Sacked: Macca & Medich met twice, by coincidence !

Ian MacDonald was today sacked by Premier Nathan Rees from the Labor front bench. While many affected by MacDonald's mining exploration decisions will applaud this decision - irrespective as to why, many questions about the former Minister also remain unanswered.

It has been revealed that while a Minister, Ian Macdonald met the developer Ron Medich twice at Tuscany Restaurant in Leichhardt in 2008, "at a time when Mr Macdonald was being backed by powerbrokers Eddie Obeid and Joe Tripodi to become the state's planning minister."

Mr Medich revealed at a parliamentary inquiry into the McGurk affair that he had met Mr Macdonald twice at the restaurant, but denied any discussion of planning issues.

According to the SMH, Mr Macdonald denied that ''property development issues'' were discussed, but declined to say what was discussed.

Despite meeting Mr MacDonald twice at the same restaurant, Mr Medich said there was no arranged meeting and that he saw Mr Macdonald at another table and they began discussions. He revealed that Mr Macdonald asked him to do a favour at one of the meetings, by asking Mr Medich to talk to a close personal friend about a proposed merger of the Australian Jockey Club and the Sydney Turf Club.

So there you have it: Macca & Medich met twice, by coincidence, in the same restaurant in Leichardt. Why, perhaps they even ordered identical meals & wine, again, by pure coincidence ?

Source:
smh.com.au

Was the EL Legal ?

Serious questions are emerging about the legality of Minister Ian MacDonald's awarding of an exploration license to the Doyles Creek Mining Company.

A principle of law, known as procedural fairness, concerns the fairness and transparency by which decisions are made. A similar principle is that of natural justice, stemming from the Common Law.

Minister MacDonald awarded the EL to the Doyles Creek Mining Company, ignoring his own departments' published, written, policy requiring all mining applicants in NSW to advertise their application in the newspapers prior to any license being awarded. Doyles Creek Mining Company was not required to do this prior to it's EL being awarded by the Minister.

And the Minister may have also erred on another key point.

Section 237 of the Mining Act 1992 requires the Minister to take into account the need to "conserve and protect natural resources", such as the flora, fauna, fish, fisheries and scenic attractions, and the features of Aboriginal, architectural, archaeological, historical or geological interest.

Interestingly, Caroona Coal Action Group have recently launched a challenge to their EL, based upon S.237.

Perhaps Mr Greg Barns, vocal civil rights lawyer, blogger and Doyles Creek Mine exec, might provide us with some pro-bono legal advice in respect of these matters ?

Cynical selective compassion ? Crikey !

Greg Barns, the Doyles Creek Mine & Resco exec, could be considered a man of many talents. One of those talents is to write quite profusely, persuasively & intelligently about society's ethical & moral dilemmas.

A former politician, lawyer, self-publicist, Crikey.com author, blogger, he's written bucketloads of 'stuff'. Hand-wringing-ethics-type stuff mainly. Granted, portions of his general gumph can be a decent read no matter what side of the fence you're from.

Trawling through Barns' myriad of topical, philosophical, caffe latte, leftie-leaning banter, much of what he's on about involves the ethics of human rights - passionately sticking up for the downtrodden, people whom society has wronged or ignored.

People, such as refugees, prisoners, Guantanamo bay inmates, Palestinians, accused arsonists, social outcasts, Barns appears a vocal ethical & moral champion of society's wronged.

Barns has previously been a passionate man on social rights issues, and prepared to take risks to stand his ground. So passionate on issues as asylum seekers, he was disendorsed as a candidate of his own political party, the Liberals, for having the guts to speak out. But that was in the past.

A couple of his more topical articles are titled "Our cynical and selective compassion" and "Selective Compassion". The gist of all of this is, Greg tells us, as a society, we are selective in whom we extend our compassion. Greg goes on, "Compassion, said political theorist Hannah Arendt, is inherently selective."

Remember those two words, "selective" and "compassion".

With compassion in mind, where is Greg Barnes' compassion for the people of Apple Tree Flat and Doyles Creek, the people whose livelihoods are now threatened by Barn's coal mine ?

The families that pioneered the fertile land, planted crops in it's rich alluvial soils, whose ancestors dug wells by hand to obtain it's valuable water. Names that are embedded into it's history - the Barrys, the Moores, the O'Haras, the Chapmans and others. People who, like all humans, rely on water.

Indeed, most people universally agree, water is a fundamental human right. Scientists tell us - water is an essential ingredient for life.

If Barn's underground coal mine goes underneath this land, experience tells us the water aquifer will disappear forever, and so too will the farms & families that rely upon it. But the overriding consideration appears to be - digging a coal mine with a lifespan around 20 or so years underneath the aquifer, for the sake of coal, and its dollars.

Surely, the ethical question for Greg Barns must be: does Greg's compassion for his Directorships on coal mining companies Resco & DCM selectively outweigh his compassion for the most basic of human rights - water - and the rights of those whose livelihoods will be destroyed by his Doyles Creek coal mine?

"Compassion, said political theorist Hannah Arendt, is inherently selective." So true, Greg Barns.

When a duck is not a duck....

A blog entry appearing on this site - purportedly made by Resco Director Andrew Poole - is highly critical over our claims that Resco is a major partner in the Doyles Creek Mining Proposal.

It states, "RESCO is NOT a major partner of the Doyles Creek Mining proposal."

But our information strongly suggests otherwise.

And why would Resco want to distance itself as a major partner involved in a coal mine ?

The key to this question perhaps lies in Resco's financier & equity partner, Westpac Bank.

Resco is owned 26% by Westpac, who are spending large sums of money trying to re-brand themselves as a clean, green financier (see Westpac's greenwashing video on this site)

This blog understands during 2008 - serious concerns were raised at high levels within Westpac over Resco's ownership of a coal mine. This was completely at odds with Westpac's green marketing campaign.

And so, according to ASIC records, a company was formed - "Doyles Creek Mining Pty Limited - formerly known as Resco". With Directors jointly shared between Resco & Doyles Creek Mining, it is understood the solution to Westpac's problem - having direct equity in a coal mine - was, rather crudely, found.

Along with the ASIC records, the directors, such as Andrew Poole, Craig Ransley & Greg Barns jointly shared between Doyles Creek Mining & Resco, further records suggest that Resco today remains a major partner involved in the Doyles Creek Mining Proposal.

According to records, not only is Resco likely to be a major partner, but their own PR states Resco is,"the key partner of Doyles Creek Training Mine".

A joint press release issued on the 24th December 2008 by Ian MacDonald and Resco Executive Director Craig Ransley states, "Doyles Creek Mining Director Craig Ransley, who is also Executive Chairman of Resco Services Pty Ltd, the key partner of the Doyles Creek Training Mine, said the grant of the ELA ensures the first training mine facility in NSW will become a reality."

If Doyles Creek Mine is approved, and assuming the joint directors approve their own company's "tender", Resco stands to gain a significant pecuniary "contract", and without Westpac having the embarrassing stigma of ownership in a coal mine.

And while Resco claims it currently holds no equity in DCM in a monetary sense, (which is not disputed), do the surrounding circumstances suggest that Resco is and was a major partner in the Doyles Creek Mining Proposal ? Make up your own minds.

If it walks & quacks like a duck, it might not be a duck. Some people would also have us believe in the tooth fairy.
;)

Resco "rip off" workers ?

Resco, the major partner involved in the Doyles Creek Mining proposal, has been accused by CFMEU Northern District President Ian Murray of attempting to "rip off" its own workers.

According to a recent article appearing in a CFMEU publication, Resco is accused of attempting to "lock its open cut workforce into WorkChoices contracts before new industrial laws take effect from 1 July."

Tensions between Resco & its employees appear to be heating up.

“As if there was not already enough insecurity for these workers through the ‘casual’ nature of their employment, Resco wants to screw them even more and deny them the benefits and protections the Union would pursue in a collective agreement, particularly under the new incoming fairer industrial laws”, he said.

Jerrys heli simulator - at Broadmeadow ?

Yet another key promise of the DoylesCreek/Resco Mining company - to build a helicopter flight simulator in Jerrys Plains for Westpac Rescue - looks like another furphy.

Readers might recall back in August 2008 Doyles Creek Mine (then Resco) proudly boasted it would build build a helicopter flight simulator (one of the key promises touted as being of significant benefit to Jerrys in supporting their "training" mine).

The simulator was to be built at Jerrys Plains & hence pilots would be able to train here rather than having to go to Sweden to learn.

But information to hand clearly shows - Westpac Rescue Helicopter have built a helicopter flight simulator - at nearby Broadmeadow (see pic above).

Flight simulators don't come cheaply. One wonders what type of logic would dictate that Westpac Rescue would build two multi million dollar simulators - one at nearby Broadmeadow, the other at Jerrys Plains ?

Almost certainly, one suspects its yet another case of hot air to try & mask the real issue - DCM/Resco want coal, and lots of it.

Its official: Jerrys says "No" to Doyles Creek Mine

Its official: The overwhelming majority of landowners inside the EL area of Doyles Creek Mine have said a firm "No" to the controversial Doyles Creek Mine.

The area covered by the "Doyles Creek Mining" EL (referred to in the petition) includes parts of the Jerrys Plains township, Appletree Flat and Doyles Creek.

On Monday, that petition, signed by one hundred and eleven affected landowners and business operators in the EL area, was tabled in NSW Parliament by Local Member, George Souris & Nationals Leader in the Upper House, Duncan Gay.

Readers may recall the words of the (then) Chairman of Resco, John Maitland, in June '08 previously warning the Jerrys Plains community, “If the community says they don’t want the mine and fight against it, it probably won’t happen,”.

At that time, Mr Maitland added, “We and our stakeholders don’t want to be involved in a fight with the community."

Prophetic words indeed, Mr Maitland.

The message to John Maitland, Resco & DCM is clear: Resco & it's spun-off Doyles Creek "training" mine now have a very big fight on their hands. The overwhelming majority of landowners in the EL area have said "No" to Doyles Creek Mine.

Our forebears & ancestors have nurtured this productive agricultural land for a very long time, we wish to preserve it for future generations, and we will continue to fight this mine (and any others) - for as long as it takes.

Your dirty mine is not welcome here.