Conclusion
THE (TRUE) FACTS ABOUT THE RAINBOW LORIKEET
DOC could have told the simple truth: that any new introduction is unpredictable in effect, and not desirable on that account alone. But perhaps that was not sufficiently convincing. It seems that the very paucity of adverse data about the Rainbow Lorikeet in the published literature has led to the use of exaggeration and invention by the author(s) of the Department of Conservation’s Fact Sheet.
This biased and untruthful propaganda has been successful in alarming and terrifying the public about the potential danger of Rainbow Lorikeets to fruit crops, to native birds through competition, and to both birds and humans through disease.
The same message has been parroted by a number of "authorities" and politicians who show only they have not researched their subject.
This mounting hysteria has resulted in a modern witch-hunt against the Rainbow Lorikeet. That ignorance resulted in persecution in 17th century Salem may be excusable, but it is shameful to find the same ignorance still flourishing in the Department of Conservation in the 20th century.
The Department has an immediate responsibility to report the true facts about the Rainbow Lorikeet: in distributing the Rainbow Lorikeet Fact Sheet both in printed from and on the Internet, they are continuing to seriously mislead the public.
That scientists in important and responsible Government positions should fail to adequately research and correctly analyse such readily available data can only lead to reduced public confidence in future decisions by the Department of Conservation.
There is unfortunately an even greater concern: if this same appalling level of expertise and competence is also being applied to the understanding and conservation of our native birds, we should be truly worried for their future.
"The deficiencies of advice seem inexplicable except on the basis of a departmental desire to achieve the purported outcome . . ."
These words form part of Judge Anderson’s judgement of 12 March 1999 against the Minister of Conservation in the High Court case over the reserve status of the Calliope naval land on North Shore.
Nothing new.