The fate of Banyam Baigham-the Sleeping Lizard (North Lismore Plateau) remains unresolved

 

An artist's impression of the 'Sleeping Lizard' goanna that forms the hills of North Lismore Plateau site.(Facebook: North Lismore Plateau Protection Group) - ABC News, 10 February 2022

ABC Premium News, 16 December 2022:

....Panel chair Paul Mitchell told a determination meeting that virtually every aspect of the $39 million housing proposal needed further work but he had not ruled out future development on the site.....

The development of the site has been discussed for many years, with Aboriginal heritage & biodiversity listed as the greatest concerns.

Developers urged to submit again

Lismore City Council general manager John Walker said there was support for flood-free housing on the plateau.

"It's disappointing because we do need land, but any approval for DA (development application) must be fully compliant," Mr Walker said.

"You can't expect councils & planning authorities to approve matters without the necessary studies & reviews."

A report from the independent flood inquiry recommended urgently moving people out of high-risk areas on flood plains.

Mr Walker has urged the developers to submit a new application.

"We would certainly encourage them to do so, the plateau was a really important part of the future of Lismore. We'd encourage them to work with us to get that development happening," he said.

Consultants speaking on behalf of the developer told the panel they will now consider starting proceedings in the Land & Environment Court.

ABC News-ABC North Coast, 16 December 2022:

Panel chair Paul Mitchell told a determination meeting that virtually every aspect of the $39 million housing proposal needed further work but he had not ruled out future development on the site.

"I'm sure we'll see some residential development on the plateau," he said.

"The issues are not insurmountable, but this development application wasn't complete in the sense that it didn't answer key questions, such as whether landslip issues could be managed."

Lismore City Council had previously supported development on the plateau but in a submission to the panel recommended the project be refused.

Northern Star, 16 December 2022:

Finding significant and unresolved issues with the development application, the planning panel unanimously voted down the $39 million housing development on Dunoon Rd in North Lismore on Thursday…..

Lismore ratepayer Dot Moller said a new nuanced plan for the development of the North Lismore plateau may be required.

“There is a potential injustice to the population of North Lismore, our community badly affected by the devastating floods this year.

“Many families are still homeless and living in substandard conditions right at the foot of our green plateau.

“Folks have left as they‘ve been unable to find work or repair their homes. Social and affordable housing is desperately needed.

“It is time to think about what we really need – not what a big Sydney development company thinks will work for them.”

Lismore resident Helen Robinson pointed out to the panel some of the land on the proposed estate had been identified as suitable to relocate up to 500 homes off the flood plain in North Lismore by the Northern Rivers Reconstruction Corporation.

“Those homes are suitable to move to the foothills of this estate where the people can maintain their communities,” she said.

“(But) council maintains that it's not in the community’s interest. I wonder which part of the community they’re considering.

“I don’t think they’re considering the people of the flood plain.”

Major concerns that sank the development included, environmental and wildlife impacts from land clearing, bushfire hazards, pollution of drinking water, increased stormwater run-off, noise from traffic and undue pressure on infrastructure.

But the elephant in the room – and the biggest obstacle facing the developers – is the outstanding Aboriginal cultural heritage assessment.

“A significant shortfall with the application is a lack of consolation and documentation in regards to Aboriginal cultural heritage,” the council’s assessment reads.

The plan to build on the Northern Plateau has been banging around for over a decade, with the development hotly debated.

The council’s assessment found the DA as presented was in contravention of Aboriginal heritage conservation.

Known culturally as the ‘Sleeping Lizard’ because of the shape of the land, the site is said to hold significant cultural value to Widjabul Wia-bal traditional owners of the Bundjalung Nation.

Back in 2011, members of the Widjabul Wia-bal community protested after the council voted to allow the development because of the cultural significance of the site.

More than 10 years later, the issue of heritage conservation on the site is yet to be addressed by the prospective developers, the Northern Regional Planning Panel heard.

Tony Hart and Clyde Treadwell, consultants who represented land owners trying to develop the land, acknowledged the issues. They asked for a six-month extension for “specialist consultants” to resolve the problems.

Frustrated panel chair Paul Mitchell said: “The problem with that is that the application shouldn't have been lodged in the first place.”

“Every aspect of this application that needs further work … virtually none of the fundamental issues have been finally resolved.”

Mr Hart and Treadwell told the panel landowners would proceed to take Lismore City Council to the Land and Environment Court for a determination if the extension and DA was refused.

“We do not want to go to court but we will have to if there is no other avenue,” Mr Hart said.

Mr Mitchell said that would be “unfortunate” because it would be “an expensive burden” on Lismore residents.

BACKGROUND

NORTH COAST VOICES, Sunday, 11 December 2022:

Given the NSW Northern Regional Council is in the pocket of the Perrottet Government and that state government has passed law which allows it to facilitate landgrabs by professional property speculators, this matter is not going to end well for Lismore

Sleeping Lizard
IMAGE: displayed on change.org

Elon Musk no longer the richest man in the world - seems to be finding it extremely difficult to herd cats

 

Elon Musk has disclosed that he had sold another $3.6 billion worth of Tesla stock. Credit...Matt Rourke/Associated Press. The New York Times, 15 December 2022.

The Saturday Paper, from the pen of the emails editor, 16 December 2022:

Musk loses $100bn in a year

What we know:

• Musk’s net worth has fallen below that of France’s Bernard Arnault, chairman and CEO of luxury goods maker LVMH (CBS);

• His wealth has dropped by more than $US100bn this year, more than the GDP of Bulgaria, Croatia, Iceland and Uruguay;

• Musk this week sold about $US3.6bn in Tesla shares, despite declaring earlier in the year he had no further plans to sell shares (CNBC);

• It comes as he takes legal action against the holder of a Twitter account that tracks his private jet, and suspends the user, a month after declaring he would allow it to keep running (BBC);

• Musk has meanwhile allowed a host of contentious fringe figures to rejoin Twitter, apparently including anti-vaxxer Pete Evans (Crikey);

• As advertisers flee the platform and revenue crumbles, Twitter has reportedly stopped paying rent on offices and is considering not paying severance packages to former employees (New York Times);

• Musk has sacked more than half of Twitter’s workforce, including reps who oversaw relationships with advertisers, staff in charge of complying with regulations, and a team devoted to enterprise products that brought in hundreds of millions a year (Bloomberg);

• Musk’s vast borrowing to overpay for the acquisition means he faces $US1.2bn a year in interest payments, at a variable rate, with the first cheque due to the banks at the end of January;…..

The Guardian, 16 December 2022:

A number of prominent journalists who have reported on Twitter and its new chief executive, Elon Musk, appear to have been suspended or banned from the platform.

In a series of evening tweets, Musk wrote that sharing his real-time location on Twitter was forbidden, and accused journalists who he alleged had been sharing information about his location of posting “assassination coordinates”.

Accounts of tech journalists at CNN, the Washington Post, Mashable and the New York Times were suspended in quick succession on Thursday evening. All had recently published articles about Musk’s suspension of a Twitter account that had shared publicly available data about the movements of his private jet. Each of these articles had highlighted the tension between Musk’s stated commitment to “free speech” and his choice to ban an account that he personally disliked.

The Twitter account for rival social media company, Mastodon – which some Twitter users have migrated to after Musk’s takeover of Twitter – also appeared to have been suspended.

Links to individual Mastodon accounts also appeared to be banned. An error message notified some users that links to Mastodon had been “identified” as “potentially harmful” by Twitter or its partners.

Ryan Mac, a New York Times tech reporter, wrote on a new Twitter account that he was given “no warning” before his account was suspended and that he had received no communication from the company about the reason his account was “permanently suspended”…..

Read the full article here.

Musk or one or more of his companies appear to have been involved in an impressive amount of litigation, according to Wikipedia and, on 16 December Bloomberg Law reported:

Twitter Inc. has parted ways with Regina Lima, its former head of international legal and sole remaining deputy general counsel, as Elon Musk continues to overhaul the embattled social media company.

Lima’s departure—confirmed by four sources familiar with Twitter’s operations—comes as the company nears the two-month mark of Musk’s turbulent takeover.

Lima didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. She was based in Miami before being summoned to Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters last week.

Most of Twitter’s roughly 200-employee legal staff has either been laid off, resigned, or otherwise departed during that time. The reductions in force come as the company copes with a variety of legal and regulatory entanglements.....

What became apparent during the course of his evidence is that as a then Minister for Social Services, later Treasurer and finally Prime Minister the Liberal MP for Cook believed he had powers not found in federal legislation

 

In which the Liberal MP for Cook and former Australian Minister Scott John Morrison decides that social security law and in particular the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 is open to interpretation, incorrectly cites the numbering of sections and subsection of this Act and assumes that a degree in applied economic geography gained in the 1980s allows him sufficient understanding of law to school a Royal Commissioner....

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO THE ROBODEBT SCHEME, official transcript, 14.12.2022, P.1816-P.1819, excerpt:

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Because the advice that we received was there had been overpayment to the extent of around 3.6 per cent of the annual payments.

COMMISSIONER: I'm asking - you said you were familiar with the Act. I'm just wondering what you identified as the provision which would entitle you to ask people who hadn't been on about benefit for some period questions -

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, the Department has - under the Act has an ability to raise debts. I don't think there's any dispute about that.

COMMISSIONER: That's not the question. On what basis were they to be asked for information using this online system as to their income?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Because -

COMMISSIONER: Because the idea was that they would be asked to confirm what the ATO said.

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, they were asked to clarify what their income was at the time based on the fact that there was an identified irregularity between what their annual income was. And the process was built to seek to engage - this is my understanding.

COMMISSIONER: Sure.

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: The great frustration, as was explained to me, was the Department of Human Services had in engaging with individuals.

COMMISSIONER: Alright. Now, look, that's not my question. You said you were familiar with the Act. I'm asking you what you understood to be the legal basis for understanding how someone who may not have been on benefit for six months or three years or whatever to confirm or deny ATO data. Did you -

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Because the Department, under the Act, has an ability to raise debts in relation to previous overpayments.

COMMISSIONER: That's a different issue from what they can ask people to do, you will appreciate.

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, no, I would say that in relation to the identification of a debt, then it's not unreasonable for the Secretary to seek information as to whether they were kept appraised of the beneficiary's income at the time.

COMMISSIONER: It mightn't be unreasonable, but is it legal?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Yes, it is.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. And pursuant to what, in your understanding?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, under section 63, the Secretary may require a person to attend the Department.

COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry to do this to you, Mr Greggery.

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: And under section 192, they have the power to obtain information.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Morrison, this is your reading of the Act, or you had some advice about this?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, it's my plain English understanding of it.

COMMISSIONER: I see. Alright. Now, section 63 applies to a person who is receiving or has made a claim for social security payment, you appreciate?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: Not somebody who in the past has received it?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, that is a matter open to interpretation.

COMMISSIONER: Well, yes. Section -

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: I think it is 65A.

COMMISSIONER: 65A?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Is that the section?

COMMISSIONER: Have you got them there with you?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: No.

COMMISSIONER: Alright. So - are you doing this from memory, or have you got a record of some sort?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: I've just noted the sections.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. You see, the position in relation to somebody who has been on benefit in the past but is no longer, is that you can go back 13 weeks under section 69 - 13 weeks prior. And that was not going to be this position, was it?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: No. And in relation to the matters that were raised in the Executive Minute, they were non-specific as to what issues required legislative change or policy change. There's - generally there may be a need to do that. So -

COMMISSIONER: But you seem to have been quite familiar with the legislation. So why were you not interested in what legislative change was required? Because you must have wondered, didn't you, about the power to do these things?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Well, not at that point because it was still a proposal under development. Now, had it reached a point where it said that legislation was required, then I would have expected to see all of that, of course, and then would have made judgments about whether that would have been proceeded with. And in all likelihood, then I suspect it would not have.

COMMISSIONER: Look, if you were so familiar with the Act, you ought to have been concerned about whether the Act was being complied with in the development of this proposal to the New Policy Proposal point. How is that you were content to just see "no legislation required" and leave it at that?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Because, Commissioner, that is how the Cabinet process works. I had been a member of Cabinet for a long time. And the way the Cabinet process works is it has the in-built disciplines across The Public Service to fully interrogate these matters to enable what is put forward to Ministers, who are dealing with multiple submissions - in this submission alone, there were 51 New Policy Proposals.

COMMISSIONER: Yes.

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Multiple submissions. And it is part of the process for these matters to be interrogated. Now, in the Executive Minute I received, it said - it noted there are issues. That is not uncommon. I have seen that many times in the early stages.

COMMISSIONER: And then that vanished. So why were you content with that? That vanished. You were familiar with the Act. Why didn't you want to know how it was that legislative change wouldn't be required for this proposal to go back some years?

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Because I was satisfied that the Department had done their job. I had great respect for the Department and for their professionalism and for their knowledge of these issues, and - and I would never have conceived that had there been legal advice suggesting this was unlawful - it had never entered my imagination that that would not be raised with Ministers.

COMMISSIONER: Okay. But you have a Minute that says legislative change is required, and it's your own Department that's saying that. Then you get a New Policy Proposal that says legislative change is not required. Why don't you ask your own Department, "So how does that happen?”

THE HON. SCOTT MORRISON MP: Because I didn't see it as necessary, because they had - they had affirmed it so strongly and that I had great faith in the Department to work through the matters that they were working through…... 

NOTES

1) Mr. Morrison refers the Commissioner to "sec 63, the Secretary may require a person to attend the Department" then narrows it down further to "I think it is 65A". There is no 65A in the Act. There is a "61A Deduction at request of recipient--other payments" provisions, "63A Proof of life certificate" provisions and "66A General requirement to inform of a change of circumstances etc." provisions. Perhaps Mr. Morrison meant to cite "66A". However that section does not deal with persons who are no longer receiving benefits and it was his understanding of the time limit provisions in "SECT 69 Person who has received a social security payment or who has held a concession card" that the Commissioner was querying. 

2) Despite details of the 11 June 2021 judgment of the Federal Court of Australia found in Prygodicz v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) - Summary — "In the course of the proceeding the Commonwealth admitted that it did not have a proper legal basis to raise, demand or recover asserted debts which were based on income averaging from ATO data. The evidence shows that the Commonwealth unlawfully asserted such debts, totalling at least $1.763 billion against approximately 433,000 Australians. Then, including through private debt collection agencies, the Commonwealth pursued people to repay these wrongly asserted debts, and recovered approximately $751 million from about 381,000 of them." — Mr. Morrison insisted to the Commissioner that the federal government's actions were legal.

Cartoon of the Week

 

Fiona Katauskas

Tweets of the Week

 

 

Erratum: 

"how he presents himself if" should be read as "how he presents himself is" in the second tweet.

Quote of the Week

“I watched former-prime-minister-and-still-a-dick, Scott Morrison, testify before the Royal Commission into the robodebt affair, and it is fair to say my opinion of him was not enhanced. He was rude, dismissive, misleading, smug, and fifty shades of oh-my-god-just-shut-the-fuck-up, and although he did his best to avoid answering questions directly, he nonetheless provided ample evidence of the wisdom Australian voters displayed in removing him from office on 21 May 2022 (and destroying his party for good measure)." [Tim Dunlop writing in The Future of Everything blog, 15 December 2022]

Perrottet Coalition Government riding roughshod over local government in the Northern Rivers region - yet again

 

ABC News, 15 December 2022:

Byron Bay attracts tourists from across the world, but short-term holiday rentals have been blamed for exacerbating the housing crisis.(ABC News: Bridget Judd)

The Byron Shire Council has been blindsided by an 11th-hour decision by the NSW government which will stall controversial plans for a 90-day cap on short-term holiday letting in parts of the shire.

The state government announced yesterday it had instructed the NSW Independent Planning Commission (IPC) to hold a public hearing on the issue.

The Byron Shire Council today voted in support of the policy after working on the proposal and consultation for three years.

However, the change will now need to be approved by the state government once it receives advice from the IPC.

Mayor Michael Lyon said it was a disappointing change of direction.

"In June we were told we were trusted with the ability to run a fair consultation," he said.

"That's the way it should be. Local government is the closest to its community and it should be trusted to make decisions which affect it."

The council hoped a 90-day cap would alleviate the area's housing crisis by encouraging property investors to place their vacant properties back in the long-term rental market.

Cr Lyon said he would try to remain positive and trust the IPC to look carefully at the very complex issue.

"This is a desperately needed reform for our community," he said.

"We've put our best step forward and just have to trust that the right decision will be made by that IPC."

'Sorry, game over'

Greens Ballina MP Tamara Smith made a scathing criticism of the state government's decision to intervene at the last minute.

"It is an absolute disrespect to our community after all we've gone through with the floods and the acute housing crisis," she said.

Ms Smith said the state government had caved to pressure from international corporations at the expense of local government and communities.

"Council has jumped through every hoop that the planning department has said they had to go through," she said.

"We're about to find out the result … and the minister has said, 'sorry, game over'."…..

Read the full article here.