Company behind a rejected development application on Palmers Island trying an end run around NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s decision?

Clarence Valley Independent, 5 May 2021:

A proposal to construct a boat-building facility on Palmers Island was eventually rejected by the Minister, however, a motion from Cr Karen Toms, to clarify Clarence Valley Council’s (CVC) “position”, resulted in a split 5-4 decision at its April 27 CVC meeting.

Councillor Toms’ motion centred on writing to the NSW Minister for Planning and Public Spaces to correct the record, advising that CVC is now aware that one of the alleged grounds for non-approval – “lack of any evidence that there was any support for the proposal from Councillors” – was “incorrect”.

Cr Toms also urged councillors to advise the Minister that CVC “has and does support the rezoning of [the land] to facilitate the development of a marine based industry” and that “the remediation action plan has been acted on and the contamination removed” from fill dumped at the site.

Environment, Planning and Community director Des Schroder wrote in the business paper that “none” of the Department of Planning, Industry and Environment’s reasons for rejecting the proposal “indicates that the lack of support or evidence, thereof from the council, formed the basis for the government’s decision”.

“Council had provided support for the proposal on a number of occasions, however, that support was not given the final time council considered the matter,” he wrote – councillors unanimously took a neutral position based on legal advice.

However, Cr Toms wrote in her NOM: “Councillors were not aware that remaining neutral at that time would cause the Minister to believe there was no evidence of support for the rezoning application.”

At the CVC meeting, Mr Schroder said he would have to take a question on notice when asked if the fill had in fact been remediated.

“I cannot advise that was finalised,” he said, “and there was no need to in the end”, because the proposal was rejected – that point was subsequently removed from the final decision.

Debate focussed on the accuracy of Cr Toms’ claim that the Minister had included councillors’ “lack of … support” as one of the reasons for rejecting the proposal.

Councillors wanted proof that “Monique Gibson (Executive Director, Local and Regional Planning) [had verbally] advised the applicant’s nominated [planning] officer”, who subsequently verbally advised Cr Toms that the Minister has made a decision partly based on no support from councillors.

Councillors adopted the motion, pending receiving written evidence of the “advice provided to Cr Toms”.

Cr Greg Clancy said he was “very disappointed that this issue has been exhumed”.

Cr Peter Ellem said the NOM was a “back doorway of getting into the ear of the minister”.

Cr Richie Williams said the proposal was not being “exhumed or anything like that” and that there are “five pretty strong points [for non-approval] that will remain no matter what”.

For: Toms, Lysaught, Baker, Williamson and Simmons; against Novak, Ellem, Kingsley and Clancy.

 

Post February-March 2021 flooding repair bill estimates for Clarence Valley road infrastructure

 

Removing logs from Tallawudjah Creek Bridge https://t.co/WPHuecEyck

— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) May 9, 2021

Video showing log removal from bridge in February 2021 flooding

 The Daily Telegraph, 7 May 2021:

Although the recent floods weren’t the worst in history, it has left authorities with a large amount of damage to clean up.

Clarence Valley Council general manager Ashley Lindsay said the total cost of the repair bill may be up to $7-8m, of which much would be paid for by Essential Public Asset Restoration Works funding.

The flood, which reached major levels on the Clarence and Orara, caused damage to 103 roads in the Clarence Valley.

There were three major storm water systems that needed replacing at Wooli Road (pictured), Kangaroo Creek Road and Shipmans Road, costing an average of $320,000 each.

Mr Lindsay said the most significant damage was at the Tallawydja Creek bridge approach where the creek’s water course had dramatically altered.

Among the many issues, an inspection with Transport for NSW engineers determined that if left unchecked, a 15-20m section of road formation would be lost in the next flood event, closing the road and possibly damaging the bridge.

The cost of a long-term solution would be well over $1m pending review of proposed concept options for the restoration.

Mr Lindsay said that EPAR funding would also be sought for Six Mile Lane, Patemans Road, Sandy Swamp Road and Gorge Road causeways, which were heavily impacted after each flood event and improvements were required to provide resilience for local assets and the community. Other repairs included in the costs were drainage clean-up, waste pick-up and unsealed road repairs.

 

No matter how hard Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison tries to sanitise Australian history from 1770 onwards and force his self-serving lies on the rest of the country , the truth has a way of bleeding through

Plaque on Platform 1, Central Railway Station, Sydney NSW - accepting passenger and mail trains since 5 August 1906.

Quote of the Week

 

“After decades of governments urging migrants to take out Australian citizenship for their own good, the Morrison government in the early hours of Saturday morning effectively told them it was worthless….These past few days have forced me to question my choice decades ago to become an Australian citizen” [Opinion Columnist Niki Savva writing in The Australian, 6 May 2021]

Cartoons of the Week

 

Jon Kudelka

 

Cathy Wilcox

Tweets of the Week

 

Nailed it @slpng_giants_oz @markhumphries pic.twitter.com/HEnfOJkg2n

— GurpreetSgill (@gurpreetgill) May 1, 2021

 

So, Scott's "war footing" lasted exactly 3 weeks, during which the vaccination program was not fixed, the hotel quarantine system nearly collapsed and he made it a criminal offence for our own citizens to come home. Bravo.

— marquelawyers (@marquelawyers) May 7, 2021

 

Are social media 'influencers' nothing more than an assorted collection of advertisers and direct marketers out for what they can get?

Echo NetDaily, 27 April 2021:

…..What is an influencer? It seems that we say the word, but most people over 35 don’t really have a clue what it means in the context of social media and brand marketing. And those under 35, the target group, are generally so used to their existence and intent that the lines between branded content and real comment are totally blurred. If TV and print have been declared dead, then so is advertising in its current format. Social media platforms have become the host of mass engagement, and so capitalism has crept in as ‘influencing’. A clever and direct way for brands to market directly to consumers without the usual controls and regulations that govern traditional advertising. While they are still under the same rules, there has been no stoush to date between a high-profile influencer and the Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA).

An influencer is defined as someone who has the power to affect the purchasing decisions of others because of an authority, knowledge, position, or relationship with their audience. They follow a distinct niche where they actively engage to garner a following that will depend on the size of their topic of the niche. Individuals are not just marketing tools but rather social relationship assets that brands collaborate with to achieve marketing objectives. In short, they’re advertisers…...

Over 3.4 billion people use social media. This translates as 45 per cent of the world’s population. That’s a platform advertisers want. Social media are perceived as being individually curated by the user, and we access other individually curated profiles. From a marketing standpoint it’s pure gold. It’s person-to-person direct marketing. Except you choose to follow and consume the content of your chosen influencer/advertiser. In the old days we used to mute the ads on the telly; now we go to social media and subscribe and watch and like.

The problem with influencers is that the lines are blurred. Everyone knew advertising was fake. Actors playing the part of grumpy mums sick of wiping a bench, or some girl thrilled with the freedom her tampons gave her. We knew the script was written, the scenes were shot in a studio or on location, and we were expected to be tricked into believing the narrative as real. Influencers aren’t actors; they’re real people. They don’t broadcast from networks; they share from their personal accounts in their kitchen. It’s self-shot content to promote brands – that can become very confusing re authenticity. Clearly it’s authenticity they are harvesting to push the sell. They still have to be clear that it’s an ad, so it’s different from their usual posts, but very often the message is camouflaged and slips through as regular content.

So without the regulators breathing down your neck, how much duty of care do influencers take when deciding to take on a product to promote? While I am sure there are those who are highly ethical, there are just so many influencers and it is clear that there are those who don’t do the due diligence on what they push to their followers.

Blindboy is an Irish satirist and podcaster who duped reality stars and influencers into agreeing to promote a fake diet drink containing cyanide to their Instagram followers. In his 2019 BBC documentary Blindboy Undestroys The World he offers three influencers a fake diet drink brand deal. They were all told the product contained the ingredient hydrogen cyanide but they couldn’t try it as the product wasn’t ready yet. Blindboy was very transparent in presenting the product to see if they’d sell a product to their fans that would kill them. They all agreed to promote the product without trying it first. So I guess the answer is ‘Yes’. They were prepared to promote a drink that could kill. Not everyone does their due diligence. And as advertising now seeks to market to us using authenticity and our sense of what’s ‘real’ as cover, then we the consumers need full disclosure.

For a start we can rename influencers to advertisers. That at least would be authentic. Because it would be true.

But I guess no-one wants to watch a show about a bunch of advertisers in Byron Bay.

Netflix first promoted "Byron Baes" as a 'docusoap' about influencers & hot Instagrammers - now it is calling it a 'reality show'.

In my opinion, what this US-owned corporation is about to produce is an exploitative reworking of a tired old tv format, which will leave more than a few of the show's Byron Bay-based cast with their reputations in tatters.