WILDERNESS - Politics and Policy within the WA LIberal Party

Like most political parties, the Liberal Party in WA is a complex organisation, with lay and parliamentary members of varying abilitities and expertise acting to further their own or the party’s ambitions. After joining the party in 1984, I was elected the state MP for Vasse (a rural seat centred on Busselton in the south west of the state) in 1996, serving as a backbencher in the Richard Court government until the 2001 election when the Labor government was elected. Having a background in the environmental sciences, I was then appointed by then opposition leader Colin Barnett as the Liberal spokesman on science and the environment.

In the lead-up to the 2005 election, most shadow ministers were busy preparing policy or position statements that the Liberal Party could take to the election. In 2002 and 2003, I produced what I considered to be well-researched and argued documents on establishing an Invasive Species Council to tackle the problems of weeds and feral animals; a management strategy for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Cape Range National Park; a policy on reducing light emissions to the sky in urban environments (light spill); a proposal to introduce a levy to fund Natural Resource Management; a science policy; and a policy on wilderness in Western Australia.

Much to my surprise and frustration, several of these documents never saw the light of day. However, all became clear when I lost Liberal Party endorsement for the seat of Vasse in late 2003, to be replaced by Troy Buswell, a controversial figure who is now treasurer in the Liberal Nationals government that was elected in late 2008. Too late did I discover that certain of Buswell’s parliamentary supporters were actively working to deny me a public profile as a shadow minister, so that they could highlight my lack of public recognition as an argument against me during pre-selection, thereby encouraging delegates to vote for Buswell.

In early 2004, I resigned from the Liberal Party and stood against Buswell in the 2005 election, losing by 209 votes.

I produced the following draft position statement on wilderness in WA in September 2003. The reason why it remained hidden from public view may have been a result of the Liberal hierarchy believing it was not suitable to adopt as policy, although the most likely reason is as explained above – to deny me public exposure. Nonetheless, considering how little policy development has occurred on the important subject of wilderness in WA since the 2005 election, the issues outlined in the position statement remain valid today.


WILDERNESS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Defining the difference


Introduction

A strong economy is dependent upon a healthy and diverse environment, but human impacts on the Australian environment now require a strong economy to properly manage our environmental assets. The need to find the correct balance between economic and environmental imperatives is urgent.

The Liberal Party has a long-standing commitment to the conservation of Western Australia’s natural heritage. The previous Coalition Government established five new national parks, five conservation reserves and 59 nature reserves to expand Western Australia’s conservation estate by 920,000 hectares. In addition, 2.6 million hectares of pastoral lands were acquired for conservation in the Gascoyne-Murchison and Pilbara regions.

Important natural areas should be protected from development, such as in National Parks or nature reserves, or through the voluntary actions of private landowners.

Wilderness is internationally defined as an area which is large, remote and natural. Wilderness areas provide significant social and environmental benefits, such as preservation of valuable ecosystems and biodiversity, while providing people with the opportunity to escape from modern society and “experience” nature.

Wilderness also has important implications for human access, tourism, mineral resource development and biodiversity management. These implications need to be fully understood and widely debated before wilderness areas are dedicated and locked away.

The benefits of wilderness

Wilderness areas are a unique part of the conservation estate. National Parks and other conservation reserves require active management and intervention, coupled with controls on activities which could compromise ecosystems. In contrast, wilderness is essentially left alone so that natural processes can occur almost totally free of human disturbance.

It has been argued that simply creating National Parks is not adequate to produce true “wilderness” conditions capable of providing authentic wilderness experiences free of permanent human structures and disturbance.

Wilderness issues

Identification and protection

In Western Australia, the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 provides no criteria for wilderness identification. Classification of an area as wilderness can be made under the Act only if it is consistent with statutory management objectives for an area.

There is debate over the need to introduce dedicated wilderness legislation which would allow for the appropriate nomination, assessment, declaration, management and protection of wilderness areas. Such legislation exists in New South Wales and South Australia. However, controversy remains over identifying and protecting wilderness areas, with contention between conservation organisations and recreational groups, particularly with regard to levels of access and the amount of permitted disturbance.

Access

Wilderness is a very restrictive form of land use. The absence of roads is a basic condition of wilderness areas, with no motorised vehicles allowed, no recreational use of animal transport and restrictions on aircraft.

These restrictions create “equity of access” and elitist problems. The disabled, elderly and very young would find it extremely difficult to appreciate these areas as access must be by foot or non-motorised boat. Even during emergencies, access by vehicles is often opposed. In the eastern states, scientific research has been stopped as a result of new wilderness areas being created.

Restrictions on mining

Resource utilisation is usually banned from wilderness areas. With WA-derived mineral and petroleum exports worth some $30 billion annually to the Australian economy, the impact on mineral resource developments cannot be lightly dismissed in any discussions concerning wilderness areas.

The mining industry believes that, although some environmental impact is an inevitable consequence of most mining and mineral exploration activities, the actual effects on the land are very small. Post-mining rehabilitation ensures that such activities do not compromise long term conservation values.

Tourism

Western Australia is a unique holiday destination. According to the WA Tourism Commission, nature-based tourism generates around $3 billion annually for the State. About 60 per cent of visitors to WA travel to regional areas, supporting thousands of jobs in small and remote towns.

By restricting access to wilderness areas, tourism potential is also restricted. A vision for wilderness areas that allows for sustainable eco-tourism such as walk trails and other built features, but which otherwise enhances conservation of natural values, may be appropriate in some areas.

Management issues

While the “naturalness” of a wilderness area may suggest that a management plan is not needed, the existence of many threats to a wilderness area’s natural values will require on-going management. The potential for inappropriate fire regimes, feral animals and exotic weeds to affect wilderness areas has the capacity to irrevocably damage biodiversity and conservation values.

Access to wilderness areas is vital to undertake management actions such as fire suppression and pest control. Appropriate management actions would, however, be severely restricted by any limitations on the use of vehicles, as enforced in other wilderness areas.

Fire

It is generally accepted that the vegetation of Australia in 1788 was a result of complex Aboriginal burning practices, which had become a part of the natural system. Present day management of wilderness areas must therefore fully consider the future role of Indigenous people and fire in wilderness areas.

The loss to property, human life and natural areas through wildfires in Canberra and around Sydney has dramatically shown the impacts of wildfire in the Australian environment. In WA, last summer’s fire in the proposed Walpole Wilderness Park burnt out some 400 square kilometres.

Setting aside large tracts of land as wilderness without effective plans to deal with such situations invites the loss of natural values in both the short and long terms. Damage to habitats, whole ecosystems and surrounding property would be substantial.

The Labor approach

The Gallop Government’s recent draft wilderness policy statement, if implemented, would be bureaucratic, restrictive and expensive. It would also not protect most of the important natural values of wilderness areas since long-term management actions would be severely constrained.

For example, permission from the executive director of the Department of CALM would be required before a helicopter could gain emergency access to a wilderness area. Access for essential management actions such as fire control or weed eradication would require a costly and lengthy report to first be presented to the Conservation Commission.

Since no fire breaks would be allowed under this draft policy, the potential for the entire wilderness area to be burnt in a single wildfire would be high. In this situation, biodiversity and aesthetic values would be severely impacted, with localised extinction of species being highly probable.

Under Labor, establishment of wilderness areas would require closing and rehabilitating all vehicle tracks, walk trails, helipads and airstrips. Almost all recreational infrastructure would be removed, including campsites, signage and toilet facilities. Planes flying over wilderness areas would need to be at least 5,000 feet above the ground, while the question of a minimum distance from shore for boats moving past wilderness areas remains unanswered.

The way forward

A Liberal government would apply realistic priorities to the aims and management objectives of any wilderness area created in Western Australia. It would give highest priority to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity values. Wilderness areas would be carefully chosen to compliment the existing conservation estate, not replace it.

Indigenous people who have maintained their links to wilderness areas would be given appropriate responsibilities in wilderness management, including the use of fire, control of feral animals and weeds, and tourism opportunities. It would also allow appropriate Indigenous usage of wilderness areas using traditional methods while always ensuring protection of environmental values.

Strategic firebreaks would allow wide bands of bush to be regularly burnt so as to allow better control of wildfires. Key infrastructure facilities such as existing campsites and walking tracks would be retained but rationalised to better manage their use. For people who would otherwise be unable to access and enjoy wilderness areas, some eco-tourism opportunities would be provided, such as access by a small number of off-road personnel carriers for wilderness tours.

Selection of any new wilderness areas and the preparation of their management plans would require wide-ranging community consultation, including the involvement of existing recreational and other users of the proposed wilderness areas.

A Liberal government would oppose the Gallop Government’s elitist, restrictive and bureaucratic draft wilderness policy.

Conclusion

The WA Liberal Party acknowledges that creating wilderness areas can provide important social benefits and can preserve valuable ecosystems and bio-diversity. However, the protection of wilderness areas does not end with their gazetting. Money and expertise are required for these areas if they are to retain their wilderness qualities due to the on-going threats from feral animals, exotic pests, inappropriate fire regimes and, on a larger scale, climatic change. Already, funding for the environment is below acceptable levels, so any new wilderness areas would need to be adequately resourced.

Specific guidelines for the identification, recognition and management of wilderness areas need to be prepared, with the protection of bio-diversity as the primary for setting aside these areas.

Tasmania's Overland Track - 8 exhilarating days!

After hiking into Lake Pedder in the autumn of 1972 immediately prior to the winter in which this iconic lake was flooded, I have wanted to walk the Overland Track in central Tasmania’s highlands. Covering just 65 km from Cradle Mountain to Lake St Claire, descriptions of the track’s glacial-derived rugged scenery, cool temperate vegetation (especially the deciduous Notofagus bush) and highly variable weather fired my imagination. On April 13, 2009, our group of 9 began the adventure.

Boardwalks now allow walkers to avoid the worst of the deep mud across the button grass plains, but worse conditions were to test us. In the 40 or 45 km without boardwalks, the track consists of loose rock, a network of slippery tree roots, sunken timber from 40 year old track improvements and, after rain, pools of muddy water of indeterminate depth. While hiking poles were useful, the care needed to prevent spills, slips and twisted ankles often reduced the pace to just two kilometres per hour. Walkers had to stop before looking up to enjoy the scenery. Even the timber boardwalks were a hazard after rain or snow, with the non-slip central wire mesh usually just 30 cm wide.

Nonetheless, the experience was totally rewarding. We chose to stay in the government huts each night rather than brave the cold and wind of the tents. With the first day arguably being the hardest (10.8km, 700 metres of ascent and descent, a heavy pack and lacking fitness), we awoke after 11 hours sleep to snow, rain, hail and sleet. The West Australians amongst us loved the falling snow, with the two Belgians amused by our reaction to it!

Of the six huts we stayed in, four were basic but well designed, consisting of one large room, with benches and tables at one end and sleeping platforms at the other. Pelion hut was relatively new, able to hold up to 60 people in rooms separate from the cooking/eating room. Worst was the very new Windy Ridge hut, with numerous stairs, cold rooms and a vast main eating hall that discouraged socialising with other walkers (e.g., the benches and tables were bolted to the floor).

Wildlife along the track was minimal: wallabies at a couple of huts at dusk, leeches close to rivers, a few birds high in the tree tops. But the fungi were spectacular – every colour and shape imaginable. Even the teenagers in our group admired them.

Equally spectacular was the scenery. Ancient forests dripping in lichens; hill sides green with fields of moss; mountain sides covered in broken rock which in turn was covered by variably coloured and patterned lichens. Everywhere were smoothly glaciated valleys or jagged basalt hills which once stood above the ice. Large boulders of sandstone lay scattered on the button grass plains, having been dropped from melting glaciers.

At the end of our leisurely 7 nights and 8 days, we caught the ferry to the Lake St Claire visitor centre rather than walk the final 17 km along the lake’s edge – a boring exercise, we were told, in comparison with the 65 km of main track. We found hiking poles essential (one for me and two for Carolina). Dry socks at night rejuvenated the feet for the next day’s walk. Ear plugs in the crowded huts were needed to protect against the inevitable snorers, although there was no escape from the head cold that freely passed between walkers who shared the huts. Although we carried too much food, the excess was useful insurance against emergencies.

Prior to departure, Kevin Rudd’s stimulus payment helped pay for upgraded equipment, especially back packs and a good quality waterproof jacket for Carolina. We bought many items on eBay or via the internet from camping stores based in the east. Pre-packaged hiking food was very expensive (and our trial meals were small and bland) so we purchased packets of dried food – pasta, rice, noodles – from a Launceston supermarket.

The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service website only contained active links to or email addresses of a limited number of the various service providers needed to plan for the walk. Fortunately (and this is the first of only two commercials in this article), staff in the Launceston store of Paddy Pallin were excellent and gave freely of their time and useful advice. We were also greatly appreciative of the help given to us by the Bunbury Mountain Design store where we purchased our backpacks.

The Overland Track was the hardest physical challenge I’ve yet faced but the pain was worthwhile. Side tracks up nearby mountains or down to beautiful waterfalls added to the scenic variety of the overall track. Our fellow hikers were good company, always helpful for advice or assistance. Rangers were present at most huts and were likewise friendly and helpful, always with emergency stocks of the most requested item which people run out of – rolls of toilet paper!

The scenery and challenge of the track completely outweighed the difficulties caused by the track’s poor condition. Overall, the Overland Track deserves its title as one of Australia’s ‘iconic’ walks. Do it before you get too old.

Bernie and Carolina Masters, with 2 Belgians Vincent and Robin Keunen and a family of 5 (including 3 teenagers) from Perth: Dan, Beth, Danii, Bethanii and Brodie Heeris.

Kim Chance's opposition to GM is political, nothing else!

FORMER MINISTER’S OPPOSITION TO GM IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED

In January, 2010, an article appeared in the West Australian newspaper written by former state ALP agriculture minister Kim Chance. In it, he outlined his opposition to the growing of genetically modified (GM) foods in WA, but the article was more significant for the issues he failed to raise rather than for his stated concerns.

For the last 20 years, foremost in any ALP strategist’s mind is Labor’s reliance on preferences from the WA Greens at election time. This has controlled many of the state ALP’s policy decisions in recent years, including relaxation of drug usage laws and opposition to uranium mining and to the use of GM crops in WA.

In my eight years as a state MP, I came to the surprising conclusion that the most conservative party in the WA political scene is the WA Greens. Analysis of many of their policies shows that they are opposed to change in many aspects of the modern world, usually (but not always) implying a preference for a return to the simple, low technology life of the past. This conservativeness appeals to a certain class of voters who fear for the future and don’t trust scientists or technical experts, in spite of their high uptake of computer-based technologies, for example.

While the Greens are progressive on many social reform issues, their conservative attitude towards the modern world sees them opposing the use of GM in both food and non-food organisms such as cotton. While this article isn’t the appropriate place to analyse and debunk their many concerns, the reality of their opposition to GM and of the dependence of Labor at both state and federal level to their preferences are the main reason why former minister Chance and the ALP are also so opposed to GM.

Another major omission from Mr Chance’s article was any detail about the markets and sale price premiums that would be lost as a consequence of the WA government’s decision to allow GM canola to be grown more widely. Australia’s canola oil production ranges up to one and a half million tonnes per year, depending on seasonal conditions. In spite of the loud protests of GM opponents who claim that we’ll be losing valuable non-GM markets in Japan and Europe, there is an almost total lack of information on the size of these markets and how important they might be to Australian farmers.

The internet reveals that Tasmania is hoping to grow its non-GM canola exports to 10,000 tonnes per year (less than 1% of total Australian production), while dire predictions made in 2006 about the collapse of South Australia’s canola export market has proved groundless. No data is available on the claimed price premium paid for non-GM canola. The only conclusion that a rational person can make is that, if such markets really do exist, they are so small that they can provide virtually no benefit to Australia as a whole.

Mr Chance’s personal opposition to GM food is well reflected in his now famous 2005 statement “We might grow a tail if we eat GM crops”. It’s possible he may have been joking but, in the absence of a clear withdrawal of this claim, it’s best to assume he was serious, in spite of its total falseness.

In response to some of the claims made by Mr Chance, it is worth pointing out that:
• Farmers are currently the primary beneficiaries of GM technology, with higher yields and lower pesticide usage keeping their costs down. In turn, these cost savings help to keep consumer prices down. An October 2009 report for the UK government warned that the cost of sourcing non-GM food ingredients is increasing so that they now cost 10 to 20 per cent more than their GM equivalents. While comparisons between UK and Australia are sometimes difficult, nonetheless some non-GM foods now cost substantially more to grow than their GM counterparts.
• The primary reason why the major supermarket chains don’t stock GM foods is because none of them wish to be threatened by politically motivated campaigns run by green groups. Look at the anti-wool campaign run by the animal rights group PETA who also want to stop the keeping of pets and ban the recreational catching of fish. The term ‘green mail’ has been invented to describe the unacceptable practice of blackmailing certain parties to further the ambitions of some environmental zealots.
• WA’s recent GM canola trials were not designed to evaluate the economics of GM versus non-GM canola, as implied in Mr Chance’s article. It will be WA’s farmers who make the economic decisions about whether to grow GM crops or not, rather than the scientists who are more interested in oil yields or pesticide usage or the people who assess crop segregation issues.
• Analysis of GM product performance is not a task for government. Instead, it will be (and should be) carried out by the hundreds of WA farmers who will almost certainly choose to use GM canola to gain the economic and environmental benefits that this product provides. If the promised benefits fail to materialise, Monsanto will quickly lose customers, not gain them.

Interestingly, Mr Chance’s article hardly touched on the issue of GM product labeling, a requirement which would give consumers the ultimate choice in resolving the debate over GM foods. If all foods derived from GM crops were appropriately labeled and farmers given an unfettered choice of whether to grow GM or non-GM foods, the debate would be resolved within a few years as consumers either accepted or rejected the products placed on supermarket shelves.

Because of scaremongering over the use of GM technology, this choice is currently being denied to consumers, so one has to ask what do the greens and their supporters (such as the ALP) really fear? My belief is that they fear the ordinary person in the street making a decision that is contrary to the green’s emotionally-based and politically-driven opposition to GM technology.

The world didn’t implode when the Y2K bug struck and some of the excessively pessimistic claims about global climate change are now being reviewed and modified. GM foods have been eaten by hundreds of millions of people for more than 15 years without harm while farmers in many countries are rapidly taking up GM crops so as to enjoy the resulting economic and environmental benefits. Whether they are Luddites or political activists, people like Kim Chance should put aside their ulterior motives and come out in support of a technology whose time has come.