Again, in Wednesday's Armidale Express, Jim Belshaw who's been known to beat the New State drum more than once, is at it again.
Belshaw, who writes at his blog site New England, Australia and is not one who's known to be backward in coming forward, has called upon Tony Windsor, the Independent MP for New England, and the other 'country' (that's Belshaw's description, but I'd prefer to call then 'rural and regional') independents to do three things:
#1. Support the holding of a convention about state and commonwealth powers
#2. Support the holding of a (yet) another new state plebiscite in Northern NSW, and
#3. Apply a test to any specific initiatives to determine if the proposal has any real longer term impact on New England development, or whether it is just a 'band-aid'?
I have no real quarrels about #1 and #3, but as for #2 ... here we go round the mulberry bush again!
It seems Belshaw and the Mad Hatter from North Queensland are top-and-tailing it in the same bed. Belshaw is (figuratively) at the bottom end of the bed while the Mad Hatter is occupying the bed's top end
The Northern Star (Saturday, September 4) in a piece titled 'MP pushes for region to be split' states:
Bob Katter would have the Northern Rivers split in two, with towns such as Byron Bay, Kyogle, Mullumbimby, and Nimbin moving to Queensland, while places such as Lismore, Casino, Ballina,
The Channon, and Suffolk Park remain in NSW.
The split is part of a wider redrawing of state borders proposed by Mr Katter, which includes creating a new state of North Queensland, handing a big chunk of the Northern Territory to an expanded South Australia, and a rebranding of the Top End as North Western Australia as another new state that takes out the northern end of Western Australia.
The renamed ‘South Queensland’ would extend from Bundaberg south to Byron Bay, creating the Northern Rivers split.
Mr Katter’s argument is that the new division of state boundaries would let Australia better exploit its natural resources, improve farming in the north, and would accommodate an extra 100,000 people.
The idea would have to go to a referendum and is unlikely to ever see the light of day. It’s worth noting that the idea – although raised by the Kennedy MP as recently as last week – did not make his list of 20 ‘priorities’ handed to Labor and the Coalition on Thursday.
Here's a suggestion for both Jim and Bob: You need a cuppa tea, a Bex and a good lie down.Sources: The Armidale Express (September 1) and The Northern Star (September 4)
34 comments:
A few new states would do wonders for alleviating the over-population of our major cities and redirecting investment to new regional centres. It would reduce state-level corruption and take pressure off oversized local councils. Unfortunately it's never going to happen... any idea how the yanks got so many states?
At least Jim puts his name to his work "Clarrie Rivers"!
What are you afraid of, that it may finally succeed?
@mikey you are right, but it may well happen. Self-determination of governance is a right we all have. Let the question be asked again in this century. It's been over 40 years.
Vote against it if you like but thanks for the publicity :)
Perhaps you could elaborate why point number 2 (a new referendum on the New England new state issue) is so tedious and pointless to you?
If indeed it is the objective to decentralize government and growth from the cities to the regions (as everyone agrees), then how else do you propose to champion the cause of regional development if not through self-government?
I would go further. Not only is it plainly obvious that New England should have self government, but so too should North Qld, Central Qld and Riverina NSW. In fact there is no reason that we should not have 15 or 20 self governing states. If Tasmania, NT and ACT can govern themselves then so too can and should other regions.
It certainly makes more sense than the alternative proposition - that remote regions should be governed by distant big cities which have no understanding of regional issues and even less inclination to invest public money there.
Having three tiers of government in Australia is excessive; that results in tedious and unproductive duplication and cross-overs in the provision of services.
The direction I favour Australia moves towards is far more radical; abolish the states and adopt regional representation that is closer to the model of local government.
If this "Rivers" dude had the knowledge and analytical skills to match his undergraduate sneer he would realise that an equal part of the UN Charter that he trumpets on the front of this blog is the right to self determination. And the only vehicle recognised in both the Federal and State Constitutions for delivering that right is by way of the formation of new states.
This kneejerk response of abolishing the states is the hallmark of the intellectual daytripper who gives only the most rudimentary thought to the practicalities of what they propose. If the North Queenslanders are finding it hard to get their Premier to agree to a referendum on secession then how does this guy think he will go when he asks Kanealy for a referendum on abolishing her own position? And even if she did agree, how does Rivers rate his chances that Brumby, Rann and Bligh will also agree to abolish their positions as well, just so Rivers can indulge his lightweight whimsies.
One of these options is pure pie in the sky distraction, rooted in ignorance, while the other is a legitimate and uncontested provision of Federal and State Constitutions.
What rubbish Clarrie! Three tiers of government is neither unusual or excessive by world standards. Go check out USA, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Canada etc. Australia's problems do not stem from having 3 tiers of government. It stems from having the lower tiers so badly underfunded and reliant on the big central government for handouts.
As for abolishing the states - you clearly have no appreciation of either Australian history or our political system. In case you haven't noticed - Australia only exists as a FEDERATION OF STATES! Go read the constitution and you might get an appreciation of just how pointless and tedious your "abolish the states" bleat is.
The constitution does envisage more regional government in the form of, yes - NEW STATES! See chapter 6. States have a constitutional basis for their existence and the mechanism is already there for subdivision of the states into smaller (regional if you like) units within the federation. And presumably your regional government model should have some constitutional basis? In other words STATEHOOD!
My point is that what you are arguing is not that far removed from what is already available to us under our constitution. So why not use what is already there to achieve our objectives rather than wasting breath arguing what is absurdly impossible under our constitution.
As for the "excessive" duplication chestnut - you can blame the Commonwealth for that one, not the states. What need is there for Commonwealth Departments duplicating state departments for no other purpose than trying to micro-manage what are state responsibilities?
Here's a radical idea for you - the Commonwealth goes back to what is properly it's collective responsibilities (defence, trade, customs, foreign affairs) and butts out of matters that are local and community issues such as health, education, policing, roads, public transport etc.
Perhaps our little metrocentric mate would care to explain what is lacking about residents of this region that makes them only capable of pursuing their own destiny under the supervision of and consent of illinformed and disinterested urban punters?
Perhaps he might like to drop down to his local pub and explain to the folks why a right enjoyed by 334,000 Canberrans is too good to be given to 900,000 New North Welshmen? And then explain to his neighbours why the most they deserve is a second class citizenship, conditional on the approval of their metropolitan superiors?
Listen carefully folks, this should be really interesting.
Thank you, Peter, for your defence! In fairness to Clarrie Rivers, the dividing line between those who want abolition of the states and regional governments and those who want new states has always been a difficult one. It comes back to the power of the councils/new states plus the question of whether any further levels are required.
Greg is, of course, right to argue the problems involved in actually abolishing the states. I stand to be corrected by constitutional experts, but on my reading it actually requires a yes vote in every state because of the wording of the new state provisions in the constitution. The normal constitutional amendment provisions don't apply. It's almost impossible, for example, to see Tasmania or WA voting yes.
Getting new states, while hard, is actually easier.
In his original post, CR said that he had no real problems in supporting a suggestion of a constitutional convention on the federation. That's good. CR does not have to agree with we new staters, but a convention would allow alternative views to be put.
Become part of a new state of New England? No thank you - would rather eat worms ;-)
Didn't we in the Northern Rivers just spend most of 2007 fending off yet another attempt to raid our fresh water flows?
An attempt heartily supported by many in areas of the NSW northwest (which would fall within the outlined boundaries of this 'new' state) who saw themselves as beneficiaries of such a raid.
Oh god... another screen-name!
What "outlined boundaries" "clarencegirl"? They haven't been defined yet. Any shown are historical.
What makes you think an as yet unnamed new state Government would want to squander water resources or support those who do?
"What makes you think an as yet unnamed new state Government would want to squander water resources or support those who do?"
Oh, let me see...
The Australian history of water rights and water security from the colonial era to the present day is a less than subtle clue as to how a new state might be likely to proceed with regard to water.
While publicly available biographical information on many of the supporters (past and present)of any proposal for a new state in northern NSW leads one to suspect that neither a balanced position nor an altruistic motive is behind much of their advocacy.
Clarencegirl - perhaps you would prefer the experience of the Hunter where the NSW government is determined to push through the Tillegra Dam against community wishes? The people of Dungog Shire don't want it, the people of Newcastle and the Hunter don't want it and nor do we need it. Yet Hunter residents are expected to pay the costs through Hunter Water rates. Outrageous!
The government, in the name of "water security" is determined to proceed. Water security for whom? The Hunter has more than enough water for now and for decades to come. In the process they will destroy some of the most fertile farming land in the Hunter Valley and degrade the Williams River and the Hunter River estuary.
Is that the kind of raid on our fresh water flows that you are talking about? That is what is happening right now in NSW. Sydney is already stuffing things up. How could it be worse under self-government?
Perhaps you should go ahead and eat your worms right now.
Hey Clarencegirl - since the water issue is already happening in the Hunter with Tillegra, there is no guarantee that it can't and won't also happen in the Clarence. In fact if Tillegra is indeed pushed through, I would think that it is only a matter of time before NSW does it again, and the Clarence would be high on the agenda.
Wouldn't it therefore make more sense to have a strong regional voice in a smaller Northern state than a small voice in a big Sydney dominated NSW with a history of running rough shod over regional interests? I would have thought that would give you a better chance at avoiding anything like a Tillegra happening in the Clarence or elsewhere.
"Wouldn't it therefore make more sense to have a strong regional voice in a smaller Northern state than a small voice in a big Sydney dominated NSW with a history of running rough shod over regional interests? I would have thought that would give you a better chance at avoiding anything like a Tillegra happening in the Clarence or elsewhere."
Short answer to this question: No.
Since before World War Two there have been proposals to raid Clarence River catchment freshwater. These proposals surface at local, state and federal government level with almost monotonous regularity.
It seems that councils, industry, land developers and irrigators from South Australia through to SE Queensland want Northern Rivers freshwater flows.
However, when these threats turn into either preliminary investigations or more solid proposals Clarence Valley communities see them off in no uncertain fashion.
The last time we prevailed was in 2006-07.
Unfortunately we expect to have to see off yet another water grab in 2011, as any incoming NSW Coalition Government would probably be supporting the National Party's state conference resolution to look again at damming and diverting the Clarence River and other east coast rivers.
What is worrying about the idea of a New England new state is that some of the same councils, industry, land developers and irrigators quietly pushing these proposals come from areas which are historically seen as falling within the boundaries of such a new state.
These wannabe water raiders want it for everything from water security for big mines, proposed new hydro-electric schemes, urban land expansion and of course irrigation of agricultural land.
A new state would be just as dangerous for the health of the Clarence River (and the local communities which depend on it)as the existng states and Commonwealth.
I wish the No Tillegra Dam Group well in their endeavours. See
http://www.notillegradam.com/
I suspect you are a little spooked, Clarence girl. This diversion of rivers stuff comes up from time to time but the highest, best and most economical use of Clarence, or any other water, is to use it in the catchment it came from. The greatest danger to all rural communities is when metropolitan interests get together and casually trade off regional interests that they wouldn't dream of doing with their own. And if you look closely at the population spread of the most likely new state you will see that the people over the range account for only 4 of the 12 state electorates. There are 4 on the coast south of Grafton and 4 to the north. And none of that coastal majority will ever be keen sacrifice local rivers when the water is best used right where it is. The fact that Grafton is also the population centre of gravity makes it most likely to be the new capital. And that would also ensure that its own waters remain secure. But if we don't have our own Premier around the COAG table, make no mistake, the urban Premiers are quite capable of giving away someone else's assets.
"This diversion of rivers stuff comes up from time to time but the highest, best and most economical use of Clarence, or any other water, is to use it in the catchment it came from. The greatest danger to all rural communities is when metropolitan interests get together and casually trade off regional interests that they wouldn't dream of doing with their own."
Ian, I suggest that you actually research the subject before you make such a broad statement.
Start with the 2007 Senate inquiry which addressed the Howard-Turnbull-Vail push to dam and divert an east coast river with emphasis on Clarence River catchment water.
It was the NSW Government of the day which stood firmly on the side of Northern Rivers local communities in resisting the SMEC water diversion recommendations.
It was principally rural NSW over the Divide and vested interests within the Murray Darling Basin which were behind the Howard-Turnbull-Vail east coast water diversion plan.
That's the political reality.
As for Grafton being the likely capital of this mythical new state because it's the "population centre of gravity". Well...
Grafton and South Grafton combined have an estimated resident population which is currently less than that of Coffs Harbour or Tamworth and perhaps even less than that of Lismore or Armidale.
Even Byron or Ballina and environs apparently have more people than the Grafton area.
Additionally, Grafton's population growth is expected to slow over the next 26 years.
By 2036 it is actually expected to have grown to less than 23,000 residents, due in part to its age structure.
It is highly unlikely that Grafton City would succeed in any future bid to become a "new state' capital.
I appreciate that you are a passionate new stater, but save your breath to cool your porridge unless you are prepared to do more than just bounce off a clutch of misinformation.
CG, you might like to think that it was only your own efforts that saved Clarence water from a pipeline to Brisbane but the reality is that no-one in Brisbane, other than talkback jocks looking for a hook, took it seriously. The same applies to the mythical pipeline from the Burdekin and the pipe over the range to nowhere. Neither project was ever going to be viable because water is such a large volume/low value product. You can shape your opinions on the backscatter if you want but all these proposals eventually have to go through the regulatory impact assessment process where they all come unstuck. Turnbull was simply running the usual stuff up the flagpole to give the appearance of doing something. And the NSW Government was simply raising the same impact assessment matters that any state government, including any new one, has a duty to raise.
So get used to it. There is always about 15% of the population that will be seduced by the prospect of sending perfectly good water to places where it is clearly uneconomic to do so. And there is also a similar portion of the population who, like you, are capable of rejecting a comprehensive raft of major reforms for an entire community out of baseless fears for their own pet concerns.
And the fact that other areas of the coast already have a larger population is a good reason to favour Grafton as a future State capital. As the experience from many states in the USA demonstrates, regional states are not well served when resources are concentrated in the largest urban area. Most people, when fully informed on the consequences, tend to favour a small capital that enables a more sustainable distribution of resources over a wider area. Why would we bother replicating the metro-dominated model that has already so comprehensively failed? Why would we push the entire economic engine of a new government into areas that are already experiencing serious growth stress?
I see that Ian continues to comment without actually reading any of the relevant documents.
The 2006-07 water diversion proposal was never intended to benefit Brisbane.
However, as he appears to agree that the NSW state government fulfilled its duty of care towards the Northern Rivers, his previous assertion that a new state is needed to look after our interests here on the North Coast falls somewhat flat.
Quite frankly, if I had to choose between the decidedly strange grab bag of individuals supporting a new state and a NSW Government I would choose the latter every time, as anything it progresses is likely to be far less dyfunctional than the supposed vision of the former.
**The original post we are all commenting on is now over 4 days old, so future comments are not automatically published. Bear with NCV until your comment arrives on one of our PCs and gets posted to the blog.
What a classically narrow minded view you have, clarence girl. You seem to view the entire question of governance through your river fetish. Public health service delivery is a dangerously negligent joke, but CG will accept it out of some vague paranoia over river water. You describe a country town in decline as if it were the natural order of things but as long as your river fetish is massaged it is all OK?
Regional economic decline is a direct consequence of a government structure that fails to return the regions full share of state fees, taxes and GST etc back to the region in the form of state services. There is a serious leakage from the circular flow of money, not just in Grafton, but in all towns experiencing economic decline. And you only demonstrate your boorish ignorance when you insist on viewing the whole issue through your riverine monomania. Get a life.
For the record, Brazil has created two new states in the past 2 decades and one of them, Tocantins, is now widely regarded as the best governed state in that country. And nobody stole their river.
Ian appears to think that a new state would miraculously cure all ills found in Commonwealth-States relations and create a new paradigm in funding distribution.
His faith in this new order is touching but it is la la land stuff. Political reality would soon see a New England state facing exactly the same problems in service delivery as existing states, in part because it would face the same age and tax base demographics as the rest of the country.
As for his mention of Tocantins (created 1988) as an example of how well new states do - again he doesn't look at what is actually happening on the ground there.
Water security and environmental issues loom as large in Brazil and Tocantins as they do on the NSW North Coast, where so many of our communities rely on healthy rivers as part of the local and regional economic base. For example commercial fishing and tourism which brings in tens of millions annually to the Northern Rivers.
In 1999 in relation to Ian's "best governed state" it was reported that:
"Brazil's Federal Police have opened an investigation into an alleged fraud detected in the elaboration of preliminary environmental impact studies for the Tocantins-Araguaia Waterway.
The Tocantins state General Attorney's Office will begin criminal proceedings against state-owned Companhia Docas do Para over the alleged fraud following accusations by four anthropologists that the company suppressed environmental damage estimates from the EIS. There are "indications that the anthropological study was manipulated so that its conclusion was drastically compromised," Federal Judge Clodomir Sebastiao Reis said when approving the investigation.
The EIS and Environmental Impact Report (Rima) were carried out by the Aid and Development of Research Foundation (Fadesp), linked to the Para Federal University. Fadesp was hired by the Tocantins-Araguaia Waterway Administration (Ahitar), itself linked to Companhia Docas do Para. "We will find out what role each institution plays in this whole process," Tocantins Public Prosecutor Mario Lucio de Avelar said.
The 2,102km waterway passes through five states (Goias, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Para and Maranhao) and crosses 10 conservation areas and 35 indigenous territories. President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, in his national development program 'Avanca Brasil', has predicted a gradual increase in the use of the waterway, which can transport 6Mtpy of cargo." [Business News America]
(cont.)
And yes, despite Ian's claim that "nobody stole their river", a private multinational partnership ConsĂłrcio Estreito Energia (with the apparent support of the Tocantins state government, neighbouring states and the Brazilian Government) is in the process of raiding River Tocantins water:
"More than 5,000 peasant families, approximately 20,000 people, amongst them rural workers, Afro-Brazilians and indigenous people, will be affected by the construction of the Estreito dam, on the River Tocantins, between the municipalities of Estreito and Aguiarnópolis. The destruction will extend to the municipalities of Aguiarnópolis, Babaçulândia, Barra do Ouro, Darcinópolis, Filadélfia, Goiatins, Itapiratins, Palmeiras do Tocantins, Palmeirante e Tupiratins, in the state Tocantins, and Carolina and Estreito, in the state of Maranhão. Beyond the impacts on the families, who will be deprived of their access to land, the Estreito dam will provoke irreversible social, environmental and scenic alterations. Such impacts will harm the development of the ecological tourism in the region, one of the best economic alternatives for the local population." [FIAN 2005]
The Estrieto dam hydro-scheme begins test operations in December this year - so much for a relatively new Brazilian state looking after local interests.
And despite the income this hydro-scheme will bring to the state it is unlikely to break the poverty cycle affecting much of the Tocantins population nor lower its suicide rate, especially the rate among farmers [Scielo 2010].
As for human rights issues in the stae Ian so admires:
"The figures for 1998 are as follows: 32 labourers murdered, 142 workers jailed, 20 cases of torture in the Tocantins area, other cases of torture in various areas - all cases linked with the MST -, and countless cases of violence, threats and attacks of farmers by military police." [UN Human Rights Sub-Commission 1999]
And in Feburary 2010 it was reported that:
"Brazilian farmer Juarez Vieira Reis was expelled in 2003 from the land where he had lived since he was born, in Tocantins, due to a legal intervention by order of Senator Kátia Abreu (DEM party, Tocantins). Abreu had received Juarez's land as a gift from former Tocantins governor Siqueira Campos." [Brazil Landless Workers Movement 2010]
The court case brought by Reis appears to be before the court this year.
As for my so-called "river fetish". If Ian doesn't recognise water security as one of the big issues facing Australia then he is hiding his head in the sand, as he does on the issue of climate change.
Now Clarrie Rivers may be sitting back quietly chortling over the response to his original post, but I'm not going to continue to knock down spurious argument ad infinitum so this is my last post on the subject.
P.S. So sorry about the multiple stutters in posting my comments today - don't know why there were replications all over the place.
Not so fast, Clarence girl. You google up a whole stack of what most of us would regard as evidence of a system working. She cites an intial investigation into a process, and one which folks here would recognise as the kind of issue that invites politically motivated accusation, as if it were a final judgement. Note that the activity she cites as threatening the integrity of the river system is nothing more than the use of the river for transport, hardly a threatening process, and an activity that has taken place on the Clarence since the 1860s.
Note also that she cites the fact that a dam has been proposed but gives us no indication of the character or scale of the project. She gives a list of localities that might experience some sort of effect from the project but, again, fails to provide any indication of scale, character or intensity. Instead, she invites the reader to assume that all effects are adverse and on a very large scale. She then went on to list an assortment of apparent injustices as if they were symptomatic of a failed new state. But she conspicuously failed to put these injustices in a Brazilian context, by comparing Tocantins data with data from other states. The numbers she quoted for the entire state of Tocantins would represent a normal week in the slums of Rio de Janiero.
Meanwhile, back at the 2006/7 "raid" on the Clarence River, CG appears to have missed the point that it was nothing more than a parliamentary inquiry which, like so many of them, produced no action and no adverse impact. Yet, CG would have us believe that a process of investigation is tantamount to ecological armageddon. She has the kind of brain that fails to distinguish between a verifiable fact and a deeply held fear, based on a low probability extrapolation to extreme harm. And in her case, and that of a small minority of Clarence valley locals, she has demonstrated her capacity to view every other issue through the cracked, opaque lens of her vivid imagination, and see nothing else.
You've really torn the illusion now IM and exposed yourself as a bit of a dill.
Every man and his dog should know by now that the Senate inquiry included the Northern Rivers AFTER the Howard Government commissioned a study into a dam and pipeline on the North Coast and the SMEC report came back saying yes to water diversion in the Clarence Valley.
As for picking a Brazilian state as an example - that country is well known for its water & land rights problems. So you were bound to come a cropper in saying that no-one was stealing Tocantins river water.
And what's with a "proposed dam" and not knowing anything about the scale of damage expected?
The dam is nearing completion -there are construction pics on the Web.
Quotes in CG's comment talk of environmental fallout occuring in four districts across two states.
Oh and by the way - the waterway project is separate to the dam project if you ever bothered to look at a map.
And what's with the argument that human rights abuses are alright if they're less in number than abuses in other parts of Brazil. Nong!
What a classic Mal. It was the Tocantins Attorney General who was initiating prosecutions for maladministration and in my book that is pretty solid evidence of a state that is functioning properly, not the opposite. And if you were not burdened by a comprehension deficit you would have recognised that I was not condoning human rights abuses in Tocantins. Clearly, I was simply puting them in their proper context of a population of 109 million with an average GDP that is only 25% of ours. If adding context to a litanny of data is a crime in your book then you are clearly not on the same page as reasonable men and women seeking full possession of the facts.
Well colour me confused because it sure looks like Ian is hunting for excuses for those human rights abuses. Context? LOL
Lets repeat the sentence for the record, shall we?
"she conspicuously failed to put these injustices in a Brazilian context, by comparing Tocantins data with data from other states."
No sign of condoning injustice there at all. And it is interesting to note the mindset here that the very presence of a dam project is presented as defacto evidence of a failed state. The project has obviously been implemented by an elected government with a full mandate for same from the voters. It is democracy folks. Do you have a problem with that?
And speaking of injustices found in failed states. It was less than a year ago the Director General of Qld Department of Environment, Resources and Mining, Mr Scott Spencer, was fined over $50,000 for contempt of court for continuing to persecute a farmer who had already been acquited on a trumped up clearing charge. It was not just contempt of court, it was also a serious breach of the Public Sector Ethics Act, for which Spencer went unpunished.
Officers in his Department were also found to have perjured themselves in testimony and email evidence proved that they had even gone so far as to conspire to alter the cadastral boundaries so that trees that a farmer had lawfully cleared would appear on another property, and thereby constitute a crime.
In NSW we can also consider the role of Senior Scientist Dr John Benson who produced the grossly exagerated clearing estimates used to obtain a fraudulent mandate for clearing controls. Benson took the recorded clearing rate for cotton growing on the Northern half of the Moree Plain and extrapolated to the entire state. And he did so despite the fact that neither cotton or any other industry was expanding on that scale, and in need of cleared land, anywhere else in the state. Landsat data subsequently revealed the actual rate to be between 8,000 and 12,000hectares per year. Meanwhile, the presence of 14 million hectares of the kind of regrowth vegetation being cleared at Moree has been accepted as fact. None of this is older than 30 years so the case is incontestible that close to half a million hectares of additional native regrowth has been established every year for the past 3 decades. So even the bull$hit 150,000ha clearing figure was only 30% of the rate of native forest expansion.
But I guess I had best stop now. The trolls are probably hyperventilating.
It's fascinating watching IM jump all over the map trying to avoid the fact that he keeps getting knocked down over; the Clarence River water diversion plan, the fact that Tocantins has allowed a private consortium to build a dam and hydro scheme against the wishes of local communities and that a federal investigation forced the Tocantins attorney-general's hand and he had to investigate a state-owned corporation. Now IM's trying the look over there not here approach and is bringing up land clearing issues in two states.
Typically he's fluffed his lines. It wasn't a $50,000 fine for contempt of court, it was a $1,000 fine plus court costs and apparently Dalby magistrate Sheryl Cornack found it was a technical breach after a stay had been granted while an appeal was heard in a case where the company owning the land had originally plead guilty.
Still the native vegetation rant made a good red herring. Go for it! I'm opening a book on how long IM can last before he runs out of breath.
But then it's probably a sucker's bet because everyone's a troll expect IM the voice crying out in the wilderness.
Nice try Mal, but the full story is outlined below.
"Compliance Notices - Bob Wild – Whyenbirra – Bollon
61. Upon a reasonable belief that an offence has been committed, DNR can give a landowner a Compliance Notice. There is no need for a trial or a finding of guilt by a Court. [ie absence of due process]
62. Prior to the commencement of the VMA, Bob Wild inspected a property called Whyenbirra, near Bollon, with a view to purchase.
63. He had with him some very rudimentary hand drawn vegetation maps, provided by DNR. He formed a view that the maps did not accurately reflect the vegetation on the ground.
64. He called in DNR to verify the map. Two DNR officers inspected the block and formed a view that the map was in error and told Bob that they would pass on the information to the EPA in order that the map be updated and amended. This they never did.
65. Bob bought Whyenbirra, cleared some of the land, was subsequently prosecuted and faced with the cost of defending the prosecution, pleaded guilty and was fined.
He was then issued with a Compliance Notice, which he appealed and was granted an Order of Stay by the Court.
66. Following the Order of the Court that the Notice be stayed, the Director General of DNR, Scott Spencer, encumbered the title to Whyenbirra with the Notice.
67. This encumbrance serves two purposes; to alert prospective purchasers of the existence of the Notice and to devalue the land. The land was subsequently sold
with the encumbrance on it.
68. The Notice was appealed on 12 grounds of invalidity, 1 ground is enough. Her Honour found 19 grounds, which is why her Honour is a Magistrate and one is Junior Counsel.
69. In upholding the Appeal against the decision to give the Notice, her Honour found the Notice:
“confusing, unclear, uncertain, vague and impossible to comply with..
70. At the same time the Appeal against the Notice was heard, Bob Wild brought an Application for Punishment of Contempt against Director General of DNR, Scott
Spencer, arguing that placing an encumbrance on the freehold title after the Court had ordered a stay, was in Contempt of Court.
71. In defending the contempt application, it was submitted by the Director General that the Court did not have the power to prevent him doing as he did and in any event he was only following instructions from departmental officers (his own subordinates).
72. The Director General was found in Contempt of Court, ordered to remove the encumbrance on the freehold title and ordered to (personally) pay almost $50,000 in costs for the Contempt Application and the Compliance Notice Appeal and ordered to apologise to the Court and to Bob Wild.
Watching Mott bob up and down like one of those ducks in a carnival stall. Fascinating. Knocked down and up he pops and in the middle of his spiel slyly admits that he was wrong about there being a $50k fine.
I also spied another blooper - is anyone keeping track?
Here's my swipe at the duck.
According to the appeal proceeding the litigation was between Wyenbirra Pty Lyd and the Department of Natural Resources.
So as all sides admit Spencer was an agent of the department and acting on legal advice obtained by the department, he would not have to pay his own costs as he was not the one being sued and it was the department which was found to be in contempt.
The same transcript records the magistrate saying "However I really find it's a technical breach" and "I don't intend to impose a fine. I don't intend to impose a period of imprisonment."
Doesn't sound like this little episode is anything more than a red herring being trailed by Mott because he's still losing the New State and Clarence River arguments.
"68. The Notice was appealed on 12 grounds of invalidity, 1 ground is enough. Her Honour found 19 grounds,"
The judge found an additional 7 grounds of invalidity making 19 grounds of improper exercise of power.
And before folks start disappearing up their own backsides, lets recall that Judith implied that any evidence of injustice in respect of the Brazilian state of Tocantins was, ipso facto, evidence that any new state in NSW would be a failed state. I provided the evidence from both NSW and Qld that injustices to landowners also take place here but no-one is about to declare NSW and Qld "failed states".
Mal then chose to provide a summary of the Qld case that fell well within the meaning of "such a partial and fragmentary statement of fact that the absence of what was left unstated rendered that which was stated entirely untrue". He chose to be very selective with the facts to convey the false impression that the farmer admitted guilt, because of his guilt, rather than because the cost of establishing his innocence, under the Qld removal of the presumption of innocence, was too prohibitive.
And still we seem to return to central delusion of folks on this blog, that any diversion of water from a river is a) an adverse impact and b) evidence of a failed state. In a word, bollocks to both. As reasonable men and women will easily concur.
Popped back in to see what Voices had been saying and waddya know - Ian Mott is still trying to dig himself out of that hole! ROFL ROFL
Apparently our anonymous mate is part of that millieu in which an acronym like ROFL is a valid surrogate for a coherent argument. As if three sneers have more weight than a simple statement of fact. But a small portion of the readers of this thread will have a sufficiently unencumbered wit to distinguish between the two. And they will recognise how some of the posters here have such a monomania in respect of water diversion that they feel compelled to cram every other concept into the framework of the monomania.
Those who can see past these guys self imposed intellectual straight jacket might care to read up on how policies designed by metropolitan governments contribute to regional economic decline at http://regionalstates.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/how-keating-trashed-regional-economies/
Chair of parliamentary inquiry Windsor and the MDB irrigators coming after the Clarence River.
http://www.dailyexaminer.com.au/story/2010/10/19/river-diversion-to-be-looked-at-in-inquiry/
My comment on this from Farmonline. Neither black nor white but a sustainable mix of hues.
"Good on her. Clarence water belongs to Clarence residents. And if Clarence water is to be put to its best use then it should go to Clarence farmers who can add the most value to it. In fact, the cleared area of the catchment makes it obvious that Clarence valley farmers have delivered a substantial water surplus to the system, over and above pre-settlement flows. And the just and equitable treatment of that surplus water, in an essentially un-buggered catchment, demands that the very farmers who have created that surplus run-off have first call on it's use and an as-of-right entitlement to capture the full amount of the surplus over pre-settlement flows. It should then follow that any downstream farmers who might want that water should negotiate a private contract with the upstream owners of the surplus, with delivery via the publicly owned river system, a water road. It also follows that any over the range buyers should also negotiate with upper Clarence catchment owners of surplus water and agree on the cost of any required infrastructure for getting it there. And if off-stream, or 3rd order stream storages (or less) are used then it is none of the public's business."
Posted by Ian Mott, 19/10/2010 12:12:48 PM, on The Land
Post a Comment