Environment Minister Greg Hunt

The epic migration of shorebirds from Australia to their Arctic breeding grounds is said to be in imminent danger of collapse.
Birds are disappearing by the tens of thousands on their globe-spanning flights, mainly because of the loss of all-important "refuelling" habitat, scientists warn.
Around 36 Australian bird species use the East Asian-Australasian Flyway for the mass migration which sends them north to food-rich Arctic summer nesting habitat, then south to capitalise on the austral summer.
This article is reprinted from the Australian Wildlife Protection Council website

Great Shorebird Migration is under threat

Over just 25 years of monitoring migratory shorbirds in Australia some species such as the Curlew Sandpiper have decreased by 50-80%. In 2007 alone up to 150,000 shorebirds went missing as a result of destruction of a single tidal ecosystem in the Yellow Sea. Here, the most pressing threat is the fast pace of coastal land reclamation (defined as conversion of natural wetland into dry land and artificial wetland by mechanical means). It requires international cooperation to maintain the habitats from Siberia to Australia that they rely on to survive.

(image: Curlew Sandpiper)

Our largest shorebird, the Eastern Curlew, has seen a population crash of almost 50 per cent in the same period, since the 1980s.

Threats to the Yellow Sea ecosystem are many. The presence of 10% of the world's human population in the basins that drain into the Sea is leading to significant habitat loss and degradation, serious pollution problems and unsustainable use of natural resources. The deadliest threat of course is human population growth, causing massive species extinctions!

(image: Eastern Curlew)

Yet Australia is doing very little at home and abroad to stop their slide towards extinction. Millions of migratory birds that fly tens of thousands of kilometres between their homes in Australia and Siberia are facing annihilation as development destroys the vital feeding grounds they rely on during their epic journeys, a Deakin University avian expert has warned. "Some fly as many as 10,000km non-stop in an incredible feat of endurance and some wing vast distances over a lifetime equivalent to flying to the moon.'' says researcher and Director of Deakin University's Centre for Integrative Ecology Professor Marcel Klaassen.

Professor Klaassen said the birds were being threatened by massive development, particularly around the Yellow Sea and on tidal flats and wetlands they have traditionally relied on for food to refuel for their fantastic, long flights.

Australia participates in important agreements, including bilateral migratory bird agreements with Japan (JAMBA), China (CAMBA) and the Republic of Korea (ROKAMBA), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention), the Ramsar Convention on Welands, the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP), and through the East Asian - Australasian Flyway Partnership.

Wetland habitat loss and degradation is a significant threat to migratory waterbirds, and the conservation of important sites both within Australia and along their migration routes is essential to their survival. Many pressures are contributing to this degradation, of which population growth and associated coastal development are of particular concern.

The Federal Government has now released a new draft Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (WCP). According to Birdlife Australia, it has some major flaws:

It's too late now for public comments on the draft plan. The previous Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds came into effect in February 2006, and was the first wildlife conservation plan developed under the Act. This Plan must be reviewed every five years.

However, according to BirdLife Australia:

-It makes no commitment to zero net loss of important habitat. This is unacceptable; it means that the Government will still allow important shorebird habit to be developed or degraded without adequate compensation (if and where this is even possible).

-It fails to take into account cumulative losses – i.e. the collective impacts of multiple threats to our shorebirds. We don’t even have a register of what is being lost.

It ignores the urgent need for updated migratory population estimates -and identification of important sites. Decisions are not based on accurate information.

-It will not sufficiently increase international cooperation to protect migratory shorebird habitat. Existing international efforts have been inadequate in addressing the rapid destruction of critical staging areas like the Yellow Sea.

These “major flaws” surely is surely an understatement! There's no limits to developments, a register of loss habitats, identification of important sites, and not enough international cooperation. It's easy to have these “Conservation Plans” but they are no more than empty words unless there are actual plans to implement!

Although nearly a thousand Little Curlew have been banded in North West Australia in recent years, and several hundred flagged, the only recaptures and resightings of flagged birds have been within the North West Australia region. There have been no overseas reports at all of marked birds.

(image: Little Curlew)

Petition to Environment Minister Greg Hunt:
SaveTheBirds
Also,
SOS:Save our Shorebirds

The Australian Wildlife Protection Council wrote on September 1, 2014 to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications: "We condemn the Abbott Government’s attacks on the Great Barrier Reef, other priceless environmental institutions and native wildlife across Australia. We are dismayed by their lack of environmental protection since [the Abbott Government's]coming to power."

We express our shock and disgust at the attitude of the Coalition Government for their failure to see how important our environment is to many of us. It provides us with clean air, water, food - the essential elements of life for all species on this planet. Barnaby Joyce, Christopher Pyne, Warren Trusss, Eddie Abetz, too many Coalition M.P.’s and Ministers, treat the environment with total contempt [and] disregard!

It was a bad start for the government when it scrapped our climate policies and agencies:

• Carbon tax/pricing, Climate Commission, Climate Change Authority, and attempts to end Energy Renewable Target.

• It is shocking to see federal laws handed to the states. In Victoria, the Environment department, Department of Sustainability and Environment merged primary industries (DEPI) slashing jobs Not only jobs have been lost, but valuable field guides that identify wetlands, rainforests and others were thrown into the rubbish. Federal powers handed to Victoria when state laws like the FFG Act have not been revised, updated since inception; parts of the act have never been used.

• East Gippsland took DSE to court to ensure threatened species got recovery plans. The FFG is working in reverse as species should be taken of threatened species list because they’ve been recovered; species that need to be put on the list aren't being added due to a lack of resources.

• Cuts to the community are disgraceful - Environmental Defenders Office, Landcare, and Caring for Country. Axing of the Biodiversity fund is a shock as it is replaced with nothing.

• Abbott governments’ disregard in undermining our nations compliance with the World Heritage Convention regarding the Great Barrier Reef and Tasmania Wilderness World Heritage Area.

• Finally we in AWPC are disappointed, even ashamed of our local MP, Environment Minister who sends out a Newsletter with photos of himself ‘having fun’ with locals while he always refers decisions of national environmental significance such as the Southern Brown Bandicoot in our electorate to someone else, as apparently there is a conflict of interest?

Minister Greg Hunt has been an enormous disappointment when appointed as Environment Minister, which, with it comes certain responsibilities to CARE FOR COUNTRY. He even called the local police when we demonstrated outside his office against something of concern to many of us. What an absolute disregard for democracy and for the environment.

Respectfully,

Maryland Wilson
President
Australian Wildlife Protection Council
www.awpc.org.au

On the 13th of May Environment Minister Greg Hunt purportedly answered a simple question about Australia's dangerous and undemocratic population growth put to him by Kelvin Thomson. Minister Hunt's response should be a source of great concern for all Australians. It shows no respect for the very serious consequence to democracy or the environment of continuous population growth. The response is cavalier and disrespectful to Australians who have major and justifiable concerns on this matter. Below we quote the short dialogue in Hansard, and then we publish two observant comments about the Minister's failure to take the question seriously.

House of Representatives Question No.0101

"Mr Thomson asked the Minister for the Environment, in writing on 13 May 2014:

Is he aware that past and current open ended population growth policy creates the inevitable prospect of imposing continual infrastructure projects on the public, each one more invasive and destructive of the social and natural environments?"

Mr Hunt's reply was a monument to obfuscation and unreality, surpassing anything you have seen on Yes Minister:

"Mr Hunt: The answer to the Honourable Member's question is as follows:

Setting a fixed population target can mask the complexities of the issue. For example, there are many aspects of population change in Australia, such as changes in fertility rates that cannot be accurately predicted or directly controlled.

The Australian Government has in place a range of commitments to infrastructure, services, jobs and the environment which will provide for Australia's currently growing population including a commitment to better plan for and sequence infrastructure development across Australia, and to develop a White Paper on the development of Northern Australia. These policies will support environmentally, socially and economically responsible growth and cultivate resilient, productive and fair communities."

Quark: "Not an environment minister's bootlace"

Candobetter's Quark's analysis of the logic involved was breathtaking:

Quark wrote: "Mr Hunt is making something sound more complex than it is.

It's as though Kelvin Thomson had asked if Mr Hunt was aware that if you add 5 to 6 you get 11 and Mr Hunt had answered that it is more complex than that because 2 and 3 make 5 and 2 multiplied by 3 makes 6 and 11 can be reached by adding 1 to 10, 2 to 9, 3 to 8 etc.

It also sounds as though endless infrastructure for Mr Hunt is a good thing

Mr. Hunt is not an environment minister’s bootlace.

I wonder what would emerge if Kelvin asked the same question over and over in different ways to try to corner the little ponce.

Jack Roach: "We should be very worried"

Jack Roach of Boroondara Residents Action Group (BRAG) wrote, in response:

"It is no wonder that Australia is headed for a massive jump in the rate of our population growth with woolly thinking like the Minister for the Environment’s attached reply to a question on our population growth. Our population is set to double within the next 30 to 35 years because we have no clear immigration policies. There is no set annual immigration intake and visas are issued with no limit as to numbers. (And most are issued by licensed agents not by the immigration department – where is the control?)

When a senior Minister says that “setting a fixed population growth target can mask the complexities of the issue” (refer attached reply to a question asked in Parliament on May 13) we should be very worried. He is falling back on the politician’s ploy of trying to confuse the issue by talking about “fertility changes that cannot be predicted”. That is not the concern, it is the number of new migrants that is the issue. The numbers just keep on increasing very year. In the late nineties and early 2000’s our immigration numbers were around to 70,000 to 80,000 but these have steadily but surely increased to 250,000 now and there is no indication that there will be any curbs in this increasing trend. In addition we also have in our country over a million long stay visa holders who put further pressure on our infrastructure. By a well understood visa swapping process they extend their stay and many eventually gain permanent residency.

And who pays for all this new infrastructure required to cope with this growth? Certainly not the new arrivals to this country, it is you the taxpayer that foots the bill. Who benefits from this massive population growth. The productivity Commission has issued a statement that it is not the existing general population, the main beneficiaries are the new arrivals themselves and, of course, the development industry.

Kevin Rudd’s BIG AUSTRALIA was a con but it is still being pushed by many of today’s politicians and the growthists. The time has come for an Australia- wide debate on our lack of any real immigration policy and the increasing rate of our population growth. What we need from now on is a properly planned rational and sustainable migration policy.

Send a copy of this [...] to your local state and federal politicians and demand a debate on this issue before it is too late."

Environment Minister Greg Hunt justified the downgrade of a customs vessel to a plane to monitor Japan's illegal whaling, saying that "we want them to be aware that there will be monitoring – independent monitoring which from an aerial position can take independent vision of what occurs.''

There's no scientific or economic justification for Japan's whale slaughter in the Southern Ocean, where they are internationally protected. We already know what Japan plans to do in the Antarctic.

What's the point of the 2008 federal court decision that Japan's whaling was a breach of Australian law, and not wanting to police it? It's as effective as counting horses as they bolt through the open gate. In the most peaceful place on Earth, the cold and white wonderland of the Antarctic, powerful harpoons will rip the flesh off magnificent whales - in what is their sanctuary!

Japan will be in the Antarctic to deliberately employ explosive harpoons to slaughter protected whales in a whale sanctuary. Sea Shepherd vessels are there to intervene and stop their illegal activities. Japan's intent has already been clearly stated for years, through a bogus "research" legal loophole. If they were to "behave properly", according to Environment Minister Greg Hunt, they would have scientists, biologists, zoologists and technicians on board, to gather data and observe marine wildlife in their habitats. They would not have harpoons, lethal weapons, and all the paraphernalia of a factory ship to process whale meat.

Repetition of whaling in the Antarctic, and Australia's lack of direct action, has strengthen Japan's resolve and purpose and given them confidence in a de facto legality. Simply "recording" illegal activities, in hindsight, from a plane, is a feeble response considering there is clearly no compelling economic or scientific reason for the decades of flouting international standards.

The crew of Sea Shepherd are an embarrassment, a perpetual reminder, a thorn in the flesh to the professional hypocrites in our government who have rendered themselves useless by lots of posturing and words about being "anti whaling", but take no action.

Australia's customs patrol vessel, the Ocean Protector was built specifically to handle the icy conditions of the Southern Ocean, but instead it was patrolling the waters around Christmas Island for asylum seeker boats.

It's an easy and soft option to fend off unarmed asylum seekers, in primitive fishing boats in tropic waters, than to face the more challenging economic power and military hardware of Japan's whaling fleet and explosive harpoons in the more threatening Antarctic wilderness!

SMH: Customs Ship should be sent to disrupt Japanese whaling- Bob Brown