Australian Capital Territory July to December 2007
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
336 Political Chronicles On the other side of Territory politics, the Northern Territory News of 29 October reported the death of sometime FrogWatch coordinator and media guru, Paul Cowdy, who worked for every CLP chief minister and for the Liberal Party on John Howard’s election campaign. Conclusion The past six months of Territory politics were dominated by the federal intervention into Aboriginal affairs in the Northern Territory. Everything else, including the lead-in to the federal election, felt subordinate. The federal intervention opened up old wounds and revealed the ongoing problems Labor has always had in balancing its representation of its Indigenous support base from the bush with the aspirations and values of Darwin northern suburbs residents. Australian Capital Territory July to December 2007 JANINE O’FLYNN The Australian National University Introduction With ongoing attention to planning, an acute housing crisis, contracting blunders, a failed attempt to save a local timber mill, money to rescue caged chickens, Chief Minister Jon Stanhope’s continued animosity towards Prime Minister John Howard, and then his (perhaps short-lived) jubilation at the election of Rudd, the political landscape in the nation’s capital was engaging. In these chronicles, however, two key issues have been selected for more thorough examination. The Skippy Saga Plans to cull thousands of kangaroos in Canberra grabbed national and international headlines. Early in 2007 the Commonwealth Department of Defence applied to the Territory government for permission to kill some 3200 kangaroos on sites in Belconnen and Majura because of their potential impact on “endangered ecological communities” and the impending threat of slow starvation due in large part to a population explosion (TAMS Media Release, 12 May 2007). The extent of overpopulation was made clear when it was announced that the density of kangaroo population was more than four times that recommend by expert ecologists, and that the population would be reduced by around three-quarters at the Belconnen site (TAMS Fact Sheet, 2007). Indeed the RSPCA argued that if Defence did not act to manage the roo population it would likely lay charges of animal cruelty as the animals looked likely to starve (Canberra Times, 29 May 2007). After canvassing a range of options it was argued that engaging professional shooters to kill the animals was most appropriate, a method endorsed by the RSPCA: A powerful rifle-shot to the cranium results in one of the most humane deaths administered by humans to any wild or farmed vertebrate animals in the world. Death is instantaneous while the kangaroo is going about its normal activities. No yards or transport are involved (TAMS Fact Sheet, 2007 p.2). Political Chronicles 337 Almost immediately after the proposed cull was announced, several animal rights groups condemned it; an Animal Liberation spokesperson claimed there was no basis for the starvation argument and that by forging ahead with the cull, the Territory would earn a worldwide reputation for cruelty to animals (Daily Telegraph, 14 May 2007). Wildcare, a local group that would gain considerable prominence as the debate continued, argued mayhem would follow the first shot fired and that a decision on how to handle the kangaroo challenge should be: Based on first-class knowledge and an enlightened world view of ethics and the environment, rather than on ignorance and spin […] the clinical spin of the ADF and the ACT Government will at that point be shown to be the complete lie that it is. By that time, however, it will be too late for these iconic Australian animals (Wildcare Media Release, 14 May 2007). The cull effectively split animal rights groups — the RSPCA supporting the cull, and others such as the Animal Liberation and Wildcare opposed. Prominent philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer also entered the debate, arguing that the cull was unethical because the animals were not starving, nor were they distressed: “Kangaroos are sentient beings who can enjoy their lives […] as long as they can do so, it is better to let them continue to live” (ABC News, 24 May 2007). The issue grabbed headlines across the world where, for example, it was reported that Australian were planning on killing their national symbol (Washington Post, 14 May 2007). Late May, Defence was taken aback when the Australian Federal Police intervened to stop the issuing of licences on the grounds of public safety. Indeed, several animal rights groups had publicly declared they would protest at the shoot sites. Further, the Federal Police noted the potential for members of the public to be injured if bullets ricocheted, or shooters misfired (Canberra Times, 26 May 2007). Despite a pro-cull stance, the Territory government refused to issue the licences and the application was put on hold. Following consultation between the Territory government, Defence and the Federal Police, licenses were finally issued in late June and it was announced that multiple methods would be used to kill the animals — shooting at Majura, but darting followed by euthanasia at Belconnen (TAMS Media Release, 20 June 2007). Following on from all this to-ing and fro-ing Defence spectacularly abandoned the cull plans in early July arguing it had run out of time to do the job during the March-July cull season. Whilst some animal rights groups who had lobbied hard for the kangaroos to be left alone were pleased, scientists warned that failure to eradicate the animals posed an ecological catastrophe, and the RSPCA again threatened to lay cruelty charges against the Department of Defence (Canberra Times, 6 July 2007). The Chief Minister announced that the Territory government was seeking advice on whether it could force Defence to go ahead with the cull, and the Minister for Defence Brendan Nelson was asked to formally set out how he would ensure that the Department’s obligations to protect endangered flora and fauna under the Nature Conservation Act would be fulfilled now the cull had been abandoned (Media Release, 16 July 2007). A more sinister explanation for the abandonment of the cull was proposed in an article in the Canberra Times (10 July 2007) where it was reported that the Secretary of the Commonwealth Treasury, Ken Henry, had co-authored a report from the animal protection group Wildcare which urged Defence to abandon the cull. Whilst pro-cull groups argued this amounted to undue influence, experts wondered how this “little- known volunteer group” had trumped their scientific evidence. Given that it had earlier been suggested a cull would take just three days many expressed suspicion at the rationale provided by Defence. Indeed, even the Chief Minister asked why Defence 338 Political Chronicles had listened to “a community group with experience in hand-raising joeys” rather than the reports it had commissioned from ecologists and other experts (Media Release, 16 July 2007). Later he stated that the problem was so dire he would consider extending the Territory cull period to allow Defence to deal with the issue. Wildcare posed its own questions — were the scientists advocating the cull financially supported by the Stanhope government? Did the RSPCA, also supporters of the cull, rely on donations from the Territory government? (Wildcare Media Release, 5 August 2007). The group suggested that rather than being concerned about precious grasslands the Territory government simply wanted to kill the kangaroos so it could release more land, make more money and ensure budget surpluses (Wildcare Media Release, 12 August 2007). In the fierce debate over the future of the roos, one suggestion from Wildcare got nation-wide press coverage. It was suggested that the animals could be relocated — this would involve tranquilising them and then transported them in a padded, air- conditioned truck to areas in New South Wales at a reported cost of around $3,600 per animal, although these prices were dismissed as mischievous by the group (Canberra Times, 3 August 2007). Mayors in adjoining New South Wales were unimpressed with the suggestion that the kangaroo problem would be solved by pushing the animals into their jurisdictions because they had enough of their own. This despite claims by Wildcare that they had in-principle support from the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change for the relocations and that assistance had been offered in undertaking the move (Wildcare July 2007, The Kangaroo Population at Belconnen Naval Transmission Station – Summary). In September, Defence changed its mind again and announced it was going ahead with the cull. The decision was based on advice from the expert panel it convened in August to develop a plan for the Belconnen site. In the end a mixed approach combining euthanasia, relocation and fertility control was adopted. Chief Minister Stanhope argued against the relocation suggesting that this did little to solve the actual problem (Canberra Times, 29 September 2007). Animal protection advocates also seemed miffed, with a spokesman for the Wildlife Protection Association stating: “The Department of Defence gave us an assurance that they will not kill the animals and I hold out on the hope they have more integrity than to go back on their word” (Canberra Times, 29 September 2007). The group again threatened that they would protest on the site of the cull. In October, Defence announced a tender for control of kangaroos at the Majura and Belconnen sites. In a separate agreement they engaged contractors to build fences to protect important habitat at the sites. The fences, near completion at the end of the year, were expected to allow vegetation to recover following on from the effects of overpopulation. Liberals Implode — Again … The Territory Liberals have certainly had a hard time of it over the last few years with ongoing internal strife, backstabbing and instability.