This piece was published today on ABC Online (minus the picture). Also see my media release on this issue.
At the end of March, Environment Minister Peter Garrett finally announced the Government’s new environment funding package ‘Caring for Our Country’. I say ‘finally’ because the funding under the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) was coming to an end, and they had been dragging their heels so long that nobody had any idea about the future funding of environment and natural resource management projects.
Up to that point, the Government had not announced an overarching vision for environment and natural resource management, and all we had to go on was a small number of ad hoc election commitments.
It was obvious that the announcement, once it was finally made, was a rushed response that hadn’t been thought through. The program is not strategic. It is unfocused and is in danger of undoing much of the progress we have made over the last three decades in conservation and natural resource management (NRM). Unfortunately it takes us right back to the bad old days, of disconnected one-off short-term ‘bitsy’ projects, and it is clear that the Government is still scrambling to work out what to do.
Regional NRM bodies and catchment management organisations still don’t really know their future. While they now know that they will get 60 per cent of historical funding for the next year, they do not know what will happen beyond that. They don’t know what ongoing projects can be funded under that 60 per cent, or just how to go about chopping out bits of the five-year plans they’ve spent a couple of years developing ? and now, with partial funding guaranteed for only one year, they can only run one-year projects.
All of this comes after we’d spent years trying to convince all the players of the need for long-term strategies that take a joined-up whole-of-landscape approach to fixing our complex land management problems and putting in place sustainable solutions.
The staff employed by these regional NRM groups don’t know if they will have a job as of the first of July, because they don’t yet know what particular projects are still being funded, or if they can and will be employed beyond a year. They don’t know if the projects they already have underway will be continued, or to what extent existing plans will need to be changed to address the Government’s new priorities, which currently haven’t been clearly articulated beyond the Government’s ad hoc election promises and list of six priority areas.
For those working in natural resource management things are looking particularly bleak. With most employment contracts these days stipulating a minimum of four weeks notice and only two weeks until the funding runs out, these network coordinators and project managers, along with the estimated 2000 staff in the 56 regional NRM bodies are placed in an invidious position.
There hasn’t been anything like an open process with environmental groups, land managers and the wider community to develop or discuss the Caring for Our Country package, and we are all still struggling to find any useful information about what it will mean on the ground, and what will happen to existing programs and initiatives.
Rather than give the impression that I’m merely out to give Peter Garrett a hard time, I want to stress my professional and personal history in the area of natural resource management. I worked, meeting-ed and lobbied my way through the ‘decade of LandCare’, the two NHT programs and the NAP. A crucial experience for many of us was seeing the chaos that eventuated when the Commonwealth Government failed to think through the transition from NHT1 to NHT2. This resulted in a long hiatus in funding, where many of the community landcare officers were forced to move on to other jobs, many successful projects fell over and a good deal of the time and effort that we’d spent building capacity was lost - together with much of the hard-earned community good-will.
The community invested a great deal of time and money in building up knowledge and networks to be able to effectively communicate between researchers, farming systems experts, policy makers and the people on the land, just as we have more recently invested heavily in building up the structures, networks, planning and extension capacity of our regional groups. Unfortunately a good deal of this comes down to building personal relationships and resides between the ears of the staff now walking out the door. Because of the complexities of the issues involved and the on-again off-again nature of NRM funding it is difficult to maintain institutional knowledge and ‘corporate memory’.
It’s important to realise the transition we have made over the years as we’ve moved from awareness raising, through a series of well-meaning but ultimately ineffective on-the-ground efforts, on to much more targeted and evidence-based interventions - that prioritise key community assets or develop and extend sustainable farming systems which are profitable rather than costly for our farmers. We’ve learnt the dangers of the ‘vegemite’ approach - trying to spread small amounts of funding equally between landholders across the landscape - and we’ve learnt the need to get all the key stakeholders at the table and build up from the common ground.
Creating regional NRM groups and investing in a catchment-based or bioregional approach to managing landscapes was a visionary move which has not yet been given the time to find its feet and deliver on its promises. It has been a very steep learning curve for the players involved, and it has not been popular with some of the key players in the various state primary industry and land management departments whose domains were reduced as a result.
Over the last three decades state agriculture departments, research and extension services have been greatly reduced and they have become increasingly reliant on outside funding sources including the industry research and development councils (RDCs) and Commonwealth programs like NHT. Some are cynically suggesting, with back-to-back Labor governments now lined up at state and federal levels, that there is a push to undermine the regional groups from state agencies seeking a bigger slice of the pie.
When it comes to sustainable agriculture and how you reduce the impacts of agricultural practices on nearby or downstream ecosystems, Caring for Our Country has to address the same challenge as all those previous NRM programs from Landcare through NHT and NAP.
How do we efficiently and effectively invest limited public money to bring about changes in land-use on private land to deliver significant and justifiable public benefits?
It’s clear that we are dealing with very different circumstances depending on the landscapes and climates involved, the kind of environmental and community assets we’re trying to protect, the nature of the problems we’re tackling and the complexities of the farming systems and land management practices involved.
Along the way we have substantially refined the way that we plan our land management strategies, evaluate investment decisions. We’ve developed some innovative land use systems and improved the way we share our skills and information.
To date the Caring for Our Country program is still very light on detail, and the three or four brochures and pages available on the CfOC website mostly repeat the same sketchy information.
The program is probably best characterised as being an uneasy wedding of two elements - a series of unconnected environmental commitments made by the ALP in the run-up to the election, and a list of aspirations for a new approach to funding environmental programs.
The Government is undermining the good will of the community.
Details, details, details. Perhaps it is time for some inspiration. We need a ten commandments of environmental coexistence. A method of understanding rather than a beating into shape.
Here is a thought for you. At present the world leader who has had the most positive impact from an environment and global warming point of view is……. Robert Mugabe!!
This pariah of a human being, by smashing his country apart has done more for the rest of us than any other politician anywhere (except perhaps Brazil and Sweden).
From that low point there should be much that a good politician can do. Come on Peter Garret, what can you do? Robert Mugabe is doing more than you. What have you got to say to that?
Attention Environment Minister Garrett.
Australian Federal Government.
Please provide answer to question of whether or not there is an eddy circulating between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs, Queensland. An eddy in the area would form a mechanism assisting wind driven surface current to spread southern city nutrient pollution into Great Barrier Reef waters where destructive algae blooms and ‘coral bleaching’ and ‘white syndrome’ are occurring.
This is a very serious matter. Evidence indicates nutrient pollution in the Coral Sea ecosystem is seriously degrading seagrass food web nursery, resulting in fish stock depletion and malnutrition and collapse of barter trade causing unrest amongst Pacific Island people.
Answer to question of the eddy is therefore absolutely vital in order to establish various critically urgent solutions.
For reference see:
http://greensblog.org/2008/03/03/estimates-transcripts-on-climate-biosecurity-agriculture-regional-rorts-and-more/#comment-5743
Further, does Caring for our Country include caring for our ocean Excluisive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters?
I request The Greens to urgently forward and ensure copy of this comment is received by Minister Garrett’s office.
Thank you.
John, this is not Garrett’s website - why are you posting the above here? And for that matter why do you post it on just about every thread? It’s often not relevant and you derail the discussion. If you want a response to the above, you need to send it to the Minister, not spam the Greens website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d like to see a proper discussion here in response to Rachel’s spot-on analysis of how Garrett et al are screwing up with Caring for Our Country, big-time. It’s a rare day when I back the Libs over Labor, but the previous government had displayed considerable learning and understanding of regional NRM.
This new government is undoing all the good work of the last 5 years, and starting to threaten gains beyond that.
Rachel, the points I’d emphasis as someone who’s just lost her job in NRM (you’ve met me - think Tas, NRM policy development) are:
the government thinks that directing the bureaucracy to focus on national environmental assets will somehow be a magic bullet. They don’t seem to grasp that such a narrow focus that doesn’t explicity realise that all high value natural assets exist in a complex ecological matrix that must be approached holistically will lead to a highly fragmented and utlimately futile approach. As a result, people are clutching at relatively ‘easy’ assets such as Ramsar sites and their catchments, and threatened species, because it’s possible to goegraphically target them with relative precision. But this simply won’t work for most other natural assets, because a strategic, landscape-scale approach is needed -which is exactly what regional NRM gave us.
Secondly, people & capacity building & engagement. This government just doesn’t get it. The number one principle for environmental protection & restoration is that it’s people who either wreck it or protect it, so the whole game is actually about engaging people and changing their behaviour. And to do that you need to provide people in the community who actively reach out to explain government policy & goals, provide opportunities to work on issues and incentives for doing the right thing, share knowledge between people and help them work and share the load together. What has the most success of getting a farmer for eg to change his land management practices is seeing and hearing what his neighbor did.
Well Garrett doesn’t like or understand capacity building, or engagement, or the networks needed to do it. Which is why all the job losses to date have been of precisely the staff who do the engaging, facilitating and knowledge sharing and supporting of community & individual behavioural change.
The man’s an idiot (Garrett), of the worst kind - he thinks he knows when he doesn’t and he’s not listening to those who do know better.
please keep the pressure up Rachel. This is a massive disaster in the making.
Rachel, respectfully, whilst every point you make is valid, and CfC deserves critical scrutiny, the delivery will be lost/wasted on most, and so lets you down. Each point needs a one sentence ‘take home message’ to enable the attention challenged and skimmers to get to, and absorb, your point. The paragraph following can then ‘flesh out’ the details to reinforce your message.
A stream of consciousness may work for Joyce (James not Barnaby), but is not the stuff of political persuasion. You need an editor.
myriad, this is not your website either. This is a thread about caring for our country and that includes the marine environment that was not included in the Landcare work. Why are you posting comments about someone who has just lost her job?
I post comment on threads that are relevant to green and social and economic issues that serious damage and degradation of the marine environment is linked to. These are green issues. I do not understand why any green person would not want to know about them in order to ascertain solutions.
Minister Garret is the green minister of the government, the Minister for Environment. Is there some rule about posting comment on various green issues on various threads?
Please advise what I have said that is not relevant and what has been derailed.
the person who has lost their job is me, so I’m entirely entitled to comment on that, John. I suspect you misread.
No it’s not my website, but having watched you pop up on virtually every thread with this same question regardless of its relevance to the discussion, I’m raising it with you as a point of blogging etiquette.
Your first post on this thread is written as a letter to Garrett and I’m suggesting you’re just as capable and it’s more appropriate for you to send it rather than expect the Greens to do that for you. I can tell you from experience that your letter as a concerned citizen will receive just as much if not more credence and response than if the Greens do it for you.
Your question is one of a specific technical nature; Rachel’s post frames this discussion in terms of the strategic policy framework and funding deficiences of Caring for Our Country.
I can answer your last question - the Commonwealth dispenses its environmental obligations to the EEZ (3nm - 200nm) through its National Oceans Policy, of which the key instruments are regional marine planning and marine protected areas - all of which is funded separately from C4Oc. Caring for Our Country provides funding for addressing issues in the coastal zone out to 3nm and also for tackling critical issues such as land-based sources of marine pollution. Obviously as the entire oceanic environment is connected and in turn connected to the land, any actions funded on land to address degradation of the coastal strip and end-stream water quality, and to protect vital coastal habitat utilised as nursery and feeding grounds by for eg pelagic species will have a beneficial effect on the Commonwealth marine environment.
John C Fairfax,
You can send an email to Minister Garrett from here.
myriad @ 3 & 6.
Sorry to hear you lost your job but your criticism warrants response, including, I do not see how you can entirely justify comment about your own job on this thread, Caring for our Country.
I find different people read different threads. Matters I deal with involve various subjects that are linked to different issues. Despite this there are various threads on this site I have not “popped up on”.
I think you should show some positive green attitude yourself by writing to Minister Garrettf, for example asking him to note what is being asked and said on this website. I can tell you from my experience, letters sent direct go direct to the too hard tray. This site does not have such a tray.
Indeed, I have already been put in touch with Rachel Siewert concerning the eddy question. This post by Rachel involves discussion about framing strategic policy. Indeed, I submit the eddy I question does exist, and it’s existence once acknowledged will actually frame strategic policy for management of the SW Pacific Ocean and Australia’s marine environment. Such is the vital importance of understanding existence or not of this particular eddy. Therefore my comment on this thread is extremely relevant.
Thank you for answering the other question and perhaps you could advise further. National Oceans Policy or not, I attended catchment meetings but was instructed the catchment stopped where the relevant creek reached the coastline. I was dealing with nutrient pollution in the ocean catchment, involving tidal flow running from the sea into the creek and degrading estuary seagrass.
It became obvious at catchment meetings that management of the marine environment could not be achieved because of such NHT, NRM, DEH, local govt, state govt, fed govt or whatever catchment jurisdiction. The question you have answered indicates similar. There are too many zones and area jurisdictions that have nothing to do with ecosystem biology.
Subsequently no due management was developed for the marine environment. Sand dunes were ‘rehabilitated’ but not ocean food web estuary seagrass. Time has been wasted and the marine environment is now in a real crisis involving politics, compounding damage and impacts, all while there is a gross lack of scientific knowledge.
Even now there is deep estuary and bay dredge work spewing up ancient nutrient pollution and algae spore, not identified, not measured, not monitored, not managed. Dredge sediment - water clarity is observed but what is that sediment actually made up of?
Please, do not just consider Australian jurisdiction. Think of the whole ecosystem and especially think about indigenous people dependent on food from that ecosystem, including Pacific islanders.
If you don’t have a job at present myriad, how about helping with all of this? Outcome might include a very interesting job.
Thank you Harvey S.
John
I lost my job as a direct result of changes under the new Caring for our Country, which is part of what Rachel’s post is about, the loss of corporate knowledge and capacity building in the community around NRM. Today is my second last day, and when I leave, despite doing the best handover I can to my remaining colleagues, I walk out with 5 years direct experience and knowledge in this job, plus another 5 in NRM in my state in general.
What Garrett has done by cutting the number of positions like mine is undermine the thing that actually makes environmental management work - and that’s people. All the science in the world amounts to nothing if you can’t a) get average people to understand it and b) take action.
In terms of the relavancy of your post about your eddy- I’m trying to explain a couple of basic things to you
a) blogging etiquette is such that it’s generally considered very impolite and disruptive to discussion to post the same information repetitively on different topics - I’ve seen you post this eddy information multiple times, and I’d question the direct relevance of what you post often.
Using this thread as an example - this is a discussion about a government funding policy & how it relates to NRM funding across the entire country - basically how we strategically frame policy & spending on the environment. You’re asking for a Minister to confirm whether there’s a particular marine eddy in one particular area. It would be a bit like me banging on about the drought in my catchment and posting letters here asking Garrett to confirm whether climage change has caused it - it’s just one issue in a vast and complex policy framework that ultimately aims to underpin environmental management in toto at the national level.
-and if you’re already in touch with Rachel, why post it again?-
Please note that if you seriously want an answer to this question, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as although it’s outside their jurisdiction, they will have done considerable work on local ocean currents; or the Queensland Government, will be in the best position to answer this. What perhaps you don’t understand is that the Australian Government (ie the Feds) don’t invest directly in much environmental science; instead they rely on collaborative approaches with the states and territories to povide the information to form their own national policy. The Feds therefore will simply ask the Qld government if they have the answer to your question.
Further, your question doesn’t actually fall under Caring for Our Country, it falls under nationa oceans policy, which is in Garrett’s portofolio, but is funded completely separately. You could try contacting the National Oceans Office, but suspect they’ll pass you onto GBRMPA / Qld Government as I don’t think they’ve started the regional marine planning exercise for that area yet.
In terms of your experience with catchment management, that’s again something managed and the regional and state level; the Fed’s only involvement is to provide funding to projects they consider meet national priorities. It’s sad but true that many people still arent on board with an understanding of the catchment-coast-ocean continuum, but your best chance would be to educate them to this fact. It might also be that in your jurisdiction the administrative boundaries of influence for catchment / regional authorities has been set arbitrarily at the coastline.
So you’re right, the jurisdiction issue completely screws up a proper bioregional approach to environmental management and the land-sea divide (putting it crudely) is the biggest barrier of all. However sadly the federal government will not intervene in what’s seen as a state affair. Your only hope of involving the feds is to come at it through regional marine planning with the federal government, or go straight to the Qld Government / GBRMPA.
In sum what I’m trying to explain John is that regardless of the science, the administrative and policy arrangements that governments put in place ultimately affect whether they will take an interest in your question.
I have another job thanks, and live in Tassie, so my focus is down here.
myriad, so sorry to hear you personally lost your job in this debacle. Glad you’ve resolved it by getting a new job already!
Thanks Tim - yeah it’s a debacle alright, and the scale of it isn’t even apparent yet -that will take time to unfold, or in this case, unravel. :/
Contact with Rachael has been established to answer existence or not of the Fraser-Swains eddy. In this thread I am responding to Caring for Our Country issues and have just attended a local community CFOC meeting. I am considering application for a grant to document biology of the northern east coast nutrient dispersal system, degradation, impacts and possible solutions. The eddy is a key factor, why not refer to it?
A question. How can regional marine management planning in Queensland ignore longshore current and suspended matter flowing into Queensland from South Australia? Cubby Station and the Murray estuary are a national matter. How can you not link SA longshore current water to GBR current and national ocean waters?
What you personally see this thread discussion is different to what I see but that does not concern me, and feel free to speak your mind. You have seen a job problem. I see a critically urgent change in policy strategy is required to cope with degradation and impact caused by political - legal v/s biological jurisdiction. Therefore I have questioned jurisdiction of “country”. Downstream beyond “country” there is a 27% rate of stunting in Solomon Island babies and children up to 5 yrs of age, 4% in Fiji. This is disgusting. Consider MANAGEMENT of the WHOLE ecosystem.
Biological and political issues involved are local, state, national and international issues. Qld govt presently has aquaculture policy but no marine environment management policy. GBRMPA science is incomplete due to jurisdiction. I have been there and done that with all the red tape and no answers. Years have been wasted, social, economic and environment consequences compounding.
Your own post @9 provides insight but be patient in understanding relevance, direct or not as you may consider.
The Swains Reef is the biggest and most dense area of coral on the entire Great Barrier Reef and the animals that built it were fed on food that evidence indicates was spread over the area by the eddy I am questioning. The food flows into the eddy area from the eastern Australia longshore current. The food was natural essential nutrients that fed coral algae that fed coral animals that built the coral.
Now nutrient supply and coral is impacted by river and estuary development and cities dumping too much nutrient matter into longshore waters. Too much nutrient load is resulting in destructive nutrient pollution.
Your post @9 refers to question of the eddy and GBRMPA, quote, “although it’s outside their jurisdiction”. Can anyone justify how a GBR nutrient supply source and distribution mechanism that built the Swains Reef can be determined in strategic policy jurisdiction to be OUTSIDE the GBRMPA reef MANAGEMENT area?
Attention Environment Minister Garrett.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7541
John, your last post is just plain patronising and again shows that you’re simply not comprehending what I’m saying, so consider this a last exchange.
Here’s a few quick pointers:
I’ve got a postgraduate degree in environmental science with honors in coastal management, and I’ve worked on regional marine planning and catchment management. Assuming you know more than the person you’re writing to is a very foolish error.
please read more carefully. I’m trying to explain to you how policy, science and administration interact in the field of environmental management, as someone who has been working directly in the field for 10+ years. You on the other hand seem hell-bent on misreading or mis-comprehending what I’ve written, and not understanding the difference between examples, context and the bigger picture. Case in point - that you think I just “see a job issue” is to completely ignore the content of in particular my first post.
Finally I don’t have to “justify” anything to you. I didn’t design the system, but I have spent 10 years wringing decent results out of it because I took the time to understand how it works. I’ve tried to be helpful in explaining how you’d go about getting some assistance with your issue because I understand how the administrative and policy boundaries interact. Giving someone a biology lecture rather than actually listening isn’t particularly helpful, and probably in part explains why you’re not getting answers.
How can regional marine management planning in Queensland ignore longshore current and suspended matter flowing into Queensland from South Australia?
A long shore current described the process of waves angled to the shore creating a current that runs parallel to the coastline, bringing sediment already stirred up by surf action with it. It is caused by surf and near-shore surge dynamics, and as such I can only think you’ve misapplied the term, as by definition a longshore current would not operate over such an extensive and topographically dissimilar coastline.
If you are referring to an ocean current, I refer you to this schematic , in this instance found at CSIRO but that is the aacepted sum of oceanographic knowledge and has been repeatedly confirmed:
Therefore what you are suggesting is a current that moves against every mapped known current, and against the thermodynamic attributes of our oceans. Colour me highly skeptical.
I strongly suggest that you take the time to work out who you need to talk to, because at the moment you’re pretty much taking a scattershot approach. Case in point - a) regional marine planning is designed along bioregional boundaries and does take into account large ocean currents (see the South-east regional marine plan as an example) b) it’s fallacious to suggest that regional marine planning for the Qld area doesn’t take into account such currents because the regional marine planning process for that area hasn’t even begun yet.
Myriad @14, I am not misreading or mis-comprehending anything. Case in point; you criticized my etiquette in posting unrelated matters. In response I pointed out (your) job loss as unrelated to Caring for our Country. Blog what you wish but constructive criticism is required to reduce poverty and sustain the environment and world food supply.
Due to your obvious experience I am in no way ignoring you. I am asking you which authority with what justification can establish and maintain a jurisdiction that excludes science from the very area that supplies food and nutrient pollution the GBR. Do you understand it is the relevant Swains-Fraser administrative boundary that is preventing science from being able to provide anyone with answer concerning existence or not of that “postulated” eddy.
Longshore current is correctly applied in my “biology lecture”. I submit longshore current and prevailing wind generates the energy that transports dissolved and solid matter a considerable distance along the south and east coast of Australia. See: http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/documents/2006/06142perth_abs/abstracts/boyd.pdf
Note the 1000 km northward (over-water) distance to Sydney basin (heavy) sand deposition, and 1000 km north delivery from Sydney basin for storage on the Qld shelf, despite the dissimilar coastline you mention. Abstract by Newcastle University geology Prof Ron Boyd and others, “The Sediment Dispersal System on the Southeast Margin of Australia”, seems to have been removed from the Internet. Printed copy is available on request to johncfairfax@gmail.com. The abstract refers to sand transported from south eastern Victoria to Fraser Island Queensland. Is sand from Antarctica the only sand in thhe system?
I submit sand worn by strong prevailing wind from the Great Australian Bight coast is reaching SE Victoria and Queensland, helping to build coastal sandhills and Moreton and Fraser islands en-route. Can anyone produce evidence where such a mass of sand from the GAB is otherwise deposited? Consider depth of Bass Strait. With long term underwater offshore and inshore ocean experience since 1963 I have tracked the currents and suspended matter. Dissolved nutrients are bonded to fresh water that travels with light solid nutrient matter in longshore current to northern Fraser Island where the flow reaches the postulated eddy area. Eddy or not, east coast prevailing winds drive the lighter/fresher surface water north and nor westward into the GBR-Coral Sea ecosystem. Water current flow together with dissolved and solid nutrient matter dumped from so many sewage outfalls can not just disappear.
Why has the regional marine planning process for such an important area not yet begun? What, no planning for planning to plan policy? Why is Qld State marine management policy not completed already in conjunction with local, state and national government? Whales calve in that area! Unprecedented whale calf abandonment is occurring in that area. Unprecedented starvation and death of millions of Tasmania’s mutton birds occurred because of RAMSAR seagrass food web devastation in that area. The area is supposed to help sustain migratory food supply for humans in Solomon Islands and worldwide! Which authorities are using what justifiable policy to control the Fraser-Swains boundary that is obstructing marine environment science and solutions to degradation? PM Rudd please advise.
Hon. Rachael Siewert, please officially and urgently request government solutions to this ecosystem management and food sustainability dilemma involving downstream impact causing chronic poverty and abuse of humanity. Concern has been a driving force since 1982. Solomon Islands people were welcome to work in Aus as slaves, why not now when they need such critically urgent help in order to buy food they need. Their available traditional staple fisheries have been devastated by developed nation refrigerated factory ship bait fishing and nutrient pollution preventing the ecosystem and stocks from recovering. I also request to be informed of LIKELY transportation or not of relevant nutrient pollution and eddy existence?
John, you’ve already asked the question, and the fact that you expect an immediate response on a blog, and continue to pester and bother about it, is just annoying other visitors.
Please stop. Ask questions through the proper channels. Blog comments are for discussion, not a method of asking direct questions to politicians.
Go post your questions on the blogs of scientists who might actually be able to answer them.
I expected The Greens would rush to embrace these political policy issues. What “proper” channels are you referring to? Why would any genuine person be annoyed by learning what is killing GBR coral? If you feel pestered Harvey S then best not to read my comments. If blog comments are for discussion as you say, why don’t you discuss the nutrient pollution and the preposterous GBRMPA southern ‘boundary’. Surely Greens people are interested in algae with so much of it causing so much trouble at the Olympics in China.
I and others will watch Greens response to matters and questions raised for discussion. Your response to shoot the messenger is very strange.