Quote of the Week

If no-one in the entire process of preparing the prime minister’s weekly address to the nation could spot the problem with the politicisation and crass commercialisation of a D-Day Commmoration — including the prime minister himself — then we’ve got a serious problem here.

Yes, part of PMO’s job is the ensure a successful re-election, but that’s not it’s only job. If the place is staffed primarily, or perhaps even solely, by the grunt soldiers of the daily political battlefield, and if the PM is so tone-deaf that he can’t figure out what sort of communication is needed when, then who’s being the leader?

Who’s creating the vision for Australia’s future? A future beyond the end of tomorrow night’s TV news, I mean. Who’s creating consensus out of different viewpoints, and uniting us in effort to achieve that vision? Anyone? I suspect not. [Stilgherrian.com 2 June 2014]

One Voter's Verdict: Hang them ALL by the neck until dead

The Daily Examiner 27 May 2014:

Hanging judge

Bob Katter reckons Joe Hockey's theft of health funding could cause closure of rural hospitals. Yes, it could.

But what it should cause is for the Australian people to storm parliament house in Canberra, drag every Liberal traitor out by the scruff of the neck, and hang them by the neck till they're dead.

When that's done, seeing as how they're there, they should then drag out all the Labour filth and hang them too!

That'll save another trip to hang them later. More economical to fix the problem all in one go.

Frank Brown

Richmond, Qld

Error of judgement leaves Clarence Valley Council's reputation in the wind

It has been known for some weeks now that there was a document, filed as part of its 2013 annual Code of Conduct Complaints Report, being displayed on Clarence Valley Council’s own website which appeared to suggest that an unnamed councillor had been found to have breached council’s Code of Conduct and that investigating this alleged breach had cost council $14,900.

This same council document is also permanently itemised by Google’s search engine, linked to on local social media and displayed on Scribd.

Even the most cursory of investigations quickly established a link between it and an article in The Daily Examiner on 18 October 2013 titled Review of conflict claim cost $14,900.

Cr. Andrew Baker currently has a motion before Clarence Valley Council’s Governance & Corporate Committee, which in part seeks an apology from the most senior council officer for allowing publication of incorrect information concerning the outcome of a code of conduct complaint.

An excerpt from Item 15.011/14, in Clarence Valley Council’s Governance & Corporate Committee business paper of 10 June 2014 at Page 56, clearly demonstrates the attitude being taken by management to its own error of judgement in allowing publication:

COMMENTS FROM GENERAL MANAGER

1. The report to Council’s Governance and Corporate Committee on 12 November 2013, item 14.167/13 titled Code of Conduct Complaints Report 2012/13, correctly summarises the complaints and dealings that have occurred in relation to Council’s Code of Conduct for the period.

2. The statistical document for submission to the Office of Local Government however had some clerical errors in it.

3. The statistical return is a numerical summary only and does not mention any names or refer to any specific matter or investigation.

4. The statistical document was forwarded as required to the Office of Local Government.

5. The Office of Local Government has not yet published the collective statistics for NSW.

6. The Office of Local Government has been advised of the errors and an amended statistical return has been provided.

7. Council has been advised by the Office of Local Government that the correct statistical information has been now included in their records.

8. The Office of Local Government in the near future is expected to publish the collective statistics for Code of Conduct complaints which will include the correct statistics for Clarence Valley Council.

9. A search of local media has failed to identify where this issue has been published or reported.

10. I consider that this matter is now resolved.

It is also important for Councillors to be aware of their responsibility under Part 8 of the Code of Conduct (“the Code”). Part 8 relates to the importance of preserving the integrity of the Code.

Clause 8.1 of the Code expressly states:

You must not conduct yourself in a manner that is likely to undermine confidence in the integrity of this code or its administration.

In effect, this means that if a Councillor believes a breach of the code may have occurred, they have an obligation to make a formal complaint so the matter can be assessed and administered according to the code’s guidelines. Any different action has the potential to deny the code’s fundamental principles of fairness and equity, and could be in breach of Part 8.

Point (2) of the proposed motion includes the wording “the most senior Council officer responsible for the errors in reporting, described in part 1 of this motion, be invited to include an apology to Councillors….”. A motion seeking an apology could be viewed as an attempt to impose a penalty against an officer for an alleged but unproven wrongdoing. In the absence of proper due process, such a motion would be denial of natural justice as well as procedural fairness and equity, as detailed in Part 3 of the Code. As such a Council resolution containing such a statement without correct process in accordance with the Code being afforded may give rise to a complaint against those voting for the motion for failing in their obligations in accordance with Part 8.

Scott Greensill

GENERAL MANAGER

At the time of writing this post, the said document (set out below) could still be found at http://clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/14.167-13%281%29.pdf,  http://www.clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_themes/metro/page.asp?p=DOC-XCC-37-21-03 and http://clarence.nsw.gov.au/cp_content/resources/14.167-13(1).pdf:

NSW DEPARTMENT OF PREMIER AND CABINET Division of Local Government, Code of Conduct Complaints Report. Repo... by clarencegirl

It could also still be found on the Google search engine index:

As well as remaining on social media here and here as a par by this blog.

Despite these numerous published mentions, Clarence Valley Council’s General Manager appears to think that informing the Division of Local Government that it needed to emend its copy of the document is the only action required.

He considers “that this matter is now resolved”.

So it seems that this document published separately from the 16 October 2012 Resolution 13.180/12 (therefore allowing no context and suggestive of wrong doing on the part of an unnamed councillor) is to remain permanently uncorrected as part of council’s own electronic records displayed online and, remain easily available on the Internet to anyone around the world to potentially misinterpret.

What a strange and unsatisfactory way to resolve this matter. 

At the very least the General Manger should emend council’s own records and then seek the advice of council’s website administrator as to how to permanently remove all traces of the offending document from the Internet.

As Clarence Valley Council’s most senior officer he should also give serious consideration to apologising for a situation created on his watch.

Mary O'Kane goes to bat for science and an environmental rehabilitation fund for those instances when the NSW gas industry causes long-term negative impacts on the environment

NSW Government Chief Scientist & Engineer:

Chief Scientist & Engineer calls for tougher insurance regime for CSG industry

NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer Mary O'Kane has recommended the State Government strengthen industry insurance requirements to guard against possible environmental damage from CSG activities.

She has also recommended the NSW Government consider establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund to address unforeseen or long-term environmental impacts and remediation. 

Professor O'Kane, who is continuing her independent review of CSG activities in NSW, says stricter insurance requirements are needed.

"CSG extraction is a relatively new industry in NSW and it is one that is largely under-protected," Professor O'Kane said.

"There is no standard approach to insurance coverage within the CSG industry, and the take-up of coverage by operators is uneven at best.

"There is also presently no mechanism to address unforeseen and/or long-term environmental impacts attributed to gas extraction – and that is why I have recommended the Government consider establishing an environmental rehabilitation fund, similar to that set up by the WA Government for its mining industry," she said.

The research – undertaken for the Review by Hicksons Lawyers and Piper Alderman – raised other issues, including:

* a lack of strict insurance requirements on the relatively new but fast-growing industry has left it under-insured

* third party insurance taken up by companies does not protect the insured, nor does it extend to natural resource damage

* there is no legislative requirement for companies to take out insurance

* the requirement for companies to provide financial assurance is at the discretion of NSW Trade & Investment

* security deposits typically only cover the cost of on-site rehabilitation at the cessation of operations, not beyond the tenement or any long-term impacts

* comprehensive pollution legal liability insurance is now available in the market which covers pollution and natural resource damage on and off site

* the Western Australia's Mining Rehabilitation Fund  would be a good model for government to pursue in the form of a CSG rehabilitation fund to maximise coverage for long term and unforeseen environmental impacts

* strengthening the environmental risk assessment of projects at application stage should be given appropriate consideration

Professor O'Kane's report to Government, "Environmental risk & responsibility and insurance arrangements for the NSW CSG industry", can be downloaded here.

The papers by Hicksons Lawyers and Piper Alderman can be viewed here.

NSW Office of Coal Seam Gas rejects Metgasco Limited's 'evidence' that it has conducted community consultation with regard to its plan to drill for tight gas at Bentley

NSW Government Coal Seam Gas Statement on Metgasco

Metgasco - petroleum exploration licence 16

Status of Rosella exploration well activity approval

On 14 May 2014 the Office of Coal Seam Gas OCSG put a hold on Metgasco's approval to drill an exploration well at Bentley, near Casino in the Northern Rivers, on the basis that the company was not in compliance with its community consultation obligations under Petroleum Exploration Licence 16 (PEL 16).

Metgasco Ltd wrote to the OCSG on 15 May 2014 requesting that the OCSG review its decision of 14 May 2014.

Metgasco provided the OCSG with additional material about its community consultation activities for the proposed drilling of the Rosella Exploration Well to consider as part of the review.

OCSG met with Metgasco on 16 May 2014 to discuss the regulator's decision of 14 May 2014 and the company's submission.

The OCSG has reviewed this additional material. At this stage, the decision of 14 May 2014 still stands, given the company has not effectively and genuinely engaged with the community or put in place an appropriate community consultation plan in accordance with the Guideline for community consultation requirements for exploration ("the Guideline").

OCSG has informed Metgasco of this and given the company a further 7 days to make any further submissions. A final decision on review will be made following full consideration of any further submissions.

The OCSG has maintained an ongoing dialogue with Metgasco in relation to this matter.

Compliance with Community Consultation Condition

Community consultation and engagement is a key element of the regulatory framework for petroleum exploration projects in NSW.

This is reflected in the imposition of a specific condition on petroleum exploration licences (PELs) issued under the Petroleum (Onshore) Act 1991 (the Act). The conditions make it mandatory for petroleum exploration licence holders to "engage with the community in relation to the planning for and conduct of prospecting operations". This condition is supported by a guideline: Guideline for community consultation requirements for exploration (the Guideline).

In addition, licence holders must report on compliance with the above condition annually.

The OCSG acknowledges that some sections of the community are opposed to the development of a gas industry for a variety reasons. We do not expect licence holders such as Metgasco to be able to change their view points.

We do however expect that licence holders such as Metgasco will develop a detailed consultation plan in compliance with the Guideline and demonstrate an ability to effectively and genuinely engage with the community.

The plan should be appropriate to the circumstances of the case and include a detailed analysis of stakeholder groups in the Richmond Valley, Kyogle Shire and Lismore City Council areas.

The OCSG has advised Metgasco that works could be recommenced under the activity approval once an acceptable community consultation plan is in place and the company demonstrates an ability to appropriately engage with the community, in compliance with relevant obligations under PEL 16.

Metgasco Limited has responded to this stance by the Office of Coal Seam Gas by requesting it to temporarily suspend its review and advising the Office that the mining exploration company considers its actions to be unlawful.

NSW ICAC finds Obeid, Tripodi, Dunn engaged in corrupt conduct

NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption media release 5 June 2014:

 Findings of corrupt conduct

Operation Cabot

The ICAC found that Edward Obeid Sr engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position as a member of Parliament (MP) to benefit his family's financial interests by improperly influencing Steve Dunn, a senior bureaucrat formerly within the Department of Water and Energy (DWE) in the discharge of Mr Dunn's public official duties. The nature of the improper influence was that:

* Mr Dunn was to use his contacts at the DWE to seek information about water licences in the Bylong Valley for Edward Obeid Sr and to facilitate Edward Obeid Sr speaking with a DWE official to obtain further information about water licences affecting Cherrydale Park

* Mr Dunn was to use his position within NSW Maritime and his former position with the DWE to reassure the owner of Cherrydale Park, John Cherry, that there were no plans to place restrictions on  Cherrydale Park water licences so that Mr Cherry would not reduce the amount he would lend the Obeid family for the purchase of that property.

Edward Obeid Sr also engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position and influence as an MP to benefit his family's financial interests by engaging then DWE director-general Mark Duffy so that, in the carrying out his official functions, Mr Duffy would unwittingly fulfil Edward Obeid Sr's expectations that his financial interests with respect to the water licences affecting Cherrydale Park would be favoured.

Operation Meeka

The Commission found that Edward Obeid Sr engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position as an MP to further his own interests by arranging for finance minister Michael Costa to meet with businessmen Paul Dundon and Mitchell Corn for the purposes of them promoting Direct Health Solutions Pty Ltd (DHS) to the NSW Government so as to benefit DHS and without disclosing the Obeid family's financial interest in DHS.

Operation Cyrus

The Commission that the Hon Edward Obeid engaged in corrupt conduct by misusing his position as an MP:

* in about 2000 to make representations to minister the Hon Carl Scully that Mr Scully should benefit Circular Quay leaseholders by ensuring they were offered new leases with five-year terms and options for renewal for five years at a time when Mr Obeid was influenced in making the representations by knowing that Circular Quay leaseholders had donated $50,000 to the Australian Labor Party as payment for carrying out of what they understood to be a promise that their interests as leaseholders would be looked after by the government

* between 2003 and 2006 by making representations to ministers Michael Costs and the Hon Eric Roozendaal to change government policy to allow for direct negotiations for new leases with existing Circular Quay leaseholders rather than proceed with an open tender process and deliberately failing to disclose to them that his family had interests in Circular Quay leases and would benefit from such a change in policy

* to benefit his family's financial interests by making representations to the Hon Joseph Tripodi and Steve Dunn to pressure them to change government policy to allow for direct negotiations for new leases with existing Circular Quay leaseholders rather than proceed with an open tender process.

The ICAC found that Mr Tripodi engaged in corrupt conduct in 2007 by deliberately failing to disclose to his Cabinet colleagues his awareness of the Obeid family's financial interests in Circular Quay leases, knowing that those interests would benefit from Cabinet's endorsement of changes to the Maritime Authority of NSW's Commercial Lease Policy by effectively eliminating any material prospect of a public tender process for those leases and instead permitting direct negotiations for their Circular Quay tenancies.

The Commission found that Mr Dunn engaged in corrupt conduct in 2007 by using his public official position to benefit Mr Obeid and the Obeid family by effectively bringing about a change to the Commercial Lease Policy to allow for direct negotiations with existing Circular Quay leaseholders, knowing that the Obeid family's financial interests would benefit from the change in policy.