument ready and rearing to go….(I actually support culling of koalas as in many areas they are starving themselves out of these areas and suffering, not because o habitat loss but actually their introduction into previously koala unpopulated areas ) Instead I’ve read something far more distressing. As with the school curriculum in Australia which is finally being made the same throughout the country, I feel that federals should hold all the power for all environmental interests…. However, I know that state governments have been pushing to regain power over these interests since they lost it, and it’s all because of greed, their want to be able to make all of their own decisions without consulting higher office so they can make more money for themselves and have less consideration for the effects it will have onthe country as a whole. As an environmental scientist it actually really scares me, it’s like giving power to a toddler, letting them have power to make decisions on what they get on a day to day basis…. Toddlers do not have the capacity of forward thinking and greater consequence, in my opinion, neither do the states.

owl says:

06:10pm | 23/10/12

Carbon dated 600 year old trees are being felled and pulped in WA.  The sickening disrespect we have for nature is beyond belief. State control of the environment is the classic fox in charge of the chickens scenario.