Council complaints on the NSW North Coast in 2012-13

The NSW Division of Local Government Council Complaints 2012-13 have been published and, on the NSW North Coast Tweed Shire Council had the dubious honour of having 70 complaints against its name while Lismore City Council had the lowest score of only 5 complaints.

Clarence Valley Council:

Click on image to enlarge

Links to other council statistics:

Tweed Shire Council 

Byron Shire Council

Ballina Shire Council 

Kyogle Council  

Lismore City Council 

Richmond Valley Council  

Coffs Harbour City Council  

Bellingen Shire Council 

An open letter to NSW Nationals MP for Lismore, Thomas George

Letter to the editor in The Northern Star on 11 July 2014:

Represent us, please

Open letter to Lismore MP Thomas George:

For over two years now the Knitting Nannas Against Gas have been protesting outside your office every Thursday afternoon.

Initially, members of the nannas wrote to you and had meetings with you. We asked you to take our message to the NSW Parliament - that we had done our research and believed coal seam gas (and later, other forms of unconventional gas mining) were not suitable to our area. On these occasions we found you to be dismissive, and even rude. Even after the local government poll returned an 87% vote against CSG in our region, you refused to represent our concerns to Parliament.

You were elected by the voters of the seat of Lismore to represent us. Your wages are paid by our taxes. You are our employee, and frankly, you have not fulfilled the position's requirements.

Now that your government has suspended Metgasco's licence, will you take the opportunity to rethink your position? A brave person is one who can change their mind when circumstances change, and own it. Will you tell Parliament that your electorate will not countenance unconventional gasfields under any circumstances?

Will you ask them to extend the favours given to the viticulture and racing industries (drinking and gambling - great revenue raisers) to the beef, cattle and fresh food farmers of the Northern Rivers?

Have you informed Parliament that your son has been employed by Metgasco continuously for several years now, and checked whether that may be a conflict of interest?

Unless you change your position, your legacy will be one of shame. Your good works will be forgotten.

Knitting Nannas Against Gas

The BBC getting it right on climate change reporting and comment

Excerpt from BBC Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions report, July 2014:

The coverage of science by the BBC continues to be a hotly debated issue. One of the key findings of the report which still resonates today is that there is at times an:

  “… ‘over-rigid’ (as Professor Jones described it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’. Professor Jones cites … the existence of man-made climate change as [an] example of this point.”

This is a matter of training and ongoing shared editorial judgement. The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.

The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences. The Trust also would like to reiterate that, as it said in 2011, “This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.” The BBC has a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately. Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices.

The BBC has developed excellence in science broadcasting, and generalists who may be unfamiliar with these areas and where the weight of scientific agreement may lie should make the most of the resources of the BBC – for example its Science Editor, the BBC’s science experts and the workshops and seminars discussed in the Executive report.

Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified by Professor Jones. The Trust welcomes the Executive’s decision to hold a further course this year for staff who may not have been in position at the time of the previous workshops and as a refresher on a complex area.

Metgasco Limited putting words in the Supreme Court's mouth in July 2014

Snapshot from The Northern Star 12July 2014

Coal seam/tight gas exploration and mining company Metgasco Limited states that the court made it clear the documents "should be produced by late August".

Actually, the court decision in Metgasco v Minister for Resources & Energy [2104] was that Metgasco's Notice to Produce dated 12 June 2014 be set aside without tying any future production of documents to a specific time period and, I suspect it would be rather surprised to find ít has allegedly tied the Minister into an August timetable instead of a possible "later appropriate time".

Specifically, the court stated: at 17 There is some force in the Plaintiff's submission that the first decision of the delegate remains a relevant one, and that the documents associated with that decision will be relevant to the issues to be determined. However, it is necessary to await the Defendant's response and evidence on which the Defendant relies before the Defendant should be required to produce documents not relied upon by the Defendant in defence of the Summons; at 20 I do not consider that what is sought in the Notice to Produce complies with what may be sought under rule 21.10. That conclusion is reinforced by the prematurity of the Notice to Admit when the only document before the Court referred to in that rule is the Summons. Only two documents are referred to in the Summons, and one of those is the letter containing the decision of 14 May 2014; and at 27 In the light of my determination that the Notice to Produce is premature I consider that it would still be open to stand over the Notice to Produce and the Defendant' Motion to set it aside until such time as the amended pleadings are finalised and the evidence is complete. However, that is unlikely to be finalised in a way that would enable me to continue to hear the Notice of Motion on a part-heard basis. Further, the filing of amended pleadings and the serving of the evidence on both sides may well change the basis upon which documents need to be, or are, sought by the Notice to Produce. The better course, it seems to me, is to set aside the Notice to Produce but without precluding the Plaintiff from serving a further Notice to Produce if so advised at a later appropriate time.