‘Correspondence In’ from the Minister for the Environment

Flood creek Non-Nativist Landcare Group has received an encouraging letter from The Honourable Greg Hunt, Federal Minister for the Environment (click link below).

Letter from Greg Hunt MP

This letter was a reply to our initial contact with Minister Hunt which drew his attention to our existence via this blog. We also outlined the reasons behind our establishment, especially in regard to the need for a reassessment of destructive and counterproductive nativist policies within Australian NRM approaches.

We take heart from Minister Hunt’s acknowledgement of a diversity views in NRM, and his support for healthy debate.

Furthermore, we appreciate Minister Hunt’s explanation of the present National Landcare Programme as a “grassroots process”. This reality is sometimes unclear given the common presumption of authority and expert status which is accorded to our NRM bureaucracies.

We will certainly continue to do as encouraged by Minister Hunt and ensure we are actively involved with our local NRM organisations, so as to contribute our views and help determine local priorities.

6 responses to “‘Correspondence In’ from the Minister for the Environment

  1. Well done! Communicating with policy makers is the way to go.

  2. Great work. Could you please also publish your letter to the Minister. Maybe we should be sending a similar letter to our Minister for the Environment here in New Zealand. Cheers.

    • Hi Lisa, Thanks. I’ll see if I can get a hold of the the original. Also, we’ve been considering putting together a form letter (or suggested letter content) that might help people write to their senators calling for a senate inquiry into willow destruction lunacy. It’s long overdue.

      Can’t hurt to have an inquiry, can it?

  3. Dear Minister Hunt ,

    We took your directions seriously and proceeded to engage with our local NRM , Upper Shoalhaven Landcare Group .

    You can view the extraordinary reaction from USLC in their Summer 2014 newsletter ‘ The Landcare Perspective ” .


    Would be interested in your thoughts .



  4. About The Editors Letter To The Editor .

    Colleagues advise me that it is character building to rise above the condescention , insinuations and institutional denialism expressed on page 23 of ‘ The Landcare Perspective ‘ above .

    I will try to do so for now ( pending a big apology from the USLC committee ) and confine myself to the technical aspects of the Editors letter to herself .

    Para 3 .
    We are advised that the people who spent $26,650 on the failed bank erosion control are ‘ open minded ‘ .
    I am grateful to know this , I hate for closed minded people to be the ones wasting my taxes .

    Para 4
    We are advised the ‘ removing the willow was part of the solution ‘ and that ‘leaving the many native species ‘ in the very same place is also part of the solution . Please ?

    As for the feeble attempt at claiming some bioengineering expertise , give us a break . It is a scientific discipline with a huge canon of knowledge . Don’t demean it please .
    The budget was adequate for buying geotextiles . Why were they not used ?

    Para 5
    We are advised that it would be ‘ too expensive and impossible ‘ to obtain logs to use to stabilise the bank .
    Yet the previous para confirms that much money was spent ‘ removing ‘ then destroying a large willow tree . Readers will be interested to note that this tree was made out of logs . Large , on site and paid for logs .

    Para 7
    Baffling . Could someone please explain what this prattle means ? .
    I just requested that simplistic , untrue statements not be given the weight of fact .
    Simple enough, don’t mislead the public .
    Fact check and edit better .
    When misleading copy is identified publish a retraction . .
    The issue is avoided with blizzard of buzzwords .

    Para 8
    It would be nice to be reassured that ‘ many perspectives are being sought ‘ . From whom ? The people who failed to stabilise the Mongarlo project ?
    Sadly I am not reassured by an organisation which has had 25 years to develop clear technical protocols for stabilising stream banks and has patently failed to develop or teach that institutional knowledge .

    Para 9
    Good communication is a splendid thing . It is not best promoted by printing assertions masquerading as facts , then refusing to print corrections when caught out .

    Regards to all you ‘ courageous listeners ‘ .


  5. an “independent” Upper Shoalhaven NRMA.
    Upper-Shoalhaven Independent Natural Resource Management Association

    Seems to me Specifics inform the ‘Flood Creek perspective’; while editorial style guides USLC Perspective. Perhaps it is an inevitable outcome of such publications. Only 3 months before the next edition. Hold that thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s