ShareThis9 February 2012
In the week when we find out the world population of Orange-bellied Parrots (OBPs) has dropped to 21 birds [1], The Australian has come out OBP-bashing. Talk about kicking an animal when it’s down!
Following on from a well-researched piece about OBPs by ABC News Tasmania last week, the latest article by Sid Maher in The Australian is titled “Return of the nearly dead parrot: orange-belly holds up marina” (for the search engines, the URL cleverly includes the statement “rare-parrot-holds-up-marina”).
Should we really be scape-goating near-extinct animals as an excuse for our own lack of will to manage environmental problems?
Maher cites opposition climate change minister Greg Hunt as saying “the minister must make it absolutely clear whether he believes a system which stops a project of critical state importance for an imaginary parrot is acceptable” and goes on to compare the situation to the infamous wind farm cases in 2006.
Readers without an existing knowledge of environmental legislation would be forgiven for thinking that this is a travesty of natural justice. Yet the environmental assessment process doesn’t focus specifically or entirely on OBP. Let’s not forget that protection of the environment is about maintaining healthy functioning ecosystems (“biodiversity”). It’s not just about extinction of rare birds and animals.
The fact that Orange-bellied Parrots were seen at this site as recently as 1987 indicates a significant quality and extent of saltmarsh habitat. Protected species legislation is more than just ‘saving a bird’. Species play other vital roles in environmental protection and human survival.When journalists and politicians blame an animal for halting progress, they avoid the stickier subject of how to deal with the significant loss of economically-important habitat.
The development in question, is in Western Port, which is afforded one of Australia’s highest levels of environmental protection. Western Port has already suffered such significant coastal and marine vegetation loss that some coastal communities are under threat from being washed into the sea. It just so happens that OBPs live in some of the most valuable habitat for coastal sea defence. If we lose this habitat, Australian tax-payers may have to spend millions of dollars building and maintaining sea walls. Maybe we should ask the residents of Louisiana whether they would have been better off today, if they’d protected the saltmarsh habitat of birds like Seaside Sparrow, Clapper Rail and Least Bittern?
Maher’s article leaves me wondering whether he attempted to find out more. Does the lack of counter-argument mean we assume he hasn’t sought other opinions or evidence? Does he understand the extent to which the Australian public believe environmental protection is important, or the wider consequences of loss of OBPs and OBP habitat?
Investigating these stories in depth takes time and whilst we don’t expect the media to caveat everything, it does sour one’s appreciation of national press, when journalists use playground-bully tactics to pick on defenseless subjects. Whether I agree with the sentiment in Maher’s article is not the point. It lacks any empathy for the tragic and imminent extinction of one of our most iconic national birds and provokes little more than an incoherent and polarised view of this current affair.
Maher had an opportunity to enlighten readers on the colour and diversity of our culture, to reflect on the complexity of the situation and perhaps attract a more appreciative audience.
Instead, what I see, is a few hundred words of whinging about having to do environmental protection … where the blame for all the problems are unfairly pinned on a small bird.
1. http://www.thebirdsnest.net.au/update-on-the-orange-bellied-parrot-recovery-program/. This is the best available minimum population estimate, of birds returning to the only known breeding ground at Melaleuca in south west Tasmania.
Right wing agendas in the media?
This week, action group Getup.org launched a campaign to raise awareness of action being taken by mining industry and climate-change sceptic Lord Monckton, to gain more control of Australian media. The information is based on research done by investigative journalist, Graham Redfearn. The video is of a meeting that, according to Redfearn, was “at the time, Lord Monckton was in Australia at the behest of a mining association and Gina Rinehart to deliver a series of talks on [how] … climate change is a left-wing plot to bring down the West”. This week of course, Rinehart has been in the press having staked almost 15% share in Fairfax.
NOTE – The Australian is NOT owned by Fairfax so this is of course totally unconnected to the above article on parrots by Sid Maher.
http://www.readfearn.com/2012/02/monckton-rinehart-and-a-plan-to-capture-the-australian-media/
More OBP-Bashing in Fairfax’s The Age and Ten News
This latest article refers to “orange-belly” rather than “orange-bellied” parrot. I’m not being pedantic. The only time I can remember anyone making this mistake (and the only item I can find in Google) was Sid Maher in The Australian. Does this mean the journalist(s) that made the Ten News video that appeared in The Age“online Orange belly parrot holds up development” depended on Sid Maher’s work, rather than investigating facts themselves? This would certainly explain why yet again, it seems to have totally missed the point.
Video from Ten news on The Age online. Click for link.
The video uses some of the same sound-bites, including Greg Hunt, the Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage referring to OBP as “an imaginary parrot”. Now I’m sure Greg Hunt’s statement lacks context but this is hardly a good look for any future environment Minister. Does Greg Hunt appreciate the gravity and complexity of the situation? It’s an example of how Australia’s shameful position when it comes to appreciation and protection of wildlife runs right to the heart of government.
Unless journalists are prepared to interview people with a genuine understanding and concern about conservation issues, they will continue to mislead. Ultimately however, the truth will out (it always does). Anyone who chooses to ignore the overwhelming concern that many voting Australians have on these issues, will eventually lose out.
I would encourage anyone with an interest in this topic, to contact Greg Hunt and the incumbent Minister for Sustainable Population, Communities, Environment and Water, Tony Burke with a link to this article.
Email Greg Hunt | Twitter @GregHuntMP
Email Tony Burke | Twitter @tony_burke
You could also write to your local member http://apps.aec.gov.au/esearch/
Andrew Bolt reacts “parrot fashion” in The Herald Sun
Andrew Bolt is a renowned right wing commentator and polemicist (he is cited as a good example of right wing journalism in the above video). The article in The Herald Sun is designed to create argument. It doesn’t contain any information about the background to the situation so it barely rates discussion here.
There is one interesting point. Bolt compares the size of Australia to European countries, suggesting that we have plenty of space for developments. That may well be true. The implication seems to be that our environmental regulations are too burdensome and some have said, that we are the most heavily regulated in the world.
As someone who has worked for many years under environmental legislation in Europe and in Australia for years, I can categorically say that is untrue. Bolt would do well to consider this fact as it may help him get more people onside – Australia spends a fortune on environmental assessment, much of it unnecessarily. However, once approved, most developments are not required to implement ongoing management and create outcomes. In Europe, companies are more likely to spend considerable amounts of money for 15-30 years, managing habitat and monitoring this, including repatriation of protected species. If we better emphasised post-approval management of ecosystems, we get developments and we get habitat protection … chances are this will cost more but be part of operational revenue rather than startup finance. For this to work however, Australian companies need first to care about the environment. In the current case, this means wanting to manage saltmarsh and other associated coastal habitat and possibly even create more, proving that animals and people can survive together.
So whilst it’s easy for Bolt to say this is all about “about loving nature, but hating humans” and “… a judgment informed [not] by a love of man, but a contempt” this only applies to a very small minority of the conservation movement and it comes across a little bit paranoid. Most Australians want to see us better manage the environment. The problems Bolt perceives are a consequence of poorly-implemented regulations and a lot of that is because neither he nor other opinion-leaders understand how it should work and therefore, how to do it better (as discussed my main article, above).
If you’re interested, the article is here http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/greens-react-parrot-fashion/story-e6frfhqf-1226269120557
A birdwatcher emailed Greg Hunt for a response and he got this reply, which was posted to birding-aus.
______
Many thanks for the message.
The points are appreciated but people come from all different positions.
I agree on fact based arguments.
That is precisely why I have stood for protection of numerous areas.
However, in an existing industrial zone which has not seen the bird in question for 25 years, that is precisely why I am concerned with facts.
In crib point, pt Nepean and Phillip Island where there have been legitimate issues I have clearly stood against development.
It is actually about the facts as you say and in this case a 25 year fact base is pretty powerful.
Greg.
Alex requested assistance in responding to this email. We had this to say:
The fact that Greg Hunt stood against certain developments is far from the point. Birdwatchers are a broad demographic and don’t necessarily object to everything. Some may even support the marina development. People don’t want politicians who are lobbyists.
The point is, how does Greg justify calling Orange-bellied Parrot an ‘imaginary’ parrot on national television when his own liberal government brought in the very legislation (EPBC Act) that creates recovery plans for these species? If a recovery plan exists and recently historic habitat is present, does this not represent a place for potential recovery? How can Greg Hunt say that OBP which is not extinct (yet) is an ‘imaginary’ parrot?
That is one issue. There are others … as clearly set out in my article. It would help a great deal if our politicians understood why it is important to identify critical habitat using indicators such as OBP.
These are complex problems that require complex solutions and OBP is only one part of the legislative framework. Greg Hunt appears to believe that the protected species aspects are an insignificant part. If our politicians believe this, then where does it end? The majority of Australian avifauna and mammals are heading for extinction, so is Greg suggesting that because they have not been seen ‘for a while’ in a given place, we should just assume they will never recover?
In my opinion, this means Greg Hunt doesn’t understand his own legislation very well. He may understand how he wants it to work but he may not understand some of the key principles under which the legislation has been developed by his own government. After all, we would not have any Federal EPBC Act if his government didn’t believe in the importance of international law* Does Greg’s position suggest that it was convenient for the Howard government to exercise this power based on constitutional right but inconvenient to his current shadow portfolio, to have to implement such international agreements?
Given that Greg Hunt is the Shadow Environment Minister, his position would have to be tenable to represent us in international environmental affairs in future.
Regards,
Simon.
*Note, the EPBC Act was only possible due to external affairs provisions of the Australian constitution.
Another response from Greg Hunt MP to a birder (posted to birding-aus) draws into doubt understanding of other important issues:
> My concern is to protect against real and current environmental threats.
> Where however the law is used for something speculative and with no fact base it genuinely undermines confidence in the process.
> My goal is to offer genuine protection, but where there has been no activity for over a quarter of a century and an operating harbour has been in place for the last 10 years the ruling has no connection to reality.
> In that sense it was perhaps the strangest EPBC ruling I have ever seen.
> It is just that this case I think genuinely undermines the law given that it has no connection to any actual animal population.
> I hope that this helps,
______________________
Greg Hunt says the reason why the decision is strange is that “there has been no activity for over a quarter of a century and an operating harbour has been in place for the last 10 years”
This week, conditional approval was given to Fortescue Mining to operate in an area where there has been the only recent sighting of Night Parrot. The original confirmed report from the site is now years old and consultants have since had no success refinding birds (http://bird-o.com/2011/05/09/a-shot-in-the-dark-night-parrot-evidence-at-a-proposed-mine-site/). So because time has passed, does this now mean the habitat is insignificant?
Greg Hunt seems to be suggesting that this might be a reason to ignore the existence of habitat and protect it – but hasn’t explained why he believes 25 years is relevant. I would like to know from him, and those who regulate environmental protection in Australia:
Q. How many years after an extant (not imaginary) species occurs in an area, do we assume it no longer exists and for the purpose of that species’ survival, render the habitat disposable?
I am also confused by Greg Hunt’s statement that this has been “an operating harbour in place for the last 10 years”. What is this implying? Is it suggesting that an operating harbour cannot be habitat for a rare bird? I may be assuming too much but if this is what Greg is implying, why do people think that just because a bird is rare, it can’t occur as part of the human landscape? After all, for decades, Orange-bellied Parrots have largely over-wintered in Melbourne’s largest active sewage treatment plant. A few years ago, they were even seen “just outside Geelong Grammar school” (http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/birding-aus/2003-05/msg00377.html).
There are too many misconceptions and untruths being told about Orange-bellied Parrots and too many opinion-leaders in the media and politics prepared to beat up OBPs so they can appear authoritative. In this case, Greg Hunt has over-stepped the mark. I don’t doubt that he takes these things seriously but he has demonstrated a certain lack of understanding and allowed himself to become a mouth-piece for others who would rather be allowed to develop anywhere, with minimal or no environmental requirements.
This is not about OBP, this is about Australia’s ability to create ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES for development that allow economic progress whilst also preserving important ecological function (which ultimately protects species … and not the other way around).
I remember Yaringa as a wonderful boating wilderness in the early 1980′s, birds were everywhere and on the occasion I slept aboard the family boat you’d easily imagine a visit from prehistoric animals or expect a Dodo Bird to land on the deck. Developers turned the wilderness into a marina and it has been down hill for birds ever since.