Sydney's farms under threat

Agriculture in the Hawkesbury Nepean Basin is worth $1 billion to NSW each year. This figure grows to $4 billion annually when you add the indirect income generated from Sydney agriculture.
Help protect Sydney's unique farmlands here.
Taking up just 2.5 per cent of the state’s land, Sydney farms produce:

• 15% of the state’s agricultural produce
• 20% of the state’s vegetables
• 100% of leafy greens – including the Asian vegetables we love to eat
• 48% of its poultry
• 100% of its mushrooms 

And Sydney’s farmers are not just productive, they’re efficient - five times more efficient than the rest of the state’s farmers.
The average return per hectare from Sydney farmland is $543 per hectare Across the rest of NSW, it’s just $136 per hectare.

In fact, the river flats of the Hawkesbury Nepean Basin are among the best and most fertile farmland in Australia.
To put that in a global perspective, due to environmental degradation and population pressure, the world is rapidly running out of good farmland  - in Australia alone three million hectares of farmland are under threat from salinity.

Once it’s gone, it’s gone

No one disagrees that we need to plan for Sydney’s future growth – although research by the NSW Government shows that Sydney’s growth, at 0.85 per cent, is actually lower than most other Australian population centres (both Melbourne and Brisbane have significantly higher growth rates than Sydney).  
Which makes it even more pointless to build suburbs on increasingly valuable farmland. Especially when there are alternatives. There’s plenty of land for housing, but precious little good farmland.
The first stage of the NSW Government’s Metropolitan Strategy (based on inflated figures that put Sydney’s population growth at 1000 a week when its actually 700 a week) proposes the release of large tracts of land in the city’s south west. This is known as the Bringelly Release and will build 30,000 new houses on rich river flats.
It will also wipe out Sydney’s lucrative and important Asian vegetable farmers, 60 of whom will lose their market gardens in the redevelopment.
Goodbye bok choy. Goodbye coriander.
Diane Beamer, then Minister for Western Sydney and Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Planning told the Bringelly farmers that there is no  place for them in the Metropolitan Strategy. She said "….they [the market gardeners] should know that they will have no future beyond the next 20 years."

Fresh Sydney food for Sydneysiders

If something isn’t done urgently, our farmers will be forced to cross the mountains. This would mean:

• They would be separated from their natural market - Sydney
• They would have to leave a reliable supply of water
• The further away from market the farm, the more fuel is needed to get there – and the more we will pay for our food
• Farmers need constant contact with markets to know what their customers want.

The closer the food, the fresher the food. Berries grown in the basin can be at the market the day they’re picked. Interstate berries sometimes take two three days to get to your greengrocer. Taste the difference.
More and more, the world is recognising the importance of food security - situating farms close to big cities to maintain a supply of fresh food.
Internationally, it’s accepted that every community should be able to produce at least a third of the food required by its residents. Also, every community should have a food system that connects producers, processors and distributors.
Sydney already has this. Let’s not throw it away.

Real food, not real estate

How can we stop the NSW Government selling off the farmland that provides us with income, jobs and – most importantly – fresh food?
Firstly, by asking your greengrocer to supply food grown in Sydney, and buying that in preference to imported food wherever possible. That way, you directly help Sydney's farmers.
You can also make a difference by letting the Planning Minister, Frank Sartor, know how important farmland is to Sydney. The last thing we need is concrete from the mountains to the sea.

Saving the Endangered Grey Nurse Shark

The Grey Nurse Shark can grow to over 3m in length, is grey to grey-brown in colour and the head has a flattened conical snout. Its narrow, inward-pointing teeth are only suited to catching fish and it is not dangerous to humans.
The shark is a coastal species. Its distribution is mostly in coastal waters off southern Queensland and along the NSW coast, as well as the waters off WA. There are 16 key habitat sites along the NSW coast.

Fishing

Fishing is a major threatening process to the Grey Nurse Shark. In order to protect their habitat, no-take zones of at least 1,500m should be implemented in key Grey Nurse Habitats. This would mean banning fishing in less than 1% of NSW marine waters, but it would give a large proportion of the Grey Nurse population a greater chance at survival.
The Government has been stalling on taking the real steps necessary to save the Grey Nurse, instead focusing on programs such as artificial breeding. This is meaningless if the fish cannot breed in a safe environment. The NSW government should immediately implement 1,500m no-take zones in sanctuaries around the key habitats of the Grey Nurse.
Write to the Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, and demand immediate 1,500m sanctuary zones in key Grey Nurse habitats.

Shark Nets

Another threat to the Grey Nurse shark is the use of shark nets on our beaches. There has been much in the media about needing to increase security on beaches to prevent shark attacks. However, shark nets are not the answer. 40 per cent of sharks trapped in these nets are caught on the beach side, which means that the nets can actually trap sharks inside the beach instead of keeping them out. They provide a false sense of security while acting as giant fishing nets for any animals that happen to come across them, including the harmless Grey Nurse, dolphins, turtles and baby whales.
The number of shark attacks has not increased over the years, despite much larger numbers of people using beaches. The chance of being attacked by a shark is tiny. The Government should change its strategy and instead use measures such as aerial patrols of beaches, which do not have the same devastating effects on the harmless creatures caught in nets.

What you can do

• SHARK NET COMMUNITY ATTITUDE SURVEY ONLINE
  As always, shark numbers along our beaches during the summer break have attracted a lot of media attention. We are working with marine conservationists in an attempt to save endangered marine life from the nets. You can help the campaign by completing an online survey of community attitudes to shark nets at.
  http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_fabrik&Itemid=1059
   
• Find out more via the Nature Conservation Council's "Adopt a Shark Program", nccnsw.org.au

Planning for Peak Oil in NSW

Based upon the current proven world oil reserves at the end of 2007 and at the 2007 level of consumption, it has been estimated that the current proven reserves will be exhausted in 41.6 years. The concept that the current lifeblood of advanced modern economies is becoming increasingly scarce is a politically difficult prospect.
However, this does not mean we have to be ensnared in the negativity of incessant doomsayers or the wilful ignorance of the peak oil denialists. Governments and citizens can meet the concurrent challenges of oil scarcity and anthropogenic climate change with innovative pathways for a sustainable future. We should not approach increasing oil scarcity with reticence and fear, but as an opportunity to immunise our economy from the difficulties of energy security.

Creating a Peak Oil Strategy

In the absence of a whole-of-government strategy and a comprehensive cross-departmental engagement, a peak oil task force will deliver the information we need for sensible and effective response to peak oil. Responsible governance requires foresight and planning. Praying for particular contingencies to come to fruition without a backstop safety net is irresponsible.
Rather than rising to the cross-departmental challenges of oil scarcity, which implicates areas such as urban planning, agricultural production, manufacturing, mining, food production, transport, aviation, tourism and environmental management, the New South Wales Government’s response demonstrates parochial, one-dimensional denialism. What happens if we fail to find alternatives to petroleum used for transporting people and essential goods, which currently consumes 75 per cent of Australia's transport fuel?
The potential implications of peak oil will be immense and far-reaching. The challenges of peak oil permeate a multitude of sectors in society and a one-dimensional response will not secure our livelihoods. The recent Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] paper "Fuel for thought—the future of transport fuels: challenges and opportunities" models four key oil price scenarios, one of which would see petroleum-based products range between $A2 and $A8 per litre by 2018.
On the surface these figures are concerning, but it must be remembered that the models are based on a number of variables and our fate is not sealed just yet. The 2008 CSIRO Future Fuels Forum paper highlights a number of positive opportunities from the development of alternative fuel sources. A peak oil task force, in addition to highlighting our economic vulnerabilities, shows the way forward on new economic opportunities associated with reconfiguration of energy and transport infrastructure.
We require the development of alternative energy sources such as the use of geothermal power to generate electricity and subsequently hydrogen fuel. We must push forward with alternative fuel sources and focus on the opportunities presented by oil scarcity.
Currently, the Government has stated that it would be wasteful to spend several millions on the formation of a peak oil task force when the New South Wales Government supposedly already has the answers to peak oil. By implication one would assume that the New South Wales’ Government has this peak oil issue all stitched up—it has crunched the numbers, consulted with community and business stakeholders, modelled alternative strategies and forecast sector-by-sector petroleum use and application.
There may have been a time when the undertones of the phrase "peak oil" reverberated as a catalyst for the decline of capitalism and the rise of some sort of popular utopian socialist revolution, but that was 30 years ago and the people of New South Wales want to know how the Government will insulate our economy from the potential economic slowdown at the hands of oil scarcity.
The community deserves forward planning.
While NSW Government does not need to be alarmist in regard to peak oil, what we do need is good governance and strong leadership.  However, it is difficult to govern and manage something that is treated as mythology in the State Labour Party policy lexicon. Let us put the peak oil denialism aside and consider what the New South Wales Government is doing to address the challenges posed by the decline of conventional oil resources.

Biofuels - Only a Small part of the solution

The primary solution wheeled out by the Government is the E2, soon to be E4, ethanol blended fuel mandate—even though the process of reviewing the E2 mandate appears to have been conveniently circumvented. The answer to the issue of peak oil, according to the Government, is a blanket volumetric ethanol mandate—a simple equation of more ethanol, less petroleum.
There are, however, concerns about ethanol. The Greens are not opposed to ethanol as an alternative fuel but continue to have concerns about Government encouragement of technologically and environmentally redundant production methods. Particular methods of ethanol production fail the multi-dimensional demands of climate change and biodiversity.
I fear that, without the appropriate regulatory boundaries, New South Wales will encourage an ethanol industry based upon cheap environmental shamanism rather than an industry based upon best practice environmental management. A boutique ethanol industry might be one thing, but mandated production increases with no sustainability criteria—similar to that enacted by the New Zealand Parliament recently—will quickly move ethanol production inputs beyond waste feed stocks to whole grains, oil seeds and even soy beans: in other words, food versus fuel.
Some will suggest that the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act provides an adequate forum to consider sustainability issues in ethanol production projects. Requiring a project proponent to simply list an inventory of environmental legislation to which the project would be subject is not sufficient to evaluate the sustainability implications. Sustainability criteria in conjunction with the adoption of the Australian Standard—AS/NZS ISO 14043—for all life cycle assessments will go some way to ensuring ethanol production does not have adverse impacts upon food markets or biodiversity. Without sustainability criteria prescriptions or caveats on ethanol production that divert food stocks away from food supply chains, an E4 mandate may result in unintended policy consequences, as acknowledged by the New South Wales E10 task force.
Introducing an E4 mandate without a sustainability criterion will amount to a nominal response to oil scarcity with the unintended policy prioritisation of private vehicle ownership over the primary sustenance and subsistence requirements of the New South Wales people and our State counterparts that import New South Wales wheat. The plethora of reports into biofuels and ethanol indicate the catchcry of ethanol biofuel as the panacea for peak oil is off target. The CSIRO report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation "Biofuels in Australia—issues and prospects" stated at page 12:
If all of the ethanol capacity that is currently proposed was to be fulfilled by existing crops (principally wheat and sugar), or if a national E10 target were to be met (eg. by 5.5 Mt of wheat as the feedstock), it could force the import of wheat in drought years.
More importantly the report, as is the case with the majority of reports on biofuels, states "biofuels are only a part of the solution to our future transport and energy needs". Certain Government officials have rolled out support of renewable energy targets and the establishment of the Renewable Energy Development Fund under the Climate Change Fund as examples of peak oil response measures.

Counting the Real Costs of Non-Conventional Oil

They have stated the Government is 'helping renewable technologies not yet commercial through the $100 million Renewable Energy Development Fund for pilot and demonstration projects". These projects are only relevant to the debate on peak oil to the extent that they assist and encourage the uptake of alternative fuel technologies that substitute for petroleum, not coal.
Further, according to the Department of Environment and Climate Change, the Renewable Energy Development Fund "provides $40 million over five years to support projects which are expected to lead to large scale greenhouse gas emission savings in New South Wales".
On the surface it appears that these programs are established for emission reduction purposes, not as peak oil response measures. If this is the sum total of modelling, analysis and planning that the Government has done on the structural adjustments driven by oil scarcity then the transition away from petroleum to various alternatives is going to be testing at best, cataclysmic at worst.
If the Government could answer the questions posed by peak oil—such as what are the sector-by-sector petroleum fuel based requirements of New South Wales to 2020, or what is the effect of peak oil on food affordability, for example—then its opposition to a peak oil taskforce and its claims that a taskforce is unnecessary would be acceptable.
The fact is that the Government does not have the answers and has not established a whole-of-government approach to prevent peak oil from falling between the departmental gaps. The reality is that the New South Wales Government would much rather intensify petroleum exploration to uncover non-conventional sources and sources located in environmentally sensitive areas to address oil scarcity.
A 60 Minutes report in June this year titled "The New Boom" highlighted the environmental cost of extracting non-conventional oil. It also cast light on the attitude of the petroleum production fraternity that there is a buoyant supply of non-conventional petroleum available to service the growing appetite of rapidly modernising nations. They claim our saviours such as non-conventional bitumen/tar sands in the Athabasca Basin, advancing recovery techniques, enhanced oil recovery [EOR] techniques and application of nanotechnology in petroleum production have the capacity to significantly delay the onset of peak oil.
What they fail to mention is that there is a direct correlation between the difficulty in extracting non-convention oil and environmental damage. Steam assisted gravity drainage [SAGD] extraction techniques use anywhere between two to four barrels of fresh water to extract one barrel of bitumen oil.
There are unproven reserves out there such as the unrecovered light crude in Brazil. There are many examples of unproven reserves with varying degrees of access. The question becomes: What environmental price are we willing to pay to access and extract non-conventional oil?
Do we say that because the market price for oil makes non-conventional and highly environmentally damaging extraction cost-effective and profitable that we should proceed with extraction? This is where it is important that we adequately quantify ecosystem services delivery and conversion of arable land.
The reality is that these measures are tinkering at the edges. To hold up these measures as serious peak oil avoidance pathways is foolish—a brand of denialism on par with the 11 years of the Howard Government's wilful blindness of climate change which will have seismic consequences for this country's long-term global competitiveness.
The approach is short sighted, ignores the issue of intergenerational equity and fails to mitigate CO2 emissions, whereas reducing demand for the resource through a suite of measure is long term, achieves intergenerational justice and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. It is necessary consider the adequacy of the Government's current response to this natural resource management issue as it has substantial potential to aggravate inequities and societal polarities.

NSW Greens’ Attempt to Mitigate Peak Oil Crisis

Ian Cohen MLC has recently supported a protocol to mitigate the future peak oil crisis by focusing on limiting exploitation of resources and improving alternative fuels and energy options.  The Oil Depletion Protocol, which can be accessed at www.oildepletionprotocol.org, requires signatories to commit to an array of principles to protect countries from the negative effects of a globally dwindling oil supply. 
The key aspects of the protocol are:

• Every nation shall aim to reduce oil consumption to world depletion rate;
• No country shall produce or import oil above world depletion rate;
• To avoid profiteering from shortages and ensure oil prices remain in reasonable relationship with production cost;
• Allow poor countries to afford their imports;
• Avoid destabilizing financial flows from an increase in oil prices;
• Waste avoidance; and
• Stimulate the development of alternative energies.

Currently, many Australian companies have already implemented this protocol into their business practices, but it is necessary for Government to adopt this protocol in effort to alleviate effects of peak oil.

Related

• Ian's parliamentary speech on 15 November 2005
• Ian's parliamentary speech on 9 May 2006
• All Ian's parliamentary contributions

Marine Parks - Securing a Rich Tapestry of Biodiversity

Importance of Australia’s Marine Environment

The beauty of oceans and seas that encircle Australia’s coast is vast and varying climates and biodiversity within them.  Australia has a full range of temperature zones, from tropical to polar and a rich diversity within each of those zones.  Australia’s coasts are comprised of over 4,000 fish varieties, tens of thousands of invertebrates, as well as, numerous plants and micro-organisms.  Large areas have yet to be fully explored and new species are discovered often.  Nevertheless, scientists estimate about 80% of marine species do not exist elsewhere in the world.

Use of the NSW Marine Environment

In 2001, more than 80% of Australians lived within a 50km distance of the coast. The coast and sea are crucially important economically, recreationally and culturally.  This is seen through areas such as Tourism and Recreation, Fisheries (commercial and recreational), Aquaculture, Ports and Shipping, Oil and Gas, Renewable Energy, Mineral Exploration, Submarine Cables, Disposal of Waste, and Novel Use of Marine Organisms. 
Tourism & Recreation- Marine based tourism in 2002-03 was valued at $4.5 billion and accounted for some 82% of all jobs in the marine related fields.
Commercial Fisheries- In 2003, there were 1900 commercial fisheries that accounted for up to 2.3% of all jobs in NSW. 
Recreational Fishing- NSW has the most recreational fishers in Australia compared to any other State and spent an estimated $554 million in 2000 on their hobby.
Aquaculture- Aquaculture is basically fish farming and is developing at a rapid rate.  Aquaculture in NSW represents about 30% of fisheries production and was dominated by Sydney Rock Oyster production, valued at $33 million. 
Ports & Shipping- International trade with Australia is mainly carried out through sea freights and has steadily increased in the past 20 years.  There are three of the top ten ports of Australia in NSW: Newcastle, Port Kembla and Sydney.  Total imports and exports in NSW in 2005-06 were valued at nearly $62 billion.
Oil & Gas- While there is no current oil or gas production off the coast of NSW, estimates report that there are sizeable amounts of both between NSW and New Zealand.
Renewable Energy- Renewable energy from the marine environment comes in three basic forms: wave, tidal and wind.  Only one renewable energy source has been installed in NSW, a wave power device in Port Kembla.  However, other forms of renewable energy devices have been installed and proven to work around the world such as wind turbines in Holland and the UK.
Mineral Exploration- Just as with gas and oil, no mineral exploration is currently taking place off the NSW coast.  There are potential sources of sand, manganese and phosphates.  All mining and mineral exploration must have a valid Mineral Exploration License to operate.  There is, however, a company currently applying for one currently to actively mine sand.
Submarine Cables- These cables off the coast of NSW are Australia’s mechanism for communication and estimated to be worth $5 billion annually to the national economy.  There are three cables connecting Australia to Japan and USA.
Disposal of Waste- Previously, dumping at sea was thought to be a viable source for decreasing pressure on land-based facilities.  International law, based from the London Convention which Australia is a signatory, has shown the harsh impacts of dumping at sea and strictly regulated it.  However, dumping still exists as long as all permits are obtained and hazardous/toxic materials from previous dumping still remain in certain areas.
Novel Use of Marine Organisms- Bioprospecting is the acquiring of new species for new purposes like medical, commercial or agricultural.  Just as researches explore rainforests for new species, the marine environment is also beginning to be inspected and new species are found all the time, as well as new advances from old species.  Such can be seen with a certain type of sea snail that is currently being used to develop a new type of chronic pain treatment.

 

Threats to the marine environment

Development:  In 2001, 85% of the population in NSW lived within 50km of the coast and in 2004 the proportion of NSW coastline had increased from 4% in 1980 to 27%.  Coastal development affects the marine environment by disturbing and shifting habitats of terrestrial species, such as seabirds, and affecting coastal water quality due to run-offs of contaminated water from buildings and roads.
Pollution:  According to Australia’s State of the Environment Report 2001, maintaining and restoring water quality was the most critical environmental marine environment issue.  Pollution from industry; agriculture; spills/accidents from shipping; spills/accidents from land-based sources that reach the waters; vessel discharge; and run-off, as mentioned above, which includes: sediments, nutrients, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, pathogens and other toxic chemicals.  The result of these various types of pollution is a reduced diversity, loss of pollution-sensitive diversity, and persistent chemicals in our coastal waters. 
Invasive species: Just as the (Cane Toad) has caused problems on terrestrial land, new/invasive species can have the same effect in the marine environment.  Where there are no natural predators to control populations, entire ecosystems can be threatened.  In most cases, the invasive species enters through human activity such as the release of ballast water (water carried in ships to provide balance and equilibrium when sailing.)
Fishing: Fish stock depletion is a major area of concern in many parts of the world.  Local fish stock assessments are made by data gathered from commercial fisheries compared against older data to assess if the intake of stock is higher, the same or lower than previous years.  Although few species of fish are considered to be over-fished in the NSW region, most available data shows that the other fish are classified as ‘fully exploited’ meaning they are fished at sustainable levels. 
By-Catch or Unintended Catch: Many protected species like turtles and sharks are often caught inadvertently through trawl nets and dredges.  These are known as ‘by-catch.’  Unintended catches are those that are caught by ‘ghost-fishing’ or caught by discarded fishing gear.
Shipping: Shipping fleets also impact the marine environment through many accidental means.  Collision with large marine animals, the introduction of invasive species, spills of hazardous materials and damage caused by anchors.
Climate Change:  Climate change increases the flow of warm water, as well as the overall temperature of the sea.  This causes unintended migration and distribution of species as well as habitats.  This causes the introduction of new species as well as the increased reproduction of older ones, like the jellyfish.

Benefits OF Marine Parks

Benefits cited in scientific studies that may result from the implementation of marine protected areas like marine parks and their sanctuary zones include:
· increases in the abundance, biomass, diversity and productivity of many organisms;
· reductions in the loss of threatened and vulnerable species;
· helping ecosystems recover from natural and human impacts;
· increased protection of important species and habitats;
· the provision of reference sites for the evaluation of threats to biodiversity; and
· improved engagement and education of the community concerning issues of marine conservation.
Moreover, the installation of sanctuary or ‘no-take’ zones has proven to increase the abundance and size of fish and invertebrate stock compared to those areas outside the sanctuary zone where fishing still took place, especially in species that were said to be heavily exploited. 
The increased abundance from the areas, in turn, creates a spill-over effect to other areas.  This means that as the levels of fish stocks rise in a certain area, when the numbers get too large, the fish will begin to ‘spill-out’ of the area.  This increased movement of fish can improve the quality of fishing in the surrounding areas.

Commercial Cultivation of Genetically Modified Crops in NSW

Background

The moratorium on growing Genetically Engineered crops in NSW expired in March 2008. The lifting of the moratorium will have dire consequences for our clean, green, GE free image and will have detrimental effects on export markets. The introduction of GE food crops threatens the rapidly growing organics markets, as organics are incompatible with GE.
The ban on commercial GE crops was extended in 2005, partly because the government said there had not been adequate trials, due to the drought. This remains the case. Proponents of GE have not participated in independent comparative field trials, so there is no reason to lift the ban in 2008.
At the end of 2007, the NSW Labor Government introduced the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Bill 2007. The Bill paved the way for the Minister for Primary Industry under Section 7A of the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Act 2003(“GM Act”) to approve Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (“OGTR”) cleared Genetically Modified Organisms (“GMO”) for commercial cultivation in NSW.
In other words, GMO varieties given the tick of approval by the Federal OGTR as complying with health and safety impacts, then also need the NSW Government’s tick of approval for commercial cultivation, which ensures trade and market consideration are taken into account.

 

Canola

Canola is commonly used in margarine, cooking oil, dips, sauces and many other foods, as well as stock feed for farm animals.
Australian farmers are enjoying a price premium for GE-free canola, compared with GE-growers like Canada and the US. With Japan and the EU being the main export markets, there is a demand for GE-free canola. The end of the moratorium would threaten this market and see a decrease in prices paid to farmers.
Canola is crop-rotated with wheat. This means that if GE canola plants germinate among a wheat crop, it threatens the GE-free status of the wheat. Australia has a strong reputation for its wheat, which could be tarnished with GE contamination and threaten export markets. There is also an increasing market for organic wheat, which is not compatible with GE.
On 12 March 2008, the Minister approved two licenced GMOs, Nufarm Ltd licensed Roundup Ready Canola and Bayer's Invigor Hybrid Canola for commercial cultivation in NSW.

 

The Approval Process

This approval process whereby an Expert Committee, consisiting of 12 appointees provides guidance, feedback and advice on applications for commercial cultivation from agri-business GM representatives has highlighted two key concerns.
The first issue is a disproportionate representation of individuals with significant histories of pro-GM advocacy sit on the Committee. The Minister was less than forthcoming with the details of the Expert Committee and whether any appointees had disclosed a pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest.
An application was made pursuant to Section 13(3) of the GM Act for access to the disclosures book - a document produced by the Committee and maintained by the Department of Primary Industry - in order to establish who was on the Expert Committee and what pecuniary interests members may have declared.
The disclosures book revealed that the Expert Committee consists of:

• Professor Timothy Reeves - Chair  

Director and Principal of Timothy G. Reeves and Assoc. Pty Ltd, specialising in national and international consulting in agricultural research and development.
Board Director – The Grains Research Development Corporation
Board Director – the Future Farm Industries CRC
Professional fellow at Melbourne University. Adjunct professor at Deakin University. In the process of becoming an adjunct professor at Qld Uni of Technology

• Dr Geoffrey Annison

Director, Health, Nutrition and Scientific Affairs of the Australian Food and Grocery Council (AFGC)
Formerly of Australian Pork Ltd and AWB Ltd.
Dr Annison has a Bachelor of Science in Food Technology and a PhD in Microbiology from the University of New South Wales.
Dr Annison declared a "small share holding AWB Pty Ltd"

• Mr Phillip Clamp

Quality Assurance Manager of Graincorp Ltd (GrainCorp Limited is a publicly listed Australian agribusiness and the dominant bulk handling company on the east coast of Australia. We are committed to servicing the needs of the domestic and international grain markets from producers to buyers.)
Mr Clamp declared a "minor shareholding (about 1,500 securities) in Graincorp"

• Mr Brett Drysdale

President of Australian Grain Harvesters Association Inc.

• Dr T J Higgins

Chief Research Scientist and Deputy Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry Division

• Ms Jo Immig

Environmental Scientist, National Toxics Network

• Dr Zottan Lukas

Grains Research and Development Corporation, Corporate Strategist Evaluation & Reporting

• Mrs Juliet McFarlane

 Canola grower and Eastern Spokesperson for Network of Concerned Farmers

• Ms Cindy Mills

Australian Wheat Board, Wheat Product Development Manager
Ms Mills declared a "small share holding in AWB Ltd"

• Mr Hugh Roberts

Grains Committee Member of NSW Farmers Association
Mr Roberts declared "shareholding in AWB Ltd and Graincorp" and is a Life Member of NSW seed growers association

• Dr Stephen Thomas

Director of Rural Innovation, New South Wales Department of Primary Industry

• Mr Nicholas Woods

General Manager (Biotechnology) of Croplife Australia Ltd

The other perinent issue in relation to the approval process was the lack of transparency. In answering a question without notice on the advice of the Expert Committee, Minister MacDonald described the approval process as:
"The committee made recommendations to me. After looking at those recommendations I determined that certain areas should be strengthened and I forwarded suggestions back to the committee. The expert committee considered those suggestions and incorporated them."
The Hon. Duncan Gay summerised the process in an interjection:
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You just tell them what you want and they give them to you.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I do not tell the committee to do anything.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You tell them to do what you want.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: They do not do what I want.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: You just said that they did.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: I did not say that. I said that I put a couple of proposals to them.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: And they did what you wanted.
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: The committee carefully considered what I had to say and incorporated a couple of changes. That is fair enough; there is nothing wrong with that. The basic decision was still there—that is, to permit the growing of GM canola.
The Hon. Duncan Gay: That is a good committee!
The Hon. IAN MACDONALD: There is no doubt about that. It is an independent committee that considered the matters and a couple of suggestions from me. I did not tell it to do anything. The committee supported my view and strengthened the proposition with a couple of my suggestions. There is nothing wrong with that.
The Hon. Catherine Cusack: Have you finished their report yet?
These issues provided a sufficient impetus for all Committee deliberations and industry applications to be made public. The call for documents to be released was defeated in the Upper House with the Government, the Shooters and CDP voting against the motion.
Part 1 of the Debate
Part 2 of the Debate
What is clear is that GM approval and management protocols will be undertaken under the cover of darkness. The community is being starved of information and are not being given a chance to appropriate make informed decisions about the proliferation of GM crops.

So, how are GM Crops and Food Products regulated in NSW?

Under the GM Act there are no regulatory prescriptions for how segregation and co-existence of GM and Non-GM crops is to be managed. The lack of legislative control and regulation is in stark contrast to the raft of regulatory measures the organics industry is subjected to.
The GM Act is unprecedented, in that the legislature so rarely defers regulatory power to commercial stakeholders who have a vested interest in the the subject matter they are regulating.  In GRDC Ground Cover Issue No. 74, David Strong, Business Manager for Pacific Seeds, is quotes as saying ‘industry has been directed to manage and self regulate the cultivation and segregation of GM canola. At this point, the Government has handed over control to industry to self regulate.’
Regulation of GM cultivation is farmed out to the private sector to manage and control GM cultivation. The Single Vision Grains Australia document 'Delivering market choice with GM canola'. In outlining the key protocols for managing and handling GM Canola the most utilised approach of the industry stakeholders is to rely upon contractual arrangements between the GM Canola grower and the patent licensee.
Joe Lederman in a recent article titled "Overcoming difficulties for co-existence between GM and non-GM crops: Laws required for improving supply chain segregation" commented on the problems of delegating GM cultivation regulation to private contracts by stating;
"The GM technology providers also have scope to regulate farming of GM varieties. Often purchase contracts for GM seeds contain Technical User Agreements that the farmers must adhere to. As the GM technology providers are using such Agreements primarily in order to protect their patent, these User Agreements could help ensure at this critical control point that GM crops do not contaminate non-GM crops.
However, in reality, since the purpose is not to protect the non-GM crop grower from contamination, the non-GM crops grower is rarely protected through these Agreements. Furthermore, there are international legal precedents by which GM technology providers have obtained a royalty entitlement even from a non-GM crop grower where GM contamination has occurred. Moreover, these Technical User Agreements are not subject to further laws that could compel proper segregation such as through penalties for lack of consciencious compliance with proper segregation practice."
The pro-GM stakeholders are clearly creating a form of self-regulation which places all the cost burden of segregation or co-existence on Non-GM farmers. Executive Director of the Australian Oilseeds Federation Rosemary Richards delivered the news that:
“growers wanting to market their grain as non-GM must ensure the status of their seed prior to planting. Also, the grower will need to demonstrate traceability through the supply chain. This could involve procedures such as vendor declarations, monitoring contractors and deliver to storage in compliance with customer requirements.”
For consumers, making informed choices on whether they want to consume GM food products is not currently possible. The Food Standards Australia and New Zealand do not have adequate food labelling laws in place requiring food products derived from GM Canola, on the basis that DNA material is stripped from high processed GM Canola product.

Moving Forward 

Moving forward we must ensure;
i) Non-GM Farmers can effectively protect their crops from GM contamination and are not unfairly burdened with Non-GM Certification costs.
ii) Consumers will have the ability to make a choice about consuming food products with GM content through the adoption of adequate food labelling laws.

 

Myths

• GM is safe

Nobody knows the long-terms consequences of consuming GE foods and there has not been adequate testing. Some preliminary testing on rats has shown worrying results in a number of GE varieties, including corn and peas.
GE canola varieties approved by the federal Gene Technology Regulator include Monsanto's GT73 Roundup Ready canola. Monsanto's own studies reveal increased liver weights in rats fed the canola. The Public Health Association of Australia has also raised safety concerns about eating the canola.

• Isn’t GE just an artificial form of selective breeding, which farmers have done for centuries?

GE is the manipulation of the DNA structure of organisms in an attempt to produce desirable characteristics, but it allows genes to move between species in ways that could never occur in nature. For example, cattle genes have been inserted into soybeans and rat genes into lettuces. Even scientists have no idea what effects this could have in the long-term on the organisms, on humans or on the environment.
GE drought resistant varieties will help farmers in these drought-stricken times.
There are no commercially available drought resistant varieties of GE plants. However, plants that are more drought-tolerant have been developed through selective breeding without the use of GE.

• It is easy to keep GE and non-GE crops separate

Supporters of GE claim that protocols can be used to ensure that GE and non-GE grain can be adequately separated. However, even small-scale field trials led to contamination of non-GE canola with GE plants across several states in late 2005. Once GE crops are released, there is no going back.

• GE crops use less chemicals

Most GE crops that are grown commercially are designed to be used together with strong herbicides, mostly made by the same companies that hold the patents to the GE seed. Often, more herbicide or stronger applications are needed, especially as other weeds become herbicide tolerant. In the US, farmers of GE soybeans use far more herbicides than farmers of non-GE soybeans.
Another concern is that herbicide resistant GE plants such as canola can cross-breed with other weeds, creating herbicide resistant ‘super-weeds’.

The following is an excerpt of the film The Future of Food, which illustrates the impact GMO has had on Mexican corn cultivation and US farmers' ability to save non-GMO seed.

Private Native Forestry

What is Private Native Forestry (PNF)?

 The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change characterise PNF as:
"The management of native vegetation on privately-owned land for the purpose of obtaining, on a sustainable basis, forest products including sawlogs, veneer logs, poles, girders, piles and pulp logs.
In NSW alone, the private native forestry industry employs approximately 1800 people and is valued at between $160 million and $250 million per year. Private native forestry provides over 50% of the State’s hardwood. This hardwood is used extensively in the building and housing industries, and by tradespeople, including furniture manufacturers and arts and craft suppliers.
Private native forests are important for timber production, biodiversity conservation, water quality and yield, enhanced greenhouse gas abatement and their contribution to local economies."

Background

In August 2007, amendment were made to the Native Vegetation Regulation 2005 to provide for a Private Native Forestry Code of Practice. The Code requires PNF landholders and loggers to complete Property Vegetation Plans (PVP) that outline how PNF logging on a particular parcle of private land will comply with the provisions of the Code.
On 1 August 2008, the former Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water, Phil Koperberg gave the PNF Codes Biodiversity Certification, meaning that site by site threatened species assessments are not required and that the Code as a whole does not adversely impact upon threatened species.

Deficiencies in the Code  

• There is no secure protection for Endangered Ecological Communities.  They can be logged under an ‘ecological harvest plan’ approved by the Director General. 
• No requirement of threatened species surveys or habitat assessments of all areas prior to logging.  
• Does not strictly protect mapped oldgrowth and rainforest, or prescribe  a discretionary field test
• Does not prohibit patch-clearfelling, which is just land-clearing by stealth, and does not ensure that areas approved for private native forestry become ineligible for any future land-clearing
• Does not strictly protect all rare and severely depleted ecosystems, and habitat corridors
• Does not implement strict limits on the size of trees that can be logged, especially for ironbark, cypress and river red gum and improve habitat tree retention rules. 
• Drastically improve protection for iconic River Red Gum forests, including protection of wetlands, increased riparian protection and protection for habitat corridors
• Areas that are excluded from logging are not protected in perpetuity from other damaging uses.
• Does not ensure strong protection of creek banks and gullies is not compromised in any way, and that improvements made to increase buffers are not secured. 

Transparency IN PNF Operations

Local communities play an important role in monitoring PNF operations. Community supervision should be encouraged to bolster gaps in Departmental compliance and enforcement mechanisms.
Last year, a local community west of Kempsey uncovered illegal logging occurring in their valley, including logging of trees on riverbanks and pollution of the pristine stream that they all rely on for water supply.  NCEC had obtained the logging approval under FOI (it was logged under the old native vegetation laws), and the local community was able to make a strong case to DECC that the logging was likely to be illegal.
DECC investigated, and in May the contractors were fined $4,800 for ‘pollution of waters in contravention of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997’ and ‘breach of the development consent’ for logging under the Native Vegetation Conservation Act 1997.  Without the FOI, and the provision of the approval, there would never have been any investigation because the community would not have been able to provide sufficient evidence to DECC to warrant it.
409 Property Vegetation Plans submitted to DECC by June 2008. The Environmental Defender's Office on behalf of the North Coast Environment Council made a Freedom of Information application in early 2008 to gain access to 16 PVPs. To date, access has been refused by the Department of spurious grounds and the matter is likely to be reviewed by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
In a bid to have a degree of transparency in the administration of the Code, Ian has asked a number of questions of the Minister. One of the key issues is the logging of old growth trees and rainforest and the Minister stated to this effect that;
"For the period 1 August 2007 to 31 March 2008, the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) has reassessed approximately 1,670 hectares of CRAFTI mapped Old Growth Forest or Rainforest. Of this area, 523 hectares have been confirmed as being correctly mapped and logging has been excluded.
An area of four hectares has been added to the area of Rainforest and one hectare of Old Growth Forest has been identified as Rainforest. Under DECC's reassessment, 1,142 hectares mapped as either Old Growth Forest or Rainforest by the CRAFTI methodology have been ground-truthed as neither Rainforest nor Old Growth Forest." 
Sydney Morning Herald Foi Reporter Matthew Moore published an article on 5 July 2008 titled 'Bureaucrats take axe to logging data'. Moore states;
"When you submit a development application to transform your house, you know the plans will be pored over by neighbours anxious to find out what you are up to. It used to be the same in the country when you wanted to log the back paddock, but not any more.
On the North Coast, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change, under its minister, Verity Firth, has reversed the long-standing practice of releasing details about logging operations on private land."
The object of the PNF Code highlights the public interest in PNF operations by acknowledging the “prevention of environmental harm and the provision of environmental services for the common good”. Withstanding that the operations occur on private land, the community remains an undeniable stakeholder in the protection of habitat and biodiversity on PNF land. 
Moore in his article states;
"The reason the department says the vegetation maps and logging plans must remain secret is that some landowners have called their office complaining that "people will trespass, machinery could be damaged". An unidentified staff member said landowners could be "blockaded".
As there is no history of blockades of any private property, this is pretty flaky reasoning. More importantly, if people damage machinery or commit other offences, they can be prosecuted. The fact that some unidentified person may commit an offence is no reason under the FoI Act to refuse access to information."
Environment groups and community stakeholders are yearning for a deeper understanding of PVPs, developed and submitted under the Code. This understanding is required because the NSW public have a vested interest in the viability of threatened species and endangered ecological communities.

Moving forward on e-waste and Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

Introduction

One of the most pressing environmental issues facing Australia is waste.  The average Australian household owns more consumable products that have a shorter and shorter life span, presenting unprecedented challenges in the area of waste management.
Many of these consumable items pose dangerous risks to the environment and human health, if not disposed of in a responsible manner. Australia lags behind other regions in the world, particularly Europe, Japan and Canada, in the implementation of legislation that tackles the growing challenges of consumer waste. New South Wales places a particular burden on our environment. 
As the most populous state in the country we need to get serious about writing provisions into existing legislation that include Extended Producer Responsibility schemes.

Concept of Extended Product Responsibility (EPR)

The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2001(the ‘WARR Act’) makes a provision for what is known as Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) schemes (Section 15). EPR schemes are vitally important in ensuring the responsibility of waste is also managed by producers, particularly those that create waste which can be harmful for the environment.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development defines EPR as:
'an environmental policy approach in which a producer's responsibility for a product is extended to the post-consumer stage of the product's life cycle.'
Although New South Wales has implemented one EPR scheme (packaging waste in response to National Packaging Covenant NEPM) there is a multitude of other waste stream that have not be addressed notwithstanding their deleterious effect on the environment.
New South Wales has the opportunity to lead the country on waste management through the implementation of legislation that should include the reduction, non-creation and disposal of waste. Effective EPR schemes should include the elimination of the creation of hazardous wastes, good design that extends the life of consumer products, and joint consumer/producer responsibility for the product at the end of its life cycle.
Some voluntary EPR schemes have been implemented in Australia, such as the Mobile Muster, however, these are either not extended as far as they need to be to include the majority of waste, or there is simply not enough reliable data to conclude the effectiveness of the scheme.
According to Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), who implemented the Mobile Muster Scheme, figures from the 2006/2007 period show that only 20 percent of discarded mobile phones in Australia were recycled, and only 6 percent of net imports. That’s 577,000 handsets from the 21 million subscribers in Australia. The figures of discarded mobiles are estimated only, based on 20 percent of net imports.
In 2005, the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC) expressed dissatisfaction with AMTA’s scheme and announced it would commence negotiations on a voluntary agreement with the industry with clear targets. The industry’s ‘Statement of Commitment’ has still not appeared and there is no information on whether it is still being considered.

The Greens’ policy on EPR schemes for hazardous waste in particular is clear: EPR, both physical and financial, must be required of all hazardous and intractable waste generators. Additionally:
· Hazardous waste generation should cease as soon as possible;
· Until hazardous waste has been eliminated, hazardous waste collection and treatment should be co-ordinated by government authorities and funded fully by those industries with which such waste originated;
· Intractable waste generation should cease immediately; and
· For that intractable waste that does already exist, guaranteed safe storage is the only appropriate means of ensuring the long-term protection of the wider environment.
(For more information on the Greens’ Waste Elimination Policy, go to: http://www.nsw.greens.org.au/policies/waste-elimination)

E-waste

E-waste is not confined to computers alone, but includes all kinds of electronic products – many of which have increasingly short life spans before they are upgraded or replaced. These include game consoles, portable music players, DVD players, televisions, microwaves, photocopiers, printers and other periphery equipment.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA) estimates that the 21 million subscribers of mobile phones update their handsets every 18-24 months, with only the smallest percentage being recycled. In 2006, an estimated 1.6 million computers were placed into landfill, while only 500,000 were recycled. These figures, while being only estimates, show clearly that e-waste is one of the most pressing issues when it comes to waste management in Australia.
The biggest concern related to e-waste is its effect on landfill, and while Australia is one of the top ten countries in the world for IT and communications technology usage, it also happens to be one of the very few developed countries that also allows e-waste to be dumped into landfill. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), a computer is on average made up of 23% plastic, 32% ferrous metals, 18% non-ferrous metals (lead, cadmium, antimony, beryllium, chromium and mercury), 12% electronic boards (gold, palladium, silver and platinum) and 15% glass.
Even when a computer is sent for recycling, only about 50 percent is actually recovered, while the remainder is dumped. The most toxic parts of a computer are the lead, mercury and cadium, with the non-recyclable lead being as much as 2mg for each unit. Most of the plastic also includes flame retardants, which makes it difficult to recycle. Dumped into landfill, this plastic eventually breaks down and contaminates the surrounding organic matter. 
A sensible approach to e-waste can no longer be put off in New South Wales. Extended Product Responsibility (EPR) schemes that insist upon consumer and producer cooperation will ensure that e-waste is no longer sent to landfill.

Lead batteries

According to the Basel Action Network, the foremost international organization on hazardous waste, lead is one of the most pervasive and toxic of all environmental contaminants. Acute and chronic exposure to lead has been shown to cause metabolic, neurological and neuropsychological disorders, including encepalopathy in children and peripheral neurotoxicity in adults.
Physiologically, lead interferes with the production of hemoglobin, resulting in anemia, and long-term exposure can also result in complete kidney failure. And the list of possible health problems related to lead exposure certainly does not end there. According to the Federal Government’s Department of the Environment and Heritage, exposure to lead can also result in nausea, gastric problems, sleep problems, concentration problems, headaches, and high blood pressure. Children and babies are particularly susceptible because they have smaller bodies and are still developing. Lead also travels straight across the placenta from mother to unborn baby.
The smelting of virgin lead also poses a health risk to both plant workers and the surrounding community. The smelter in Port Pirie, South Australia, emitted 47 tonnes of lead into the air in 2004-2005. Regular testing on children in the area discovered that nearly 60 percent had unsafe levels of lead in their blood. Even more damming, the notorious Xstrata lead smelter in Mt Isa emitted 290 tonnes of lead into the air during the same period. 
Secondary smelters release less lead into the air than virgin smelters and require up to 40 percent less energy. In effect, this means that for each tonne of lead recycled, 1.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in green house gas emissions are avoided.
Dumping lead batteries in landfill also contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Australian Greenhouse Office, landfilling just one tonne of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) can produce as much as 1.14 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). If the dumping of just one car battery in landfill occurs, this results in elevated lead levels in approximately 6.5 tonnes of MSW. Essentially this translates to an estimated 7.4 tonnes of CO2e emissions because the organic component of the landfill can no longer be recycled.  As the lead leaches into the waste, it also contaminates groundwater and the surrounding soil. 
While the environmental and health ramifications of dumping of lead batteries in landfills cannot be underestimated, it also makes no economic sense. Since 2006 the price of lead has swung wildly, up to as much as $3000/tonne in 2007. The price of car batteries has also increased, with as much as 60 percent of the manufacturing cost being attributed to lead.
At present, the Australian Battery Industry Association (ABIA) estimates that nearly 96 per cent of car batteries are recovered for recycling either in Australia or overseas. However, due to under-reporting of consumption, these figures may in fact be as low as 77 per cent. This translates to approximately 700 milligrams of lead contamination per kilogram of waste.
An EPR scheme for the recovery and recycling of lead batteries should be written into the WARR Act, serving the dual operation role of resource recovery and detoxification of a residual waste stream, so that residuals can be processed and recovered also.
Lead-acid batteries were listed as a waste of concern in the 2005-06 Priority Statement but they continue to contaminate landfills and resource recovery operations. The Australian Battery Industry Association (ABIA), representing 90% of automotive battery suppliers, was requested to report on actions to engage the DIY market, householders and retailers to improve recovery rates.
In response to the 2005-06 Priority Statement, the ABIA has requested its members place ‘no wheelie-bin’ stickers on all batteries and this has been embedded in ABIA’s Code of Practice. ABIA’s claim that 96% of automotive batteries are recycled, however, has not been substantiated. The amount of batteries contaminating resource recovery operations and being exported illegally indicates that the real recovery rate is likely to be much lower.

Nickel Cadmium Batteries

Nickel Cadmium (NiCad) batteries have been used for many years in a wide range of electronic goods, from toys to mobile phones. The highly toxic nature of the battery is due to the cadmium, which is a heavy metal. When dumped into landfills or incinerators, cadmium presents an extreme environmental contamination risk.
Although the use of NiCad batteries is being increasingly overshadowed by the more efficient Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) and lithium ion batteries (Li-ion), they present major challenges for the Australian environment because they can be found in the millions of mobile phones that make it to landfill each year alone.
Because there is only a voluntary recovery scheme put in place for mobile phone recycling (the Australian Mobile Telecommunication Association’s Mobile Muster), it is estimated that only 6 percent of the estimated 7.2 million handsets and their batteries were recycled in 2006/2007.
NiCad batteries were listed for priority focus as a waste of concern in the 2004 Priority Statement, and to date no EPR scheme has been established for their collection and recycling. In addition, they are continuing to enter the Australian market as the power source for emergency lighting, toys, cordless tools and other consumer electronics.
While it can be assumed that NiCad batteries will eventually be phased out, there is neither a concrete plan within Australia for this waste material to be eliminated at the manufacturing stage, nor are there any domestic plants that recycle them. This means that not only are we still allowing NiCad batteries to enter the country, but they must also leave our shores in order for them to be dealt with in an acceptable manner to our environment. As a signatory to the Basel Agreement, which concerns itself with the safe disposal of toxic waste between nations, it would seem that the most responsible action for Australia is to tackle the NiCad waste problem from both ends through a national EPR scheme.
New South Wales has an opportunity to begin this process and demonstrate to the rest of the country how the responsible elimination of waste can protect people and the environment by writing a provision for a NiCad EPR scheme into the WARR Act.

End of Life Vehicles (ELV)

According to Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates, over 500,000 vehicles in Australia come to the end of their life every year. These “ELVs” only look set to increase, as the 12.5 million cars on Australia’s roads are likely to be upgraded in response to changes in government policy regarded fuel inefficient vehicles, as recommended in the CSIRO’s Fuel for Thought paper.
ELVs are already one of the most highly recycled post consumer products in Australia, with over 70 per cent of the vehicle offering some economic incentive as either replacement parts of scrap metal. However, because of the sheer geographical nature of Australia, many EVLs are simply left to rust, with toxic components simply leaching into the environment.
In addition, many newer cars contain more plastic, reducing the amount by weight that can be recycled. In effect, this increases the ‘flock’ of each car: that is, the reminder of the car that cannot be recycled that is shredded and sent to landfill. It is estimated that the non-recyclable portion of an EVL, including rubber, glass, seat foam and plastics, can be as much as 30 per cent of the vehicle. Based on ABS figures of de-registered vehicles annually, this amounts to approximately 195,000 tonnes of ‘flock’ each year making it to landfill.
The other problem presented by ELVs is even more worrisome. While the regulatory requirements governing the disposal of components such as oil, coolant, fuel, brake and other fluids; air-conditioning gases; and heavy metals including lead, hexavalent chromium, cadmium and mercury are being introduced in some jurisdictions, without a comprehensive EPR scheme across the board it is certain that these will continue to contaminate landfill and the surrounding environment.
In Europe, there has been an EPR scheme in place for a number of years, as ‘flock’ is considered a hazardous waste. According to a study by the Department for the Environment and Heritage in 2002, however, manufacturers of automobiles and the Federal Chamber of Automobile Industries (FCAI) have shown “substantial opposition” to any moves that mandate recycling levels through a European style ERP approach.
The ACT has already banned the dumping of ‘flock’ into landfill, and New South Wales should follow suit. Legislative steps need to be taken to ensure that an EPR scheme extends the responsibility of safe ELV disposal to the de-registering owner and the shredding operator. As nearly 7.5 per cent of the world’s plastic each year is manufactured for cars – using 4 per cent of the world’s oil – the recycling of ‘flock’ is important for the reuse of valuable resources. In addition, recycled plastics require up to 80 per cent less energy, which directly translates to reductions in green house gas emissions.

Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) 

In February 2007, the Australian government announced it would begin the phase out all incandescent light bulbs by 2015. In Australia, lighting represents around 25 per cent of all green house gas emissions generated by the commercial sector, and 12 per cent of the domestic sector. CFLs are estimated to use up to 20 per cent less energy than incandescent lighting, and are therefore considered an effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the disposal of CFLs creates its own unique problems. This is because each bulb contains 4.0mg of mercury, which is second only to nuclear materials on the most hazardous substances list of the EPA.
There are pros and cons to the CFL debate. Coal power stations also emit mercury, and it is estimated that over a five year life span, an incandescent light bulb will result in 10.0mg of mercury being emitted into the atmosphere via a coal power station. In comparison, a CFL is estimated to emit only 2.4mg from the power station, along with the 4.0mg found within the unit.
Currently the provision for CFL recycling in Australia is woefully inept. The Federal government advises consumers:
“CFLs can generally be disposed of in regular garbage bins - where the garbage goes to landfill. You should check with your local authority, who manages garbage collection, as to their advice on disposal of CFLs as different local authorities may have different arrangements. For example, some garbage is sent to waste processors and this may change the arrangements for disposal. Should you choose to dispose of your CFLs this way then it’s best to wrap them in newspaper to prevent them from breaking.”

The disposal of CFLs from state to state varies greatly, with at least three states offering no pick up whatsoever, and New South Wales offering only a ‘Cleanout’ program in various areas of Sydney once every six months. A second service, offered by CMA Ecocycle, ends in October 2008.
CFL disposal needs to be regulated by an EPR scheme that will result in each and every CFL being recycled in the proper manner. An effective EPR scheme will inform consumers of their responsibilities, as well as provide disposal services that are efficient and easy for consumers to access. If we consider that a single CFL tube can contaminate up to 30,000 litres of water, it is simply unacceptable that an estimated 99 per cent of all CFLs end up in landfill.
A provision for the proper disposal of CFLs must be written into the WARR Act.

Pushing for a NSW Container Deposit Scheme

Background

Container deposits are a simple program of placing a deposit on a bottle, can or other container that is refunded when the container is returned, thereby giving consumers incentives to 'do the right thing'.
Creating a national container deposit scheme whereby a 10c deposit is paid on the return of a beverage container has the potential to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by over 1.3 million tonnes of CO2e per year (equivalent to 197,000 homes switching to 100% renewable energy). 
The scheme would also save enough water to permanently supply over 24,000 Australian homes and reduce the volume of litter in our parks, beaches and roadsides by 12-15%
For too long local ratepayers have borne the disproportionate cost burden of kerbside recycling. A container deposit scheme could potentially save ratepayers over $59.8 million per annum. The inequity and inefficiency of the status quo will continue as long as the packaging industry continue to funnel truckloads of cash into the major party machines. 
After 9 years of self regulation and 9 years of unabated political donations, NSW has been left with a waste management system incapable of maximising resource recovery and securing human and environmental health.
The time has come to stop dragging the chain of industry self regulation which has left NSW with recycling rates around the 40% mark and embrace an alternative that proactively enables the community to reach an 80% recycling rate.
Somehow, through the fog, the South Australian jurisdiction has cut through the ideological backlash to EPR from the packaging industry and maintained a Container Deposit Scheme for the last 33 years.  
Enacted in 1975 under the Beverage Container Act 1975 and later incorporated into the Environment Protection Act 1993 (SA), CDL has been instrumental in the South Australia Government achieving a recycling rate of 70-80% in relation to beverage containers and providing a new income stream for community organisations and the States' most disadvantaged groups.

The Benefits of CDL

Container Deposit Legislation has the potential to:

• Reduce the volume of litter in our parks, beaches and roadsides by 12-15%
• Increase Australia’s recycling by over 630,000 tonnes p.a.
• Achieve a 6% diversion of all  Municipal Solid Waste (”MSW”) waste away from landfill
•  Reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by over 1.3 million tonnes of CO2e per year (equivalent to 197,000 homes switching to 100% renewable energy)
• Save enough water to permanently supply over 24,000 Australian homes
• Deliver the same level of Australian air quality improvements as taking 140,000 cars off the road
• Provide 250,000+ Australian homes with access to recycling services for the first time
• Save rate payers over $59.8 million per annum
• Significantly reduce the number of turtles, lizards, seals and birds killed by litter across Australia
• Create at least 1,000 new jobs, mostly in rural and regional Australia

See the Boomerang Alliance website, www.boomerangalliance.org and
Common Sense Approach CDL Briefing Paper (BA),Container Deposits: The Common Sense Approach (BA) for more information.

NSW Greens give NSW a chance FOR CDL

In June 2009, Ian Cohen MLC introduced the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery (Container Recovery) Bill 2008into the New South Wales Legislative Council.  Ian's Second Reading Speech for the Bill can be accessed here.
The object of this Bill was to ensure that, if the targets for recycling of certain packaging established by the National Packaging Covenant (2005) are not met, a beverage container deposit scheme (“CDS”) that provides for the payment of refunds on certain beverage containers will come into force.
The key aspects of the Bill were;

• A legislative reiteration of targets established under the National Packaging Covenant as a benchmark against which the need for a CDS can be measured.  
• Provision for the labelling of beverage containers subject to a New South Wales CDS and the refunding of a container deposit upon the return of an empty, unbroken beverage container.   
• A broad CDS structure that establishes a Beverage Container Deposit Management Committee, Scheme Administrator and Collection Depots for the purpose of administrating the return of beverage containers and refunding deposits.
• A framework for administration and distribution of unredeemed deposits which specifies the areas to which funds should be applied including financial support for kerbside recycling services, further offsetting the collection industry costs of operating the scheme and product development to improve the recyclability and reusability of beverage containers.

Unfortunately the Bill was voted down.

A Fairer Way to Manage Waste and Maximise Resource Use

My proposed Container Deposit Scheme would in no way detract from kerbside collection and would work hand-in-hand with council kerbside recycling to maximise recycling of packaging consumed both in the home and in public spaces. Dr Stuart White’s “Independent Review of Container Deposit Legislation in New South Wales” (Nov 2001) stated that;
“Local Government would realise financial benefits from the introduction of CDL through reduced costs of kerbside collection and through the value of unredeemed deposits in the material collected at kerbside”
The report further concluded that;
“[w]hile the system (CDS) would cost between $30 and $50 million a year to put in place, the net benefit would be in the order of $70 to $100 million annually.” 
A Container Deposit Scheme re-configures the current cost burden of local council kerbside collection operations, which is inconsistent with the core principles at the heart of the Covenant – ‘Shared Responsibility’ and ‘Product Stewardship’. The current cost burden is placed disproportionately on tax payers through local council rates.
The national cost of kerbside recycling is approximately $294 million per annum with the gross portion of that sum subsidised by ratepayers. The packaging industry’s contribution is $3 million a year to national kerbside recycling and public place recycling.
This does not accord with the principles enunciated by the Covenant. ‘Shared Responsibility’ under the covenant appears to be a 99% duty of the public, 1% duty of the packaging industry.  The implementation of CDL will balance this disproportionate burden and save the average family $30 a year.
Container deposits complement kerbside recycling perfectly by focusing on containers consumed away-from-home, which kerbside systems are very poor at recovering. Up to 50% of major food items are now consumed away from home, and therefore away from recycling facilities.
All of the world’s best recyclers, including northern European countries and South Australia, have one thing in common – container deposits.
A national container deposit scheme would dramatically improve recycling rates, reduce the cost burden on taxpayers to run kerbside recycling, and take a big step towards reducing waste to landfill.
Survey figures released earlier this year by Clean Up Australia show that 83% of people in NSW believe a ten cent deposit and refund scheme would encourage more people to recycle bottles and cans, and that 89% think drink manufacturers should be involved in setting up such a deposit and refund scheme. This would be a popular step for the government to take!
To help NSW implement a Container Deposit Scheme please download a petition.  

The Program for Appliances for Disabled People

Background

The Program for Appliances for Disabled People (PADP) was introduced into New South Wales in the 1980s. PADP’s aim is to supply equipment, aids and appliances to people with a life-long or long-term disability, thus supporting their independence within the community. 
The types of aids provided include manual and electric beds and pressure care mattresses, hoists, manual and electric wheelchairs, cushions and continence equipment, among other items.
These appliances are directly linked to ensuring the basic human rights of disabled people are met. Australia made the important step of ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People in September 2008, and this long overdue document makes the successful implementation of schemes such as PADP even more vital to Australia’s interests. It could be argued, in fact, that PADP is not only a necessary vehicle for ensuring that people with disabilities in NSW receive the equipment they need, but in fact is also an obligation under an international convention to which we are now party to.
Unfortunately, PADP has been plagued with problems and the budget desperately needs to be reviewed. The waiting lists for appliances such as electric wheelchairs are far too long, and have left some people housebound for 18 months or more. This not only increases the isolation of people with disabilities, but also their dependency on social services and carers.
It doesn’t take much imagination to understand the situation for someone who is housebound for long periods of time is nothing short of dire, and it’s not a great leap to then ponder the immense strain that such a lack of resources places on those who care for a disabled person. What it does take is a great leap of compassion for PADP to become a system that enables people with disabilities to access the equipment they need, in order that they too can live fulfilling lives.
“Without adequate and timely provision of wheelchairs and mobility aids, people with disabilities will continue to descend into a desperate cycle of social isolation,” Ian Cohen told the NSW Parliament in June 2008. “All we need is $13.5 million to quell the silent and debilitating atrocities perpetrated upon people with disabilities in New South Wales. That should be compared to the more than $100 million given by the Government to World Youth Day—$13.5 million is all that is needed to get those people out of their terrible state of neglect.”
By May 2008, PADP was experiencing a backlog of approximately $6-7 million dollars in funding. To make matters worse, the government showed very little knowledge about the scheme or how much the people on the waiting lists were suffering without the necessary equipment.
The government’s 2008-09 Budget looked more like a wholesale slashing of public services as a way of shoring up its AAA rating, rather than a means to accepting responsibility for economic mismanagement. We implore the government to see that injecting funds into public programs such as PADP will help to stimulate the economy in more ways than one. Firstly, it will enable people with disabilities to contribute to the economy by allowing them find employment. Additionally, dependency on services is reduced, therefore lowering the costs in social services to the government. It’s a win-win situation, but it takes commitment.
Surely it is much more worthwhile to invest in a scheme that enables people to independently take care of their own health and financial wellbeing, than to keep the waiting lines of PADP so long that people with disabilities lose their dignity and self determination. An injection of at least $13.5 is essential if the PADP scheme is to deliver the necessary equipment it was set up to within a reasonable time frame.
Ian Cohen was instrumental in calling for the inquiry into PADP that was held by the Parliament of NSW between June and October 2008. Submissions and results of the inquiry are available by clicking HERE.

Reforms put forward by the Greens

The following reforms must be included in the PADP scheme to fulfil its intended agenda to the people within NSW who have a disability. They are:

1. An additional $15million of recurrent funding to be added to the PADP budget and regular funding reviews;
2. Area Health Services to have a consistent approach and PADP policy;
3. The required co-payments to be abolished;
4. Better inventory of returned equipment and equipment loan pools to be established;
5. Specific campaigns that address indigenous and culturally diverse communities to be implemented, in order that both access and knowledge of the program is increased within these communities;
6. Better complaints and grievance mechanisms implemented for clients on waiting lists;
7. More efficient payment of suppliers. This in turn has the effect of enabling smaller and more geographically diverse suppliers to work under the PADP scheme, therefore making it easier for many clients to access the program without having to travel to major centres in order to be fitted for equipment;
8. PADP information to be accessible to people with limited or no vision;
9. Department of Health to keep applicable data on clients that are in acute hospital beds;
10. All reforms recommended in the Oakton review to be implemented within 6 months.

The questions raised by Ian Cohen in the NSW Legislative Council can be found on the links below:
28 August 2008: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/qalc.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/4b0ee762c3b69b98ca2574b30017d817!OpenDocument
10 April 2008:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/qalc.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/6219b05fadbe1528ca257427000ab7bc!OpenDocument
6 November 2007:
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/qalc.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/2be2ceff7925044dca25738b0021aadb!OpenDocument

Timeline of Program Of Appliances For Disabled People (PADP) action by Ian Cohen MLC

2007

October 2007

25 October 2007
Program of Appliance for Disabled People

Disabilities advocates call for the PADP Budget to be doubled. Ian moved in Parliament to have an independent review of the PADP program by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, which the Government had refused to release.
The PADP program was developed to provide equipment, aids and appliances to people with disabilities to enable them to live in the community and increase independence. The type of aids provided include manual and electric beds and pressure care mattresses, hoists, manual and electric wheelchairs, cushions and continence equipment etc.
It is widely recognised that many eligible people are waiting over 12 months for essential equipment, or missing out altogether.
Ian Cohen called for the Price Waterhouse Coopers Report to be laid upon the table of the House within 14 days. Ian’s motion forced the Government to release this important report.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20071025009

November 2007

6 November 2007

Ian Cohen directs questions on PADP to the Attorney General, and Minister for Justice representing the Minister for Health (1157).
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/qalc.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/2be2ceff7925044dca25738b0021aadb!OpenDocument

2008

April 2008

8 April 2008

Ian Cohen highlights the dire situation faced by many people with disabilities due to the chronically under-funded PADP scheme in the NSW Parliament.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080408031

9 April 2008

Call for dramatic funding increases to PADP

Some progress made supporting NGOs in the bid to fund this program to the point where all people in need of specialist equipment actually get what they are entitled to.
Ian’s office – backed by a Pricewaterhouse Coopers report – calls again for a dramatic increase from the current 2007/08 budget of $24.2M to around $50M.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080409032

10 April 2008

Questions Raised in the Legislative Council

Ian Cohen raises questions regarding PADP in the NSW Parliament’s Legislative Council (1654).
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/qalc.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/6219b05fadbe1528ca257427000ab7bc!OpenDocument

June 2008

18 June 2008

Ian Cohen asks the Treasurer to respond to a number of questions posed back in April regarding funding of PADP, and whether or not he has looked into the program and referred it to the relevant Minister.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080618023
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080617060

August 2008

28 August 2008

Ian Cohen directs questions to Attorney General, Minister for Justice, and Acting Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for Health regarding the Oakton report (2078).
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/lc/qalc.nsf/18101dc36b638302ca257146007ee41a/4b0ee762c3b69b98ca2574b30017d817!OpenDocument

September 2008

3 September 2008
PADP Freedom of Information Requests

After a 4-month wait, the Department of Health responded to the Freedom of Information request put forward by Ian Cohen’s office. The documents reveal waiting lists of the PADP lodgement centres across 8 Area Health Services have significant number of clients waiting longer than 12 months for basic equipment such as wheelchairs and hoist devices.
The Minister’s approach to transparency has a potentially serious impact upon the potential of the upcoming inquiry to improve the program.  

17 September 2008
Sydney Morning Herald lifts lid on Department of Health’s reluctance to hand over PADP report

Sydney Morning Herald FOi Reporter Matthew Moore reports the Office of Ian Cohen’s stoush with the Department of Health over a Freedom of Information request. The report made clear the Department of Health and the previous Health Minister’s attempts to bury a report on the Program of Appliances for Disabled People (PADP) and are attempting to hide the report from the current parliamentary inquiry.
http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/freedom_of_information/020051.html

23 September 2008

Ian Cohen gives a speech in the New South Wales Parliament, congratulating the Federal Government for ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and calls on the New South Wales to raise the standard of care for disabled people living in the State by drastically increasing funding to the PADP scheme.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080923054
24 September 2008
Ian successfully forced the Government to release key audit reports on the PADP scheme to enable the Committee to review the inequity between the NSW Area Health Services in relation to equipment provision.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080924006    

October 2008

1 October 2008
PAPD Inquiry Findings

Ian successfully forces the Government to release key audit reports on the PADP scheme to enable the Committee to review the inequity between the NSW Area Health Services in relation to equipment provision. The public hearings of the Inquiry heard from a range of people with disabilities, advocacy agencies, carers, equipment suppliers and government departments, contributing to the examination of how the program can be improved and inequalities addressed.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20080924006   

3 October 2008
Sydney Morning Herald Highlights failure of PADP

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the audit of the PADP highlights the failure of the program, saying that: “upper house Greens MP Ian Cohen said it was a shame that the committee only received the report after it had spoken to the relevant government agencies at the inquiry.
“He said the Government had been "less than co-operative in releasing the audit", which showed "significant failure of proper process and proper auditing" and "bureaucratic ineptitude".”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/audit-highlights-failures-of-disability-program/2008/10/02/1222651267656.html

15 October 2008
Findings of (PADP) Inquiry

The PADP Inquiry heard from a range of stakeholders about people with disabilities suffering at the hands of a poorly managed and under-funded equipment program. Waiting lists obtained by Ian Cohen’s Office under FOI and Government Audit reports extracted from the Department of Health in response Ian’s call for papers helped drive media interest and public awareness of the PADP program and its importance to people with disabilities. The Inquiry’s examination of PADP and the work of Ian’s Office propelled the issue forward in the mind of the Department.
   
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/10/01/1222651172323.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/audit-highlights-failures-of-disability-program/2008/10/02/1222651267656.html