On protecting critically endangered birds
Teresa Russell writes: It boggles my mind that Walker Corporation, or any other potential developer of an internationally significant wetland that is protected under the Ramsar Convention, hasn’t been told by any Australian environment minister or government in the past decade that it cannot build developments on wetlands.
Imagine the meetings at Walker where the business case was presented that proposed it continue to fight, schmooze, lobby and donate to a decade of Australian governments until it finds someone weak enough to ignore our ratified international agreement to protect a wetland for which the environmental case for development is an open-and-shut “no way”. It was before the phrase “state capture” came into our lexicon. What a visionary!
If Plibersek comes back with anything less than “no way”, the Labor government will be exposed as weak, captured by private enterprise and unelectable. The community deserves so much more of its elected officials, while the voiceless inter-country migratory shorebirds we have agreed to protect will disappear from the planet. Abysmal.
David Francis writes: There was an ABC documentary about eight months back called Flyways: The Story of Migratory Shorebirds. The unfortunate Eastern curlew bird migrates over a large part of the world, and much of its feeding and breeding grounds are being polluted, built over or subject to introduced predators. It made for uneasy viewing as you watched the animals starve or drop from exhaustion. Now, the Labor Party is seriously thinking of driving the last nail into the coffin.
You can see why. Australia’s millionaires and billionaires desiring a sea change need somewhere to live, and what better than bulldozing a Ramsar wetland? It’s a kick to the groin for environmentalists who have forsaken the party for the Greens, and a signal to the wealthy that the Labor Party is on their side. Think of all the endangered donations that might come from Walker Corp if the project doesn’t go ahead. Think of all the good publicity in the Oz and the Fin if it does.
After all, (thinking like a politician) what has Labor got to lose? Votes? Who’s going to worry about that; the curlew could take years to go extinct, and anyway, who’s going to publicise its demise, except the occasional twitcher, the odd Greenie rag, and Crikey, which doesn’t have a huge audience?
Politics isn’t just the art of being seen to do something when you’re trying to do nothing or trying to do the opposite. It is the art of staying sociopathic in the face of mercy, kindness and understanding, and persuading the voters that being sociopathic is also in their best interests.
Catherine Rossiter writes: I cannot believe that Tanya Plibersek needs to take more than half an hour to make this decision. Of course the answer should be NO WAY.
No development should be allowed to undermine Australia’s commitment to the Ramsar Convention, and if Tanya Plibersek approves it I will never trust or vote Labor again.
On Donald Trump and Kevin Rudd
Peter Barry writes: Kevin Rudd is a very suitable ambassador to the US. He is intelligent, forthright and irascible. He is well-equipped to deal sensibly with Joe Biden and combatively with Donald Trump in Australia’s interests. He is capable of wrapping issues up in a manic package of polysyllabic words that startle and confuse in equal measure, ideal for a modern diplomat. He is a ratfucker par excellence.
Steven Brennan writes: It’s chilling thought that Trump could be once again president — and I think our ambassador will be the least of our worries.
I don’t believe Rudd would want to stay on with a maniac as president. But in the first instance the Albanese government should leave him there to get a good feel of what is happening on the ground in the early days of the administration.
As Crikey points out, the failure of AUKUS would be a bonus.
On Julian Assange
Julia Bovard writes: Can someone actually tell me of what heinous crime Julian Assange has been accused? The US government has made quite a radical submission to the British High Court alleging he conspired to acquire and use classified information. He has been held for years in the UK under a number of different ruses and has served a considerable number of years in jail.
The Americans insist he should serve at least a lifetime behind bars. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. It seems that the CIA is carrying out God’s will, as if purchasing mediaeval indulgences. Meantime Assange has become exceedingly unwell and is said to be at death’s door. To an outsider, this just looks as if the US is playing petty politics.
Leona Wallis writes: I am dismayed and outraged that the US continues to call for Julian Assange’s extradition. In my opinion the US is a “bully state” that is only interested in exacting revenge without taking into account the price Assange has already paid.
In one of the final acts in office, president Barack Obama pardoned Chelsea Manning, who was imprisoned due to similar charges. President Biden should do the same so Julian Assange can get on with his life.
