INFORMATION
EXCHANGE WITH A TWIST
From
The Echo archives,
May 2021:
A
confusion of letters in Ocean Shores
Apparently,
there is another Ocean Shores in another part of the world, and they
have deer…
The
Ocean Shores & District Garden Club secretary, Claire, was a
little perplexed when she was replying to a lady named Marilyn who
showed interest in coming to the club meeting last week.
Marilyn
wrote
I
moved to Ocean Shores in September and was hoping to find a garden
club.
I
was hoping to learn more about how people garden, especially with the
deer population here.
Deer?
Claire
was very curious and intrigued about the possible deer of Ocean
Shores. She responded to Marylin with all the club details of time
and location of meetings and other events and was happy to welcome
the new member to the Far North Coast club.
This
came from Marilyn…
Looking
forward to first meeting
Thank
you, so much, for your reply. I’m looking forward to attending my
first meeting Monday.
I’ve
never been to a club meeting. I haven’t had time for gardening in
years.
The
house we moved to had no plants at all. I just started planting 80
pots of daffodils, lilacs, snowball bushes, and a few other plants.
Have
to get several peonies still, too. I’m planning on building a
greenhouse this year too. I’m sure I’ll have lots of questions
going forward.
See
you Monday!
Claire
wrote
I
think you have us confused with another garden club.
Ocean
Shores is in the Northern Rivers 30 minutes past Byron Bay.
Deer
aren’t a problem here and the flowers you mention we would love to
grow but aren’t suitable for a subtropical climate.
Intrigued
to know where you live.
Uho-oh!
Marilyn
wrote:
Oh
no! Are you in Australia?!
I’m
in Ocean Shores, Washington USA! I thought I finally got the right
one. I typed in my city and state and thought it sounded right. Darn!
Well,
I’m sorry for taking your time, and the confusion. Thank you
anyway. The search will go on, I guess.
Marilyn
Ocean
Shores
Washington,
USA
What
Marilyn may not know is that Ocean Shores was originally a land
holding owned by a company – Wendell West of Washington.
The
development had the backing of American singer Pat Boone. Ocean
Shores was named after Boone’s residence in Ocean Shores,
Washington in the United States.
It
really actually is a small world after all.
LETTERS
TO THE EDITOR - THE LONG AND THE SHORT OF IT
Clarence
Valley Independent,
Letters,
26 July 2023:
Can
I begin by thanking Oscar Tamsen for his considered and respectful
letter regarding the upcoming referendum and The Voice (CVI 12/7/23).
I am certainly no one of authority but I offer the following as a
means of hopefully clarifying some issues.
The
referendum if passed will require the government to establish a body,
The Voice, which may make representations to the parliament and
executive on matters of concern to First Nations Australians. Very
senior constitutional lawyers and former high court judges, in spite
of being misquoted by some politicians, have made it clear that this
could not be interpreted as going beyond providing advice and
definitely does not imply any sort of veto. As to what “matters”
The Voice might proffer advice on, trying to place definitive limits
beyond “matters affecting First Nations Australians” could be
problematic and really quite unnecessary. I’m confident indigenous
Australians would reject Voice members who did not concentrate on
critical issues like health, housing, education and justice, and of
course the parliament and executive would be unlikely to give a lot
of time to advice that was not pertinent to those issues. The check
and balance is the ballot box.
Now
to the details of the structure of The Voice. Our constitution is not
a weighty tome. It was largely a power sharing agreement between the
six founding colonies. What they were prepared to cede to a
commonwealth parliament and just the barest details of how that
parliament would be structured, again in order to protect the
interests of the states. There is a lot of detail not enshrined in
the constitution, quite deliberately, in order that it be flexible
enough to cope with changing circumstances and needs. For instance,
much of the workings of the parliament is left to convention, not
constitutional prescription. Only very broad guidelines are given on
the structure of the parliament or indeed the voting system. The
details were left to the parliament to implement and modify over time
if desired and they have been modified a number of times. It’s when
you do put a lot of detail in a constitution you run the risk of
unintended consequences down the track. The classic example is the
provision in the American constitution of the right to bear arms. It
seemed fine 250 years ago in the context of just coming out of a
revolution and war of independence but is very problematic now and
very problematic to remove.
So,
it should come as no surprise that the referendum question itself is
very light on for detail. Instead, it is designed to enshrine the
principle of a Voice. So why doesn’t the government put forward the
detail it intends to legislate should The Voice get up? Two points.
You can imagine that if they did many people would assume that at the
referendum they were voting for, or against, that detail. But this
would be wrong as the legislated detail could be changed by future
governments. You can also bet that certain politicians would go
through that detail line by line looking for points to argue on, even
though they know very well that any detail they don’t like could be
altered should they find themselves in government. Legislated detail
is a political issue to be debated in parliament and if necessary,
resolved at elections. It is highly likely that the detail of The
Voice will be modified over time to improve it or meet changing
needs, but no future government will be able to simply abolish it
without reference to the people by means of a democratic referendum.
The
referendum has come out of a process of years of broad consultation
and expert advice. We can summarise this as the Uluru process. First
Nation Australians are asking for recognition as the original
custodians of this land going back tens of thousands of years, but
they want recognition which is meaningful and practical, not just
nice words in a preamble. They are tired of advisory bodies being
abolished at the whim of the government of the day. A voice to
parliament is a practical way of improving policies and outcomes. We
know that programs with local input work better.
What
has been put forward is very modest, generous really, and it provides
a pathway towards true reconciliation and an opportunity to address
the disadvantage which is so apparent in the Closing The Gap annual
reports.
Graeme
East, Yamba
Clarence
Valley Independent,
Letters,
26 July 2023:
Ed,
In
his lengthy dissertation (CVI 12/7/23) Oscar Tamsen answers his own
question i.e., details of the voice is to be the duty of the
incumbent government and rightly so!
By
voting Yes, we are constitutionally recognising the 65,000 years of
First Nations tenure of the continent – such advisory bodies are in
operation in Canada, Finland, Sweden, Norway etc.
The
naysayers’ (e.g., Dutton et al) insistence on more detail and the
accompanying mis/disinformation and vitriol, collectively, is simply
a political ploy to sink the referendum.
This
tactic is no more than a continuation of the annoying Aussie classic
to deny First Nations progress i.e. “I’m not racist, BUT ——!”
Naysayers
cite Māori influence in Kiwi politics – completely irrelevant as
Māori legislative rights are supported by the Waitangi Treaty.
A
No vote denies progress in Recognition and Reconciliation of our
First Nations people i.e., ‘if not, when?’
Advice
to Oscar and others is to be sceptical of conservative hogwash, treat
SkyNews with the disdain it deserves and make sure you catch up with
the ABC interview of Prof Ann Twomey (16/6/23) – Twomey from Sydney
Uni is one of the country’s leading constitutional lawyers.
Ted
Strong, Seelands
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Byron
Echo,
online, Letters,
30
July 2023:
Byron
Shire Council determines the policy for sewage treatment for the
shire. This is not the prerogative of the Northern Rivers
Reconstruction Corporation (NRRC).
Brunswick
Valley Sewage Treatment Plant (BVSTP) is designed to treat
3,800kl/day of sewage, not stormwater. The current daily dry weather
inflow at BVSTP varies between 1,400kl/day and 1,800kl/day. The
previous elected Byron Council implemented a five-year investigation
of the inflow infiltration (I/I) problem occurring in the Mullumbimby
sewer gravity mains collection system and the stormwater collection
system. A company that specialised in this field and also relining
existing gravity mains thus solving the I/I problem.
The
five-year period is up and the I/I still remains; this is very
visible during rain events in Mullumbimby and the substantial
increase of the daily inflow into BVSTP. Five years with no
improvement to the existing problem.
Council’s
water and recycling division (W&R) is persisting with their plan
to close Ocean Shores Sewage Treatment Plant (OSSTP) and pipe the
sewage from OSSTP across Brunswick Valley to the Mullumbimby plant.
Ocean Shores STP also has infiltration problems which are obvious in
the inflow increase during rain events. OSSTP’s capacity is
1,600kl/day.
The
current design concept of BVSTP is a biological reduction. These
plants depend on their hydraulic load remaining below their design
capacity to operate effectively. The extra load that will be
transferred from OSSTP during dry weather risks adversely affecting
the hydraulic load at BVSTP, during rain events it will most
definitely overload the BVSTP’s hydraulic design capacity.
There
now is the proposed Saddle Road development. If this is approved the
sewage from this development will go to BVSTP.
The
Water & Sewer Advisory Committee has not discussed or been asked
to discuss these issues and the effect it will have on the BVSTP. Why
not?
It
is time the elected council asked questions of W&R: why after
five years of investigations by a company retained by W&R to fix
the I/I problem in Mullumbimby has nothing changed? How does W&R
intend BVSTP to cope with the increased hydraulic load and still
operate satisfactorily?
Alan
Dickens, Ballina
Byron
Echo,
online, Letters,
28 July 2023:
Hijacked:
residents’ car park Mullum
I
note his [the mayor’s] reference to the loss of the residents’
car park just left of the roundabout from the railway crossing.
Residents are aghast at Byron Council’s secret decision to sell
that car park for a really large housing development – plus Council
staff are to live there!
People
are not happy at all about this, shocked and very disgusted!
Authority has been handed to our general manager by Byron
councillors, except Duncan Dey, to ‘handle’ the tender process.
This
is not a ‘done deal’ and, as residents have not been consulted on
this, it needs to be challenged. It’s such a secretive decision –
hence the question: why? With no one allowed (except if speaking in
public access) to attend Council meetings because the Conference Room
(since the 2022 flood!) is too small, residents do not know what is
discussed at those meetings!
‘The
2022 flood drainage’ is the vital subject, as has been reported
extensively by so many residents. However, Council continue to deny
anything needs to be done about it, except for a few areas. The North
Byron Flood Risk Management Study, October 2020 states: ‘Ongoing
maintenance of the drainage network is important to ensure it is
operating with maximum efficiency to reduce risk of blockage or
failure… Modification of drainage – installation of new or larger
channels or culverts can increase conveyance and help reduce upstream
peak flood levels or reduce duration of inundation. ASSESSMENT –
existing drainage network is believed to be well below capacity for
current development.’ A drainage assessment was undertaken for New
City Road in 2018 (Ref 20), and identified a number of issues at this
location. The entrance to Marshalls Creek is constricted by rock
walls.
This
flooding ‘jigsaw’ can be solved.
Jillian
Spring, Billinudgel
