AGL Energy Limited a supplier of gas & coal based electricity is behaving badly yet again

AGL Energy Limited (AGL) sells and markets gas and electricity. It owns a number thermal stations, has an operational gas plant in the Camden area and approvals for exploration and production of coal seam gas in the Gloucester district in New South Wales. 

On 11 May 2015 Smart Company reported that:

The Australian Energy Regulator has penalised energy retailer AGL for disconnecting customers in hardship or on payment plans, with AGL South Australia and AGL Sales both receiving a $20,000 fine from the regulator.

Energy retailers are prohibited from disconnecting customers under certain circumstances, including when they are participating in a hardship program or a payment plan.

However the Australian Energy Regulator said in a statement this morning, it was notified by AGL of incidents in which nine of the company’s customers were wrongfully disconnected from their electricity supply.

This is not the first time that AGL has been in the news for behaving badly.

A quick Internet search brings up this disturbing timeline: 

* August 2003

Australia's largest energy retailer was today fined $100,000 on workplace safety breaches over the electrocution of a 36-year-old Melbourne carpenter.

AGL Electricity Ltd had faced a maximum fine of $250,000 over the man's death in February 1999.

The court heard that carpenter Paul Psaila suffered a fatal electric shock on the roof of a suburban Rosanna unit when he touched guttering carrying a 240-volt current coming from a live electricity cable attached to the home.

County Court judge Michael Strong said the work on installing the cable had been carried out by two linesmen seven weeks before.

It was a straightforward job which they had done many times before "but on this occasion the job was done incompetently, resulting in insulation on the cable being damaged".

A metal bracket "charged with electricity became a death trap", the judge said.

In sentencing, Judge Strong said: "The court must respond to the jury's verdict by sending a clear message to this industry that more-rigorous scrutiny is required of work by linesmen."

AGL was convicted by a jury of failing to ensure that people other than its employees were not exposed to health and safety risks.

* September 2004

Following NGE's intervention, I received a phone call from AGL's Victorian manager of Residential Marketing on 27/08/04. He apologized for the "misrepresentations of the sales staff", assured me the switching fee would not apply, and that the last $50 rebate would be paid. He gave me his mobile number to call direct if there were any problems.
On 02/09/04 I received another phone call from a different person presumeably from the same department. She said that the entire bill for the quarter would be waived because the new total ($14.67) was such a small amount, the next bill was due soon, and I'd been unhappy with the service.
The amended bill arrived on 06/09/04. Thanks to some creative accounting, the new invoice was for $29.34 (twice what it should have been after applying the rebate).
I've made two phone calls to the person I spoke to in August (unanswered - I left a message both times), and received one back from one of his colleagues. She said he was on a business trip, and offered to help in his stead. I explained that my invoice was wrong, and asked for a new one. She said she'd look into it, and would call back later. That was on Monday 13/09/04. Not surprisingly, I haven't heard anything since.
Given that "AGL prides itself [on] the ethics and honesty of [its] organisation" it would appear that that pride is undeserved. [Matter finally resolved in customers favour after six months of seeking redress]

* July 2005

AGL Gas Networks Ltd has been fined $325,000 following two gas explosions at a Kogarah shopping centre in 1995, in which two people died and 17 others were injured.
The company, based at North Sydney, was found guilty under the Occupational Health and Safety Act in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission sitting in Court Session for failing to ensure the health and safety of its employees and others not in its employ.
In November 1995 a gas pipeline at Railway Parade, Kogarah, was cut and capped by AGL in preparation for the demolition of four nearby shops.
The pipeline remained connected to the mains, and on 4 December the line severed, with the resulting gas leak causing explosions and fires.
An AGL Gas Networks Ltd maintenance crew sent to the scene after the first explosion did not have the necessary valve location map to enable them to find and shutdown the escaping gas.
While the maintenance crew searched for the shutdown valve and fire crews fought to extinguish the blaze, a second explosion occurred.
In imposing the penalty, Justice Monika Schmidt said: "I am satisfied that the risks to safety were foreseeable. They included the risk of death and injury, which must be reflected in the penalty imposed."

* August 2006

The Australian Energy Regulator has imposed a civil penalty of $20,000 on AGL Hydro Partnership over its use of the inflexibility and rebidding provisions of the National Electricity Rules with respect to its MCKAY1 generating unit on 22 March 2006. The AER issued an infringement notice alleging that AGL Hydro breached clause 3.8.22(c)(2)(i) of the rules by failing to provide a verifiable and specific reason for declaring the MCKAY1 generating unit as inflexible. As AGL Hydro has paid the infringement penalty, the AER's investigation of this matter is now closed.

* May 2008

A third Queensland electricity retailer will be issued with a fine over its handling of pensioners' power bills.

Queensland Energy Minister Geoff Wilson said the regulator had made formal findings against AGL, which had been advised of a $30,000 fine for breaching the Electricity Act.

* May 2009

June 2008 AGL became our electricity provider. This surprised us when we received the first "Dear Customer" letter from them in November, attempting to bill us all the way back to February!
In fact, we had been contracted to Simply Energy (gas + elec) for over a year and owned the house for four years. Every AGL customer "service" person attempts to convince us we just moved in!
Of course we called AGL after getting the November letter (actually two bills for different amounts). The help desk woman apologised, said she could see the account had been transferred to them in error, and promised to send us back to Simply Energy. "No need to worry about it". Famous last words.
Come April 2009, and two more envelopes arrive from AGL. Amount owing is over $1,100, please pay within two weeks. An entire afternoon wasted calling AGL then Simply Energy then AGL (with SE on the line), then AGL again. Each time the recorded voice said we owed a different amount! In the first call, AGL told me to tell SE to check MSATS (their common database) for the handover date. SE said it was June but AGL was billing back to February! SE confirmed we'd paid up to June. All good so far.
AGL claims that because 130 days had passed without hearing from SE, they _own_ our account, under law. They could well be right, but surely SE would be due compensation? AGL checked their own records and could see that they had reminded themselves in November to ask SE for a "winback", but never actually sent the message to them.
To add to the insult, two days after those phonecalls we received a letter from AGL thanking us for agreeing to this payment plan during your phonecall. We did nothing of the sort! We laughed when we saw the "instalment plan" was one payment of the full amount including the months already paid, due in June.  Ta.
The good thing about dealing with AGL is that you get to read up on what your rights are. You can read the entire ombudsman's website while you're on hold! In Victoria, utilities can't backbill residents for more than nine months' worth of power, and have to give an equivalent time to pay if requested. The longer they take to work their stuff out, the more free electricity we have received.
The last time I called them was a week ago, because they'd promised to call me by then. The guy was a lot more candid about the extent of their problems, said their complaints department was VERY busy and while they would try to ring me in the next week he couldn't guarantee it. Meanwhile (after I pressed him to say it) we should ignore the demands for payment. So we're relaxed and waiting ... next step the ombudsman because there's no way they can get away with this. [Resolved in the customers favour after what appears to be almost twelve months of negotiation]

* May 2010

trichloroethylene ingroundwater at a specific location beneath the Torrens Island Power Stationsite. The South Australia EPA was notified under Section 83A of the EnvironmentProtection Act.

* September 2010

AGL–Arrow Energy Moranbah Gas Project JV, Qld: In September 2010, protected vegetation on PL191 was overcleared by the Operator. A $2,000 Penalty Infringement Notice was issued by DERM in relation to the breach

* May 2011

In May 2011 a large drilling fluid spill occurred at AGL’s CSG well head at Camden North in NSW during routine maintenance. According to STOP CSG!, AGL failed to report the incident for two days until the leakage was shown on TV. 

* September 2012

In yet another classic example of excessive executive compensation while the rest of the nation is reeling from high prices and economic slowdown, officials of power firms in New South Wales are enjoying astronomical pay hikes while residents pay through the nose because of higher electricity rates. The Herald Sun reported that the managing director and chief executive of power firm AGL got 85 per cent pay hikes to $6.3 million from $3.4 million in 2011. The boost in compensation was justified by the 11.8 per cent rise of AGL's profit in 2011-12 at $482 million, thanks to the 18 per cent increase in power rates.

* 2012

AGL sent me a letter advising me that I had entered into a default contract with them because the electricity at that address was still being used despite the cancellation of the A/C. This puzzled me as I had not cancelled the contract with AGL. As requested I phoned the number listed in their letter. At the outset of the conversation with AGL I was required to identify myself by giving my name and DOB. When I asked who had cancelled my A/C, my request was denied on the grounds of privacy regulations. My response to this was that my privacy had been violated when a third party had been allowed to cancel my account with AGL. When my letter of complaint to the GM retail was not answered, a week later I sent an e-mail citing the issues raised .This proved more effective because Customer Relations then contacted me. Their case is that the new tenant next door initially gave the street number of my holiday house, later phoning to correct his error. If the tenant had made this correction before the letter about a default contract had been written, then the issue of a default contract is in my opinion a red herring. Instead AGL should have come clean with me. Alternatively if the tenant had not yet alerted AGL to this debacle, there was no need to send a letter concerning electricity consumption at the address initially given by the new tenant next door. In summary, despite their claim to the contrary, I cannot accept that AGL can cancel an A/C without checking with the person who responsible for the A/C. Even for a simple enquiry a customer is required to identify themselves. Secondly I am not confident that the default letter was written in good faith. If AGL already knew about the source of the confusion at the time of writing to me , they should have been frank and open. XXXX XXXX Address in question-XX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

* March 2013

The New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has fined AGL Energy $15,000 over a gas leak from a coal seam gas well at the Rosalind Park gas plant in the suburb of Spring Farm.

* May 2013

The Federal Court has ordered by consent that AGL Sales Pty Ltd and AGL South Australia Pty Ltd pay combined penalties of $1.555 million for illegal door-to-door selling practices, following action by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. CPM Australia Pty Ltd, the marketing company used by the AGL companies, was also ordered to pay $200,000 for its role in the conduct.

* July 2013

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has fined AGL $1,000 for failing to publish monitoring data under “community right to know” requirements of the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997.

* December 2013

Energy retailer AGL has been fined $35,000 after a salesman ignored a Do Not Knock sign.

Federal Court judge John Middleton punished AGL and its marketing company CPM for the conduct of a South Australian salesman.

"These penalties reflect the need to deter conduct of such seriousness by the relevant respondents and others in the door-to-door selling industry," he said in his judgment.

AGL South Australia was fined $35,000 while its marketing agent CPM, who contracted the salesman, was penalised $25,000 for trying to negotiate an energy supply agreement in November 2011.

He had remained on the premises despite the consumer having an image on the front door of a knocking fist with a line through it.

The maximum penalty is $50,000.

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has issued AGL operations in Camden with a fine of $1,500 and an official caution for exceeding air pollutant, oxides of nitrogen (NOx) concentrations limits on two occasions in August this year.

* December 2014

POTENTIALLY contaminated wastewater used to frack AGL's Gloucester coal seam gas project has been dumped unlawfully into the Hunter's sewer system by the private company hired to treat it.

Transpacific, one of the nation's largest wastewater management firms, has been fined $30,000 by Hunter Water for releasing treated "flow-back" fluid from the gas project into the region's sewer network.

It comes after AGL and Transpacific were both explicitly warned by the water regulator that releasing the flow-back fluid was a breach of its wastewater criteria.

* January 2015

AGL operations at Gloucester have been suspended and the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) is investigating after the company informed the authority that it had detected BTEX chemicals at its Gloucester coal seam gas project.

AGL suspended operations today after announcing BTEX chemicals were found in samples from its Waukivory operations, said EPA Chief Environmental Regulator Mark Gifford.

“AGL informed the EPA that it was aware of these elevated levels of BTEX chemicals on 15 January, but it did not make these results known to the EPA or the public until today,” said Mr Gifford.

“The EPA is very concerned at AGL’s lack of timeliness and transparency in informing us of these results and we will be conducting a full investigation.

“The EPA can confirm that fracking fluid additives used at the Waukivory operation were sampled and analysed by Government environmental officers in November 2014 before fracking activities were allowed to commence.

“These samples were analysed for BTEX chemicals, which were not detected. Identifying the source of the elevated levels of BTEX chemicals found in AGL’s samples will be part of the EPA’s investigation.”

* April 2015

Energy retailer AGL has been fined $700,000 for misleading customers in South Australia about discounts on their power bills.

Thousands of them will be entitled to a refund, likely to be about $30.

The Federal Court imposed the penalty on Wednesday, ordering the energy retailer to also pay $780,000 in refunds and $300,000 in costs.

The battle for citizens to retain the right to 'protest in order to protect' continues in Abbott's Australia

Industries and individual businesses with a history of severe environment degradation or pollution have never liked this the fact that COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 - SECT 45DD exists:

Situations in which boycotts permitted……..

Dominant purpose of conduct relates to environmental protection or consumer protection

             (3)  A person does not contravene, and is not involved in a contravention of, subsection 45D(1), 45DA(1) or 45DB(1) by engaging in conduct if:

                     (a)  the dominant purpose for which the conduct is engaged in is substantially related to environmental protection or consumer protection; and

                     (b)  engaging in the conduct is not industrial action.

Note 1:       If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is a body corporate:

(a)    it is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption; and

(b)    each of its members is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Note 2:       If an environmental organisation or a consumer organisation is not a body corporate:

(a)    it is not a "person" and is therefore not subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) (consequently, this exemption does not cover the organisation as such); but

(b)    each of its members is a "person" who may be subject to the prohibitions in subsections 45D(1), 45DA(1) and 45DB(1) and who may also be covered by this exemption.

Apparently enough submissions were received on the subject of secondary boycotts that the Harper Competition Policy Review September 2014 Draft Report included this recommendation and comment:

 

Draft Recommendation 32 — Secondary boycotts proceedings

Jurisdiction in respect of the prohibitions in sections 45D, 45DA, 45DB, 45E and 45EA should be extended to the state and territory Supreme Courts.

A number of submissions raised the issue of the environmental and consumer exception to the secondary boycott prohibition. Consumer and environmental organisations argued for retention (or expansion) of the exception, while industry groups and others argued for its removal.

During consultations undertaken by the Panel, it appeared that the primary concern expressed by industry representatives is that environmental groups may damage a supplier in a market through a public campaign targeting the supplier that may be based on false or misleading information.

A question might arise whether a public campaign undertaken by an environmental or consumer  organisation against a trading business, advocating that customers ought not purchase products from the business, should be subject to the laws prohibiting false, misleading and deceptive conduct.

Presently, those laws only apply insofar as a person is engaged in trade or commerce.

However, expanding the laws concerning false, misleading or deceptive conduct to organisations  involved in public advocacy campaigns directed at trading businesses raises complex issues.

Many public advocacy campaigns directed at trading businesses concern health issues (e.g. tobacco, alcohol  and fast food) or social issues (e.g. gambling).

Consideration of the expansion of those laws in that context is beyond the Terms of Reference of the Review.

On the other hand, where an environmental or consumer group takes action that directly impedes the lawful commercial activity of others (as distinct from merely exercising free speech), a question arises whether that activity should be encompassed by the secondary boycott prohibition.

The Panel invites further comment on this issue.

However, the draft report recommendation possibly opens the door for extending consumer and environmental protection permitted boycott provisions to all states and territories if a matter concerning this issue reaches their Supreme Courts, because two (45D & 45DA) of the five prohibition sections mentioned are in effect subject to the aforementioned 45DD consumer protection and environmental protection exemptions.

The Harper Review’s final report is due before the end of March 2015.

Concerned citizens need to watch the Abbott Government response to that final report because many of its ideology warriors are not above muttering underneath their breath about ‘green terrorists’.

Attention Ethical Consumers: Meadow Lea Alert

In August 2009  Goldman Fielder’s claimed of its Meadow Lea margarine:

Farmers grow our canola & sunflower seeds
MeadowLea spreads are made from over 70,000 natural seeds. The canola seeds that go into our MeadowLea spreads are Non-Genetically Modified. Our canola seeds are sourced locally from Australian Seed growers, whilst the sunflower seeds are sourced from the warm climate of South America.

In August 2013 Goldman Fielder's claimed:

The canola oil in MeadowLea comes from canola seeds grown in Australia. MeadowLea is proud to be supporting Australian Farmers, as we select only Australian grown canola seeds to make MeadowLea. In Australia canola is grown in the winter months, harvested in November / December and is the largest oil seed crop grown in Australia.

Sunflowers are native to South America and MeadowLea's sunflower seeds come from Argentina. Sunflowers are a summer crop and can grow as high as 2 metres.

Its margarine packaging now omits any reference to non-GM canola seed:

Goldman Fielder’s non-genetically modified claims were always somewhat misleading as only 52 per cent of the vegetable oil listed is/was produced from canola and sunflower seeds, with 48 per cent of the remaining oil unidentified.

This reluctance to identify all oils leads one to suspect the presence of environmentally destructive palm oil form SE Asia.

However to see this company abandon any commitment – however small - to consumers who prefer GMO free foods is disappointing.

A product to avoid at the supermarket.

Food Fail: Westfarmers' Dr. Every & friends build a hollow woodpile

Coles is a national full service supermarket retailer operating 749 supermarkets (including a number of Bi-Lo branded stores) throughout Australia. Coles has a rich history in Australia, with the first Coles Variety store opening in Melbourne in 1914. Today, Coles aims to give the people of Australia a shop they trust, delivering quality, value and service...

If there’s one thing that low income households (including the working poor, pensioners, unemployed, students) rely on it is the staff of life – the humble loaf of bread.

Ever since Coles introduced its own baked goods into the Yamba store, this can be the weekly lottery result for those customers who purchase allegedly freshly baked in-store bread:

Two slices from a Coles loaf in which approx. one quarter of the slices had hollow middles, July 2013

Coles stores in the Northern Rivers may not brush off customer concerns so quickly after this ACCC media release

A rather satisfying media release, given the attitude of certain Coles staff when customers' concerns over this advertising pictured below were dismissed with version of; ‘But people will know that the vegetables under the sign are imported. Head office makes us put up these signs – we are doing nothing wrong!’

Graphic from WA Today

Coles pays infringement notices for alleged misleading country of origin claims

1 July 2013

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) has paid six infringement notices totaling $61,200 for alleged misleading representations about the country of origin of fresh produce made in five of its stores between March 2013 and May 2013. The stores were located across Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took action following a complaint that Coles had displayed some imported navel oranges and kiwi fruit underneath price boards reading ‘Helping Australia Grow’ with the triangular ‘Australian Grown’ symbol. The ACCC surveyed a number of Coles stores and found that the signage was also being used in other stores to advertise imported asparagus and almonds.

The ACCC alleges that this signage gave the overall impression that the imported produce was Australian grown, when it was not. The overseas country of origin was correctly identified either by stickers on the produce itself, on its packaging or under the display bin.  However, the ACCC considered that the relatively small sized stickers or statements were not sufficient to correct the overwhelming impression of the ‘Helping Australia Grow’ campaign imagery that was associated with the sale of the product.

“Consumers should be able to rely on the accuracy of claims about food, particularly when they are prepared to pay a premium for products made in Australia. Misleading country of origin claims can also have a significant impact on the competitive process and hurt the local economy,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“While this does not appear to be a case of widespread or systemic conduct, ‘Helping Australia Grow’ is a significant national campaign driven hard by Coles to advertise its fresh produce. This is a lesson to all retailers that they need to take care when undertaking significant advertising campaigns to ensure consumers are not misled by those campaigns,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC is prioritising its work in relation to credence claims, particularly those in the food industry with the potential to have a significant impact on consumers and competitors.

Coles advised the ACCC that the conduct arose out of the relocation of stock within stores without updating the promotional imagery on the price boards. The ACCC nevertheless considered action was necessary given the importance consumers place on representations of this kind, and the importance of strong compliance processes when choosing to make such claims in the context of a widespread campaign.

The payment of infringement notice penalties is not an admission of a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC can issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable grounds to believe a trader has contravened certain consumer protection laws.

Infringement notices.

Release number: 

148/13

Media enquiries: 

Mr Duncan Harrod - (02) 6243 1108 or 0408 995 408

Energy White Paper 2012: Supporting vulnerable customers?

 

Not worth the paper it is printed on:

 

Supporting vulnerable customers

The government recognises that rising energy costs and the unwinding of cross-subsidies have uneven distributional impacts on households, and that lower-income households face proportionally greater impacts than high-income households (see Chapter 3: Future energy trends and challenges). Therefore, retail price deregulation and greater consumer empowerment must be accompanied by appropriate protections for vulnerable customers, such as effective hardship policies, strong marketing rules, select standard terms and conditions for energy contracts, and close monitoring of market outcomes.

Ensuring that consumers, particularly those who are most vulnerable, are able to manage energy costs effectively is also increasingly important. The continued provision of adequate assistance to vulnerable consumers through a sound general safety net, well-targeted jurisdictional concession regimes and appropriate community service obligations remains critical.

Such assistance should be transparent and not undermine competitive pricing structures, which reflect, as efficiently as possible, the underlying costs of supply. It is more efficient for assistance to be provided through properly targeted social policy settings, rather than energy policy settings, to ensure that energy market signals are preserved.

 

Full Commonwealth Energy White Paper 2012 here.

Be very wary of Brumby's Bakeries

According to media reports Brumby’s franchises have all received a head office memo suggesting that Consumer Price Index related price rises be implemented in June-July 2012 and that stores should; Let the carbon tax take the blame.

On the NSW Mid and Far North Coast Brumby’s outlets can be found at Ballina, Byron Bay, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey, Lismore, Murwillumbah, Port Macquarie and Tweed Heads.

Having been outed so publicly, the head of the Retail Food Group, Brumby's parent company, Tony Alford issued his own statement to the the stock exchange saying the comments ‘‘were not sanctioned and are of significant concern to the board’’.

The company also ordered its stores to remove Liberal Party posters and placards about the carbon tax, warning them they could face fines of up to $1.1 million if they engage in false or misleading conduct.

Brumby's prices are due to rise on 16 July and I suggest that Northern Rivers shoppers pay special attention to the amount of that rise.

On the subject of stupidity as opposed to identity theft....................

This telephone exchange would be funny if not for the fact that versions of it are repeated every day.

From the pages of NO HELP Not Always Working:

(I have just checked my credit report for the first time, and notice a store credit card I had never opened. I call the credit company to report this.)

Me: “My report lists a delinquent account on a [store] credit card. I’ve never had a card with that store.”

CSR: “It says here the account was opened in 1974.”

Me: “Well, that must be a mistake. I wasn’t born until 1978.”

CSR: “Could you have opened the account and then forgotten about it?”

Me: “…I’m going to need to speak to someone else.”

Maccas not winning hearts, minds or money in 2012

In April 2012 The Sydney Morning Herald showed that the McDonalds fast food behemoth is living in hope in southern climes:

AUSTRALIA'S love affair with Big Macs and french fries may be waning, with McDonald's growth in the region sliced by more than half.

The fast food giant's global chief operating officer, Donald Thompson, described the local market as ''challenging'' and getting worse.

To counter the sales downturn across Australian stores, McDonald's has introduced initiatives including the launch last month of its Loose Change menu, which offers a range of items under $2 and its Value Lunch deal.

Releasing its first-quarter earnings results in the US on the weekend, McDonald's said sales at its US stores were up 8.9 per cent for the quarter, while comparable-store sales rose 5.5 per cent in its Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa region (APMEA), which takes in Australia………………….

Only a few years ago, following the global financial crisis, Australia was one of the best-performing regions for the restaurant chain. In 2009 the local operation posted sales growth of 6 per cent, nearly double the global rate of 3.8 per cent.

The stronger performance was driven by an image overhaul, including a revamp of its menu to offer healthier alternatives as well as gourmet-style burgers, such as the Angus Burger, which proved a big hit.

The Australian spokeswoman said the local business had improved in the past two months and managers expected it to match global growth rates as the year continued. McDonald's is estimated to have a 46 per cent share of the quick-service restaurant category in Australia. It is planning to open 35 stores this year to take its Australian portfolio to 900.

One could speculate that its ongoing heavy-handed site development tactics in the face of community opposition contribute to the sales down-turn it is experiencing.
However, customer dissatisfaction, as well as health and safety issues, also may play their part in this marked decline.

A McDonald's social media promotional campaign at the beginning of the year was pulled after two hours  and Twitter 'sanitised' because the company's hashtag #McDStoriese produced tweets like these. While its televised advertorial in the same month fell flat.

Again in January, Perth Now reported that McDonalds was being fined for more convictions concerning food quality and preparation. In NSW the company was fined in August 2011 for Fail to maintain the food premises to the required standard of cleanliness - accumulation of rubbish, food debris, grease and dirt on floor  and in March 2012 for Fail to maintain the food premises to the required standard of cleanliness - accumulation of dirt, grease and food waste, previous warnings given  at two of the fast food outlets it manages itself.

ABC News on 11 January 2012 also indicated that customers were being systematically defrauded by staff:

A 33-year-old man is on trial in the District Court in Perth accused of involvement in a multi-million-dollar card skimming scheme involving customers of fast food company McDonald's.

The scheme led to a total of $3.5 million being taken out of the accounts of thousands of West Australians.
It is alleged Navaneeth Ponnabalam was one of many people who took part in the scheme, which involved swapping EFTPOS pin pads at McDonald's stores with ones that could record the bank details of customers.
The court was told customers who used the drive-through had details of their accounts copied by the machines and then money was withdrawn from their accounts interstate and overseas.

In 2012 McDonalds outlets continue to attract antisocial and criminal behaviour, such as stabbings, robbery, violent confrontation with police and assault.

And now for the bad news - 2012/13 residential electricity pricing on the NSW North Coast

Independent Pricing And Regulation Tribunal NSW Draft Determination: Changes in regulated electricity retail prices from 1 July 2012 (PDF file)

Consumer Fact Sheet:

Electricity prices are increasing

Based on our draft decision, average regulated retail electricity prices will increase by around 16% across NSW from 1 July 2012 – or by between an average of 10.3% and 19.2% across different electricity supply areas. These changes follow average increases of 10% and 17% across NSW in 2010/11 and 2011/12 respectively.

Table 1.1 IPART's draft decision on regulated average retail electricity price increases from 1 July 2012 (including inflation, %)

EnergyAustralia	19.2
Integral Energy	10.3
Country Energy	17.6
NSW average	16.4

  

 Note: The increases in regulated retail electricity prices are based on forecast network price increases which are subject to approval by the Australian Energy Regulator in June 2012…..

This year, the increases proposed in our draft decision are primarily driven by:

 the continuing rise in forecast network costs, which contributes to around half of the average 16% price increase, and

 the introduction of the Federal Government's carbon pricing mechanism, which contributes to the other half of the average price increase.

The other costs that contribute to regulated retail electricity prices will decline slightly, or remain fairly stable…..

Independent Pricing And Regulation Tribunal NSW Media Release, 12 April 2012:  

The question of contaminants in recycled plastic

Before reusing materials, recycling companies sort and shred plastic housings,

metal wires, and computer keyboards.

Recyclers continue to struggle with contaminants in electronic waste and in consumer plastics according to Naomi Lubik in the Environmental Science & Technology journal in Plastic’s Polluted Burden: ES&T’s Top Policy Analysis Article 2011.

In Europe researchers found that every class of plastics was contaminated. Overall, the team measured levels of cadmium close to or slightly above the levels set by the directive, but mercury well below the target levels. Lead in some places was very high, occurring at up to 7800 ppm…..

Recycling programs in Europe take in items including refrigerators, computers, cell phones, toys, and medical devices.

The wide variety of incoming plastics, as seen in the photo above, can be difficult to sort. In some of the more advanced recycling plants, mechanical shredding gets the plastics down to fingernail-size pieces, which must then be sorted by weight or optical methods to pinpoint the plastic type…..

Recycling contaminated plastics means that hazardous substances will never completely disappear from the market.

“We spread contaminants into a variety of products,” says Martin Schlummer of Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging in Freising, Germany. Schlummer works on methods to separate plastics and extract flame retardants. To get rid of contaminants, he says, “you should sort such plastics from e-waste and treat them separately.”  

According to ABS Australia’s Environment Issues and Trends 2010:

Australians are among the highest users of new technology in the world. Waste from obsolete electronic goods, or “e-waste”, is one of the fastest growing waste types.

In practical terms e-waste includes items such as televisions, DVD & video players, stereos, power tools, desktop computers and laptops, computer keyboards, scanners, printers, fax machines, mobile phones and PDAs, kitchen appliances, and ink & toner cartridges – from which plastic is often extracted for recycling.

Such e-waste can have components containing lead, antimony, mercury, phosphors, beryllium, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), phthalates, cadmium or arsenic.

Although many recycling facilities operating in Australia routinely separate e-waste from other sorts of waste**, one has to wonder if there is any ability to ensure that no contaminants have been absorbed into the plastic being extracted. Given that items containing plastic only appear to be manually sorted for visible gross contaminants, before being mechanically processed and separated into plastic/non-plastic material which had been reduced to tiny segments along the processing chain.

The entire question is complicated by the fact that Information about the disposal and recycling of waste materials and products is variable in scope and quality with some jurisdictions not collecting data and others having different waste categories according to the National Waste Report 2010.

** Veolia Environmental Services Australia states:

The recycling of the E-Waste equipment is performed at Sims E-Recycling, a joint venture set up between Veolia and the Sims Group. Electronic waste collected undergoes a manual dismantling process. The individual materials such as printed circuit boards, cabling, glass and plastics etc., are recovered and then processed so that they can be used as raw materials to produce new products.

Sims Recycling Solutions states that it:

dismantles a wide range of electrical and electronic products, ensuring all sensitive data is shredded to protect customer assets. Hazardous substances are recovered and disposed of in an environmentally friendly manner. Commodities such as metals, plastics and glass are then processed for recycling.
Recycling company 1800 E Waste states: Most electronic waste goes through a recycling system called a WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment), which not only recycles 95-98%, by weight, of all ewaste passed through it, but ensures that any data left on hard drives and memories are thoroughly destroyed too. 
■Picking Shed – first all the items are sorted by hand and batteries and copper are extracted for quality control.
■Initial Size Reduction Process – items are shredded into pieces as small as 100mm to prepare the ewaste to be thoroughly sorted. This is also where the data destruction takes place.
■Secondary Size Reduction – the small debris is shaken to ensure that it is evenly spread out on the conveyor belt, before it gets broken down even more. Any dust extracted is disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.
 ■Overband Magnet – using magnets, steel and iron are removed from the debris.
■Metallic & Non-Metallic Content – aluminium, copper and brass are separated from the non-metallic content. The metallic can then be reused and resold as raw materials.
■Water Separation – water is used to separate plastic from the glass content. Once divided all raw materials can then be resold.