Stop The National Parks

[Walkahz]

Hi All
As I'm sure many of you are aware the government is plotting to create a massive new national park that will decimate access to most of our eastern riding areas similar to what has already started in the western forests.

Without making this too political we all know that changing of state forests to National park has a severe impact on the availability of tracks and greatly restricts riding areas (even if on paper they claim it doesn't).

There are a few petitions running to help raise awareness around this and I have linked 2 below.

I encourage all off you to sign to raise awareness that we don't want any new parks and restrictions on our public land.

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-i ... nal-parks/

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-i ... nd-regions

[Tracey Pepstar]

Signed and shared

Sent from my SM-G990E using Tapatalk

[Stu1985pants]

Bastards. They were pushing this in the late 90s. We( the off road users, fisherman, shooters, etc) had a huge rally in the city. We ( over 2000 cars and trucks) drove around Spring street doing blockies and blocked city traffic for half a day to let the government know we were serious.
A
Time to act again people. Sign a petition. Atend a rally. Do everything you can to voice your opinion.

[hairyone]

Living in Canberra;- I'm ineligible?
Don't want my name on Hansard.

Here the 'Brindies' went to National Park.
Unnecessary fences won't stop animals.

[Trailz]

Thanks Walkahz Australian voices must be heard.

This Government is trying to take away State Forests from us - the people
It's time we stood up to oppose this draconian agenda.
Say NO to National Forests 
These petitions are our duty. Sooo make sure as many numbers fill those in as humanly possible.
For some of you not aware below is a brief run down of what this government is trying to achieve... without our consent!
Please ensure you share the petitions opposing National Forests with family and friends...

IPA - The Voice For Freedom
Menu
Logo
Menu
Climate Change and Energy
Such secrecy is EPA red flag
Written by: Morgan Begg
29 July 2024
Share this post:
Such secrecy is EPA red flag - Featured image
Originally Appeared In
The West Australian
In this article, Morgan Begg contextualises and disseminates the findings of the IPA’s research into Nature Positive.

In Australia, your vote should help determine the future of the country. In reality, however, governments, once elected, sign on to agreements with international bodies with minimal democratic oversight or the knowledge of voters.

A dramatic example of this is playing out right now, with Federal Parliament debating the second phase of the Government’s Nature Positive plan. This involves the creation of a new government agency, Environment Protection Australia, and the partial transfer of approvals and enforcement powers from the elected minister to the unelected head of the new agency.

This follows the first phase, passed in late 2023, which creates a nature repair market – a complex government scheme to incentivise businesses to pay people to undertake conservation projects – and precedes phase three, which will complete the Nature Positive plan, including the full empowerment of the EPA, and 30×30, the reservation of 30 per cent of Australia’s seas and land by 2030.

Nature Positive was introduced into the Australian political landscape in December 2022, just six months after the election of the Albanese Government, in the form of a report by the Federal environment department. The plan is a radical rewrite of Australia’s environmental protection laws that threatens the future of Australia’s minerals and agriculture sectors.

One must ask: who voted for Nature Positive? And given it was not a policy of the Government at the 2022 election, where did it come from? As Aynsley Kellow, emeritus professor of government at the University of Tasmania, explains in a new report for the Institute of Public Affairs, Nature Positive is not the work of Australian policymakers, aimed at addressing the nation’s unique biodiversity conditions, but rather is the product of a political campaign undertaken by international bodies and NGOs.

The nature positive concept can be traced back to a 2008 panel in Stockholm that featured in a prominent role Paul Erhlich, the co-author of 1968 book, Population Bomb, that gave rise to an irrational worldwide fear of overpopulation and mass starvation. That panel was centred on the idea of creating “planetary boundaries” to establish a “safe operating space for humanity”. By 2010, the United Nations had set up the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which sought to expand nature reserves to 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans.

This set the foundations for demands for more ambitious targets. By January 2021, the movement had morphed into the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, with 50 member states committed to the 30×30 targets.

The former Federal Coalition government joined the High Ambition Coalition in June 2021, and by the end of 2022, the successor Labor Government had outlined the full design – the Nature Positive plan.

It risks putting it mildly that the process pursued by successive Australian governments of wilfully entering into agreements with international bodies, without the scrutiny of Parliament, let alone the electors who will be affected, has been marked by a total lack of governance.

The IPA has made several requests of the Federal environment department, all rejected, seeking documents in relation to the Nature Positive plan. According to the department, they hold some 221,200 documents totalling 1.15 million pages relating to it. But none of us is allowed to see them.

We are told via media reports that the department is holding highly confidential meetings with industry groups, where participants are shown piles of draft documents that they are not allowed to take with them to show members or share with the public. What is clear is that a powerful new regulatory agency, tasked with meeting arbitrary environmental targets, is a recipe for disaster for our vital agriculture and resources sectors. WA Premier Roger Cook and many industry groups have rightfully called for more detail, fearing Nature Positive “could cause significant delays to environmental approvals”.

Serious questions need to be asked and answered about how such a consequential policy agenda can proceed this far with such a level of opacity.

As a basic first step, Parliament must act to ensure it is reviewing and approving relevant international agreements that, while not technically treaties, are very influential “soft law”. Because if a government can do this, one can only imagine what it could sign Australians up for next.

Related Research
The Undemocratic Origins Of The Nature Positive Plan
Support the IPA
If you liked what you read, consider supporting the IPA. We are entirely funded by individual supporters like you. You can become an IPA member and/or make a tax-deductible donation.
Become an IPA member
Donate to the IPA
Morgan Begg
Morgan Begg
Morgan Begg is the Director, Research at the Institute of Public Affairs
Prev Post
Next Post
Related Posts
Daniel Wild On Credlin Sky News Australia – 1 August 2024
1 August 2024
Daniel Wild On Credlin Sky News Australia – 1 August 2024
Read
Tied In Knots By Red Tape
1 August 2024
Tied In Knots By Red Tape
Read
No Oversight Of International Nature Positive Agreements Yet Government Has 221,200 Documents On File
29 July 2024
No Oversight Of International Nature Positive Agreements Yet Government Has 221,200 Documents On File
Read
Morgan Begg Discussing IPA Nature Positive Research On TNT Live
26 July 2024
Morgan Begg Discussing IPA Nature Positive Research On TNT Live
Read
Image
IPA - The Voice For Freedom
The Institute of Public Affairs is an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.
Telephone: +61 3 9600 4744
Social Media:
Contact Us
Contact Us
Stay up to date
Sign up to our newsletter or follow our socials to stay up to date with the IPA's work
First Name
Last Name
Email
Privacy Policy
Authorised by Scott Hargreaves, IPA, Level 2 410 Collins, Melbourne 3000
All rights reserved © 2024 Institute of Public Affairs.

[Trailz]

Please share the petitions with family, friends, neighbours, work mates and your associates... Victorians need to be heard.
Say NO to National Forests!

https://notogreatforestpark.org/?fbclid ... uGCj-_psSA

[Trailz]

Thanks Walkahz Australian voices must be heard.

This Government is trying to take away State Forests from us - the people
It's time we stood up to oppose this draconian agenda.
Say NO to National Forests 
These petitions are our duty. Sooo make sure as many numbers fill those in as humanly possible.
For some of you not aware below is a brief run down of what this government is trying to achieve... without our consent!
Please ensure you share the petitions opposing National Forests with family and friends...

IPA - The Voice For Freedom
Menu
Logo
Menu
Climate Change and Energy
Such secrecy is EPA red flag
Written by: Morgan Begg
29 July 2024
Share this post:
Such secrecy is EPA red flag - Featured image
Originally Appeared In
The West Australian
In this article, Morgan Begg contextualises and disseminates the findings of the IPA’s research into Nature Positive.

In Australia, your vote should help determine the future of the country. In reality, however, governments, once elected, sign on to agreements with international bodies with minimal democratic oversight or the knowledge of voters.

A dramatic example of this is playing out right now, with Federal Parliament debating the second phase of the Government’s Nature Positive plan. This involves the creation of a new government agency, Environment Protection Australia, and the partial transfer of approvals and enforcement powers from the elected minister to the unelected head of the new agency.

This follows the first phase, passed in late 2023, which creates a nature repair market – a complex government scheme to incentivise businesses to pay people to undertake conservation projects – and precedes phase three, which will complete the Nature Positive plan, including the full empowerment of the EPA, and 30×30, the reservation of 30 per cent of Australia’s seas and land by 2030.

Nature Positive was introduced into the Australian political landscape in December 2022, just six months after the election of the Albanese Government, in the form of a report by the Federal environment department. The plan is a radical rewrite of Australia’s environmental protection laws that threatens the future of Australia’s minerals and agriculture sectors.

One must ask: who voted for Nature Positive? And given it was not a policy of the Government at the 2022 election, where did it come from? As Aynsley Kellow, emeritus professor of government at the University of Tasmania, explains in a new report for the Institute of Public Affairs, Nature Positive is not the work of Australian policymakers, aimed at addressing the nation’s unique biodiversity conditions, but rather is the product of a political campaign undertaken by international bodies and NGOs.

The nature positive concept can be traced back to a 2008 panel in Stockholm that featured in a prominent role Paul Erhlich, the co-author of 1968 book, Population Bomb, that gave rise to an irrational worldwide fear of overpopulation and mass starvation. That panel was centred on the idea of creating “planetary boundaries” to establish a “safe operating space for humanity”. By 2010, the United Nations had set up the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which sought to expand nature reserves to 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans.

This set the foundations for demands for more ambitious targets. By January 2021, the movement had morphed into the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, with 50 member states committed to the 30×30 targets.

The former Federal Coalition government joined the High Ambition Coalition in June 2021, and by the end of 2022, the successor Labor Government had outlined the full design – the Nature Positive plan.

It risks putting it mildly that the process pursued by successive Australian governments of wilfully entering into agreements with international bodies, without the scrutiny of Parliament, let alone the electors who will be affected, has been marked by a total lack of governance.

The IPA has made several requests of the Federal environment department, all rejected, seeking documents in relation to the Nature Positive plan. According to the department, they hold some 221,200 documents totalling 1.15 million pages relating to it. But none of us is allowed to see them.

We are told via media reports that the department is holding highly confidential meetings with industry groups, where participants are shown piles of draft documents that they are not allowed to take with them to show members or share with the public. What is clear is that a powerful new regulatory agency, tasked with meeting arbitrary environmental targets, is a recipe for disaster for our vital agriculture and resources sectors. WA Premier Roger Cook and many industry groups have rightfully called for more detail, fearing Nature Positive “could cause significant delays to environmental approvals”.

Serious questions need to be asked and answered about how such a consequential policy agenda can proceed this far with such a level of opacity.

As a basic first step, Parliament must act to ensure it is reviewing and approving relevant international agreements that, while not technically treaties, are very influential “soft law”. Because if a government can do this, one can only imagine what it could sign Australians up for next.

Related Research
The Undemocratic Origins Of The Nature Positive Plan
Support the IPA
If you liked what you read, consider supporting the IPA. We are entirely funded by individual supporters like you. You can become an IPA member and/or make a tax-deductible donation.
Become an IPA member
Donate to the IPA
Morgan Begg
Morgan Begg
Morgan Begg is the Director, Research at the Institute of Public Affairs
Prev Post
Next Post
Related Posts
Daniel Wild On Credlin Sky News Australia – 1 August 2024
1 August 2024
Daniel Wild On Credlin Sky News Australia – 1 August 2024
Read
Tied In Knots By Red Tape
1 August 2024
Tied In Knots By Red Tape
Read
No Oversight Of International Nature Positive Agreements Yet Government Has 221,200 Documents On File
29 July 2024
No Oversight Of International Nature Positive Agreements Yet Government Has 221,200 Documents On File
Read
Morgan Begg Discussing IPA Nature Positive Research On TNT Live
26 July 2024
Morgan Begg Discussing IPA Nature Positive Research On TNT Live
Read
Image
IPA - The Voice For Freedom
The Institute of Public Affairs is an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.
Telephone: +61 3 9600 4744
Social Media:
Contact Us
Contact Us
Stay up to date
Sign up to our newsletter or follow our socials to stay up to date with the IPA's work
First Name
Last Name
Email
Privacy Policy
Authorised by Scott Hargreaves, IPA, Level 2 410 Collins, Melbourne 3000
All rights reserved © 2024 Institute of Public Affairs.

[Trailz]

Thanks Walkahz Australian voices must be heard.

This Government is trying to take away State Forests from us - the people
It's time we stood up to oppose this draconian agenda.
Say NO to National Forests 
These petitions are our duty. Sooo make sure as many numbers fill those in as humanly possible.
For some of you not aware below is a brief run down of what this government is trying to achieve... without our consent!
Please ensure you share the petitions opposing National Forests with family and friends...

IPA - The Voice For Freedom
Menu
Logo
Menu
Climate Change and Energy
Such secrecy is EPA red flag
Written by: Morgan Begg
29 July 2024
Share this post:
Such secrecy is EPA red flag - Featured image
Originally Appeared In
The West Australian
In this article, Morgan Begg contextualises and disseminates the findings of the IPA’s research into Nature Positive.

In Australia, your vote should help determine the future of the country. In reality, however, governments, once elected, sign on to agreements with international bodies with minimal democratic oversight or the knowledge of voters.

A dramatic example of this is playing out right now, with Federal Parliament debating the second phase of the Government’s Nature Positive plan. This involves the creation of a new government agency, Environment Protection Australia, and the partial transfer of approvals and enforcement powers from the elected minister to the unelected head of the new agency.

This follows the first phase, passed in late 2023, which creates a nature repair market – a complex government scheme to incentivise businesses to pay people to undertake conservation projects – and precedes phase three, which will complete the Nature Positive plan, including the full empowerment of the EPA, and 30×30, the reservation of 30 per cent of Australia’s seas and land by 2030.

Nature Positive was introduced into the Australian political landscape in December 2022, just six months after the election of the Albanese Government, in the form of a report by the Federal environment department. The plan is a radical rewrite of Australia’s environmental protection laws that threatens the future of Australia’s minerals and agriculture sectors.

One must ask: who voted for Nature Positive? And given it was not a policy of the Government at the 2022 election, where did it come from? As Aynsley Kellow, emeritus professor of government at the University of Tasmania, explains in a new report for the Institute of Public Affairs, Nature Positive is not the work of Australian policymakers, aimed at addressing the nation’s unique biodiversity conditions, but rather is the product of a political campaign undertaken by international bodies and NGOs.

The nature positive concept can be traced back to a 2008 panel in Stockholm that featured in a prominent role Paul Erhlich, the co-author of 1968 book, Population Bomb, that gave rise to an irrational worldwide fear of overpopulation and mass starvation. That panel was centred on the idea of creating “planetary boundaries” to establish a “safe operating space for humanity”. By 2010, the United Nations had set up the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which sought to expand nature reserves to 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans.

This set the foundations for demands for more ambitious targets. By January 2021, the movement had morphed into the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, with 50 member states committed to the 30×30 targets.

The former Federal Coalition government joined the High Ambition Coalition in June 2021, and by the end of 2022, the successor Labor Government had outlined the full design – the Nature Positive plan.

It risks putting it mildly that the process pursued by successive Australian governments of wilfully entering into agreements with international bodies, without the scrutiny of Parliament, let alone the electors who will be affected, has been marked by a total lack of governance.

The IPA has made several requests of the Federal environment department, all rejected, seeking documents in relation to the Nature Positive plan. According to the department, they hold some 221,200 documents totalling 1.15 million pages relating to it. But none of us is allowed to see them.

We are told via media reports that the department is holding highly confidential meetings with industry groups, where participants are shown piles of draft documents that they are not allowed to take with them to show members or share with the public. What is clear is that a powerful new regulatory agency, tasked with meeting arbitrary environmental targets, is a recipe for disaster for our vital agriculture and resources sectors. WA Premier Roger Cook and many industry groups have rightfully called for more detail, fearing Nature Positive “could cause significant delays to environmental approvals”.

Serious questions need to be asked and answered about how such a consequential policy agenda can proceed this far with such a level of opacity.

As a basic first step, Parliament must act to ensure it is reviewing and approving relevant international agreements that, while not technically treaties, are very influential “soft law”. Because if a government can do this, one can only imagine what it could sign Australians up for next.

Related Research

Morgan Begg
Morgan Begg is the Director, Research at the Institute of Public Affairs

IPA - The Voice For Freedom
The Institute of Public Affairs is an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.
Telephone: +61 3 9600 4744

[Trailz]

Thanks Walkahz Australian voices must be heard.

This Government is trying to take away State Forests from us - the people
It's time we stood up to oppose this draconian agenda.
Say NO to National Forests 
These petitions are our duty. Sooo make sure as many numbers fill those in as humanly possible.
For some of you not aware below is a brief run down of what this government is trying to achieve... without our consent!
Please ensure you share the petitions opposing National Forests with family and friends...

IPA - The Voice For Freedom

Climate Change and Energy
Such secrecy is EPA red flag
Written by: Morgan Begg
29 July 2024
Share this post:
Such secrecy is EPA red flag - Featured image
Originally Appeared In
The West Australian
In this article, Morgan Begg contextualises and disseminates the findings of the IPA’s research into Nature Positive.

In Australia, your vote should help determine the future of the country. In reality, however, governments, once elected, sign on to agreements with international bodies with minimal democratic oversight or the knowledge of voters.

A dramatic example of this is playing out right now, with Federal Parliament debating the second phase of the Government’s Nature Positive plan. This involves the creation of a new government agency, Environment Protection Australia, and the partial transfer of approvals and enforcement powers from the elected minister to the unelected head of the new agency.

This follows the first phase, passed in late 2023, which creates a nature repair market – a complex government scheme to incentivise businesses to pay people to undertake conservation projects – and precedes phase three, which will complete the Nature Positive plan, including the full empowerment of the EPA, and 30×30, the reservation of 30 per cent of Australia’s seas and land by 2030.

Nature Positive was introduced into the Australian political landscape in December 2022, just six months after the election of the Albanese Government, in the form of a report by the Federal environment department. The plan is a radical rewrite of Australia’s environmental protection laws that threatens the future of Australia’s minerals and agriculture sectors.

One must ask: who voted for Nature Positive? And given it was not a policy of the Government at the 2022 election, where did it come from? As Aynsley Kellow, emeritus professor of government at the University of Tasmania, explains in a new report for the Institute of Public Affairs, Nature Positive is not the work of Australian policymakers, aimed at addressing the nation’s unique biodiversity conditions, but rather is the product of a political campaign undertaken by international bodies and NGOs.

The nature positive concept can be traced back to a 2008 panel in Stockholm that featured in a prominent role Paul Erhlich, the co-author of 1968 book, Population Bomb, that gave rise to an irrational worldwide fear of overpopulation and mass starvation. That panel was centred on the idea of creating “planetary boundaries” to establish a “safe operating space for humanity”. By 2010, the United Nations had set up the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, which sought to expand nature reserves to 17 per cent of land and 10 per cent of oceans.

This set the foundations for demands for more ambitious targets. By January 2021, the movement had morphed into the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, with 50 member states committed to the 30×30 targets.

The former Federal Coalition government joined the High Ambition Coalition in June 2021, and by the end of 2022, the successor Labor Government had outlined the full design – the Nature Positive plan.

It risks putting it mildly that the process pursued by successive Australian governments of wilfully entering into agreements with international bodies, without the scrutiny of Parliament, let alone the electors who will be affected, has been marked by a total lack of governance.

The IPA has made several requests of the Federal environment department, all rejected, seeking documents in relation to the Nature Positive plan. According to the department, they hold some 221,200 documents totalling 1.15 million pages relating to it. But none of us is allowed to see them.

We are told via media reports that the department is holding highly confidential meetings with industry groups, where participants are shown piles of draft documents that they are not allowed to take with them to show members or share with the public. What is clear is that a powerful new regulatory agency, tasked with meeting arbitrary environmental targets, is a recipe for disaster for our vital agriculture and resources sectors. WA Premier Roger Cook and many industry groups have rightfully called for more detail, fearing Nature Positive “could cause significant delays to environmental approvals”.

Serious questions need to be asked and answered about how such a consequential policy agenda can proceed this far with such a level of opacity.

As a basic first step, Parliament must act to ensure it is reviewing and approving relevant international agreements that, while not technically treaties, are very influential “soft law”. Because if a government can do this, one can only imagine what it could sign Australians up for next.

Related Research

Morgan Begg
Morgan Begg is the Director, Research at the Institute of Public Affairs

IPA - The Voice For Freedom
The Institute of Public Affairs is an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom.
Telephone: +61 3 9600 4744

[Walkahz]

Another new petition getting around to help stop the wombat national park.
Legislation due to go to parliament in November
https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/get-i ... fTe64Wz7_g