Another perspective on Anchor Resources' antimony mining proposal

The 101 year-old Don Dorrigo Gazette ran this letter to the editor by Jacqueline Williams on its front page in December 2011:

Mining in Dorrigo: another perspective

The article appearing in the Don Dorrigo Gazette 16/11/2011 under the heading ‘Mining in Dorrigo’ presents information that appears to be directly from an Anchor Resources brochure on the Bielsdown Project.  It would seem appropriate to question and challenge this article and highlight perhaps what we the community haven’t been told.

Anchor Resources is one of three companies holding mineral exploration licences on the Plateau and is currently the most active. Anchor Resources activities include drilling for gold at Dundurrabin, proposed drilling for antimony/gold at Wongwibinda (Fishington Mine) and further drilling at Bielsdown. This flurry of activity in our region reflects the rising price of antimony, gold and other metals and I question whether this is due to resource scarcity or market manipulation? China produces 90% of the world’s antimony, and we have seen the price of antimony skyrocket from $4K per tonne to $16K per tonne in the last two years.  This price increase has largely been associated with the closure of a number of large producing antimony mines in China due to human health/safety and environmental concerns. It is pertinent to add here that Anchor Resources is now at least 96% owned by the Chinese company Shandong Jinshunda Group as of mid 2011.

I note that Anchor Resources refer to the exploration licence process, however it is difficult to find the latest approval for their Bielsdown project with the Government gazette showing an application to renew the licence in February 2011, however this licence doesn’t appear to be granted as yet. Also of concern is that a Review of Environmental Factors (REF) has not been undertaken for any of the exploration licence applications submitted by Anchor for the Bielsdown project since 2007.  My understanding is that a REF is a requirement of all exploration licence applicants to undertake an environmental impact assessment of the proposed activities so that NSW DPI can make an assessment under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 prior to granting the licence. Given that the Bielsdown project location has state and national significance as habitat for threatened species I question the currency of the exploration licence and how the NSW government has overlooked an important part of the approval process. This is not to mention the requirements under the Commonwealth legislation that the location triggers. It is unclear whether Anchor Resources have notified the Commonwealth government to determine if their exploration activities are considered a ‘controlled action’ under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 requiring further environmental impact assessment and approval. Many farmers have shared with me their frustration about their efforts and sacrifices in conserving native vegetation and habitat for the public good only to see mining companies given open slather.

I don’t wish to dwell solely on the environmental issues surrounding the potential of mining on the Plateau, as there are other issues that need to be considered. It seems that Dorrigo is not immune to the unprecedented mining expansion in regional Australia where the potential social and economic impacts need to be considered by the communities faced with these challenges. As the current legislation has been identified as inadequate to accommodate the risks, new policies are being developed and proposals to change legislation under debate. In the meantime, mining activities continue to expand.  In considering the full impacts of mining, the concerns of landholders and rural communities should not be dismissed as simply ‘alarmist’.....

Read the full letter here.

You want an apology? Think again, Mr. Mayor

One suspects that Coffs Harbour City Mayor Cr Keith Rhoades may be regretting his insistence on an initial apology from Cr. Mark Graham (in the latest mayoral manoeuvre in a distinctly Byzantine local government saga) on 15 December 2011 - followed by an ineffectual demand for a second apology.

One local wag went so far as to post a transcript of this 'apology' in the online comments section of The Coffs Coast Advocate, which is appreciated as at the time of writing Council still had not published the minutes of this meeting on its website.

By pedrowe from Corindi Beach on 16/12/2011 at 2:25PM

For those who haven't read or heard the apology, here it is.... brilliant…………………………………………

1. I am sorry that Council has used two Conduct Review procedures that are not prescribed within the Code of Conduct. Specifically they are:

a. appointing a Sole Conduct Reviewer who is not independent or unbiased as she has received significant remuneration from Council to provide advice on corporate governance failures surrounding the Rigby House refit prior to her appointment as a Sole Conduct Reviewer. The Code of Conduct is very clear in requiring that Conduct reviewers are independent and unbiased. None of the three members of the Conduct review committee appointed by this Council have an existing pecuniary relationship with Council.

b. appointing a “peer reviewer”. The Code of Conduct does not contain a procedure for appointing a “peer reviewer”.

2. I am sorry that Council has allowed a Sole Conduct Reviewer with multiple conflicts of interest to continue to investigate me. I am sorry that the General Manager has decided to waste ratepayers funds engaging both a Sole Conduct reviewer with multiple conflicts of interest and a “peer reviewer”, given that there is no procedure for appointing a “peer reviewer” within our adopted Code of Conduct.

3. I am sorry that Council has failed to learn from the corporate governance failures that led to the sacking of the former General Manager.
4. I am sorry that Council has used improper and politically motivated conduct review procedures in an attempt to prevent public disclosure of the ongoing involvement of the Mayor and two other Councillors in the corporate governance failures that led to the sacking of the former General Manager.

5. I am sorry that Council has improperly used the Code of Conduct against my open, transparent and perfectly legal handling of the Rigby House refit and the sacking of the former General Manager.

6. I am sorry that the Sole Conduct Reviewer has consistently misrepresented my conduct and published material that defames me. The Sole Conduct Reviewer has implied that my conduct has been dishonest and unlawful. I demand an immediate retraction of these defamatory statements and an apology from her for defaming me.

7. I am sorry that the Public Officer, a subject of complaints against me, has been involved in investigations into my conduct on behalf of the General Manager. This is a clear conflict of interest that the Public Officer has failed to disclose.

8. I do not apologise for any of my conduct as I have not breached the Code of Conduct. Reading the following statement from correspondence between the Mayor and the General Manager “Finally, this matter is only known by the three Councillors and the several staff involved. The matter will and, I repeat, will stay with these people” does not constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct. This statement is not confidential. Nor are the statements “Mayor has been kept informed of the progress of this investigation from the commencement. How can the work done be less than $150000 and not have gone out to tender” or “Probably the most important part of this correspondence is that in another dot point related to building refurbishment costs were confirmed in February 2010 as being $1million”.

9. I do not apologise for sending Council’s Acting Public Officer a written request for legal advice relating to the dismissal of the former General Manager. She did not respond to my correspondence. Leaving two voicemail messages with the Acting Public Officer requesting to be provided with this legal advice does not constitute a breach of Code of Conduct. At no stage have I spoken with the officer or made any improper requests of her. I required the legal advice to enable me to meet my obligations under the Local Government Act. The failure to provide me with this advice prevented me from meeting my obligations under the Act.

How not to grow the worth of your .au domain name

Clarrie Rivers sent me at link to lcreview.com.au which in turn was the starting point for this post.

Originally people on the NSW North Coast knew lcreview.com.au as a digital address associated with the free weekly community newspaper The Lower Clarence Review, until it broadened its horizons to become the Clarence Valley Review accompanied by an online presence at www.cvreview.com.au.

This eventually left its original digital address an unclaimed orphan wandering out there in cyberspace.

It appears to have been snapped up by Publishing Australia Pty Ltd (formerly Netfleet Pty Ltd) - a buyer and seller of Australian domain names.

This company is reportedly owned by David Lye and his brother Mark.

Now the new owner of the domain name apparently decided to position it in such a way that it might take whatever advantage there maybe in developing site content to draw traffic numbers which in turn enhance the possibility of re-sale. The site collects as much information as possible about its visitors as well.

This is where the exercise becomes amusing for Northern Rivers residents.

Not only did the web designer not realise that Grafton is not in the Lower Clarence Valley and so is not a direct match for the domain name; the very generalised desciptions of this regional city and the Clarence River area (along with the links) leave one wondering if the website is speaking about Clarence Valley in New South Wales or some other valley in an alternate universe.

The air of unreality is made worse by two of the photographs used on the homepage as seen here:

These are clearly not images of Grafton, NSW Australia, but of Upper Grafton Street in Dublin, Ireland (pictured below) in the Northern Hemisphere.

This is one of the many images of the real NSW North Coast City of Grafton's main shopping street which can be easily found on the world wide web:

Is it any wonder that Alexa: The Web Information Company gives the site a global three-month traffic rank of 8,788,387 - a number which probably hasn't altered all that much since it was owned by local media.

Being kind, I personally rate the value of lcreview.com.au at $1.

Finally, the light begins to dawn.......

The New York Times 16 December 2011:

The National Institutes of Health on Thursday suspended all new grants for biomedical and behavioral research on chimpanzees and accepted the first uniform criteria for assessing the necessity of such research. Those guidelines require that the research be necessary for human health, and that there be no other way to accomplish it.

In making the announcement, Dr. Francis S. Collins, the director of the N.I.H., said that chimps, as the closest human relatives, deserve “special consideration and respect” and that the agency was accepting the recommendations released earlier in the day by an expert committee of the Institute of Medicine, which concluded that most research on chimpanzees was unnecessary.

One of the reasons why Japan thumbs its nose at Australia and continues to slaughter whales in the Southern Ocean?

A Japanese ship injures a whale with its first harpoon.

 It took three harpoon attempts to kill the mammal.

Photograph: Kate Davidson/EPA/Corbis,

The Guardian UK December 14, 2011

Perhaps this is the answer to the puzzle of why, in the face of ongoing Australian opposition, the Government of Japan (under the guise of research) continues to needlessly kill whales in Antarctica for a dwindling domestic whale meat market – it thinks it owns us.

According to the Australian Parliament’s About the House Magazine in December 2011:

Japan [is] ranked as Australia’s third largest source of merchandise imports in 2010 (after China and the United States), worth $18.2 billion. The automotive sector dominates this trade, with Australia constituting the third-biggest market for new passenger motor vehicles manufactured in Japan.

The economic relationship between Australia and Japan is not only about trade. Japan has been Australia’s third largest foreign investor for many years (after the United States and the United Kingdom). The total stock of Japanese investment in Australia at the end of 2010 was $117.6 billion, almost twice as large as that of China (including Hong Kong). When both trade and investment are included – and taking account of both the depth and breadth of that investment, which has been critical to the development of Australia’s most important industries – Japan could still be considered to be Australia’s most important economic partner overall.

Japanese demand for Australia’s resources – and the accompanying investment – has contributed enormously to the development of Australia’s mining industry. In the area of agriculture, over 40 per cent of ‘Aussie beef’ imported into Japan comes from Japanese-owned farms in Australia. Kirin Holdings now owns Australia’s largest dairy company, as well as some of Australia’s largest beer producers. In the field of manufacturing, Toyota not only exports passenger vehicles to Australia, but – through its in-country production facilities – is also the largest producer of these vehicles in Australia. Furthermore, Japanese investment is increasingly targeted at using Australia as a springboard into the emerging economies of Asia. Japanese investment has been remarkable for its breadth, continuity and steady expansion over time, regardless of fluctuations in the global economic situation.

Australians can noticeably alter this scenario if enough individuals refuse to purchase goods imported from Japan or goods produced by Japanese–owned companies operating in this country, for as long as Japan acts as an inhumane environmental vandal in the Southern Ocean.



Has Clarence Valley Council brought a pup?

Two conflicting sides to the same story reported by newspapers from two different stables.

Clarence Valley Council’s new general manager Scott Greensill (left) defends himself in The Daily Examiner on 15^th December 2011:

“Scott Greensill said he had nothing to fear from a Supreme Court judgment handed down on Friday in a case involving his former employer, Singleton Council.

Mr Greensill said although the judgement went against the council there were no adverse findings against him.

"At the end of the day it is something that I've moved on from," he said.

"At all times I acted in good faith and on legal advice. I'm confident I handled the matter professionally."

Mr Greensill said the Singleton Council had a lot of "issues" and he was happy to have left them behind.”

Other side of the coin over at The Singleton Argus on 13th December 2011:

“Judge Schmidt’s findings were also critical of Mr Greensill, pointing out he “certainly acted inconsistently” with the council’s code of conduct by delegating “all responsibilities” in the Nichols matter to assets manager Gary Thomson yet continuing to still work on the case.
After his delegation, Mr Greensill twice sought and received advice from Mr McKelvey and wrote a memo for Mr Thomson which brought Mr Smith’s report on Cr Nichols to the full council.
While Mr Greensill, as general manager, may give advice or make recommendations to the council he did not have authority to direct councillors in the performance of their duties, Judge Schmidt accepted.
Mr Greensill could not forbid councillors from speaking with the Jones’, his advice could be rejected and did not bind councillors.”

As the full judgement is published in The Singleton Argus as Nichols v Singleton Council [2011] NSWSC 1517 Hearing Date(s): 22 August 2011, 23 August 2011, 24 August 2011 Decision Date: 9 December 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Administrative Law Before: Schmidt J you can make up your own minds about Mr. Greensill’s role in the Singleton saga.

Pic from The Daily Examiner

“The Tribunal is conscious that the cost of the Parliament and of federal parliamentarians is borne by the taxpayer” ROFLOL

"The Tribunal is conscious that the cost of the Parliament and of federal parliamentarians is borne by the taxpayer", sez the so-called independent Remuneration Tribunal as it gives Australian federal politicians a free ride on the gravy train this week – with more pay increases to come by the looks of it.

According to Granny Herald; "Tribunal president John Conde told reporters in Sydney the prime minister's new salary would be $481,000 - up from $367,000."  Reading the actual report shows that in reality current senators and MPs are also giving up almost nothing to place their political snouts in this overflowing feed trough and future parliamentarians will lose very little - while if they get so much as an ego bruise during Question Time it is recommended that worker's compensation should be available to the wounded.

Here are some quotes:

"The Tribunal intends to determine parliamentary base salary of $185,000."

"The Tribunal has accepted electorate allowance as a business expense payment and intends to maintain it in its current form."

"The base electorate allowance is now $32,000 per annum, distributed to members and senators monthly…..

Members do not have to seek approval for how they expend the electorate allowance, nor do they have to acquit the expenditure of their allowance to the Chamber Departments which pay it."

"Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives, at 27.5% additional salary;

 Shadow Cabinet minister, at 25.0% additional salary;

 Shadow minister outside shadow Cabinet, at 20.0% additional salary."

"The Tribunal recommends that overseas travel provisions for the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition and Leaders of minor parties be enhanced."

"In preparing this recommendation I am mindful that Backbench Members of Parliament who are either a Chair or Deputy Chair of a substantive Committee of the Parliament, receive additional remuneration for the fulfilment of that obligation, that Officers of the Parliament also receive additional remuneration as do Ministers of the Crown and the Prime Minister.

This report has not focused on those allowances or the established relativities between a Backbench Member of Parliament and office holders within the Parliament, which I understand will be the subject of further enquiry by the Tribunal."

'Suse me – have to leave the room to chunder!

Telstra fails to inform bundled account customers in writing of major privacy breach

This is the full text of the only correspondence from Telstra and BigPond sent on 13 December 2011 to a ‘bundled account’ customer whose name, address, phone number and account password/s may have been amongst the hundreds of thousands potentially publicly available on the Internet for an unspecified period.

See any mention of the breach or of this customer’s possible vulnerability to hacking/identity theft and advice on how to protect their account?

No, I didn’t either.

As you're aware some of our online services were unavailable from late Friday 9th to late Saturday 10th December due to an earlier internal systems issue.

I want to sincerely apologise for any inconvenience you may have experienced this weekend because of the disruption.

Services are now back up again for the majority of our customers, and your BigPond services should be working as normal.

The decision to temporarily reduce access to these services was not taken lightly and I know that our actions resulted in a poor online experience for you and was a source of frustration.

So if you have any technical difficulties after logging into your BigPond email account please see our online help, visit us on CrowdSupport or just call us on 133 933. We’re here to help any time.

Once again, I apologise for the disruption to your service and thank you for your patience.

Best regards,

Peter Jamieson
Executive Director, Customer Service

Stirrup the bitch! Why the medical experience is still a feminist issue

Because women as a group are constantly being told “You’ve come a long way”  when compared with their grandmothers, it is easy to overlook the fact that misogyny and chauvinism are still slyly woven into much of the female experience in developed countries like Australia.

So it is often only cases such as this which draw any mention in the mainstream media of the fact that the medical experience is frequently one fraught with the risk of physical and/or psychological damage for many females.

The Northern Star Rogue obstetrician faces 15 counts of abuse, malpractice by Natasha Wallace 13 December 2011

She alleged he forcefully put his hand on her vagina

and said, ''Who is the boss now?''

Read the rest here

How far does Australian mainstream media masthead readership reach?

From the AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER HISTORY GROUP NEWSLETTER No 65 December 2011:

MASTHEAD READERSHIP: PRINT AND ONLINE COMBINED

Roy Morgan Research has released a new readership metric for newspapers, combining print and website audiences into one "masthead readership" number to meet demands from the publishers for data that quantifies their total reach (Australian, Media section, 14 November 2011, p.25). According to the latest Roy Morgan Single Source data (July 2010-June 2011), Melbourne's Herald Sun has the highest net masthead readership in Australia: nearly 2.7 million. This is 258,000 more readers than the Sydney Morning Herald (with a masthead readership of nearly 2.4 million), which is just ahead of Sydney's Daily Telegraph (with a masthead readership greater than 2.3m). Brisbane's Courier Mail ranks fourth with a masthead readership of over 1.84m, placing the Brisbane title just ahead of Melbourne's Age with its masthead readership of nearly 1.78m. Seventy-one per cent of the Australian's masthead readership read the printed version; the website, theaustralian.com.au, has a readership of 619,000 readers, which is more than 4.6 times the readership of national rival, the Australian Financial Review's website, afr.com. The Australian Financial Review's masthead readership appears to owe more to its printed version of the newspaper than its website. Eighty-two per cent of the Australian Financial Review's masthead readership read the printed version of this newspaper, but only 30,000 readers (or 5pc of its total masthead readership) read both the printed version and the website. Perhaps there is a connection between the existence of a paywall on afr.com, and that this newspaper brand has the lowest duplication of readers between its printed version and website. With a readership of 1,115,000, smh.com.au has the highest readership of all the Australian metro daily newspaper websites.

So you thought the Gillard Government had promised you would control your own e-Health database information?

You thought the Gillard Government had promised you would control your own personal, social and medical information included in the e-Health national database and whether this information was ever accessed by health professionals?

Well Brisbane GP Dr Steve Hambleton (left) is one of many who don’t think so and, who as Federal President of the Australian Medical Association set out to create the legal right to trawl for information without the consent or knowledge of the individual.

It is inevitable that this information (often anecdotally filtered through the biased eye of family members) will in many instances be included in the e-Health database and, because it is included in someone else's files there will be no right to insist inaccurate information is corrected or deleted.

Having worked in multidisciplinary teams in the past, I know that in certain areas of public health hard copy patient files often contain what can only be described as elements of  unsubstantiated gossip. There is no reason to believe that Dr. Hambleton's desire to trawl for information will be any better at sorting the wheat from the chaff. 

Dr. Hambleton’s application to the Privacy Commissioner.

The result…………………………

Legislative Instruments

Privacy Act 1988 - Part VI - Public Interest Determination No. 12 - Collection of Family, Social and Medical Histories This Determination permits a specific health service provider to collect third party health information from an individual (or a person 'responsible' for an individual) without the third party's consent, for inclusion in the individual's family, social or medical history.

Some or all of this item commenced

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02569

Privacy Act 1988 - Part VI - Public Interest Determination No. 12A - Collection of Family, Social and Medical Histories

This Determination gives general effect to Public Interest Determination No. 12 to permit health service providers to collect third party health information from an individual (or a person 'responsible' for an individual) without the third party's consent, for inclusion in the individual's family, social or medical history.

Some or all of this item commenced

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011L02573

Photograph found at Google Images

The barely literate Bolta commits yet another LOL so that I can approach year's end on a laugh

“I may be becoming a Marxist as I age,

with class power becoming only too obvious,

even if the classes are defnined {sic} less by money

and more by political and and {sic} institutional power.”

Andrew Bolt – Sunday, December 11, 11 (07:54 am)

Sometimes the young make my heart sing - Part Five

http://youtu.be/Ko3e6G_7GY4

"Get It Done":

Urging Climate Justice,
Youth Delegate Anjali Appadurai

Mic-Checks UN COP 17 Summit

Durban Climate Change Conference
November/December 2011

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011, brings together representatives of the world's governments, international organizations and civil society. The discussions will seek to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 in 2007, and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP 16 last December.

The Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 2011 - 7:14PM

A United Nations climate conference has reached a hard-fought agreement on a far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change.

The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

The deal doesn't explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted on Sunday - a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

The proposed Durban Platform offered answers to problems which for years have bedevilled negotiations on global warming.

Controversial issues include sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.

The US was a reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that was expected to be opposed in Congress....

Environmentalists criticised the package - as did many developing countries in the debate - for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

"The good news is we avoided a train wreck," said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. "The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve."

Scientists say that unless those emissions - chiefly carbon dioxide from power generation and industry - level out and reverse within a few years, the earth will be set on a possibly irreversible path of rising temperatures that lead to ever greater climate catastrophes.

Sunday's breakthrough capped 13 days of hectic negotiations that ran a day and a half over schedule.



Nalliah's prayer organisation applies to become a political party

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 November 2011

An early Christmas present for all those political tragics with a sense of humour.

On 6 December 2011 the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) sent out notification that it has advertised the following applications for party registration: Australian Christians and Rise Up Australia.

Catch the Fire Ministries' prophesying pastor Daniel Chelvendran Nalliah, (along with John Excell Shanasy, John Gerard Crock, Chandi Kroone, Estelle Mary O' Brien, Dennis Arthur Cecil O'Brien, Lynette Ann Hannie, Alexander Cornell Stewart, Wendy Ann Crook, Gary Timothy Hannie, Hendrik Bayly Kroone, Susan Margaret Shanasy) has decided that Rise Up Australia Ltd should become a political party, blessed with five hundred and fifty full members and an unnamed number of lesser affiliate members.

The aims and principles of the Party are as follows:

• To maintain and promote our Christian heritage, culture and institutions as the foundations of a free, socially cohesive and democratic Australia - Keep Australia Australian.

• To retain, maintain and promote our national sovereignty.

• To uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia with its Preamble which affirms that this nation is "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God".

• To acknowledge that our inalienable civil rights came to us through the Westminster system of government which recognises the ancient statues such as the Ten Commandments, The Magna Carta and the 1688 Bill of Rights as a primary source for our freedoms and responsibilities.

• To retain our current national flag as the one for which our brave service men and women have fought and died.

• To restore honesty, integrity, honour and courtesy within the Parliament and to encourage accountability of elected representatives.

• To keep the size of government to the minimum, with the least possible intrusion in private lives while maintaining adequate social services, and discouraging political

correctness and unnecessary supervision of private life.

• To simplify and reduce taxation to allow the aspirations of hard working individuals, families and businesses to flourish.

• To create and promote social and economic conditions under which people are free to pursue prosperity and individual freedom within a just and peaceful society.

• To restore and reinvigorate our national manufacturing base.

• To maintain freedom of speech.

• To maintain freedom of religion.

• To uphold the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

• To uphold the traditional family unit as a man, woman and children, as the building block of a stable and healthy society.

• To promote compassionate treatment and acceptance of genuine refugees, and to discourage the arrival of illegal immigrants.

• To be responsible stewards of our environment, balancing the needs of food security, protection of fragile areas and industry.

• To support the sovereign nation of Israel with Jerusalem as its undivided religious capital.

Aims and objectives which [ahem] fit in so well with 2009 Ernie Award Winner and former Family First party member Pastor Nalliah’s known views on the desirability of God’s wrath being visited on the followers of Islam, women, gays, naughty school children, bushfire and flood victims, multicultural societies or anyone else who doesn’t agree with his very narrow world view.

Nalliah is apparently eyeing off a seat in the Australian Senate at the next federal election.

From the Carmelites - a cry from the heart as they face a mining juggernaut

Property Observer November 25, 2011:

Carmelite nuns have little faith in AGL Energy maintaining the rural tranquillity of Scenic Hills.

The Catholic religious order is concerned the “supportive environment for prayer would be lost with the noise of construction and operation of gas wells nearby and heavy vehicle traffic on local roads”.

“AGL plans to locate up to six gas wells on the Serbian Orthodox property next door to us,” writes Sister Jocelyn Kramer.

The nuns settled in the region more than 20 years ago after the region was made an environmental protection (scenic) zone in 1974. The zoning specifically prohibits extractive industries and mines.

“In contravention of the zoning, AGL Energy Ltd (AGL) has applied to the NSW Minister for Planning to put up to 72 coal seam gas (CSG) wells across Campbelltown's Scenic Hills from Mount Annan to Denham Court,” she wrote.

The nuns are concerned about damage to historic area. They raise its important Aboriginal history and its “rich colonialist heritage”.

They are also concerned about damage to Upper Canal, part of Sydney’s water catchment area, and possible damage to Mount Annan Botanic Garden’s plants and animals.

“The sheer audacity of this proposal epitomises the problem residents have with AGL's plans for the Scenic Hills.”

“If the NSW Minister for Planning approves AGL's proposal for CSG mining in the Scenic Hills, much of its beauty and tranquillity will be lost forever.”

The group asks that no new licenses are approved until there has been extensive research on the impact of coal seam gas and associated practises and that research has been made publicly available.

“As a religious community, we recognise that economic development is necessary and we welcome research and development into renewable energy sources,” Kramer writes……

The Order of Discalced Carmelites, which includes these nuns, made a Submission to the Upper House Inquiry into Coal Seam Gas in September this year which stated:

For us Carmelites, a small and poor religious community our present situation is that our needs and hopes have not been heard.  It feels like we are collateral damage.  Our very viability and the viability of this heritage landscape is threatened by a 'blue chip' company determined to exploit the resources under our land.  We do not have the resources to mount an advertising campaign as AGL has done in recent days.  Our appeal to this committee of the Legislative Council is for justice.  There are many things more important than money- among them there is a sacred land where people  come for healing and refreshment, a connection with nature, our Aboriginal heritage and the colonial history of our state.

Will the O'Farrell Government heed this plea from the heart or will Big Business prevail?

The Plibersek Industrial Relations Philosophy - I own you body and soul

The not-for-profit workforce

It was estimated that 5.2 million Australian volunteered in 2007 (ABS 2007b). Of these, 4.6 million were estimated to volunteer with the NFP sector. Around two-thirds of these volunteer with NFPs that do not have employees. The volunteer workforce was estimated in the ABS satellite accounts to provide over $14.6 billion of unpaid labour in 2006-07.

[Dept. Prime Minister and Cabinet,research report,2011]

The theme of the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Volunteer is ‘Inspire the Volunteer in You’. Pierre, your work as an Australian Youth Ambassador for Development and your fundraising for Habitat for Humanity has certainly inspired many here today.

Thank you for asking me to be with you today to help launch the Australian Volunteers for International Development Program.

Australians are a generous and compassionate people. In 2006, over 5 million people – that’s more than one-in-three adult Australians – volunteered for an estimated 700,000 not-for-profit and non-government organisations.

[Minister for Human Services and Minister for Social Inclusion Tanya Plibersek, Transcript: Launch of the Australian Volunteers for International Development, 2011]

LAST week, Tanya Plibersek challenged Australian governments and businesses to create a stronger and more sustainable volunteering sector. This week, 37,000 employees in her department were told that if they wished to engage in volunteering activities in the future, they would have to get their manager's permission first…..

For the first time, unpaid weekend volunteer work will come under the scrutiny of departmental supervisors, and public sector employees must get approval before undertaking such work. Employees must apply for a renewal of that approval every 12 months and will also be subject to a ''regular review'' of their activities.

The new policy also requires public servants to tell the department if the nature of their volunteering duties within a charitable or not-for-profit organisation changes during the 12-month period.

[Brisbane Times,10 December 2011, Public servants told to seek approval to volunteer]

Last week the Federal Department of Human Services tried to turn Australia’s volunteering culture on its head.

Ms. Plibersek denies any input into this new policy, however the minister of the day sets the tone for such changes to occur.

She personally, the department she heads and government generally need to recognise that their workers are neither serfs, indentured servants nor outright slaves – they do not own them body and soul.

An employer has a right to direct an employee for the period of each day which represents the agreed work day – not one jot more than that. Traditionally this broke each day of the working week down into Eight hours labour, Eight hours recreation, Eight hours rest.

The sort of skewed thinking which demands 24/7 allegiance to the wishes of an employer more properly belongs to the likes of the Liberal and National parties not the Australian Labor Party.

Ms.Plibersek needs to remember to which political party she actually belongs, as does the Prime Minister under whose leadership this attitude towards public servants has obviously been allowed to flourish.

Cartoon from ClipartOf