JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Minister of the Environment and Queen of WA?

! UPDATE ! : The administrators have just written to give notice of eviction for October 15th. They also want the legal rights to the proposed litigation by Narrogin Beef Producers. In other words, they want to firesale the farm and clean up any proceeds of the wrongs done against Matt and Janet. The Thompsons would lose everything. Right now more than anything they need legal brains to help them out.

Here’s the sweet two line clause that pretty much gives total control over all businesses in WA to the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).

Condition A1 is an all encompassing point recently added to the Thompson’s license. It’s a sweeping clause, and measured entirely with opinions. Anyone with the right to say Yay or Nay on what’s reasonable here is the proxy for ruling Monarch. It’s so powerful that if we referred to noise instead of odour, and applied it to, say, Perth Airport, I’m pretty sure we could stop all flights to Western Australia until they shift those runways to the Gibson Desert.

ODOUR CONTROL
A1 The licensee shall ensure that odour emitted from the premises does not unreasonably
interfere with the health welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of any person who is not on the premises.

(Apparently, if they’re on the premises, they can be uncomfortable or inconvenienced, and that’s quite ok.)

What’s “unreasonable” exactly, and how do you measure that? Do we count an “inflammatory-quotient” of the complainants letters? Is that extra points for CAPITALS and overdone exclamations “!!!”?  If we tally up the pain, perhaps we divide that number by the profits they hope to make if the feedlot is shut down and their dreams of wealth from subdivision come to pass? If only someone could sell us a reasonable-o-mometer.

When this document was written (three months ago) the grand Condition A1 apparently did not apply to other odour producing businesses — the phrasing suggests that it may have been specially started just for the Thompsons (my emphasis added):

Condition A1 was inserted by the DEC, and is understood to be a standard condition that it intends to apply to all odour intensive premises in the future.

Intends indeed.

Since we can’t determine or measure what’s “unreasonable”, this license condition effectively amounts to a ruling that makes it possible to destroy any business which is legally operating, just through an organized campaign of loud complaints. You may only need to find 10 or 20 households willing to put their names to it. (Got any enemies?)

Does the traffic on a local road unreasonably interfere with your health and welfare? Close the road. Does the early noise from a building project disturb your sleep? Time to stop construction. Does the dog next door keep you awake at night? Time to …

So let the games begin,

and may the biggest whinger win.

The appeals convenor report has other  impossibilities. The Thompson’s point out that they have to show they can manage 10,000 cows while they are only permitted to have 6,000:

… (DEC) require (Narrogin Beef Producers) to establish it can manage odour levels at 10,000 head, but that the holding is restricted to 6,000 head until the former is established. In the view of Narrogin Beef, this is a circular requirement which cannot be complied with.

And it’s all the more silly, because they’ve already shown they can manage 6,000…

DEC’s complaint database indicated that while holding about 6,000 cattle in 2005, very few complaints were generated.

and even 10,000:

In relation to stock holding, Narrogin Beef stated that it has successfully demonstrated it can operate reasonably at 10,000 head, citing support of the Town and Shire of Narrogin, local testimonials and odour surveys undertaken by the Department of Agriculture and Food

They’ve also shown they have reduced odours through detailed measurements. The Chair of the LCCC declared that odours had been reduced using 6000 measurements, and recommended approval be given for the feedlot to operate at 10,000 head.

Even the DEC admitted Narrogin Beef ought to have a license for 10,000, as it gave them permission for that twice. Once, back in 2005*, and again after the appeal against the 2008 license was resolved.  But in 2010 — after the improvements had been made and odours reduced, the license was cut back again to 6,000?

From this information, it appears that Narrogin Beef implemented changes to its management practices between 2008 and 2009 which were sufficient to satisfy the DEC that odour levels had been reduced.

It is apparent that under the previous licence, the DEC gave notice to Narrogin Beef that the requirements of conditions G3(i)-(iv) of the July 2009 licence had been met, and that the number of cattle could be increased up to 10,000 head. Given this occurred during the currency of the previous licence, it is arguable that the conditions relating to 6,000 head should be deleted from the present licence. This is for the reason that the conditions were, in the view of the DEC, met under the terms of the 2009 licence. By re-including them in the current licence (which is a new instrument) suggests the licence holder will need to re-satisfy the DEC of all the matters that were the subject of consideration under the previous licence – that is, the licence holder would require the DEC to issue a new notice under condition G4, notwithstanding the DEC has previously indicated these matters were met to DEC’s satisfaction.17

What more could anyone do?


Don’t misunderstand me. We do need a way to protect people from businesses that do unreasonably affect their lifestyles, but there need to be measureable benchmarks. We need empirical evidence to protect the businesses from the people.

In politics as in science, empirical evidence rules.

———————————————————————————————————–

*How’s this for complicated. If you search the Thompsons licenses you won’t find a written one for 10,000 back in 2005. Back then, they applied for 10,000 head license, and were told they had been awarded it, but the old paperwork was carelessly copied by DEC and the number 6,000 stuck. The DEC verbally agreed, but the written error was never fixed.

———————————————————————————————————-

Lawrie at #29 says it well:

No matter if our endeavour sometimes seems futile we must persist. We know right is on our side although might is on the other. We can help the Thompsons by alerting as many people as possible to their plight. ACA and Today Tonight are always looking for stories where the little guy is monstered by the bureaucracy. We can all send letters to the WA Premier. Forget the paper shufflers and the minister, go straight to the top. Colin Barnett is the name and he is supposed to be a Liberal; you know, someone who is for smaller government and who is supposedly supportive of private enterprise.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Minister of the Environment and Queen of WA?, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/242sr4s

No comments yet to Minister of the Environment and Queen of WA?

  • #
    pattoh

    I am fairly sure local government facilities would have to be covered by the same rules.

    How can any of the sewerage treatment works or rubbish dumps in WA continue to operate under such a subjective regime? A few whingers, people with an axe to grind or just anarchic lunatics could bring the state to a standstill.( as long as they could call on the enthusiastic advice of EDO)

    I suggest a media circus road trip for the minister, a few departmental fat-cats along with a couple of oposition members ( & chuck in a couple of Green pollies for lunatic fringe colour).

    The best place to kick off would be the minister’s local turd farm. Watch out for the weasel words when they are forced to realise that their effluvia could be on the nose!

    00

  • #

    It is the nature of non-objective law that it is arbitrary in meaning and application. It is the full, conscious, and willful intent of the makers of such law that be totally arbitrary. To assert their whims upon others they need the the “flexibility” provided by such law. They resent being limited by such piffles as individual rights, natural law, and the fact that reality is real and absolute. They feel they have the power to make things up on the fly and hope you won’t notice there is no there there. As long as there are sufficient victims to consume, they think they can get away with it.

    There is no defense against such law. All the enforcer of that kind of law needs to have as proof of your guilt is to say you are guilty. You are required to prove you are innocent without having a standard or method of proof. Such law has the form and process of rule by law but is without the slightest shred of justice.

    Non-objective law is indistinguishable from rule by man. It is the essence of tyranny. You are left with the choice of taking down the government that issues such law or waiting meekly for your final demise and disposal. There is no living with it. There is only a prolonged and painful dying.

    The cry “Give me liberty or give me death” is very real and urgent. Without liberty, there is little but poverty, dispair, death, and destruction. With it, you have the industrial/technological revolution, the United States, and the most massive creation of wealth, health, and realistic anticipation of a better future in human history spreading across the earth. All based on the very simple idea that the individual has a RIGHT to his life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness AND that governments cannot properly interfere with those rights and all that they imply.

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    I was reminded of the Thompson’s plight yesterday when I traveled out to Massey University on the fringes of Palmerston North. The local farms were feeding their stock on ensilage, which has a penetrating and unpleasant odour and which was noticeable all over the campus. This smell is commonat certain times of the year throughout the fringes of many New Zealand cities and towns as well as most rural areas. A ruling such as that imposed on the Thompson’s license would have a devastating affect on most farmers. I think the inequities are fairly obvious…

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Jo,

    I don’t recall you mentioning whether or not the Ombudsman has been involved in this?

    00

  • #
    Dave Trimble

    Jo,

    What always seems to be missing are the names of the miscreants who dole out these evil and mindless edicts on the real working people. DEC and NAB are not people and therefore do not make decisions. These individual people are responsible. Are they somehow above reproach or accountability? I would think they would appreciate the attention and notariety for their proud accomplishments. So, let’s get them out in the light of day to bask in the addoration so richly deserved.

    We don’t need addresses, just names and departments should do.

    Dave

    00

  • #

    “recently added”? Someone is shifting the goalposts.

    00

  • #

    I think you will find that exact wording in most State Domestic Noise Acts.

    It isn’t enforced of course as thoughtless people are still allowed to keep barking dogs in suburbia and non dog owners don’t seem to have any rights.

    There is simply no excuse for barking dogs in suburbia.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Off topic but interesting:

    Jeremy Rapke QC
    Director of Public prosecutions Victoria

    The accused at the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 30 July 2010 did use unlawful authority to take over and supress an indictable offence filed against Julia Gillard (The Accused) by Graham Daniels (The Informant)
    The unlawful authority occurs in the fact that the purported power came from the Public Prosecutions Act 1994 Victoria, an Act that has removed Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second from such Act at Section 51.3 of such Act
    By such unlawful conduct the accused did attempt to pervert the Course of Justice.

    And why was he charged, because he took over the following case and the failed to prosecute.

    Julia Gillard charged with treason, Why hasn’t Australian media reported this?
    Did you know 8 days befor the Australian Federal elections Julia Gillard was in court for charges of Treason?

    Why didn’t the media report this? Why was so little said? Im sure if tony abbot was charged with treason it be on every tv screen, commercials, papers, buses but not this slick red snake.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    We have a perfectly good system for determining what is “reasonable” and that is a jury.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Chris in Queensland

    Seems to me there is a certain vexatious, small minded, group of people in our “public service”, who are allowed to wield enormous power over the innocent at their whim and are totally protected from scrutiny by the “grey areas” built into our laws deliberately by our totally incompetent politicians.

    While I sympathize with the plight of the Thompson’s, alas, this, albeit an extreme case, is not the only one. Take the “goings on” by the Queensland Marine Safety Board (MSB) in conjunction and operation with the Australian Customs Department. Unfortunately this scandal is not known at large but is well known among the international yachting community, whereas, international travelers will not visit Australia, and if they do visit, will not use Bundaberg, on the central Queensland coast, as a point of entry.

    The situation has got to the point where it is impossible for an international traveler to arrive in Queensland and NOT break the law. The laws are so vague and open to interpretation, that the “officers” on the ground, can, and do, prosecute the skipper of every yacht that enters Queensland waters.

    You can read about this scandal in “The Coastal Passage”, on line at
    http://www.thecoastalpassage.com.au/ click on the “MSB” tab.
    BTW, if you have an interest in boating, the mag is a good read.

    Unfortunately “WE” have sat back and allowed these situations to occur. Once, the governments represented the peoples views, but we have allowed ourselves to become the slaves of the government.

    00

  • #
    Richard

    To Chris in QLD, I must not be suited to be a boatie. I tried to follow your story but could not find MSB link.

    00

  • #

    Well this should put an end to the Sea Shepard people in Hobart tossing bottles of Butyric Acid.

    http://animal.discovery.com/videos/whale-wars-butyric-acid-stink-bombs.html

    I sure the Japanese are inconvenienced by the smell.

    Whangers indeed. Maybe stink bombs are exactly what the DEC needs to really understand what they are doing.

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Mike:

    I expect most states specify noise levels. Given a few loud parties that I have been at, it’s very likely they do here in SA, as the police arrived with noise meters and quoted some dB limit.

    I guess the best course of action regarding the incredibly vague “unreasonably” would be to petition the relevant minister. Unfortunately, I also guess it would take a court challenge to make the WA government change its mind.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Chris in QLD #11

    “Unfortunately “WE” have sat back and allowed these situations to occur. Once, the governments represented the peoples views, but we have allowed ourselves to become the slaves of the government.”

    We allowed it to happen because many of us “we” believe socialism (government intervention) is beneficial – we are simply reaping what we have sown.

    The easiest solution is for the whole private sector to stop paying taxes – though the likely hood of that happening is more likely than I getting the ability to herd 100 cats overnight – in other words very unlikely.

    The problem is undoing the forced education of a generation since 1972 – the entitlement generation who think society owes them a living, that they are entitled to, oh so many free lunches.

    Nope, sad to say, Australians will only learn from experiencing the fruits of socialist policy and if that means wrecking the economy, so be it.

    As Andrew Forrest pointed out some months ago, the only difference between Australia and Greece is the mining industry. That difference is shrinking as we post here.

    00

  • #
    Anonymous Coward

    The trouble with your assertion is that if logically extended it allows anyone to do anything, because they think it’s reasonable.

    I’ll give you a specific instance where by your reasoning, I should have just gone off and taken what was being dished out at me.

    Dave N @14 mentions police rolling up with noise meters to loud parties. I’ve never seen that. In my case, a neighbour decided that it was “reasonable” to play loud music, outdoors, at all hours of the day or night, any day or the week. Right over my fence. Requests and phone calls to turn it down were ignored. Calling the police only leads to a temporary cessation before its on again. This went on for 3 years, and led to my ending up with clinical depression. The only solutions here were the medication (for me), and the neighbours having a marriage split and selling up. Hell was ended.

    My point here though is that “reasonable” differs from one person to another. In the case of neighbourhood noise, there are no noise control acts any more, its all the environment protection act.

    Now – as to what you do about it. For things controlled by environment protection acts, it depends on what the nature of the complaint is. Some are handled by govt departments, some by the police.

    One thing you can be sure of – the local council don’t give a damn. The police hate being called to these kind of things which are essentially neighbourhood disputes.

    And my legal advice was that it’s possible to launch a private legal action by showing a reduction of “amenity” under the act, however, the EPA would probably want to be a party to such legal action and expect them to not support it!

    SO – getting in front of a jury is (as Tel points out) how you determine “reasonable” but its expensive and can be very difficult to actually get there.

    By your logic we would ignore all complaints from complainers, or at least not have them judged by a public servant. So who would judge them, in a fair and timely manner?

    I’m not defending whats been done to the Thompsons, but pointing out that if you want things changed be wary of unintended consequences.

    When once there were noise and odour control acts these things were more specific. The all-embracing, generic, leave it to the courts (or EP agency) environment protection acts leave things so fuzzy and grey that its a right pain for all concerned. One wonders what the legislators were thinking.

    00

  • #
    Chris in Queensland

    Richard:
    September 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 am

    Sorry, the tab is “MSQ”, the locals call it the “MSB”
    The printed version is free at the marinas and ports along the Queensland coast.
    .

    Louis Hissink:
    September 23rd, 2010 at 9:14 am

    Louis, I’m getting towards the end of my run. Hopefully, when the s**t really hits the fan, I’ll be all boxed up and buried at sea !!
    I think I’ve lived in the best 70 years.

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    We have a similar level of craziness going on in the USA but fortunately the Cap and Trade mess is dead.

    EPA to Crack Down on Farm Dust
    http://www.news9.com/Global/story.asp?S=12899662

    OKLAHOMA CITY — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is considering a crackdown on farm dust, so senators have signed a letter addressing their concerns on the possible regulations.

    The letter dated July 23 to the EPA states, “If approved, would establish the most stringent and unparalleled regulation of dust in our nation’s history.” It further states, “We respect efforts for a clean and healthy environment, but not at the expense of common sense.”

    Does anyone know how the Thompsons are doing and if anything positive has happened?

    00

  • #
    Steve B

    What always seems to be missing are the names of the miscreants who dole out these evil and mindless edicts on the real working people. DEC and NAB are not people and therefore do not make decisions. These individual people are responsible. Are they somehow above reproach or accountability? I would think they would appreciate the attention and notariety for their proud accomplishments. So, let’s get them out in the light of day to bask in the addoration so richly deserved.

    We don’t need addresses, just names and departments should do.

    Dave

    You can find names and departments at

    http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_download/gid,4000/Itemid,/

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Vague laws are hard to enforce fairly.

    00

  • #

    Jo, thanks for all your diligent investigative work and great writing — without pay. You succinctly nail it in this post. Vague and unmeasurable laws and regulations are gold in the hands of power mongers and trouble makers.

    And thanks again for your comments, everyone. John from CA, thanks for your query. It looks like some of the pressure might be working, as we’ve had calls from federal and state politicians, and it looks like some of them are meeting with NAB soon. And, we’ve not been kicked out of our house yet. People power is strong. Snowflakes make a snowdrif, and raindrops make a flood. Each of you drips matter. (That was a joke!)

    We do believe that sustained pressure is important, and thank you all for continuing to bear down.

    Anonymous Coward, you make valid points, and your example is well placed. I don’t think that any reasonable people believe we should have no rules in society. I am very much in favour of minimum environmental standards that are equally enforced against everyone. But obviously what we have in practice are laws and regs that shift the burden of proof and allow for selective enforcement. That is fertile soil for tyrants.

    Kind Regards,
    Janet

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    As I keep reminding Jo’s readers, if you really want to get a handle of who we are battling against, study the text available at http://www.keynesatharvard.org – sure it’s the Fabians, but they are the ones running this agenda under an array of confusing proxies.

    The Fabians infiltrated the UK Liberal party last century and took it over. As a former Australian Liberal Party branch secretary some years back, I always wondered over the flexible portability of politicians switiching allegiance between the ALP and the Liberals since 1972. I you can’t preselection for the Libs, try the ALP. Are their policies that close?

    Has it to do with the inevitability that when the ALP gets in charge of government more legislation is enacted to further cement our journey to the social democratic utopia? And that once enacted legislation becomes nigh well impossible to repeal federally? Hence Arthur Sinodonos’ comment in today’s Australian about altering the Carbon Tax and Mining Tax to make it workable – in other words despite everything we do to oppose it, we basically don’t have the numbers.

    Given the fact that Malcolm Turnbull has expressed public support for Klopper’s statement on a carbon tax, one has to conclude that the battle isn’t between the disruptive climateers and us, but between us and the establishment elites who, whether they realise it or not, are manipulated by the government bureaucracies.

    (I’m waiting for a Nvidia driver to download so have a couple of spare moments at work)

    Apart from the trade union connection, there isn’t much difference between the ALP and the Liberals, and the Nationals are simply agrarian socialists in any case, and there used to be one defining difference between the ALP and the Coalition according to Treasury – that the ALP simply spends and borrows money, while the Liberals realise that money, and thus wealth, has to be continually created by the private sector; the ALP simply don’t get it, according to the former public servants in Treasury. With Ken Henry running Treasury, that department doesn’t get it anymore either.

    The Australian Fabians, as their European equivalents have been for the last 70 years, been implementing Gramsci’s takeover of Australia’s institutions – as the Narrogin episode shows all too clearly but something I became aware of during the early 1990′s when I averred that Australian Native Title legislation was more about diminishing private property rights via the UN, than anything else. The takeover of the EPA by the radical greens to slowly recover alienated land back to the state is part of that debasement of private property and the installation of a socialist system.

    00

  • #
    Grant

    Huub @ 3

    How can you dislike the smell of silage? It brings back such pleasant memories for me from my childhood. I live rurally and I have no complaints when my neighbours spread their silage round their paddocks. If I didn’t like the smell I could always move into town – silage has been round longer than I have.

    But what it shows is just how subjective is someone’s perception of odour.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    “ODOUR CONTROL
    A1 The licensee shall ensure that odour emitted from the premises does not unreasonably
    interfere with the health welfare, convenience, comfort or amenity of any person who is not
    on the premises.”

    Waste water treatment plants, both municipal & industrial, have stringent licensing requirements for the quality of their discharge into natural drainages & onto land which can drain into the system. This is to maintain the health, welfare & amenity of riparian users.

    If there are not parallel restrictions placed on local government operations relating to odours, surely the act is not being applied universally. It would be interesting to know if it has been tested with respect to any local government facilities.

    00

  • #
    Dave

    This is a bit off the topic but I mention it to illustrate the type of thinking that is infiltrating our legislation at all levels and jurisdictions.

    Basically, the bureaucracies now have the power to do anything they choose and the result is the impact on people like the Thompsons.

    Commonwealth Consolidated Acts

    A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 – SECT 165.55
    Commissioner may disregard scheme in making declarations

    For the purposes of making a declaration under this Subdivision, the Commissioner may:

    (a) treat a particular event that actually happened as not having happened; and

    (b) treat a particular event that did not actually happen as having happened and, if appropriate, treat the event as:

    (i) having happened at a particular time; and

    (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity; and

    (c) treat a particular event that actually happened as:

    (i) having happened at a time different from the time it actually happened; or

    (ii) having involved particular action by a particular entity (whether or not the event actually involved any action by that entity).

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/antsasta1999402/s165.55.html

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Now you know I’ll never agree with anything here, but if these guys are being shut down because of odour, why are sheep ships still allowed into Fremantle?

    00

  • #

    Dave @ 25,

    You have just defined the specific nature of non-objective law: anything can be presumed to be anything else or nothing at the whim of the administrator without regard to any fact, principle, evidence, or ethical practice. As I said in #2, it is tyranny. It is a tyranny of the worst possible kind. Any government that attempts to assert such laws has lost all semblance of legitimacy and must use increasing amounts of force and violence to maintain its existence.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Janet: #21

    I am very much in favour of minimum environmental standards that are equally enforced against everyone. But obviously what we have in practice are laws and regs that shift the burden of proof and allow for selective enforcement. That is fertile soil for tyrants.

    It is also fertile soil for corruption.

    Which is exactly why the office of the ombudsman is there (my #4). The office exists to provide checks and balances against the unreasonable (and probably unforeseen) use and misuse of bureaucratic power.

    Getting politicians involved is good, because it gets you a bit of media attention, but at the end of the day, all they really do is rubber stamp the law drafted by the bureaucrats before the event, and then create a few media sound bites if it all turns to custard after the event. Politicians are not specifically trained to recognise, and thereby question, combinations of weasel-words that can later be used to selectively apply the law.

    I strongly recommend that you contact somebody in the ombudsman’s office (see here), and discuss the selective way in which the act is being applied in your case, such that you are being unfairly treated and discriminated against through, “the administrative practices of a Western Australian public authority”.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Louis @ 22.

    it would be so easy to give up and just let the idiots run the asylum into the ground. Sinodonus may be right to make a worthless law workable. I happen to think that to do less than what is right is no different than doing what is corrupt. The people clamouring for a carbon tax are corrupt. The AGW science is corrupt. The WA DEC is corrupt. If we should walk away from those issues we are condoning them and hence we too are corrupt.

    No matter if our endeavour sometimes seems futile we must persist. We know right is on our side although might is on the other. We can help the Thompsons by alerting as many people as possible to their plight. ACA and Today Tonight are always looking for stories where the little guy is monstered by the bureaucracy. We can all send letters to the WA Premier. Forget the paper shufflers and the minister, go straight to the top. Colin Barnett is the name and he is supposed to be a Liberal; you know, someone who is for smaller government and who is supposedly supportive of private enterprise.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: Why are sheep ships still allowed in Fremantle?

    Call it selective enforcement.

    Could it be:

    They don’t announce publicly they are climate skeptics?

    They have money for good lawyers?

    They don’t incite anti-American feelings?

    People in Fremantle don’t think they’d get rich through land sales if they stopped the sheep ships?

    00

  • #
    Ian Mott

    Thanks for the link Steve B @19.
    According to the chart the people most likely to be involved will be;
    Peter Skitmore – Licensing and Permitting Branch, supervising
    Darryl Miller – Policy & Process Management,
    Peter Vasel – Works Approval & Emissions Licensing,
    Richard Worsnop – Controled Waste Tracking and Permitting Sec.
    and
    Ian Munroe – Inspection and Compliance Branch
    and
    Ken Raine – Environmental Hazards Branch, supervising
    Jimmy Seow – Pollution Response Section

    Can Janet confirm if these or any others ring a bell

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It’s funny in some ways but Barry Carbon who was the head of DEC at the time went off into private industry. He is now the head honcho for Bauxite Resources limited:

    The Company
    http://www.bauxiteresources.com.au/

    Barry Carbon
    http://www.bauxiteresources.com.au/content/details_of_board/

    The irony is that BRL has managed to step on more than a few toes in the bush (they have pending exploration tenements all over the Darling Ranges). See, for instance, Residents for Responsible Mining:

    http://www.r4rm.com/

    The EPA wants a full environmental review of their plan of works (PER assessment level from EPA):

    http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au/companies/news/9968/bauxite-resources-requires-public-environmental-review-at-north-bindoon-9968.html

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> I meant to say what comes around goes around…

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    John Brookes @ 26:

    Good to know that you’ll never think critically about anything and trollingly disagree with posts here because it is Jo’s web site. No doubt you will therefore disagree that 2 + 2 = 4 because I posted it here…

    It also helps if you read the posts… Jo quite clearly quoted from the appeal:

    “Condition A1 was inserted by the DEC, and is understood to be a standard condition that it intends to apply to all odour intensive premises in the future.”

    The Thompsons are tragically the guinea pigs in this because they are probably one of, if not the first, to be closed down by this particular legislation. As I pointed out on a previous thread, the legislation has only been around a few years. It takes a while for these things to work their way through the system and have much impact… I know because I work in Government and see the pace of change from the inside.

    00

  • #

    Regarding the Ombudsman Rereke #4: I know Janet and Matt applied last September, and have gained almost no help at all. I’ll ask Janet to fill us in on the details, but yes, they’ve tried, and no they had no joy.

    Janet and Matt have also applied for legal aid and been rejected several times.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    If the DEC has abided by legislation (i.e. the EP Act) then the Ombudsman would be of little help. If the DEC personnel involved in the case acted somehow outside the legislation or the standards that come with the job, then there might be a case they could deal with.

    If, as I suspect, the DEC staff were acting within the bounds of the legislation it is really an issue for the politicians. They are ultimately responsible for enacting the legislation. If the legislation is unreasonable then your beef is with the pollies.

    I am glad to hear some politicians have contacted you guys Janet… perhaps there is a glimmer of hope there. Parliament has a two week recess after today (5pm close) so the politicians will have more time on their hands in the coming days.

    00

  • #
    Richard

    As the Newspapers do not want to advertise the Thompsons case maybe someone can do what the French seem good at, drive tractors very slowly around a public area with banners or placards and hand out flyers. Maybe someone can take the cows for a walk down the road looking for food, none available for them at Matt and Janet’s place.

    There is a bit of a show on at the weekend. The train drivers seem to know what to do.
    Maybe the farmers could take a tractor ride into the city centre or to the park area.
    There will be no farmers left if this law on odour is allowed to be carried out:

    TRAIN drivers are believed to be preparing to derail the opening day of the Perth Royal Show with a repeat of the industrial action which caused commuter chaos last month.
    Transperth is warning commuters to expect disruptions to train services tomorrow and on Saturday, the opening day of the show.

    It says trains may not run to schedule and some services could be cancelled. Commuters are warned to expect delays and have been advised to make alternate travel arrangements.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Lawrie @ 29,

    Agree totally – I haven’t given up, just pointing out political reality – and will continue to counter the useful idiots trolling here.

    Quadrant online posted a comment on the publication of two books about economics, Waffle Street, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2010/09/waffle-street, neither of which I will buy, by the way, because both authors, while correctly verifying Say’s Law etc, haven’t dug deep enough to fully explain the business cycle – which they assume is a fixed phenomenon in economic behaviour. It isn’t, for the if they dug a little deeper they would have discovered that the business cycle is an effect of central bank manipulation of interest rates, and thus government interference, the lowering of interest rates increasing the amount of money available for lending to businesses etc. The real reason for the increase in the money supply is to allow government to pay their bills by inflation, and being first cab off the rank, governments pay for their promises etc, while down the track we pay with inflation.

    So to the AGW – its a vehicle being used for politial purposes and like the authors of the two books referred above, most aren’t digging deep enough to identify the real agenda being implemented – the financing of an ever growing ruling class employed by the state (governments). The UN lives totally off taxes – but produces nothing, so the ETS agenda is simply to create a trading in Carbon Dioxide that the UN takes a monetary transaction cut.

    Apart from Malcolm Turnbull and a few others, most of our politicians are unemployable in private enterprise – so they need to have something for their retirement. In WA we had a Greens senator, Jo Valentine, who did her stint in Canberra and now lives off us, the taxpayers, on her retirement pension. Deserved? I don’t know, but it’s pretty clear that as government expands, so the private sector shrinks, and its the wealth created by the private sector that funds the public one, so when the Greens finally eliminate capitalism, then one wonders what their pension will buy for them when the market has disappeared.

    The irony is that the goal being chased by Lady MacBeth (Aka La Gillardian), that of a social democratic utopia, means the elimination of the market – and hence money.Killing capitalism, the the Green’s goal, will result in no wealth to redistribute.

    That’s the global agenda of the UN and the IPCC as has often been stated publicly. The science is actually a distraction that seems to have caught many in its net.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Slight error previously … Barry Carbon was head of the EPA, not DEC, and a bit of footy umpire apparently.

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Hope they don’t all expect to eat steaks in WA.
    A NEW report has identified over 20,000 hectares of land in the Perth, Peel and Greater Bunbury regions that could be developed for new homes and commercial outlets.
    The Department of Planning’s 2010 Urban Growth Monitor report reviewed more than 110,000ha of urban land across the three regions as part of a wider strategic plan for urban development for 2031 and beyond.

    I just tried to post the comment below, let’s see if it gets in.

    It would have been nice to let all these extra people eat local steaks but given that the Environmentalists are closing down the feedlots in WA you will all have to eat Tofu. Matt & Janet Thompson are being forced off their land and no one is being told about it in the papers. Let’s see if this comment gets posted, come on Perth Now, show some support.

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Guess what, Perth Now have published a comment re the Thompsons, maybe others can get in.

    Report finds more land for housing.

    Richard of Brisbane Posted at 4:00 PM Today
    It would have been nice to let all these extra people eat local steaks but given that the Environmentalists are closing down the feedlots in WA you will all have to eat Tofu. Matt & Janet Thompson are being forced off their land and no one is being told about it in the papers. Let’s see if this comment gets posted, come on Perth Now, show some support.

    Comment 5 of 5

    00

  • #

    ! UPDATE ! : Bad News just got worse.

    The administrators have just written to give notice of eviction for October 15th. They also expect to hold the legal rights to the proposed litigation by Narrogin Beef Producers. In other words, they want to firesale the farm and clean up any proceeds of the wrongs done against Matt and Janet. The Thompsons would lose everything.

    Right now more than anything they need legal brains to help them out.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    In case anyone missed it:
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/international-blogaid

    (There must be legal brains out there with experience in areas of The People vs Mindless Bureaucracy that are willing to help – there’s a lot of online publicity to be had for them for starters.)

    00

  • #
    Cate S

    Contact Peter King – !

    http://www.qsc.com.au/barristers/peter-king/

    Enough of this crap – bring it to an end now please, Matt and Janet – please – people will keep donating to help you.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Addendum: Watched Giz Watson in Legislative Council for a couple hours this afternoon. There is a walking indictment that there should be a minimum intelligence requirement to serve in parliament. She embarrassed herself so many times it was funny watching Norman Moore “do her slowly” Keating-style. Ironic that we have to call her “the honourable…”

    00

  • #
    LINDA

    WAFarmers have a meeting at Kulin 2.30pm tommorrow, many ministers have been invited, regarding drought forum. As WA media as usual avoid property rights issues, maybe some farmers could inform other farmers of the situation and spread the word.
    The liberals and nationals have sold out the very people who elected them.
    To Janet and Matt faith and hope can be a powerful friend .

    00

  • #

    People please keep posting comments about the Thompsons on The West Australian site and on The Australian site. They will surely become embarrassed that people need to read other sites to find out the news, and they will notice if there are enough comments.

    This is a new page I’ve done with links to most of the basics about the Thompsons. It’s a good place to start to find the link you are looking for. Suggestions welcome.

    00

  • #

    Ian Mott, thanks for your research and query. Peter Skitmore is our licencing guy — or at least has been for the last year or two. Vasel has only come onto our case this year.

    DEC really is the epitome of the faceless bureaucracy. Chris Bishop was our case officer for a long time, but he was too honest, and the minute he showed that he would tell the truth about what had happened, he was transferred off our case.

    Paul Byrnes and Neville Welsh were the two people most closely associated with our situation through these critical last few years.

    Kieran McNamara is the director general of the department. Robert Atkins is CEO of DEC. I believe our problem goes right to the top.

    Donna Faragher is the Minister for the Environment, but she is elected, and most politicians think that taking on the DEC is a poisoned chalice. So there is a real lack of political will to bring this out-of-control bureaucracy into line. And I’d like to reiterate: the atrocities committed by DEC are much deeper and broader than just our story.

    In order to accomplish something, we must convince the politicians that good, productive people are going to be more angry if our representatives do nothing than the environmental zealots will be if they do something.

    00

  • #
    Richard

    Just e-mailed the papers with a copy of the e-mail I sent to WA Premier Barnett. How far do you have to go to get a reaction in some of the papers?
    I’ve had a second post published in Perth Now, maybe some can follow up on the link. It may grow legs.

    http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/report-finds-more-land-for-housing/comments-e6frg2ru-1225928484768

    Richard of Brisbane Posted at 4:45 PM Today
    I hope the people who want to move in here do not depend on agriculture to keep them employed or in money. Go here to read about what is happening to Employers in WA. http://joannenova.com.au/2010/2010/07/tyranny-how-to-destroy-a-business-with-environmental-red-tape/

    Comment 6 of 12

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    If the notice of eviction is given October 15, how long before they must before they must be off the property?

    Remember these crazy laws are now going to increase risks for banks. The bank can’t sell this farm as a feedlot.

    00

  • #
    deniers suck

    This is stupid. This is not what the government should focus on. Big polluters are the problem. This nonsense gives the anti science crowd an advantage.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/ <—Read the truth here.

    (You need to change your username.If you do not change it,then your future comments will go into the pending bin) CTS

    00

  • #
    WillR

    Litigants are often quite surprised to find that judges are quite familiar with the word “reasonable” and are able to come to the correct conclusions despite any bafflegab to the contrary. There is no way I would give up the right to the lawsuits. I have been on the good side of judges who knew exactly what the “con” was! The word reasonable may be the undoing of the Australian government. All they need is a judge with a fair mind and a belief that the law works for everybody. I hope that such people exist in Australia.

    Best wishes to Matt and Janet Thompson. Please do not give up!

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Henry chance @50
    ‘Remember these crazy laws are now going to increase risks for banks. The bank can’t sell this farm as a feedlot.’

    I’ve been thinking the same thing, removing the infrastructure for a 10,000 had feedlot won’t be cheap. The best options for the banks would be if the farm could continue to operate as a feedlot.

    00

  • #
    oMan

    Who has standing to enforce this “regulation”? The only way to demolish this obviously insane rule is to enforce it against the establishment. Make them feel the painful absurdity. Lawfare.

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Binny/Henry

    If the Banker is not in the habit of reading the occasional blog, how would he know that there is any problem? I have googled key words in the Thompson’s sorry saga, and could not find any reference to to it in the MSM. This is a major worry for those who expect freedom of the press. Freedom to not report what “they” consider news is not the freedom one expects from the fourth estate.

    I have come to the (belated) conclusion that the MSM is merely a more sophisticated version of Joesph Goebbels’s mind bending in the 30′s and early 40′s, and that the pollies are mere puppets on the end of a long string leading back to those in control of what the public are told and allowed to know.

    My commiserations to Matt & Janet. As the Irish terrier said to her pups, “Through all of life’s adversities, keep your tails up!”

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    I posted an update on Tim Blair’s blog.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/farm_aid/desc/#commentsmore

    Joanne,
    I made a huge mistake as I initially read over the articles and jumped the conclusion that the people of the Town and Narrogin Shire were in favor of the DEC rulings.

    After reading Matt’s response, I was ashamed I’d leaped to the conclusion and Sincerely Apologize to the Good People of the Town and Narrogin Shire.

    Please pull together a Press Release I or we can submit to News Wires like AP, Fox, MSNBC, ABC etc. and Media personalities like Don Imus in the USA.

    I’d like to make the story available to the farm belt News in the United States.

    I honestly don’t understand why the Bank (NAB) is pressing. Isn’t it in their best interest to wait for resolution as “[Janet:] we’ve had calls from federal and state politicians, and it looks like some of them are meeting with NAB soon.”?

    I’m an optimist and honestly believe DEC isn’t morally bankrupt and this will end well but I’d also like to make sure our EPA never gets the authority — “[Joanne Nova: Rule by law has effectively been replaced with rule by bureaucrat.].

    Best,
    John from CA

    00

  • #
    pat

    almost everyone is under threat, one way or another, because of the “perverse environmental” scams being carried out under the insanity of CAGW, yet most people i talk to have no idea as to what is happening cos it’s not on channels 7, 9 and 10 and their misnamed “current affairs” progs at all, while ABC and SBS are as good as players in the game. if it ain’t on TV, it doesn’t exist:

    10 Aug: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Eco threat to house prices
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/eco-threat-to-house-prices/story-e6frg6z6-1225904124270

    00

  • #
    John from CA

    pat says:
    September 24th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
    “almost everyone is under threat, on way or another, because of the “perverse environmental” scams being carried out under the insanity of CAGW”

    pat,
    Government agencies all over the world related to fishing already know we’re headed into the next global cooling cycle. Do a search related to the Australia ENSO fishing cycles and you’ll find numerous Government studies.

    This one related to Arctic waters is a good example:
    http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf

    It isn’t news that AGW is a hoax but Stewardship is a good idea.

    This was perhaps off topic?

    00

  • #
    pat

    say what?

    24 Sept: Herald-Sun: Police shared info anti-desal protesters
    AAP, Matthew Schulz
    VICTORIA police have been heavily criticised for striking deals to release secret files on anti-desalination plant protesters.
    Police Commissioner Simon Overland today conceded it should never have struck such deals with private organisations such as Aquasure, which is building Victoria’s $5.7 billion desalination plant.
    We will no longer enter into Memorandum of Understanding with private organisations,” Mr Overland said today…
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/police-shared-info-anti-desal-protesters/story-e6frf7kx-1225928828102

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    [Joanne Nova: Rule by law has effectively been replaced with rule by bureaucrat.]

    I am staying hopeful that the Thompsons are the unlucky* case to test this legislation and that the pollies will come around to realising this is unworkable. I have to stay optimistic. Thanks for posting about your DEC experiences Pat – it confirmed some things I had felt, but I can’t speak about (and no, i don’t work at DEC, but I know quite a few of the people there).

    * Not that the Thompsons had to experience this, but that the legislation may be up for its first test and found wanting. It’s up to the licencing people as to how vigorously they implement the licencing conditions. Let’s hope some wisdom comes from this miserable experience and this clause (equivalent to A1) does not make its way into other licences.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The bank is presumably foreclosing on the basis of the adverse ruling by DEC. DEC, as a government instrumentality, is difficult to sue for misrepresentation because bad faith has to be established. But since the bank is acting [presumably] on the basis of DEC’s representations the bank could be sued as a de facto agent of DEC.

    If the Thompsons have no money I’m afraid they will have to see a litigation funder:

    http://www.imf.com.au/funding.asp

    00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I’m surprised your DEC didn’t insert a clause about “miasma” into their legislation. It wouldn’t be any less scientific than their “Condition A1″ and at least, when Victorian civic leaders obsessed about miasma, they genuinely thought they were acting in the public interest. When bureaucrats in a modern government department insert a catch-all clause like “Condition A1″ into legislation, “public interest” is the last thing on their mind.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bulldust @60,

    I may seem overly attached to the Thompsons but remember, they are from the U.S. and are U.S. citizens. This in no way detracts from my general feeling for anyone in such a situation.

    I am staying hopeful that the Thompsons are the unlucky* case to test this legislation and that the pollies will come around to realising this is unworkable.

    I sincerely hope you are right!

    00