"The governance, coordination and oversight of the management of Ramsar sites must improve overall for Victoria to effectively meet its obligations. Monitoring the implementation of management plans also requires improvement. The recommendations are designed to improve gaps in governance, oversight, coordination and monitoring." (Victorian Auditor General)

In a report tabled on 14 September 2016, the Victorian Auditor General summarised:

Wetlands are a critical part of our natural environment and have environmental, cultural, social and economic value. The Ramsar Convention is an international intergovernmental treaty which provides a framework for the conservation and wise use of designated wetland ecosystems throughout the world. Australia is a signatory and has 65 Ramsar listed sites, 11 of which are in Victoria.

This audit reviewed how effectively Victoria’s Ramsar wetlands are managed and whether Victoria is meeting its national and international obligations. We reviewed the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (DELWP) and primary site managers—Melbourne Water and Parks Victoria—who all have a role in conserving and maintaining Victoria's Ramsar sites.
We also reviewed selected catchment management authorities.

The audit found there is limited evidence that all Ramsar sites are being effectively managed and protected from decline. There is also evidence of potential change in the ecological character of some sites and changes at other sites cannot be fully determined due to limitations such as a lack of data. Some projects have improved outcomes for Ramsar sites but these are not clearly linked to a Ramsar management plan.

The governance, coordination and oversight of the management of Ramsar sites must improve overall for Victoria to effectively meet its obligations. Monitoring the implementation of management plans also requires improvement. The recommendations are designed to improve gaps in governance, oversight, coordination and monitoring.

Link to full report

VAGO 2016–17 reports:
http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/reports_by_year.aspx

Audits in progress:
http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/audits_in_progress.aspx

Public hospitals present hazardous challenges that demand OHS management of the highest standard. The audit found that while there are instances of better practice among the audited public hospitals, there are also significant shortcomings which put staff at unnecessary risk. In addition, weaknesses identified with the role of the department as the health system manager, and with WorkSafe as the OHS regulator, have contributed to the failure to achieve better management of OHS risk by public hospitals. Neither the department nor WorkSafe has a comprehensive understanding of sector-wide OHS risks or emerging trends in public hospitals.

Statements from the Auditor General's Report, November 2013

There is insufficient priority given to, and accountability for, OHS (Occupational Health and Safety) in public hospitals.

Staff safety needs to be given a higher priority by senior management and the department, and managers within public hospitals should be held to account for the OHS performance of areas under their control. Sustained improvement in the public hospital safety culture is not likely to occur without greater priority and clear accountability.

Neither the department nor WorkSafe has a comprehensive understanding of sector-wide OHS risks or emerging trends in public hospitals. WorkSafe cannot demonstrate that its project activity reduces OHS risk in public hospitals. Collaboration between the department and WorkSafe has been poor, with missed opportunities to reduce sector-wide OHS risk. Wide variability between public hospital OHS management practices—such as quality assurance of safety management systems and safety inspections—highlight the need fo r stronger sector-wide leadership.

These issues collectively warrant a future review of public hospital OHS risk to assess whether the level of protection for public hospital workers has improved.

Top down dereliction

The Victorian health services governance handbook states that the department plays a key system-level role in the performance of health services. This involves ‘shaping and enabling health services to function effectively’. The Health Services Act 1988 states that part of the department’s role is to enc ourage safety and improvement in the quality of health services provided by healthcare facilities.

However, the exact role of the department—as the health systems manager—in worker health and safety is not clear. Key documents governing the relationship between the department, the Minister for Health and public hospitals make no mention of OHS management in public hospitals, or outline the department’s expectations.

[...]

Although policy at each of the four audited public hospitals states that the board of the public hospital, as employer, is ultimately accountable for OHS, there is a breakdown in the chain of account ability below the board:

- Unit managers who are responsible for the day-to-day management of work units are not held accountable for OHS performance—this is also the case for the executive directors of public hospital departments. While there is a policy commitment that managers are responsible for maintaining a safe working environment, there are no mechanisms or targets to hold these managers to account for OHS performance.

- Ownership of OHS risk does not reside with the manager where the risk occurs.

At an organisational level, risk registers identify the corporate services area as the owner of OHS risks, despite OHS risks presenting predominantly in clinical departments.

"Under the devolved governance model, described in Part one of this report, the board and Chief Executive Officer of a public hospital play key roles in providing a safe and healthy workplace."

Occupational health and safety priority and accountability
Victorian Auditor-General’s Report
Occupational Health and Safety Risk in Public Hospitals

Managers are not accountable for occupational health and safety performance

Although OHS policies at each public hospital did state that the board, as employer, is ultimately accountable for occupational health and safety, there is a breakdown in the chain of accountability below the board:

- managers of clinical areas, where OHS risks predominantly present, are not held to account for the OHS performance of that unit or department

- ownership of OHS risk does not reside with the manager where the risk occurs.

However, there was no evidence that they were ever held to account at the four audited public hospitals. The OHS Management Framework states that ‘performance of OHS responsibilities is part of established job performance assessment process’.

None of the four audited public hospitals could demonstrate that mechanisms were in place to hold unit managers to
account for OHS performance. For example, even though the position descriptions of nurse unit managers NUMs)—who have direct responsibility for frontline staff and daily tasks—allocate them responsibility for overseeing OHS at the work unit level, half of the NUMs interviewed were not sure of their OHS responsibilities. Even those who understood their OHS responsibilities were not required to demonstrate how they fulfilled those responsibilities.

Managers to whom NUMs report are also not held to account for OHS performance. Position descriptions of executive directors, who are responsible for the day-to-day management of the clinical departments, assign responsibility for OHS in these areas. However, there was no evidence that they were ever held to account at the four audited public hospitals. The OHS Management Framework states that ‘performance of OHS responsibilities is part of established job performance assessment process’.

The audit team did find some examples of better practice at public hospitals that were not part of this audit. For instance, one public hospital requires NUMs to report on OHS incidents and control measures in their unit. NUMs at this public hospital are also required to develop an action plan where gaps have been identified, and these action
plans form part of their annual performance review.

Lack of occupational health and safety reporting against set targets

Managers need to receive regular reports against the targets set on OHS performance in the workplaces under their control if they are to be held to account. Neither reporting nor target setting was found at the work unit or department level of the public hospitals audited. Unit managers and clinical executive directors do not receive regular reports or trend data of OHS incidents in the work units for which they are responsible. As there are several unit managers rostered on during any month, without aggregated reporting it is difficult for each manager to know whether OHS performance is deteriorating or improving, or how their unit compares with other workplaces in the
organisation. The OHS Management Framework emphasises that ‘Health and safety performance is regularly reported’.

This audit assessed whether State Trustees is effectively managing the financial and legal interests of represented persons. It examined the extent to which State Trustees is meeting its legislative and administrative responsibilities, the systems and processes that enable State Trustees to measure quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness, and the adequacy of State Trustees' communication and accountability processes to represented persons. The audit found that State Trustees is not able to clearly demonstrate that it is fulfilling its obligations to represented persons. State Trustees’ direct engagement with represented persons is not sufficient for it to be assured that their needs and wishes are properly understood.

State Trustees Limited: Management of represented persons

(Long report follows this summary).

Tabled: 8 FEBRUARY 2012

Represented persons are those deemed incapable of managing their own affairs due to disability, mental illness, injury or other incapacitating circumstances. They are considered to be among the most vulnerable members of the community. Under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (the Act) represented persons are appointed administrators who must manage their legal and financial affairs while acting in their best interest. State Trustees Limited is the administrator for over 10 000 represented persons in Victoria.

This audit assessed whether State Trustees is managing the financial and legal affairs of represented persons in their best interests.

The audit found that State Trustees is not able to clearly demonstrate that it is fulfilling its obligations to represented persons. Its focus is on measuring its commercial success and it relies predominantly on compliance with its service contract with the state as a proxy for compliance with the Act. However, this does not demonstrate the quality or effectiveness of the management of represented persons' affairs and it does not have the robust governance, monitoring and reporting mechanisms needed to do so. There is also inadequate quality assurance and review of the services provided to represented persons.

State Trustees’ direct engagement with represented persons is not sufficient for it to be assured that their needs and wishes are properly understood. In addition, poor information management and high case manager turnover means that decisions about their affairs are not always based on complete or accurate information.

Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, this morning tabled the following report in the Victorian Parliament:

State Trustees Limited: Management of represented persons

Ordered to be printed

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT PRINTER February 2012

PP No 102, Session 2010–12

1. Background

1.1 Represented persons

Many Victorians are unable to manage
their own financial and legal affairs due to disability, mental illness, injury
or other circumstances. They are among society’s most vulnerable citizens.

Under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986

(the Act), the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) may order the
financial and legal affairs of these ‘represented persons’ to be managed on
their behalf by an administrator.

Under the Act, an administrator:

• is responsible for the general care and
  management of the represented person’s estate
• takes possession and care of, recovers,
  collects, preserves and administers the property and estate of the represented
  person, and generally manages their affairs
• exercises all rights which the represented
  person might exercise if that person had legal capacity.

Section 49 of the Act requires an administrator to act in the
best interests of a represented person. This includes:

• encouraging and
  assisting the represented person to become capable ofadministering their estate
• consulting with them and taking their wishes
  into account as far as possible.

VCAT
determines an appropriate administrator for each represented person. Where
feasible and appropriate this is often a family member; in other circumstances
it may appoint a trustee. In many cases, this is State Trustees. Overall, State Trustees
acts as administrator for around 50 per cent of represented persons in
Victoria.

1.2 State Trustees Limited

The Public Trust Office of Victoria was established in
1939, to protect the interests of Victorians, particularly those with
disabilities. It became administratively independent from government in 1987,
when it became the State Trust Corporation of Victoria.

In 1994, The State Trust Corporation of
Victoria became a company (State Trustees Limited). This was part of the
government’s objective to make state-owned businesses more efficient by
exposing them to competition from the private sector. The business activities
of State Trustees expanded to include providing financial and related services
to a wider market.

However, a substantial
part of State Trustees’ core business is administration of represented persons’
financial affairs and estates. In 2010–11, State Trustees acted as
administrator for over 10 000 represented persons. Its total client base was
over 18 000.

At 30 June 2010,
represented persons’ funds represented 53 per cent of the $796 million
total funds invested and managed by State Trustees.

1.2.1 Community Services Agreement

State Trustees, like any
trustee acting as an administrator for represented persons, may charge for the
services provided.

In recognition that some
represented persons may lack the resources to obtain services, the State
Trustees (State Owned Company) Act 1994 makes the Minister for
Community Services responsible for ensuring that members of the public who do
not have the resources to manage and administer estates and property can
receive such services.

The minister may enter into
an agreement with a trustee company, person or body to provide these services.
For represented persons who are unable to pay for these services the agreement
provides for some or all of the costs to be met. A Community Services Agreement
(CSA) has been in place with State Trustees since 1994 and is renegotiated
every five years.

The CSA is not limited to
represented persons administration, but also includes community service
obligations in relation to other trustee services, deceased estate
administration, and attorneyships. However, services to represented persons
make up the large majority of services provided under the CSA.

The CSA requires State
Trustees to achieve specific minimum service or performance standards, to
report to the Department of Human Services (DHS) on the cost of services, to
maintain appropriate and relevant records for DHS, and to effectively manage
services for clients referred by VCAT.

DHS reimburses State
Trustees for the net costs of the services provided. State Trustees charges
those who can pay. Of the 10 000 represented persons for whom State Trustees
acts as administrator, around 8 500 are covered by the CSA.

In 2009–10, all
services provided to represented persons contributed $26.4 million (45 per
cent) towards State Trustees’ total revenue. Payments made under the CSA were
around $16 million.

The CSA obligations are separate and
additional to the obligation to act in the best interests of each represented
person, which is established in the Act and applies to all represented persons.
The CSA obligations do not displace this duty, and are not intended to
necessarily reflect what might be satisfactory performance in relation to
the Act.

1.2.2 Governance and business structure

State Trustees’ sole shareholder is the state of Victoria. Under the State
Trustees (State Owned Company) Act 1994, State Trustees reports through its
board of directors to the Treasurer.

Various committees oversee the organisation
and advise the board of directors on corporate risks. Figure
1A shows State Trustees’ corporate and business structure.

Figure 1A

State Trustees corporate and business structure

Source: Victorian Auditor-General’s Office.

The board delegates operations and
administration to the managing director who is supported by a corporate
leadership team and senior management group.

In total, State Trustees has seven
divisions, 26 business units and over 550 staff.

The Personal Financial Solutions
division is primarily responsible for the day-to-day administration of
represented persons’ estates.

1.3 Conduct of the audit

1.3.1 Audit objective and scope

The audit
objective was to assess whether State Trustees is effectively managing the
financial and legal interests of represented persons by assessing the:

• extent to which State Trustees is meeting its
  legislative and administrative responsibilities for represented persons

• performance measurement, monitoring and
  reporting framework, systems and processes that enable State Trustees to
  measure the quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness of services provided to
  represented persons
• adequacy of State Trustees' communication and
  accountability processes to represented persons.

1.3.2 Method and cost

The audit was conducted in accordance
with the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards.

The cost of the audit was $560 000.

1.3.3 Structure of the report

The report is structured as follows:

• Part 2 examines the adequacy of State Trustees’
  governance structures and internal control frameworks to manage its legislative
  responsibilities.
• Part 3 examines whether State Trustees has
  sufficient resources and adequate practices in place to act in the best
  interests of represented persons.

Appendix A. Audit Act 1994 section 16—submissions and comments

Introduction

In accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994 a copy of this report was provided to State Trustees Limited with a request for submissions or comments.

The submission and comments provided are not subject to audit nor the evidentiary standards required to reach an audit conclusion. Responsibility for the accuracy, fairness and balance of those comments rests solely with the agency head.

Increasing private-public partnerships, contracting out, privatisation, creation of authorities 'outside government' etc over the past 20 years in Victoria "has led to a steady erosion of accountability to Parliament and the public, as these services and the public monies that fund them fall outside existing accountability frameworks and the mandate of this office." (Auditor General, Victoria) The forward plan also notes concerns about population growth and food security.

On Tuesday 24 May 2011 Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, tabled his Annual Plan for 2011-12 today in the Victorian Parliament.

The Annual Plan contains details of areas of audit interest for 2011-12, and a forward program of proposed audits for 2012-13 to 2014-15. Among these, are plans for ammendments to the Audit Act 1994[1]. Below we cite from that document, although some of the headings are from the editors of candobetter.net.

Amendments to the Audit Act 1994 are needed

Over the past 20 years, Victoria has seen an increase in the ‘arms-length’ delivery of public services through the private and community sectors. There has been increased private sector involvement in the delivery of public services through arrangements such as outsourcing and public private partnerships. There has also been a trend to create new legal entities ‘outside government’, such as companies, associations and statutory bodies, allowing these entities to access broader revenue sources and more flexible governance regimes.

Steady erosion of accountability

"This has led to a steady erosion of accountability to Parliament and the public, as these services and the public monies that fund them fall outside existing accountability frameworks and the mandate of this office.

Responding to these changes in the way government delivers services, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) held an inquiry last year into the Act.[2]

VAGO made several representations to the inquiry, including a formal submission.

The all-party report of this Parliamentary Inquiry made wide-ranging recommendations, seeking to prevent the erosion of public sector accountability, strengthen the independence of VAGO and update the Act to reflect contemporary trends.

PAEC unanimously recommended measures to:

• ‘close the gap’ on entities currently outside Parliament’s audit mandate
• allow access to public sector information held by private sector contractors
• introduce annual audits of performance statements and management controls
• enable joint audits with other Australian auditors-general
• improve the effectiveness of external performance audits of VAGO
• ensure agency comment included in our reports to Parliament is accurate, balanced and substantiated.

Urgent Need to repair the Audit Mandate

As indicated in our Annual Plan 2010–11, the Act is in urgent need of reform.

Auditor General needs access to public information held by private sector contractors

In April 2011, the government tabled its response to PAEC’s recommendations. The government response included support in principle for some of the key recommendations; in particular access to public sector information held by private sector contractors and ‘closing the gap’. A number of other recommendations were also supported.

Given the importance of the need to repair the audit mandate, a number of technical and legal issues will need to be discussed further with government as it considers how any amendments should proceed. VAGO looks forward to a strong role in the further development of amendments to the Act.

Population growth and diminishing oil supplies

Our scanning during development of the 2011–12 Annual Plan reconfirmed climate change and the environment; the ageing of our population; risks to sustainable development from diminishing oil supplies; population growth; and the continuing need
for transparency and accountability, as major challenges for government in coming years. In addition, the Council of Australian Governments Reform Agenda continues to affect the scheduling and focus of our program of performance audits, particularly in the health sector. [3]

[Candobetter.net Editor:] From reading this report, notably the attachments from page 58, it seems that in 2009 the Auditor-General looked into Victoria's food security and concluded that there were no significant risks. Since then, however, the Public Accounts and Estimates Committee (PAEC) has suggested that the matter be revisited, i.e. that food security may now be an issue.

"The Committee supports the Auditor-General's commitment to environmental scanning of issues and understands this underpins the Office's multi-year audit program. The Committee considers therefore, it would be beneficial if the Auditor-General's Office updated its research with relevant information on food security from 2010 and 2011 prior to scopint this audit to consider more recent research on issues surrounding food security." (PAEC)

The Victorian Auditor General responds on page 60 by noting the PAEC's comments and undertakes to consider food security in the audit research and scoping. Here the Auditor General also agrees, "As advised in the conduct of its annual planning function, VAGO will continue to, consider issues such as population growth and its impact on current and future service delivery and public sector activity."

NOTES

Source of material in this article: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx

[1] "1.3 Amendments to the Audit Act 1994,"http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx, p.3.

[2] "The former government sought to consolidate accountability arrangements for public bodies under one Act. The Public Finance and Accountability Bill 2009 was introduced into Parliament in December 2009, however, the Bill lapsed without being passed through the Upper House when Parliament was prorogued in October 2010. Any further progress on these reforms will be dependent upon the new government’s priorities." http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx ,p1.

[3] http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/annual_plan.aspx, p.4.

Here is some documentation for the 18 May 2011 PAEC discussion on Energy and Resources by the way: Hansard proof report - not for quoting - http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/paec/2011-12_Budget_Estimates/Presentations/Energy_and_Resources_presentation.pdf/Energy_and_Resources_presentation.pdf

Is Portsea preparing for invasion? Yes, by sea. Much of the beach has disappeared and the overhang has been sandbagged to prevent businesses from following it. Where did that $38m given to Parks Victoria go? This article also looks at Ted Baillieu's plans to continue development plans (cost $9.4b?) where Brumby left off, plus some comments from the Ex-Ports Minister, Tim Pallas.

The Department of Sustainability (DSE) and the Office of Environmental Monitor (OEM) probably had hoped their problem of disappearing iconic Portsea beach might have gone away. Well their problem hasn’t gone, but the beach has!

Disappearing beach

Sadly for them and thousands of holiday makers who once loved Portsea, the $millions of taxpayers’ funds thrown at months of beach works at Portsea have done nothing to solve the problem of the disappearing beach. In fact the supposed solutions - the sandbag wall and huge rockwall are already failing, with the sandbags nearest the pier breaking apart and slumping into the water. The DSE and OEM have been left to defend the channel deepening project long after the disappearance of its champion Mr. Brumby -who is a distant memory – leaving some unwanted legacies such as at Portsea with its sad and near useless beach and a massive sign erected by the Brumby regime spruiking how their plan to build a massive sand bag wall and dump some rocks near the pier would restore the beach.

Portsea Beach 2011, view from pier to beach looking south east. Once there was sand and trees. Fossickers with metal detectors were the only Portsea beach goers on this 2011 Summers day.

Damage obvious, say local papers

Local papers report that the damage is obvious.

Portsea businesses, including the Portsea Hotel owned juice bar claim that their takings are down 50% since the Entrance was deepened and the beach started to disappear. See: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s939575.htm

Divers report marked increase in tides, currents and swells

Dive businesses too continue to report that tides and current speed have increased markedly whilst ocean swell now regularly pounds the beach and pier – making boat operations extremely difficult. (We recently were swamped trying to land a dingy on Portsea beach on an otherwise calm day but with a massive swell – it was like riding the rapids. Ed)

Ted Baillieu taking over where Brumby left off

It seems electing Mr. Baillieu in the hope of a fresh approach on environmental matters might be a dismal failure. He’s been silent on the damage to Portsea – in spite of his connections to the area, and within weeks of being elected, it’s more of the same for Port expansion plans with the new Mr. B announcing that he would fast track the development of the Port of Hastings within the next 10 years … …..That’s even faster than Mr. Brumby was intending! Sadly it seems our elected representatives are merging into a coalescence of business as usual dinosaurs when what we really need is some serious planning for a very different future.

Ex Ports Minister, Tim Pallas, now in opposition, changes tune, warns of $9.4 billion costs for Hastings Port development

We were amazed this week to hear Tim Pallas (previously the Minister for Ports and now Opposition spokesperson for Ports) sounding the alarm on how costly it might be to develop the Port of Hastings. See: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/cost-of-hastings-container-port-put-at-94bn-20110227-1ba1l.html

Mr. Pallas warns us it would cost $9.4 billion to develop Hastings Port, suggesting that it may not be money well spent……..Mind you he was singing from a different song book when as Minister for Ports he visited Hastings in 2009 to launch his Port Strategy – we were there - to hear his “vision” for a “green” port ….whatever that is. See: http://archive.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/7997.html and although he didn’t actually name a $ amount for his vision back then, it involved about the same amount of road, rail and portside works as he is now warning would be a $9.4 billion folly.

Projected huge container loads

The plan for Hastings Port[1] involves it handling almost 4 million containers some time in the not so distant future….that’s TWICE the current throughput of the Port of Melbourne. At the same time it is envisaged that the Port of Melbourne would be handling up to 8 million containers by 2030….QUADRUPLING it’s current throughput. Yes- that’s almost 12 million containers per year through Victoria compared with our present approx. 2 million per year. Hastings would look, feel, sound and smell like Port Melbourne.

And don't forget coal...

Note also new proposals for brown coal being mined in future from around Mirboo North.[2] Presumably that would be shipped out through Westernport!

Oil depletion will dramatise the insanity of planned expansion of Hastings Port

Where would we put all that stuff and how could we possibly afford it? Perhaps our only saviour might be skyrocketing production, shipping and trucking costs in future as oil runs out, demanding a re-think on what’s essential and what past follies can be done away with. We’ve been feeding the machine at the expense of our natural systems for way too long just to keep the creaking old system on the rails for longer than it should have been.

Auditor General's report on failure to protect marine environments: Where did the $38m go?

Anyway – a voice of reason was heard in the Victorian Auditor General’s Report "Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas" tabled yesterday (March 2nd) in Parliament. The audit reveals just how ineffectively marine protected areas have been managed to protect biodiversity. It assessed the roles of Parks Victoria and the Departments of Sustainability and Environment and Primary Industries, finding that Parks Victoria could not show that marine biodiversity is being protected. Only 10% of the $38 million allocated to protection of marine biodiversity could be shown to have been appropriately discharged.

Just what was the rest of the money spent on then? Certainly not in protecting Port Phillip Bay from the damage we see to the Portsea coastline or protecting it from the massive unregulated toxic dump we now have in the middle of the Bay compliments of the Port of Melbourne!

The Auditor’s report can be downloaded from: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports__publications/reports_by_year/2010-11/20110302_marine_parks.aspx

The report also warns that Government is failing to protect coastal waters from invasive pests and diseases, and recommends the development of a marine pest biosecurity plan. Now that’s an issue which shipping and ports have a LOT to answer for.

400 invasive pests in Port Phillip and growing

Port Phillip Bay with its thousands of ship visits per year currently has over 400 invasive pest species and growing, whilst Westernport Bay with its approx 200 ship visits per year has only a very small number of invasive pests – around 10 when we last checked. Ships ballast water and the hulls of ships are the main vectors for invasive marine species, but the shipping industry isn’t very interested in spending the money to address the issue. So, Mr. Baillieu’s port expansion plans would likely mean an explosion in marine pests in Westernport.

A very interesting and alarming report on ballast water is at ABC Science Show: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s1232619.htm and how trade facilitates the movement and impacts of invasive species at in this 2003 Earthbeat transcript at: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/earth/stories/s939575.htm

"A staggering 120 million tons of foreign ballast water is dumped into Australian ports each year - that's a quarter of the volume of water in Sydney's famous harbour. Professor Gustaaf Hallegraeff believes it's crucial that something be done, because the discharged ballast water can - and does - transport bacteria from one part of the world to another.

"[Professor Gustaaf Hallegraeff] [...] tracked the spread of nasty micro organisms around the world. Dinoflagellates, which poison shellfish, weeds, even cholera, would you believe, carried in the ballast water of shipping. The story and its implications are really incredible."
[...]
"Gustaaf Hallegraeff: There would not be a ballast water problem if for example a Japanese ship that comes now to Hobart to pick up woodchips, if that ship would for example deliver Japanese cars. Then it comes to Hobart, it picks up woodchips, changes the cargo and it takes the woodchips back. If a ship always carries cargo there is no problems, but somehow dedicated ships became designed that only pick a particular types of cargo and therefore they travel in one direction without a cargo, and that is where they need to fill up the whole tanks - sometimes up to 100,000 tonnes of seawater."

NOTES

[1] Sources: PoMC’s Port Development Plan 2006-2035 and PoH Land Use and Transport Strategy 2009
[2] Royce Millar, "Baillieu coal export push," 3 Mar 2011, http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/baillieu-coal-export-push-20110302-1bexa.html

Victoria's Auditor-General, Des Pearson, this morning tabled the "Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas" report in the Victorian Parliament: This audit examined how effectively marine protected areas have been managed to protect biodiversity. It assessed the roles of Parks Victoria, and the Departments of Sustainability and Environment and Primary Industries, in the environmental management of marine protected areas. Parks Victoria cannot show that marine biodiversity is being protected or that the related management obligations of applying resources as intended are being discharged. Little environmental management activity is evident across its marine protected areas.

Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas

Tabled: 2 March 2011

Marine protected areas, totalling 11.7 per cent of Victoria's marine environment, have been reserved to protect environmental, historical or cultural features. This audit examined how effectively marine protected areas have been managed to protect biodiversity. It assessed the roles of Parks Victoria, and the Departments of Sustainability and Environment and Primary Industries, in the environmental management of marine protected areas.

Parks Victoria cannot show that it is using allocated taxes to help marine environment

Parks Victoria cannot show that marine biodiversity is being protected or that the related management obligations of applying resources as intended are being discharged. Little environmental management activity is evident within marine protected areas.
(In May, 2010, The Auditor General also found that Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks was complicated, poorly coordinated, and poorly administered. Click here for more on this.)

Nearly half of all national and state park management plans are over a decade old.

10 year old strategy never completed, now expired

The statewide management strategy has neither been fully implemented nor evaluated before expiring in 2010. An absence of regular risk assessment review, detailed action plans and a lack of evaluation—both of management plans and activities—undermine planning at the park level. There were also gaps identified in the Department of Sustainability and Environments lead role in marine environmental policy and marine pest biosecurity.

In common with our 2010 performance audit, Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks, this audit points to systemic weaknesses with park planning, program management and resource allocation that should be addressed.

You can read the very readable, short, concise,

In May, 2010, The Auditor General found that Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks was complicated, poorly coordinated, and poorly administered.

In May, 2010, The Auditor General also found that Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria's Parks was complicated, poorly coordinated, and poorly administered. Click here for more on this.

The report was tabled in Victorian Parliament on 26 May 2010

The audit examined the effectiveness of invasive species programs in national and state parks. In particular, it examined the governance arrangements, information systems, planning frameworks and on-ground activities targeting invasive species across the park network.
Among other things, it says,

"Several reports, including the State of the Environment report from the Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, have made it clear that Victoria’s biodiversity is in poor condition and declining in most areas. Invasive plants and animals are a major contributor to that decline, and can have substantial economic, environmental and social impacts on parks."

The audit found governance arrangements for the control of invasive species, specifically between the Departments of Sustainability and Environment, Primary Industries and Parks Victoria, are complicated and not well coordinated. There is no single point of focus for oversight or for the responsibility of success or failure.

How well Parks Victoria manages the invasive species threat in parks is unclear. Its planning is not robust, and its data and park management plans are inadequate and increasingly out of date. In addition, monitoring and evaluation of invasive species management activities is inconsistent.

"The governance arrangements for managing invasive species are very complicated and do not clearly assign roles and ultimate responsibility for success or failure. Recent policy emphasises a landscape scale approach—one that disregards
boundaries based on land ownership and use—to manage pervasive threats, such as invasive species. While progress has been made, Parks Victoria (PV) is yet to apply this approach consistently, and no agency is clearly responsible for balancing local and
regional issues with statewide management priorities."

Good progress has been made in managing some invasive species in some parks, but an increasing reliance on short-term initiative funding to address a long-term problem is detrimental to the effectiveness of the effort across the park network.

PV’s human resources management system does not enable accurate reporting on the time spent on invasive species management activities, as it does not differentiate between invasive species activities and other tasks that PV staff routinely
undertake. This is important as invasive species management requires intensive use of human resources. As a consequence, PV could not provide assurance that adequate management activities were occurring, particularly in terms of time spent.

Given the scale of the problem, if these organisational issues and resource constraints are not addressed, invasive species will continue to pose a major and likely growing threat to Victorian parks.

Around 75 per cent of all plant data and 57 per cent of animal data is over 10 years old, while around 30 per cent of plant and animal data is over 20 years old. Data gathering on new and emerging invasive species is not given sufficient emphasis. The lack of universal access to good quality information is hampering coordination between responsible agencies.

Planning and control at the park level There are no park management plans or documents that provide park level detail on threat priorities, the actions to manage these threats or sets out who is responsible for implementing and action. Nearly half of the plans are over a decade old and do not address new and emerging threats—a key element of the current biosecurity
approach.

Click picture for video.

The recent Auditor General's Report on the incompetence of the Victorian Government's wildlife statistics collection and maintenance mean that the Victorian government could not logically have the authority to make decisions about sustainable forestry where local fauna habitat is affected, in the opinion of this candobetter.org writer and environmental sociologist. Because of this, it seems to me that Environment East Gippsland has clearly won its case in advance. It will take years, decades, maybe half a century for the Victorian government to repair its statistical collection. But will the judges be aware of just how bad the government's information is? We have to make sure that they do by making this information so well-known that it cannot be avoided. So please pass the link to the Auditor General's report around.

Brown Mountain Court Case

Environment East Gippsland's (EEG) lawyers are working overtime getting the case and expert witness reports prepared for the court case which starts in just over 4 weeks. It will be at the Sale County Court (Supreme Court does regional hearing). EEG people have been offered some accomodation but could probably use more.

The case could blow out to over the two weeks set aside for it. The forest-related Acts can be complex so loads of paperwork needs to generated. EEG volunteers are still flat chat trying to raise more funds to ensure they can cover the immediate costs. Meanwhile Brown Mountain’s wildlife is getting around the old growth forests in peace. Volunteers are still maintaining spy cameras trying to get more critters on film.

Arrests of Wildlife Warriors

The summer season for protesting by our very own Avatars in old growth logging areas is happening with 5-6 brave and ethical people arrested on summons so far. The forests being targeted have been up in the Bonang River headwaters on the Errinundra Plateau. Currently between 20-30 people at the
camp here in Goongerah. VicForests response is to say protesters have stopped important machinery from being used for fighting fires. This is untrue.

Could I recommend the film Avatar as an example of what our Wildlife and Forest Warriors in Australia are defending and the forces that seek to destroy it? Brown Mountain, as you can see from the photos, has amazing huge trees and is a different and beautiful world. Searching for economic growth through these limpid havens is like searching for Unobtainium. It is a gross act.

Rob Quantok will donate half profits from regional performance to EEG

The very kind and funny actor, Rod Quantock is holding his “Bugger the Polar Bears – this is serious” show at Warrandyte on Sat 20th Feb 7.30. Bless him!

Half the profits he raises will be donated to EEG to help with our costs. Tickets $30. Ph: Ingrid 9870 8378 for details. (will send more details soon).

Help with art-programs needed on website

To help EEG's marketing and fundraising they would love the help of someone who has a good grasp of Photoshop or other image programs – to put a hand and an old growth forest together on their website.

Editor's comment:

Did we all forget again this year to nominate Jill Redwood and Rod Qantok (along with Julianne Bell, Jill Quirk and Mary Drost) for the Australia Day awards? Try to remember next year. Maybe we should have our own awards.

Photo by Brett Clifton. Subject Pino and Paris on pre-release safari. Sadly Brett's dearly loved kangaroo,
Pino, died just recently after a very full young life, due to myopathy and related renal failure subsequent
to a fox attack

After publishing articles about reports by auditor generals in Tasmania, Victoria and West Australia, on the state of threatened species protection, I sent emails to the Auditor Generals in the ACT, the NT, NSW and South Australia.
Today I received this email from the Auditor General's office in the ACT. This response tells us that no audit has yet been done in the ACT. To me this is an indicator that the ACT statistics are probably in the same poor order as those in other states. I am grateful to the ACT Auditor General for their prompt response. The ACT State of the Environment Report referred to seemed unhelpful regarding reliability of statistics in the mean time.

It is of particular concern that the ACT is not monitoring its wildlife statistics for reliability, validity and effective coverage of the area regarding the species there because of the recent highly controversial culls of kangaroos in Belconnen and in Majura. I believe that I have personally raised enough questions about those culls here to justify a complete moritorium until such time as the collection of statistics and their interpretation and the theory of population dynamics in wildlife in the ACT is brought up to speed, which should include genetic testing for diversity and origin of populations. It sounds like the entire system needs replacing - and perhaps the people running it.

ACT Auditor General's Response 13/01/2010

Dear Ms Newman

Thank you for your inquiry.

My office has not conducted an audit on threatened species protection in the ACT.

The Office is aware of the work done in other jurisdictions, and considers this is an important issue to examine.

However, the Office will not be able to conduct such an audit in the near future, due to our very limited resources. As you would appreciate, there are a wide range of government activities and services covering law and order, education, health, environment, disability, housing, etc..that need to be audited.

I have fully committed our performance audit resources to a number of audits that will cover the next twelve months or so. Our annual planning for performance audits is subject to the availability of resources and the competing priorities of audit topics, as well as important emerging or unforeseen issues. There are also topics already planned to take place on the 2010-11 program.

The Office has now included the protection of threatened species as a potential audit topic to be considered in our forward planning. The merit and priority of such an audit will need to be considered against other topics. Further information about the Office's performance audit program, including how audit topics are selected is available on our website. http://www.audit.act.gov.au.

You may also be aware that the ACT Commissioner for the Environment also has an independent role in assessing government activities in protecting the environment, and can carry out investigations on these matters. The Commissioner has also produced a report which may cover the environment issues of interest to you. This report can be found at http://www.environmentcommissioner.act.gov.au/soe/2007actreport.

Thank you again for writing to us about this issue. Should you have any further questions, please contact me or Mr. Rod Nicholas on 62070833.

Yours sincerely

Tu Pham

ACT Auditor-General.

Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2010 1:54 PM
To: ACT Auditor General
Subject: Wildlife protection audits

Dear Sir/Madam,

Has the ACT Auditor General provided a report on threatened species protection in the ACT, or will it be doing so in the near future?

In 2009 the Victorian and the West Australian and Tasmanian Auditor Generals published reports on wildlife protection laws in those states:
Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

Tasmania: SPECIAL REPORT NO. 78
Management of threatened species

West Australia: Rich and Rare: Conservation of Threatened Species, Mr Murphy found that, in many areas, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is not providing effective protection and recovery to WA’s threatened flora and fauna.

Sincerely,

Sheila Newman
Environmental Sociologist

"How thick can a political skin get?" writes Victorian wildlife ecologist, Hans Brunner.

Mr. Brumby's minister for the Environment, Gavin Jennings, turns a damning report by the Auditor-General on endangered species into receiving a “pat on the back”.

In a media report he welcomes the Auditor-General’s report and stating, “ The findings are a “pat on the back” as well as a remainder that we must continue working to protect Victoria’s unique plants and animals”, hence, nothing will change.

He has received this report with a poker face grin and treated it like water of a duck.

Here are some of the Auditor-General’s remarks:

• “ At the current rate of progress, with existing resources, it will take a further 22 years for the department to complete action statements for the 653 items currently listed threatened.”
• “ Of those threatened species listed as threatened, less than half had an action statement prepared”.
• “ The gap between listed items and items with action statements continue to widen.”
• “On the advisory list are 2249 species of flora and vertebrate fauna.”
• “ Listing decisions are compromised by a lack of reliable, up to date, scientific data and limited stakeholder participation.”
• “ The Act enables the department secretary to prepare formal plans to guide the management of threatened flora, or potentially threatening processes – NO MANAGEMENT PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED TO DATE.”
• “ This review concluded that the existing regulatory policy framework for the protection of threatened species is in need for a major overhaul.”
• “ There is no legal power to compel department or other agencies to complete the directions within action statements. Departmental staff who prepare and monitor action statements relay on GOOD WILL of other departmental and agency staff to undertake tasks in the action statements.”
• “ The full range of management processes and consideration and control measures available in the act has NOT BEEN USED.”
• “ The greatest human threat to other species is habitat loss. Accordingly, tools to protect ecologically significant areas of habitat are essential.’

The report also pointed out on numerous occasions on inefficiencies, duplications and limits of resources. What it missed to clearly highlight is that huge amount of time and money is spent on listing endangered species and the production of management plans but no further action is taken or enforced to properly rectify the problems.

A typical example is the under resourced and incompetent handling of the nationally endangered Eastern Barred- and Southern Brown Bandicoot. Further more, habitat loss is still continuing unchecked with no realistic offsets possible.

If this deserves “a pat on the back” for Mr. Brumby, ordinary, daily work would have to make him immortal.

Hans Brunner
Wildlife Ecologist, Victoria
(shown left pointing out bandicoot activity in the Frankston area, Victoria)

Photo by Brett CliftonText added by Sheila Newman

In a press release on
April Fools Day 2009,
Victoria's Minister for the Environment,
Gavin Jennings
interpreted as a 'pat on the back' a condemnatory report by the Auditor General on the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.[1] Jennings' response seems like a crude damage-control exercise. The report said "the government's lack of baseline data or output performance measures means that it is not possible to conclude whether or not the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not," and notes failure to use the conservation and control measures in the Act, inadequate listing of threatened species, failure to develop action statements, to monitor implementation of these, or to assess their effectiveness, and that penalties for offences under the Act have not been reviewed or updated and therefore are not an effective deterrent." The Minister and the Government should resign; they are a sad joke.

[1]The media release cited was from the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Gavin Jennings, was dated Wednesday, 1 April, 2009, entitled, "Government welcomes auditor-general report".

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council has long said that Victoria lacks any framework within which our fauna are managed and has noted that there has never been a prosecution under the Victorian Fauna and Flora Act since it was created in 1988. Victorians who have looked and listened carefully have noted the silence in many forests once alive with song and movement, the deserted grasslands, and the corpses of kangaroos, koalas, wombats on our roads. Those of us who have tried to tackle the situation with Department of Sustainability Victoria (DSE) have also observed the avoidant, unassertive, endangered staff and ever-diminishing habitat of the biodiversity section of DSE and its encroachment by primary industries, find this comes as no surprise.

But will the backbenchers of the Bracks/Brumby government's aspirational classes come to their senses and stop chorusing on cue that Victoria is the "best place to live work and raise a family". Instead, will they stand up for their constituents on nature, justice and democracy and refuse to kowtow to hollow leaders more interested in commercially trading property and finance than good government?

Below is the summary of The Victorian Auditor General's report on the Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

1. Audit summary

1.1 Introduction

Conserving biodiversity is core to responsible environment and natural resource management and is fundamental to maintaining both quality of life and economic well-being, both now and in the future.

The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 (the Act) is the primary Victorian legislation providing for conservation of threatened species and ecological communities, and the management of processes that threaten the sustainability Victoria's native flora and fauna. The Act establishes a listing process. Once an item is listed the Act sets out a range of management processes and conservation tools that can be implemented to protect and conserve species.

Since the Act was passed in 1988, 653 plant and animal species, communities and threatening processes have been listed.
The objective of the audit was to review the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (the department) administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 and to assess how effective the processes and actions developed under the Act have been in preserving Victoria’s native flora and fauna.

1.2 Conclusions

The full range of ‘management processes’ and ‘conservation and control measures’ available in the Act has not been used.
Action statements are the primary tools in the Act being used to protect and conserve threatened flora and fauna. However, the effort directed to listing threatened species and processes has not been matched by effort to develop action statements, to monitor the implementation of actions, or assess their effectiveness. The gap between listed items and items with action statements continues to widen.

The lack of baseline data and outcome or output performance measures means it is not possible to conclude whether the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not.

2 Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988

1.3 Findings

1.3.1 The listing process

The department has invested most effort in listing threatened species. However, there is duplication of processes within the department and with the Commonwealth Government’s listing process. The time taken to list an item, while within the three year (156 weeks) timeframe specified under the Act, continues to exceed the department’s internal benchmark of 31 weeks. The internal benchmark is an optimum period that requires each stage to be completed as quickly and reasonably as possible. This benchmark could not always be met in part due to factors beyond the department’s control, such as the Scientific Advisory Committee requiring multiple meetings to consider a nomination.

Over 800 items have been nominated for listing and 653 have been listed under the Act. However the department’s ‘advisory’ list (a separate list not subject to the listing process), contains over 2 200 species of flora and vertebrate fauna. Many of the species on the advisory list are likely to satisfy the criteria for the ‘threatened’ list maintained under the Act.

The listing process while conforming with the Act is compromised by a lack of up-to-date scientific data and by limited stakeholder participation. The department’s information systems relating to conservation and biodiversity are incomplete and disjointed. Major system development and integration projects are underway to address current shortcomings.

1.3.2 Conservation tools

The various management processes, conservation and control measures available under the Act to conserve and protect flora and fauna are not being used, largely because of their perceived complexity and difficulty of administering these provisions.

The department has relied on provisions in other environmental legislation, strategies, policies and plans in preference to those available under the Act to conserve and protect flora and fauna.

While ‘action statements’ are mandatory, their development and finalisation has been protracted. There is no time limit in the Act for these tools to be finalised—‘as soon as possible’ is the time standard set. At the current rate of progress, with existing resources, it will take a further 22 years for the department to complete action statements for the 653 items currently listed as threatened.

1.3.3

The Act The Act was reviewed by the department in 2002. This review concluded that ‘the existing regulatory and policy framework for the protection of threatened species in Victoria is in need of a major overhaul.’ A number of recommendations to improve the Act resulted from this review, but no amendments to the Act have been made.

Audit summary Administration of the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 3 The state government’s April 2008 green paper, Land and Biodiversity at a Time of Climate Change, acknowledges the need for legislative reform (State and Federal) and the proposed white paper will identify the extent to which legislative change is required.

1.4 Recommendations The department should:

• review the internal timeframes it sets for listing, against the resources it applies and the processes it adopts, to confirm they are realistic

• continue to build its knowledge-base on threatened species, causes of their decline and how best to mitigate threats to them; and expedite the transfer of information held on manual files to the ABC system

• formalise its collaboration on conservation activity with the Federal Government and seek a joint agreement to eliminate duplication in the listing process (Recommendation 4.1).

The department should:

• assess the resources it applies to developing, monitoring and reviewing action statements and establish a prioritised action plan to address the backlog of listed items with no action statements
• include in new and revised action statements the processes by which it will monitor progress and evaluate the effectiveness of each initiative within the action statement • review the efficacy of conservation and protection tools available under the Act
• assess whether the listing process is the most effective and efficient means of protecting species and communities
• develop a suite of output efficiency and outcome effectiveness measures to monitor and assess its conservation efforts (Recommendation 5.1)."

The Report can be downloaded here

Photos of Tasmanian Devils are from this wonderful you-tube movie by Chris Coupland of a devil in the snow at Cradle Mountain. (The music may not be to everyone's taste but it suits the devil's walk.) Note that Tasmania's devils are so inbred due to isolation that somewhere round half now suffer from a fatal mouth cancer. For this reason vigilance must be of highest order.

Fauna protection in every state is a disaster!

Victoria isn't the only state that has received terrible criticism of their administering of fauna protection laws.
You only have to google for Auditor Generals' reports on fauna to come up with them for most or all states in Australia. Here are some examples:

Tasmanian Government

Threatened Species Report, Auditor-General of Australia, March 2009
http://www.audit.tas.gov.au/publications/reports/specialreport/pdfs/specialreport78.pdf

A damning report on the state of Tasmania's rare and endangered species by Australia's Auditor-General, was released in March, 2009 and among may issues notes how only 2 of Tasmania's threatened species have full recovery plans in place.

Tasmania's Southern Forests are habitat-in-crisis for many of these species.

“It was pleasing to find evidence that private forest covenants had been numericallyeffective but that only two public authority management agreements, which provide an effective mechanism to allow public sector entities to commit to arrangements for management of species and habitats, had been made.

Another concern was that the existing organisational structure did not encourage a strategic approach to conservation of threatened species, their habitats and the threatsconfronting them. However, a divisional plan with clearly defined objectives exists and performance against the plan was regularly monitored and results published.
The Report includes 19 recommendations primarily aimed at introducing a structuredand prioritised approach to managing Tasmania’s threatened species with a focus on assessing implementation plans and monitoring progress.”

West Australian Government

West Australia:
10 June 2009
Auditor General finds number of threatened species increasing and few are improving (West Australia)

With WA’s list of threatened species now over 600 and rising, Auditor General Colin Murphy has found that recovery action is not happening for most, and few are improving.

In his report tabled in Parliament today titled, Rich and Rare: Conservation of Threatened Species, Mr Murphy found that, in many areas, the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is not providing effective protection and recovery to WA’s threatened flora and fauna.

“Only a handful of threatened species are actually recovering, while the number of species on the list continues to grow,” Mr Murphy said.

“My office has found that only one in five threatened fauna, and fewer than half of threatened flora species have recovery plans, and those plans that are in place are often not fully implemented.”

The report also found that DEC’s $8.2 million threatened species program prioritises recovery plans and actions towards critically endangered species, leaving vulnerable and endangered species at increased risk of decline.

A major obstacle to DEC’s performance is the long delay in drafting a Biodiversity Conservation Act, to replace the existing Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. DEC has pursued updated legislation for over 20 years.

The current legislation restricts DEC’s ability to effectively conserve threatened species; existing protection measures are largely inadequate, and DEC does not have the power to access threatened species on private property to implement much-needed conservation action.

The report found that multi-species approaches to conservation can be effective in dealing with the growing number of threatened species.

“DEC is undertaking a number of multi-species approaches. For example, the Western Shield program has improved the status of several native mammals,” Mr Murphy said.

“DEC is also acquiring land to secure species habitat, but less than half the nationally agreed target has been reserved in WA.”

The Auditor General’s report found a number of other areas for improvement, particularly:

* DEC cannot demonstrate that all of its threatened species conservation activities are effective.
* DEC has not identified habitat critical to the survival of all threatened species.
* State and Commonwealth threatened species lists are not aligned and 190 WA species do not receive protection from the Commonwealth Government.

“Increasing numbers of threatened species and the size of WA present a significant challenge for DEC,” Mr Murphy said.

“Achieving the right balance between programs which benefit large numbers of species at once, with those targeted at individual species’ needs, will be critical.”