This was the Australian Minister For Women on 8 July 2014

We admired the skill and the sense of honour that they brought to their task [Australian Prime Minister and Minister for Women Tony Abbott on the subject of Japanese servicemen during World War Two, 8 July 2014]

Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal on the subject of the estimated 20,000 Chinese women and girls raped by Japanese soldiers in Nanking between 13 December 1937 and 10 January 1938:

Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal

Click on images to enlarge

Australian War Memorial Second World War Nurses:

A month later, as Japanese soldiers advanced towards Singapore, the Australian nurses in the region were ordered to evacuate. Seventy-two nurses embarked with hundreds of patients and civilians aboard the Empire Star and the Wah Sui. They finally made it back to Australia, having suffered heavy bombardment on the way.

Not so fortunate were the 65 nurses, evacuated, along with many civilian women and children, on the SS Vyner Brooke. Twelve lost their lives when the ship was sunk, and 21 of the survivors were executed on Banka Island; the remaining 32 became prisoners of war. The captured nurses hoped their non-combatant status, symbolised by their now tattered uniforms, would protect them. It did not. For the next three and a half years, they were kept as prisoners under appalling conditions. Eight died in captivity.

2014 Indigenous Marathon Project and the Gold Coast Half-Marathon

Koori Mail:

12 IMP runners started, 12 finished Gold Coast Half-Marathon

In a ground-breaking first, all 12 members of the 2014 Indigenous Marathon Project (IMP) squad crossed the finish line of the Gold Coast Half-Marathon last Sunday. Team members exceeded their own expectations by not only finishing, but crossing the line well ahead of their goal times. Cairns representative Brendan Peeters completed the run in an astonishing 84 minutes, placing him 30th in his age category. In his first ever fun run, Dubbo representative and Western Region light-middleweight champion Nathan Riley finished in 89 minutes. Toni Daisy, who juggles training with work commitments and being a single parent, crossed in 1:51:43. Members of the squad have returned home to their communities to continue training ahead of the third camp in Sydney for the City to Surf in August.

The ASICS Half- Marathon had a total of 9,658 entrants and 8,527 finishers. The two IMP entrants from NSW were Raymond Ingram (Sydney) and Nathan Riley (Dubbo).

Raymond Ingram crossed the finish line at 1,340 position and was also the 43rd runner of the 158 male entrants in the 21-24 years age group to cross the line.

I’m sure that their communities are proud of both these young men and, hopefully in the next few years we will see young indigenous runners from the NSW North Coast competing in Gold Coast Airport Marathon events.

Council complaints on the NSW North Coast in 2012-13

The NSW Division of Local Government Council Complaints 2012-13 have been published and, on the NSW North Coast Tweed Shire Council had the dubious honour of having 70 complaints against its name while Lismore City Council had the lowest score of only 5 complaints.

Clarence Valley Council:

Click on image to enlarge

Links to other council statistics:

Tweed Shire Council 

Byron Shire Council

Ballina Shire Council 

Kyogle Council  

Lismore City Council 

Richmond Valley Council  

Coffs Harbour City Council  

Bellingen Shire Council 

An open letter to NSW Nationals MP for Lismore, Thomas George

Letter to the editor in The Northern Star on 11 July 2014:

Represent us, please

Open letter to Lismore MP Thomas George:

For over two years now the Knitting Nannas Against Gas have been protesting outside your office every Thursday afternoon.

Initially, members of the nannas wrote to you and had meetings with you. We asked you to take our message to the NSW Parliament - that we had done our research and believed coal seam gas (and later, other forms of unconventional gas mining) were not suitable to our area. On these occasions we found you to be dismissive, and even rude. Even after the local government poll returned an 87% vote against CSG in our region, you refused to represent our concerns to Parliament.

You were elected by the voters of the seat of Lismore to represent us. Your wages are paid by our taxes. You are our employee, and frankly, you have not fulfilled the position's requirements.

Now that your government has suspended Metgasco's licence, will you take the opportunity to rethink your position? A brave person is one who can change their mind when circumstances change, and own it. Will you tell Parliament that your electorate will not countenance unconventional gasfields under any circumstances?

Will you ask them to extend the favours given to the viticulture and racing industries (drinking and gambling - great revenue raisers) to the beef, cattle and fresh food farmers of the Northern Rivers?

Have you informed Parliament that your son has been employed by Metgasco continuously for several years now, and checked whether that may be a conflict of interest?

Unless you change your position, your legacy will be one of shame. Your good works will be forgotten.

Knitting Nannas Against Gas

The BBC getting it right on climate change reporting and comment

Excerpt from BBC Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions report, July 2014:

The coverage of science by the BBC continues to be a hotly debated issue. One of the key findings of the report which still resonates today is that there is at times an:

  “… ‘over-rigid’ (as Professor Jones described it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the ‘non-contentious’ nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving ‘undue attention to marginal opinion’. Professor Jones cites … the existence of man-made climate change as [an] example of this point.”

This is a matter of training and ongoing shared editorial judgement. The Trust notes that seminars continue to take place and that nearly 200 senior staff have attended workshops which set out that impartiality in science coverage does not simply lie in reflecting a wide range of views, but depends on the varying degree of prominence (due weight) such views should be given.

The Trust wishes to emphasise the importance of attempting to establish where the weight of scientific agreement may be found and make that clear to audiences. The Trust also would like to reiterate that, as it said in 2011, “This does not mean that critical opinion should be excluded. Nor does it mean that scientific research shouldn’t be properly scrutinised.” The BBC has a duty to reflect the weight of scientific agreement but it should also reflect the existence of critical views appropriately. Audiences should be able to understand from the context and clarity of the BBC’s output what weight to give to critical voices.

The BBC has developed excellence in science broadcasting, and generalists who may be unfamiliar with these areas and where the weight of scientific agreement may lie should make the most of the resources of the BBC – for example its Science Editor, the BBC’s science experts and the workshops and seminars discussed in the Executive report.

Judging the weight of scientific agreement correctly will mean that the BBC avoids the ‘false balance’ between fact and opinion identified by Professor Jones. The Trust welcomes the Executive’s decision to hold a further course this year for staff who may not have been in position at the time of the previous workshops and as a refresher on a complex area.

Metgasco Limited putting words in the Supreme Court's mouth in July 2014

Snapshot from The Northern Star 12July 2014

Coal seam/tight gas exploration and mining company Metgasco Limited states that the court made it clear the documents "should be produced by late August".

Actually, the court decision in Metgasco v Minister for Resources & Energy [2104] was that Metgasco's Notice to Produce dated 12 June 2014 be set aside without tying any future production of documents to a specific time period and, I suspect it would be rather surprised to find ít has allegedly tied the Minister into an August timetable instead of a possible "later appropriate time".

Specifically, the court stated: at 17 There is some force in the Plaintiff's submission that the first decision of the delegate remains a relevant one, and that the documents associated with that decision will be relevant to the issues to be determined. However, it is necessary to await the Defendant's response and evidence on which the Defendant relies before the Defendant should be required to produce documents not relied upon by the Defendant in defence of the Summons; at 20 I do not consider that what is sought in the Notice to Produce complies with what may be sought under rule 21.10. That conclusion is reinforced by the prematurity of the Notice to Admit when the only document before the Court referred to in that rule is the Summons. Only two documents are referred to in the Summons, and one of those is the letter containing the decision of 14 May 2014; and at 27 In the light of my determination that the Notice to Produce is premature I consider that it would still be open to stand over the Notice to Produce and the Defendant' Motion to set it aside until such time as the amended pleadings are finalised and the evidence is complete. However, that is unlikely to be finalised in a way that would enable me to continue to hear the Notice of Motion on a part-heard basis. Further, the filing of amended pleadings and the serving of the evidence on both sides may well change the basis upon which documents need to be, or are, sought by the Notice to Produce. The better course, it seems to me, is to set aside the Notice to Produce but without precluding the Plaintiff from serving a further Notice to Produce if so advised at a later appropriate time.

Morgan Research does itself no favours by airing the Morgan Group's legal problems in public

According to the Federal Circuit Court; Sham contracting arrangements enable employers to avoid legal obligations such as payment of payroll tax, workers compensation premiums, employee entitlements and superannuation contributions.

Linkhill Pty Ltd, a holding company of the Morgan Group, was found to have engaged in sham contracting and other contraventions of law.

This is the position of a director of that company, as set out on the Morgan Research website on 20 June 2014:

Gary Morgan responds to the Federal Court decision regarding Linkhill.

In an extraordinary decision today, Linkhill Pty Ltd was fined $313,500 in the Federal Circuit Court for supposedly ‘underpaying’ ten tradespeople and labourers, who were actually paid almost $300,000 more than the Award rates and benefits to which they were entitled during the periods of their engagement.

The ten tradespeople, ranging from an electrician and carpenters to several short term labourers, were all found by Federal Circuit Court Judge John O’Sullivan to be employees (rather than contractors) and were found to have been underpaid despite each receiving payment for their services that was substantially more than their full Award entitlements (including overtime, leave and redundancy payments)…..

Excerpt from the court judgment in The Director of The Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Linkhill Pty Ltd (No.7) [2013] FCCA 1097 (20 December 2013):

Conclusion

238. An examination of the totality of the relationships between each of the individual workers and Linkhill, the system and arrangements pursuant to which they worked and the work practices which regulated that work, clearly establishes by reference to the established indicia that each of those relationships were in the nature of employment and not independent contractor relationships. The limited indicia which suggest otherwise do not alter or detract from the central features of the relationships established. Those central features were the fact that the contracts in issue were contracts quintessentially in the nature of contracts of employment for the personal provision of each workers labour to Linkhill. Linkhill reserved to itself control over where, when and to what ends that labour was to be directed and it directed and supervised the performance of the work of each worker on a daily basis. In providing their labour in this way, none of the workers could be said as a matter of fact to have been conducting their own business but plainly did so in the furtherance of and as part of Linkhill’s business. The fact that the workers were required to supply an ABN and did not have taxation deducted from the payments they received from Linkhill and were paid pursuant to invoicing arrangements imposed by Linkhill does not alter these fundamental features of their engagement. The true character of those relations is likewise not altered by the fact that four of the workers concerned had previously entered into written contracts with Linkhill which describe those relations as contracts for services.

239. This conclusion is supported by the evidence summarised in Part 2 of these submissions relating to what occurred at the end of the relevant period of engagement of each of Walker, Darrigrand, Elliott, Najdoski and Lowery. Immediately following the termination of their respective contracts the characterisation of which is in issue in this proceeding, each of those workers entered into a contract of employment with Linkhill. Their evidence is that, under these contracts of employment, nothing changed in relation to the work they had previously performed for Linkhill.^[653] Linkhill’s preparedness to explicitly characterise the continuing engagement and work of these individuals as being in the nature of employment, reveals the true character of the previously existing relationships. It also shows that the representations previously made to the contrary by Linkhill, considered in the next Part of this submission, at best merely accorded with Linkhill’s own preferences as to the character of its relationships with the workers, or at worst were a deliberate façade constructed by it to disguise the true character of those relationships.”

Excerpt from The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v  Linkhill  Pty Ltd (No.9) [2014] FCCA 1124 (20 June 2014):

ORDERS

(1) A combined penalty of $313,500 is imposed on the respondent for the contraventions declared in The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v  Linkhill  Pty Ltd (No.8) [2014] FCCA 225 for the reasons set out in The Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v  Linkhill  Pty Ltd (No.7) [2013] FCCA 1097.
(2) The penalty referred to in paragraph (1) is to be paid into Consolidated Revenue within 30 days of the date of this order.

By complaining of the outcome on the Morgan Research website all Linkhill Pty Ltd and Morgan Research have achieved is to widen knowledge of the court judgement and cast doubts on the conduct of the entire Morgan Group.