Pilot Trec Smith and Marree man.
Thread Starter
I thought this government legislation with criminal provisions was to restrict the clearing of woodland and rainforest unless approval had been given.
This situation is totally different .
As far as I can remember the only plants that had grown on the original etching were introduced weeds and whoever re constructed the artwork did a great job in removing these pests.
Now that they have gone no one will ever be able to know if I am correct or not!
I think everyone should talk their friends into going on a charter flight to Marree and William Ck to check the facts on this major legal case.
I also think the SA Department of Prosecutions should send a multi disiplinary task force by a Dick Lang charter to check this out.
Could become the greatest thing for GA in the last decade,!
This situation is totally different .
As far as I can remember the only plants that had grown on the original etching were introduced weeds and whoever re constructed the artwork did a great job in removing these pests.
Now that they have gone no one will ever be able to know if I am correct or not!
I think everyone should talk their friends into going on a charter flight to Marree and William Ck to check the facts on this major legal case.
I also think the SA Department of Prosecutions should send a multi disiplinary task force by a Dick Lang charter to check this out.
Could become the greatest thing for GA in the last decade,!
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 565
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but TWT, if you come across an article that needs a subscription on one of the News Corp websites, just paste the title of the article into a Google search and click the link and then you'll be able to read it.
I thought this government legislation with criminal provisions was to restrict the clearing of woodland and rainforest unless approval had been given.
This situation is totally different .
As far as I can remember the only plants that had grown on the original etching were introduced weeds and whoever re constructed the artwork did a great job in removing these pests.
Now that they have gone no one will ever be able to know if I am correct or not!
I think everyone should talk their friends into going on a charter flight to Marree and William Ck to check the facts on this major legal case.
I also think the SA Department of Prosecutions should send a multi disiplinary task force by a Dick Lang charter to check this out.
Could become the greatest thing for GA in the last decade,!
This situation is totally different .
As far as I can remember the only plants that had grown on the original etching were introduced weeds and whoever re constructed the artwork did a great job in removing these pests.
Now that they have gone no one will ever be able to know if I am correct or not!
I think everyone should talk their friends into going on a charter flight to Marree and William Ck to check the facts on this major legal case.
I also think the SA Department of Prosecutions should send a multi disiplinary task force by a Dick Lang charter to check this out.
Could become the greatest thing for GA in the last decade,!
DF.
Thread Starter
Nup. Neva bin anigood at spelln,
I am a car radio installer - self taught
But thanks for pointing this out to everyone on Christmas eve!
Happy Christmas to everyone. Be kind .
I am a car radio installer - self taught
But thanks for pointing this out to everyone on Christmas eve!
Happy Christmas to everyone. Be kind .
South Australia:
What a great place : highest unemployment in the country; can't supply a reliable electricity supply to it's residents; can't supply electricity at an economic price; it's major industries are nervous about their business going forward due to the ideological policies of the Weatherill labor government; at the forefront of most progressive political policies; and now they've got the thought police after another target.
What a great place : highest unemployment in the country; can't supply a reliable electricity supply to it's residents; can't supply electricity at an economic price; it's major industries are nervous about their business going forward due to the ideological policies of the Weatherill labor government; at the forefront of most progressive political policies; and now they've got the thought police after another target.
So the S.A. government would like Phil, Dick and Trevor prosecuted for such a wicked act? Yet the same government is quite happy to allow palm oil to be sold in supermarkets marked as vegetable oil. Much of that comes from plantations in Indonesia where vast areas of jungle are burned then cleared. I reckon that there's an inconsistency somewhere here.
Merry Christmas, PPRuNers.
Merry Christmas, PPRuNers.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's no inconsistency in land-clearing laws - and anyone with an ounce of knowledge and ability to read, and who reads the relevant state Environmental legislation, should be left with no doubt about any of the various States Govts intention to prosecute those who think they can flatten native vegetation of any kind, with no reference to anyone.
Unfortunately, Phil Turner has already made it clear that he detests any laws or regulations that infringe on his desire to do as he wishes. He obviously moved to Marree on the basis that State laws and regulations don't apply that far out.
Unfortunately, he's wrong - and he'll probably soon find out, just how wrong he is.
South Australia has had severe environmental restrictions on native vegetation damage as far back as the early 1970's.
In that period, steel-tracked machines were banned from operating in many areas, due to the perceived damage caused by bulldozer tracks.
I know this from firsthand experience, due to being an earthmoving contractor at that time, and carrying out extensive clearing works, installing gridlines on mining exploration leases in W.A. - which did not have such draconian legislation in place in that era.
From around 1985, alarm bells have been ringing in all State Depts over the unfettered destruction of Australia's native vegetation.
The tight clearing laws introduced since that time are designed to ensure that native vegetation destruction is not carried out willy-nilly, and without proper authoritative oversight, and that all stakeholders with an interest in the removal of the native vegetation, are consulted, and have their input or opinion noted.
The low, scrubby native vegetation in the interior of Australia is fragile - and it requires just as much attention in plans for its removal, as applies to heavy woodland and timbered country.
Restrictions on native vegetation clearing exist in every State, and in numerous States the penalties are draconian.
We have already seen the bitterness and hatred of clearing bans resulting in the cold-blooded murder of a Govt officer, in NSW.
Once again, that case revolved around a landowner who thought he could do what he liked with his land, and that any Govt legislation that impinged upon that ability to do as he wished, could be ignored, and he could shoot anyone trying to enforce that legislation.
He was wrong - and he is now serving a life sentence for that cold-blooded murder.
We nearly all detest excessive levels of bureaucracy, but if the Govt of the day considers a problem and passes legislation to address that problem, then we are obliged to work within the confines of that legislation.
The laws apply equally to individuals and large corporations, so there can be no calls that "the little man", is being crushed by excessive legislation.
Unfortunately, Phil Turner has already made it clear that he detests any laws or regulations that infringe on his desire to do as he wishes. He obviously moved to Marree on the basis that State laws and regulations don't apply that far out.
Unfortunately, he's wrong - and he'll probably soon find out, just how wrong he is.
South Australia has had severe environmental restrictions on native vegetation damage as far back as the early 1970's.
In that period, steel-tracked machines were banned from operating in many areas, due to the perceived damage caused by bulldozer tracks.
I know this from firsthand experience, due to being an earthmoving contractor at that time, and carrying out extensive clearing works, installing gridlines on mining exploration leases in W.A. - which did not have such draconian legislation in place in that era.
From around 1985, alarm bells have been ringing in all State Depts over the unfettered destruction of Australia's native vegetation.
The tight clearing laws introduced since that time are designed to ensure that native vegetation destruction is not carried out willy-nilly, and without proper authoritative oversight, and that all stakeholders with an interest in the removal of the native vegetation, are consulted, and have their input or opinion noted.
The low, scrubby native vegetation in the interior of Australia is fragile - and it requires just as much attention in plans for its removal, as applies to heavy woodland and timbered country.
Restrictions on native vegetation clearing exist in every State, and in numerous States the penalties are draconian.
We have already seen the bitterness and hatred of clearing bans resulting in the cold-blooded murder of a Govt officer, in NSW.
Once again, that case revolved around a landowner who thought he could do what he liked with his land, and that any Govt legislation that impinged upon that ability to do as he wished, could be ignored, and he could shoot anyone trying to enforce that legislation.
He was wrong - and he is now serving a life sentence for that cold-blooded murder.
We nearly all detest excessive levels of bureaucracy, but if the Govt of the day considers a problem and passes legislation to address that problem, then we are obliged to work within the confines of that legislation.
The laws apply equally to individuals and large corporations, so there can be no calls that "the little man", is being crushed by excessive legislation.
Thread Starter
Yes. Good points- but
The Olympic Dam bore line has destroyed far more native vegetation than the re construction of Marree Man.
Of course if you are a wealthy mining company you can afford the $100 k or so EIS
"Bribe" to get it approved.
It appears if you have enough money there are always environmental companies who will produce a case for a go ahead. Totally dishonest but a fact.
The Olympic Dam bore line has destroyed far more native vegetation than the re construction of Marree Man.
Of course if you are a wealthy mining company you can afford the $100 k or so EIS
"Bribe" to get it approved.
It appears if you have enough money there are always environmental companies who will produce a case for a go ahead. Totally dishonest but a fact.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, the difference between the people who have installed and re-cut the Marree Man and between BHP-Billiton, the owner of Olympic Dam and the OD boreline - is that BHP-Billiton would have carried out an extensive and expensive Environmental Impact Study, which examines in detail, the potential conflicts and benefits and environmental impacts of the project.
It is always a fine balancing act, determining the environmental losses, against the economic benefits - and these losses and benefits are always outlined in EIS's, with any recommendations for adverse environmental impact minimisation clearly defined.
The silly part is, if Phil Turner had bothered to examine the Native Vegetation clearing laws of SA and submitted a carefully-structured plan for the Marree Man, with any benefits of the project outlined, along with environmental impact issues addressed, he very likely could have had the project approved, if he had written up a good case for it.
As it stands, Phil Turner prefers to operate in a maverick fashion, outside all and any legislation, and preferring to insist that he is the fount of all knowledge relating to the project, and claiming that all and any legislation protecting native vegetation is just BS and bureaucracy.
It's not an attitude that gets you very far in todays world, unfortunately - particularly when there is particularly stringent legislation applying to what you plan to do - and which legislation has been in place for more than 30 years in many cases - and which legislation, everyone else is obliged to abide by.
It is always a fine balancing act, determining the environmental losses, against the economic benefits - and these losses and benefits are always outlined in EIS's, with any recommendations for adverse environmental impact minimisation clearly defined.
The silly part is, if Phil Turner had bothered to examine the Native Vegetation clearing laws of SA and submitted a carefully-structured plan for the Marree Man, with any benefits of the project outlined, along with environmental impact issues addressed, he very likely could have had the project approved, if he had written up a good case for it.
As it stands, Phil Turner prefers to operate in a maverick fashion, outside all and any legislation, and preferring to insist that he is the fount of all knowledge relating to the project, and claiming that all and any legislation protecting native vegetation is just BS and bureaucracy.
It's not an attitude that gets you very far in todays world, unfortunately - particularly when there is particularly stringent legislation applying to what you plan to do - and which legislation has been in place for more than 30 years in many cases - and which legislation, everyone else is obliged to abide by.
Phil Turner isn't the only one operating in a maverick fashion in relation to this - there are other players as well. Too many people that think they can do what they want, when they want, & where they want just because they live in the outback or have cash to splash around.
DF.
DF.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 Oct 2016
The Federal Government has admitted the decision to allow a $130 million deep sea port on the Tiwi Islands near Darwin without an environmental assessment was wrong,
16 Dec 2016
THE marine supply base at Port Melville on the Tiwi Islands has been approved again for use by federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg without an environmental impact assessment or any special operating conditions.
Government concedes decision that approved Port Melville on Tiwi Islands was wrong - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Storage tanks that can store up to 30 million litres of diesel have been installed within the area.
No Cookies | NT News
All this after this 15 May 2015!
Diesel spill confirmed at controversial Port Melville in Tiwi Islands.
Diesel spill confirmed at controversial Port Melville in Tiwi Islands - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Makes this statement a little hard to accept:-
The laws apply equally to individuals and large corporations, so there can be no calls that "the little man", is being crushed by excessive legislation.
Isolated case?
Developer escapes prosecution over controversial clearing of land in Darwin's north - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Only one prosecution for illegal land clearing despite 200 complaints, Queensland Government figures show - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
No.
The Federal Government has admitted the decision to allow a $130 million deep sea port on the Tiwi Islands near Darwin without an environmental assessment was wrong,
16 Dec 2016
THE marine supply base at Port Melville on the Tiwi Islands has been approved again for use by federal Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg without an environmental impact assessment or any special operating conditions.
Government concedes decision that approved Port Melville on Tiwi Islands was wrong - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Storage tanks that can store up to 30 million litres of diesel have been installed within the area.
No Cookies | NT News
All this after this 15 May 2015!
Diesel spill confirmed at controversial Port Melville in Tiwi Islands.
Diesel spill confirmed at controversial Port Melville in Tiwi Islands - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Makes this statement a little hard to accept:-
The laws apply equally to individuals and large corporations, so there can be no calls that "the little man", is being crushed by excessive legislation.
Isolated case?
Developer escapes prosecution over controversial clearing of land in Darwin's north - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Only one prosecution for illegal land clearing despite 200 complaints, Queensland Government figures show - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
No.
Last edited by Band a Lot; 25th Dec 2016 at 02:10.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pressure on the clearing of native vegetation is constant, it's a two-edged sword. On one hand, we have the Greens who do not want a single leaf of any plant touched - on the other hand we have developers who would flatten unique and pristine wilderness areas to make a financial killing.
We are not alone in this, the wholesale destruction of Indonesian rainforests and the similar destruction of the Amazon rainforest are both proceeding unabated, and with rampant corruption and with a low level of Govts controlling oversight.
Mankind is a destructive creature and the machines we build ensure faster and more effective destruction of native, original environments every day.
In the case of removing "relatively useless" native vegetation (an all-encompassing term that is not always correct), to turn the soil to food production, then there is a good case to do so, provided that it is done with oversight involving the communities affected, with input from specialists and scientists, and with the appropriate legislation and control procedures put in place.
As has been shown above, by Band a Lot, many Govts are well behind the 8-ball in ensuring all the appropriate legislation and procedures are in place.
The NT is one place where the politicians and community leaders are still coming to terms with the necessary procedures to properly control unfettered development.
The problems with removing substantial areas of native vegetation revolve around ensuring studies are carried out to ensure that the environmental impacts are controlled, that possibly important species are preserved where they can contribute to the worlds health and well-being (many native plants provide medicines), and to reduce climate impact - because removal of sizeable areas of native vegetation does have an immediate impact on ground temperatures and rainfall patterns.
The SW of Western Australia has suffered a 30% decline in annual rainfall in the last 30-35 yrs, and that just happens to coincide with the massive agricultural clearing programs in the W.A. wheatbelt, that were carried out largely between the 1950's and the mid-1980's, when severe clearing restrictions were introduced - 30 years too late.
The wheatbelt and interior regions of Australia are fragile environments, and desertification is always ready to rage, once the ground is cleared of native vegetation.
In the Interior, clearing and totally denuding areas of ground to provide a visible aerial statement leads to severe erosion during heavy rainfall events - and also it leads to dust storms and severe wind erosion, which produce adverse environmental impacts.
Just simple overgrazing, with the attendant removal of large areas of low vegetation (grasses and shrubby bushes) leads to severe wind erosion and dust storms, and the accompanying adverse environmental impacts.
We nearly all have seen the adverse environmental impacts when drought is included in the overgrazing/excessive clearing equations - and no-one I know thinks those adverse environmental impacts were good.
Our land is here forever, we are only here individually for less than 100 years at most, and the destruction we can do to the land in a very short time, can have major impacts for many centuries afterwards. The Cedar Forests of Lebanon come to mind.
Wind erosion and land management - Australia, during 1940-1949, and 2000-2009
(note that the above study outlines that the Lake Eyre Basin, and the Murray Darling Basin, are Australias "most actively eroding" regions)
We are not alone in this, the wholesale destruction of Indonesian rainforests and the similar destruction of the Amazon rainforest are both proceeding unabated, and with rampant corruption and with a low level of Govts controlling oversight.
Mankind is a destructive creature and the machines we build ensure faster and more effective destruction of native, original environments every day.
In the case of removing "relatively useless" native vegetation (an all-encompassing term that is not always correct), to turn the soil to food production, then there is a good case to do so, provided that it is done with oversight involving the communities affected, with input from specialists and scientists, and with the appropriate legislation and control procedures put in place.
As has been shown above, by Band a Lot, many Govts are well behind the 8-ball in ensuring all the appropriate legislation and procedures are in place.
The NT is one place where the politicians and community leaders are still coming to terms with the necessary procedures to properly control unfettered development.
The problems with removing substantial areas of native vegetation revolve around ensuring studies are carried out to ensure that the environmental impacts are controlled, that possibly important species are preserved where they can contribute to the worlds health and well-being (many native plants provide medicines), and to reduce climate impact - because removal of sizeable areas of native vegetation does have an immediate impact on ground temperatures and rainfall patterns.
The SW of Western Australia has suffered a 30% decline in annual rainfall in the last 30-35 yrs, and that just happens to coincide with the massive agricultural clearing programs in the W.A. wheatbelt, that were carried out largely between the 1950's and the mid-1980's, when severe clearing restrictions were introduced - 30 years too late.
The wheatbelt and interior regions of Australia are fragile environments, and desertification is always ready to rage, once the ground is cleared of native vegetation.
In the Interior, clearing and totally denuding areas of ground to provide a visible aerial statement leads to severe erosion during heavy rainfall events - and also it leads to dust storms and severe wind erosion, which produce adverse environmental impacts.
Just simple overgrazing, with the attendant removal of large areas of low vegetation (grasses and shrubby bushes) leads to severe wind erosion and dust storms, and the accompanying adverse environmental impacts.
We nearly all have seen the adverse environmental impacts when drought is included in the overgrazing/excessive clearing equations - and no-one I know thinks those adverse environmental impacts were good.
Our land is here forever, we are only here individually for less than 100 years at most, and the destruction we can do to the land in a very short time, can have major impacts for many centuries afterwards. The Cedar Forests of Lebanon come to mind.
Wind erosion and land management - Australia, during 1940-1949, and 2000-2009
(note that the above study outlines that the Lake Eyre Basin, and the Murray Darling Basin, are Australias "most actively eroding" regions)
The pressure on the clearing of native vegetation is constant, it's a two-edged sword. On one hand, we have the Greens who do not want a single leaf of any plant touched - on the other hand we have developers who would flatten unique and pristine wilderness areas to make a financial killing.
We are not alone in this, the wholesale destruction of Indonesian rainforests and the similar destruction of the Amazon rainforest are both proceeding unabated, and with rampant corruption and with a low level of Govts controlling oversight.
Mankind is a destructive creature and the machines we build ensure faster and more effective destruction of native, original environments every day.
In the case of removing "relatively useless" native vegetation (an all-encompassing term that is not always correct), to turn the soil to food production, then there is a good case to do so, provided that it is done with oversight involving the communities affected, with input from specialists and scientists, and with the appropriate legislation and control procedures put in place.
As has been shown above, by Band a Lot, many Govts are well behind the 8-ball in ensuring all the appropriate legislation and procedures are in place.
The NT is one place where the politicians and community leaders are still coming to terms with the necessary procedures to properly control unfettered development.
The problems with removing substantial areas of native vegetation revolve around ensuring studies are carried out to ensure that the environmental impacts are controlled, that possibly important species are preserved where they can contribute to the worlds health and well-being (many native plants provide medicines), and to reduce climate impact - because removal of sizeable areas of native vegetation does have an immediate impact on ground temperatures and rainfall patterns.
The SW of Western Australia has suffered a 30% decline in annual rainfall in the last 30-35 yrs, and that just happens to coincide with the massive agricultural clearing programs in the W.A. wheatbelt, that were carried out largely between the 1950's and the mid-1980's, when severe clearing restrictions were introduced - 30 years too late.
The wheatbelt and interior regions of Australia are fragile environments, and desertification is always ready to rage, once the ground is cleared of native vegetation.
In the Interior, clearing and totally denuding areas of ground to provide a visible aerial statement leads to severe erosion during heavy rainfall events - and also it leads to dust storms and severe wind erosion, which produce adverse environmental impacts.
Just simple overgrazing, with the attendant removal of large areas of low vegetation (grasses and shrubby bushes) leads to severe wind erosion and dust storms, and the accompanying adverse environmental impacts.
We nearly all have seen the adverse environmental impacts when drought is included in the overgrazing/excessive clearing equations - and no-one I know thinks those adverse environmental impacts were good.
Our land is here forever, we are only here individually for less than 100 years at most, and the destruction we can do to the land in a very short time, can have major impacts for many centuries afterwards. The Cedar Forests of Lebanon come to mind.
Wind erosion and land management - Australia, during 1940-1949, and 2000-2009
(note that the above study outlines that the Lake Eyre Basin, and the Murray Darling Basin, are Australias "most actively eroding" regions)
We are not alone in this, the wholesale destruction of Indonesian rainforests and the similar destruction of the Amazon rainforest are both proceeding unabated, and with rampant corruption and with a low level of Govts controlling oversight.
Mankind is a destructive creature and the machines we build ensure faster and more effective destruction of native, original environments every day.
In the case of removing "relatively useless" native vegetation (an all-encompassing term that is not always correct), to turn the soil to food production, then there is a good case to do so, provided that it is done with oversight involving the communities affected, with input from specialists and scientists, and with the appropriate legislation and control procedures put in place.
As has been shown above, by Band a Lot, many Govts are well behind the 8-ball in ensuring all the appropriate legislation and procedures are in place.
The NT is one place where the politicians and community leaders are still coming to terms with the necessary procedures to properly control unfettered development.
The problems with removing substantial areas of native vegetation revolve around ensuring studies are carried out to ensure that the environmental impacts are controlled, that possibly important species are preserved where they can contribute to the worlds health and well-being (many native plants provide medicines), and to reduce climate impact - because removal of sizeable areas of native vegetation does have an immediate impact on ground temperatures and rainfall patterns.
The SW of Western Australia has suffered a 30% decline in annual rainfall in the last 30-35 yrs, and that just happens to coincide with the massive agricultural clearing programs in the W.A. wheatbelt, that were carried out largely between the 1950's and the mid-1980's, when severe clearing restrictions were introduced - 30 years too late.
The wheatbelt and interior regions of Australia are fragile environments, and desertification is always ready to rage, once the ground is cleared of native vegetation.
In the Interior, clearing and totally denuding areas of ground to provide a visible aerial statement leads to severe erosion during heavy rainfall events - and also it leads to dust storms and severe wind erosion, which produce adverse environmental impacts.
Just simple overgrazing, with the attendant removal of large areas of low vegetation (grasses and shrubby bushes) leads to severe wind erosion and dust storms, and the accompanying adverse environmental impacts.
We nearly all have seen the adverse environmental impacts when drought is included in the overgrazing/excessive clearing equations - and no-one I know thinks those adverse environmental impacts were good.
Our land is here forever, we are only here individually for less than 100 years at most, and the destruction we can do to the land in a very short time, can have major impacts for many centuries afterwards. The Cedar Forests of Lebanon come to mind.
Wind erosion and land management - Australia, during 1940-1949, and 2000-2009
(note that the above study outlines that the Lake Eyre Basin, and the Murray Darling Basin, are Australias "most actively eroding" regions)
Where to start with all this nonsense..
WA rainfall records: "...Merredin district rain history shoots hole in widely supported theory that clearing the wheatbelt caused reduction in south west WA rain post 1975..."
Merredin district rain history shoots hole in widely supported theory that clearing the wheatbelt caused reduction in SW WA rain post ~1975 | Errors in IPCC climate science
That'll do for tonight, not really in the mood for debunking hysterical nonsense..
.
The land where the Marree Man has been redrawn is desert, rather than valuable agricultural land.
I do understand your sensible views, onetrack. But this tiny act of environmental vandalism is simply insignificant, in the scheme of things.
I do understand your sensible views, onetrack. But this tiny act of environmental vandalism is simply insignificant, in the scheme of things.
Gerry111, the size of the act of environmental vandalism is not the issue. What is not in question is that it has occurred, and that the Marree and William Creek publicans have admitted in the media several times that they were involved.
This is a blatant disregard for the law, and so they can expect to be prosecuted. I agree with Desert Flower - I bet if they had submitted a plan, and played by the rules they probably would have got approval and it would all be sweet.
It is the breathtaking arrogance that those involved appear to believe that they can do what they want, when they want, wherever they want that I find staggering.
This is not a case of Outback ingenuity, overcoming all odds to do something amazing. This is a case of a couple of arrogant, greedy individuals vandalising the environment in a bid to attract tourists to their businesses for their own personal gain.
No I won't be contributing to any fighting fund for their legal costs, and I reckon anyone who does is a mug.
This is a blatant disregard for the law, and so they can expect to be prosecuted. I agree with Desert Flower - I bet if they had submitted a plan, and played by the rules they probably would have got approval and it would all be sweet.
It is the breathtaking arrogance that those involved appear to believe that they can do what they want, when they want, wherever they want that I find staggering.
This is not a case of Outback ingenuity, overcoming all odds to do something amazing. This is a case of a couple of arrogant, greedy individuals vandalising the environment in a bid to attract tourists to their businesses for their own personal gain.
No I won't be contributing to any fighting fund for their legal costs, and I reckon anyone who does is a mug.
Gerry111, the size of the act of environmental vandalism is not the issue. What is not in question is that it has occurred, and that the Marree and William Creek publicans have admitted in the media several times that they were involved.
This is a blatant disregard for the law, and so they can expect to be prosecuted. I agree with Desert Flower - I bet if they had submitted a plan, and played by the rules they probably would have got approval and it would all be sweet.
It is the breathtaking arrogance that those involved appear to believe that they can do what they want, when they want, wherever they want that I find staggering.
This is not a case of Outback ingenuity, overcoming all odds to do something amazing. This is a case of a couple of arrogant, greedy individuals vandalising the environment in a bid to attract tourists to their businesses for their own personal gain.
No I won't be contributing to any fighting fund for their legal costs, and I reckon anyone who does is a mug.
This is a blatant disregard for the law, and so they can expect to be prosecuted. I agree with Desert Flower - I bet if they had submitted a plan, and played by the rules they probably would have got approval and it would all be sweet.
It is the breathtaking arrogance that those involved appear to believe that they can do what they want, when they want, wherever they want that I find staggering.
This is not a case of Outback ingenuity, overcoming all odds to do something amazing. This is a case of a couple of arrogant, greedy individuals vandalising the environment in a bid to attract tourists to their businesses for their own personal gain.
No I won't be contributing to any fighting fund for their legal costs, and I reckon anyone who does is a mug.
DF.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, we'll see what those publicans have to say when they're confronted with satellite imagery by the DEWNR and NVC, showing unauthorised native vegetation destruction - and the agents of these two Depts ask, "where is their consent for approval to clear native vegetation?"
Environment S.A. - native vegetation
The penalty for clearing native vegetation in S.A. without approval is a minimum fine of $100,000. If they end up fighting charges in the courts, the lawyers will be soaking up many tens of thousands as well.
There'd better be some money in that tourism game.
Environment S.A. - managing natural resources
Environment S.A. - change detection program
S.A. - NATIVE VEGETATION ACT 1991
Environment S.A. - native vegetation
The penalty for clearing native vegetation in S.A. without approval is a minimum fine of $100,000. If they end up fighting charges in the courts, the lawyers will be soaking up many tens of thousands as well.
There'd better be some money in that tourism game.
Environment S.A. - managing natural resources
Environment S.A. - change detection program
S.A. - NATIVE VEGETATION ACT 1991
Did not find one for Native Vegetation but the case on 22 June 2015
Is a very serious one! Some very bad intentional things get some small fines.
Completed prosecutions & civil penalties | EPA
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Page 24
A person must not clear native vegetation unless the clearance is in accordance with this Part.
Maximum penalty: A sum calculated at the prescribed rate for each hectare (or part of a hectare) of the land in relation to which the offence was committed or $100 000, whichever is greater.
Expiation fee: $750.
Page 25
the amount (if any) per hectare by which the land in relation to which the offence was committed has increased in value as a direct result of the commission of the offence; or
(b) $2 500,
whichever is the greater.
Page 38
If the ERD Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that—
(a) the owner or occupier of the cleared land did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) requiring the making of an order under section 31A(6)(d); and
(b) compliance with an order under section 31A(6)(d) will cause financial loss to that person,
the Court may—
(c) assess the amount of the financial loss and order the respondent to pay that amount to the owner or occupier of the land; or
(d) refuse to make the order or make the order in a modified form.
If the Court is satisfied that compliance with any order under section 31A(6)(d) would not be reasonably practicable, it may refuse to make the order.
Page 51 - an allegation is proof & it was the owner/occupier if no evidence!!!!
34—Evidentiary
(1) An allegation in enforcement proceedings under Part 5 Division 2 or in proceedings for an offence against this Act that vegetation is, or was, comprised of a plant or plants of a species indigenous to South Australia must be accepted as proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.
(2) Where in enforcement proceedings under Part 5 Division 2 or in proceedings for an offence against this Act it is proved that vegetation has been cleared, it must be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary that the vegetation was cleared by the owner and occupier of the land on which it is or was growing or is or was situated.
A person must not clear native vegetation unless the clearance is in accordance with this Part.
Maximum penalty: A sum calculated at the prescribed rate for each hectare (or part of a hectare) of the land in relation to which the offence was committed or $100 000, whichever is greater.
Expiation fee: $750.
Page 25
the amount (if any) per hectare by which the land in relation to which the offence was committed has increased in value as a direct result of the commission of the offence; or
(b) $2 500,
whichever is the greater.
Page 38
If the ERD Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that—
(a) the owner or occupier of the cleared land did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) requiring the making of an order under section 31A(6)(d); and
(b) compliance with an order under section 31A(6)(d) will cause financial loss to that person,
the Court may—
(c) assess the amount of the financial loss and order the respondent to pay that amount to the owner or occupier of the land; or
(d) refuse to make the order or make the order in a modified form.
If the Court is satisfied that compliance with any order under section 31A(6)(d) would not be reasonably practicable, it may refuse to make the order.
Page 51 - an allegation is proof & it was the owner/occupier if no evidence!!!!
34—Evidentiary
(1) An allegation in enforcement proceedings under Part 5 Division 2 or in proceedings for an offence against this Act that vegetation is, or was, comprised of a plant or plants of a species indigenous to South Australia must be accepted as proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.
(2) Where in enforcement proceedings under Part 5 Division 2 or in proceedings for an offence against this Act it is proved that vegetation has been cleared, it must be presumed in the absence of proof to the contrary that the vegetation was cleared by the owner and occupier of the land on which it is or was growing or is or was situated.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... the size of the act of environmental vandalism is not the issue. What is not in question is that it has occurred...
This is a blatant disregard for the law, and so they can expect to be prosecuted. I agree with Desert Flower - I bet if they had submitted a plan, and played by the rules they probably would have got approval and it would all be sweet.
In Australia, the attitude seems to be (as the statements above indicate) "You broke the law! now we will get you!!!" and If you want to do anything then you will need to appease the bureaucracy/authorities by jumping through whatever hoops they devise and pay whatever fees they determine - "Only We (the bureaucracy) can determine what is good and what is bad and we will not be flexible unless it is politically or personally expedient to do so".
Australia need to find a balance between progress, growth and development and the restriction and punishment of those whose actions are detrimental to society. Rather than swinging wildly from one minorities ideology to another.