Aint no use in crying

With thanks to Nick van Voorst and The Rolling Stones

Posting comments

There's a error with posting comments presently.

I have reverted to the Pop UP comments window, which seems to be operating okay.

You'll need to have your Pop Up enabled, or hold down the Control key when you click the "Comment link".

Also, please leave your name, or your nic name, when leaving a comment on CairnsBlog. If you post it as 'Anonymous', it will simply be deleted.

Follow the race to the Black House

CEC start False Cape work

After over a year of political Council and State government wrangling; three years of severe damage to what was a pristine coastline view from Cairns; a Federal Minister's intervention; much Cairns City Council's mis-management and negligence, False Cape is about to get some urgent pre-wet season surgery.

Yesterday, Cairns construction company CEC rolled back onto the work site, that has been abandoned for months.

Never explained properly to the public, the Council have not invoked their $650,000 bond that they should be holding for this use, to spend towards clean up the 2 klm long False Cape site. Instead, as a act of mad local politics, they're paying for it themselves, out of Ratepayer money, and added it to developer John Ewens rate's bill.

CEC moved a large excavator onto the site, presumably to start remedial work. You have to wonder how an excavator will stabilise the now scarred hillslopes.

Over the last two wet seasons, substantial sediment run off was recorded. Save False Cape campaigners have been fighting for action for nearly three years. You can see the damage to False Cape from these amazing photos taken onboard the Buttrose Nowakowski death-defying helicopter ride, that I'm assured will not be an attraction at next year's Cairns Show.

Three pix from the Cairns Post

It must be difficult being a Cairns Post photographer (I know a couple of them actually).

I couldn't help but giggle when I saw these three Post photos, from three different stories, all sporting the same style and angle. I wonder if the Sub Ed noticed the similarity, before publication? They all appeared on or about the same day last week.

150 million of these will vote tomorrow

Where the bloodly hell were you Val?

A lot has been made of my so-called attack of our new Mayor's lack of action over protecting the historic Cairns Yacht Club building.

Val's running mate, Balaclava vet Dr Paul Matthews, whom I actually like, but at times acts like he's been de-sexed, but not micro-chipped. Paul came to the rescue to the online slander. He says what has been happening on this Blog, and other forums, that people are pillorying the new mayor. "It's public derision, ridicule or abuse... me thinx that pretty well sums up what's happening," said Paul Matthews, who ran against now Deputy Mayor Margaret Cochrane.

For a start, let me put a couple of things on the record. I supported a change in our local Council prior to March this year. I stand by that. Like Cairns 1st supporter and Yacht Club campaigner, Wendy Davie, I still think we are better off than with the guy who was running this place prior to Val taking over.

However, that doesn't mean when you elect a new mayor, and a bunch of Councillors, you sit idylly back and let them do what they want for four years (or four and a half years actually.. and another half a million in salary). It's the job of those that voted for a change, to keep them honest, and see that they strive to deliver change. I bet a majority of those attacking the State Government at present probably voted for them last time.

I don't buy the old argument that Mayor Val doesn't have the numbers. That's a cop out. Sure it's harder to move a motion around the Council table, but that's only a portion of how Council does business. The Mayor should be a primary proponent of ideas and set direction, and thinking. Promote visions, and instill grand thinking for a community. The Mayor should be bold and innovative. She shouldn't travel all the way to a public meeting in Mossman and say "I'm only here to listen."

I met with Val last Wednesday because I was genuinely disappointed that she decided to not make one public statement after being elected about heritage. When the campaign to save the old Yacht Club building got more and more attention, as the deceitful State Government hurried it's removal prior to it's State sitting of Parliament just two blocks away, Val became more and more confused and nervous about going near the subject. Deep within her heart, I have no doubt she wanted to speak out, but all the time was considering "what would Desley and Anna think?"

It was an embarrassing and appalling situation. Here we had a new 'green' and 'environmentally concerned' mayor at the helm, the first in eight years, and she failed to even put out one press statement or front one interview in support of heritage preservation. And when she did, it was to condemn her fellow Cairns 1st Councillor Di Forsyth for her actions to save the old building. Now there's something very wrong about that, don't you think?

Imagine if Val had gone to battle and carried out the Council minuted mandate to get the Premier before the Community, as was requested. That is all we asked. This wasn't something that would have got her off-side with her Labor hacks. It would have gained her great respect as a negotiator and loyal and strong advocate for the Cairns community.

I've been told that Val did a lot behind the scenes to get a meeting with the Premier, in an attempt to save the old waterfront icon, which now sits in pieces of ruin on an empty University field north of town, and in a wrecker's yard on the northern beaches. Well, that may be well and good, but the Mayor needs to learn to become a better communicator with her residents. A master communicator is the requirement of Mayor. I didn't see one media statement about her efforts to get Bligh before the people. Not one. Zip. Zilch. If her media team are there to make her look good and promote good policies of this Council, then they're failing rather miserable.

Chatting with a senior business leader today, who voted for to get rid of Kevin Byrne, questioned that we haven't got what we voted for. "We may have made a mistake, do you think Michael?" he said.

I guess we simply wanted a louder advocate for the people, for issues that we felt were being ignored or neglected. Heritage and environment were two biggies that Val was strong and loud on before her $158,000 salary kicked in.

I want Val to succeed. I want her to excel. I want her to achieve for this community. It's why we all put in so much effort. Sure, I'll give her a go, but this job is in partnership with the people, not in separation of them. I help fund her and her fellow Councilor's salary and I, like many thousands, contributed to the debate for a change in our community.

Let me take you back a few months. Tell me who said this...

• "I want to ensure that our heritage is looked after.
  
  We need to have waterfront that will attract people .. to see how distinctively different this place is... both for the people that live here and the tourists to come here."

It was Val Schier, just a few days before the March election at the Port Douglas Chamber of Commerce mayoral debate luncheon. I even travelled up in the car with Val. Funny that.

Here's the video...



Where the bloodly hell were you Val?

A shitty message from Council

This just in, or out actually...

• Cairns Regional Council workers are repairing a sewer main break in Lake Street near the Cairns Base Hospital.
  
  The break is contained but will take workers most of tomorrow (Tuesday) to locate and repair the trouble spot due to the depth of the main in the area.
  
  A road break has been dug approximately three metres wide and eight metres long in order to reach the pipe work.
  
  As a consequence traffic will be delayed at times tomorrow with half of the road closed in the vicinity of the break.
  
  [Council] will advise when traffic conditions return to normal.

Election week

The Americans and Kiwis both go to the polls this week.

Tomorrow, as we are fixated on Melbourne Cup fever, the US election will come to an end after 931 days and $5 billion of campaigning.

Then, on Saturday, Kiwis across the Tasman will decide between incumbent Helen Clark, whose been in power since 1999, is striving for a record fourth term in office. She's pitted against Mr Smooth, National's John Key, and it's not looking good for Helen.

I think the race across the Tasman will be much closer than Barack's battle for the White House, but I'm not a betting man.

This week will all be about winners and losers. And I'm not talking about the Queensland State Government.

Inflation in Zimbabwe

Paul Walker has blogged Zimbabwe’s new annual inflation rate.

It is 10.2 quadrillion precent. That is 10.2 million billion or 10,200,000,000,000,000%.

Hat Tip: KiwiBlog

Building the Great Australian FireWall, brick by brick

Syd Walker strikes a blow for freedom and queries the real agenda behind Steven Conroy's plan to censor the Internet for Australians.


Like Tony Blair a decade earlier in Britain, it’s reasonable to infer that Kevin Rudd cut deals with powerful lobbies before he came to power in 2007.

These presumably helped him – and the ALP - to get elected. They may have helped secure fair treatment from powerful elements within the mainstream media in the run-up to the election. Of course, that such deals took place is speculation. If they were done, they were done behind the scenes. But perhaps on occasion they may be inferred?

A probable example of such a deal, in this author’s opinion, was the bizarre announcement made by Kevin Rudd, pre-election, that in office an ALP Government would seek to prosecute the Iranian President in the International Court of Justice.

At the time, Rudd explained the ‘crimes’ of President Ahmadinejad as he saw them. These included the Iranian President’s alleged statement that Israel should be “wiped off the map“.

This claim was based on a blatant mistranslation of the Ahmadinejad’s words. In fairness to Rudd, the same error is obediently repeated on an almost daily basis by ‘Your’ ABC and the SBS (not to mention the commercial mass media), so in Australia only independently spirited internet users were likely to know that. Such is the bias and conformism of our ‘mainstream media’ - and such is the potentially liberating force of the Internet.

Ahmadinejad’s other major alleged ‘offence’, according to Mr Rudd, was that he has queried aspects of Second World War history. Rudd did not explain why he saw this as an Australian foreign policy priority.

I wrote to Kevin Rudd before the election, seeking clarification and setting out my concerns on this matter in rather more detail. In reply, I received a re-iteration of his previous statements. It was like communicating with an answering machine. Rationality, it seems, did not underpin the policy. It left me to surmise that the policy was a done deal, probably with representatives of Australia’s Zionist Lobby. The last thing his office wanted was to provide a rational justification. There was none. The policy was a politically convenient expression of sectarian bias. Rudd and his advisers knew none of the mass media would ask hard questions about it.

Quite recently, the Rudd Government quietly dropped its bid to prosecute Iran’s President. Presumably wiser heads in the Department of Foreign Affairs prevailed, saving Australia from ridicule in the international arena. Perhaps the wheat export lobby weighed in?

Which brings me, in a round-about way, to the main topic of the day – Internet censorship.

Another quite bizarre policy that Rudd took to the electorate was a promise to restrict Internet access so only ‘safe’ websites are available in Australia (via a compulsory 'Clean Feed').

It has been put about that this remarkable censorship project is (a) largely at the behest of the Christian lobby and (b) targeted at pornography, especially child pornography.

I may be wrong, but I suspect both these claims are deceptions.

Undoubtedly there is anti-pornography sentiment within Australia’s Christian community. But is Christianity really so resurgent in modern Australia that unprecedented restrictions on Internet access – restrictions that go beyond what other western jurisdictions have contemplated – will be a popular measure here? Do prominent Church leaders really see this as a crucial issue? Anyhow, since when did Christian leaders set the moral rules and legal rubric for all Australians?

Where, one may ask, is the evidence that Internet pornography is a damaging phenomenon that does real harm to Australian society – harm that merits significant pubic expenditure (well over $100 million) and potential disruption to the free flow of ideas and communications? Where is the evidence that unprecedented censorship is merited to curb the threat of ‘child pornography’ when there are already strict laws prohibiting the abuse of children and international co-operation to enforce that?

In an attempt to find out, I first scanned relevant Government websites, then called the Office of the Federal Communications Minister Steven Conroy, as well as his Department. It took me a long time to get hold of anyone who could give me any answers at all. I finally struck gold – but as don’t want to embarrass the person in question, I won’t name her/him.

One of my questions concerned the Government’s evidentiary basis. In plain English, what research and/or other written material has the government drawn on to formulate its policy? I thought by studying that, I might glean insights into the Government’s thinking.

The answer was surprising (or perhaps not, depending on one’s level of cynicism). The Government is about to tender for consultants to do a literature review of the literature on that subject. Expect an ad any day soon on the relevant government websites…

Commissioning a literature review, in order to formulate policy, is often a good idea. But surely it should precede the formulation of policy? Apparently that’s not Senator Conroy’s style. He prefers to set policy, then spend pubic money finding good reasons to support it.

This strengthened my view that the Government’s scheme to censor the Internet was decided in advance of a serious, rational and inclusive policy discussion. That’s not Rudd’s normal style, methinks. Now Conroy is scrambling not only to find practical ways to put the policy into operation – he even has the audacity to spend our cash to dig up supporting arguments.

I was informed that pilot projects of the Government’s proposed mandatory ‘filter’ will get underway by the end of the year - through just a few ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to start.
Which ISPs? Apparently the Government is looking for willing participants at the moment. As one of the side effects of participation is likely to be significant drop in connection speed, I’m surprised any ISPs are willing to stick their hands up. Maybe they won’t?

In fact, a trial was undertaken in Tasmania some time ago, with results that have caused internet buffs a lot of concern, despite attempts to gild the lily in the official report. So why are more trials needed?

It seems that Senator Conroy is trying to get the scheme in operation, however vague, however many loose ends remain to be tidied, however technologically hair-brained. He wants to start with a few ISPs, then expand the scheme.

Is the Rudd Government about to build the Great Australian Firewall, brick by brick, right or wrong?

I remarked that many (not all) of my concerns would be allayed if the government gave a cast iron, plain English guarantee that NO sites will be blacklisted and banned on the basis of the political views and intellectual content therein. Genuine independent oversight would also be needed. In effect, it should be illegal to ban a site on spurious grounds combined with considerable transparency in implementation.

No such guarantees exist. I was told that under the government’s proposal, the list of banned sites will be maintained by the Australia Communications and Media Authority. A range of criteria will be used to prepare the list. It will not be publicly accessible.

Rudd needs to pull the government’s horns in on this – and fast.

It’s political disaster in the making.

Here's EFA Chair Dale Clapperton discussing the net filter on TV this week.




We’ve just seen in Australia how a hyped-up moral panic over sex and child safety was used to justify obnoxious, irrational, inappropriate policies in the Northern Territory intervention. That was the Howard Government’s grubby mess, which the new Government inherited. Rudd doesn’t need to taint himself in similar fashion. Does he?

While making calls about this today, I rang local MP Jim Turnour’s office. I thought I might ask him about the policy and voice my concerns directly to my ALP Federal representative.

I’ll have to wait. Jim is in China for a fortnight, checking out their Great (Fire)Wall, perhaps.

Speewah is being mined

Another important new local blog joins the stable of independent commentary.

This one is all about Auzex Resources plans to mine for minerals in the idyllic rainforest suburb of Speewah, close to Kuranda.

They have been given permission to explore in and around World Heritage rain-forest, and they are probably looking for tin, bismuth, silver, molybdenum or gold. We hope there will be some forest left when they have finished.

Check out Bruce Belson's blog here.

As always, you'll find a complete list of local Blogs and websites on the right-hand side.

CairnsBlog cartoon by Circusmouse

10% Macca

Councillor Robert Pyne:

• "I was on MacKenzie [846am Talkback Radio] this morning, and there were a number of callers, about the changes to McLeod Street. We need to listen to them."

Mayor Val Schier:

• "Well not many listen to him anyway. Only 10% listen. We know this."

Me thinks someone isn't being given any airtime on this little ol radio station.

Cairns Regional Council meeting
Thursday 30th October @ 10:33am approx

The Undoing of Val Schier

Councillor Dianne Forsyth made an appearance yesterday at the Cairns Courthouse. It went much smoother than Michael Jackson with Prince and Paris out shopping in High Street.

Both WIN TV and Channel 7 turned up, along with a pot-pouri of supporters, a number who had previously been convicted of trespass on the Yacht Club demolition site. Bryan Law spoke, as did LNP's Barron River candidate, Wendy Richardson. John Rodden addressed the gathering. He received a 12 month good behaviour bond from the judge.

Fellow Councillor Robert Pyne spoke to those gathered and recounted Voltaire's famous quote about the freedom to speak out. "I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," Pyne said. "I believe Di acted with the spirit to speak out and represent a large number of residents, and we all should be allowed to enjoy that freedom."

But the day was Di's. Kudos to Abigail at WIN TV for not being distracted about the misdirection of a code of conduct inquiry, as there is no case to answer there. The issue was all about inappropriate highrise development on our waterfront. They also picked up on the ill-feeling from those gathered that Val Schier had not supported her fellow Cairns 1st Councillor.

"I'm very disappointed in Val," long-time supporter Wendy Davie told me, who supporting a change in Cairns local body politics. "I really don't know why the Mayor we all supported and helped get elected has ignored us and this community important issue."

On Channel 7 Mayor Schier said that whilst Di's job was not in jeopardy "I think certainly some of the other (un-named) Councillors believe that [Cr Forsyth] should not have broken the law," she said, raising the code of conduct issue.

Indeed Mayor Val Schier did ignore the Yacht Club issue. She made a decision to stay mum on the subject, falling into line with her State Labor pollys. This issue is almost the last straw for many who wanted a political change in this city, and had put their will and energy behind someone they felt could bring about change and stand up for issues of heritage and preservation. Or at the very least, speak out.

The telling moment was, that after deliberately decided to stay out of the public debate surrounding the protection of the Yacht Club, Mayor Val decided to enter the debate and allow her Council media unit to orchestrate a press conference to undermine her own Councillor, and that of the community action campaign that had been ongoing for six months. The media conference was a sham. Val said she'd take interviews with CEO Noel Briggs, only some four hours after Councillor Forsyth undertook her action of public protest.

Dianne Forsyth scaled the roof of the Yacht Club at 7:02am on Monday 13th October. Telephone calls from the media started to reach Val around 8am. Mark Buttrose had already informed his Cairns 1st leader of Di's actions.

Then at 11:04am, something odd happened.

• -----Original Message-----
  From: Le Comte Ann [mailto:a.lecomte@cairns.qld.gov.au]
  Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 11:04 AM
  Subject: Media alert - Council response to protest action of Councillor Di Forsyth
  
  Media Alert ~ Council Response to protest action of Councillor Di Forsyth
  
  Interview opportunity:
  Mayor Cr Val Schier and CEO Noel Briggs
  When: 12:30pm
  Where: Cairns Regional Council, Spence St Office- downstairs
  Contact: Kerie Hull 0417 073 659

I showed up. The Mayor didn't.

So what happened in the 86 minutes following her agreement to participate? Or did she never intend to say a thing, and let the city's highest paid public servant speak about a 'breach of the Councillor's Code of Conduct' that had no complaint at that stage.

What this media circus achieved was to undermine her Councillor, from her own Cairns 1st party. It also undermined the campaign about heritage preservation, which was at the heart of the story that day. I thought that was a subject very dear to Val's left leaning heart?

Her Cairns 1st policy shouted on and on about community engagement. Val said prior to the election she wanted to "build a society in which everyone can participate and everyone can feel safe and supported." Well she didn't even treat her own team with respect that day.

Prior to the Council election, Val Schier said that she would ensure all Council business was open to scrutiny by the general community and that decisions are made with integrity. Again on the issue of the Yacht Club, and Dianne Forsyth's actions that day, she failed miserably in this pre-election promise. She failed Dianne. She failed those that supported her.

In seeking support from the voters before the March election, Val talked of working in partnership with the community to "enhance open spaces, streetscapes etc." This is why we are shocked she's been consumed by the Labor hierarchy and her Council administration. Val, the only people that will re-elect you, is the people of Cairns, not Labor politicians come four years time.

Val Schier also promised to maintain a Natural and Cultural Heritage Register and actively protect places that are important to our community. For her to argue that the Yacht Club was 'done and dusted' means that she doesn't know how to advocate and lobby for change. This is rather frightening. If this issue was turned around, Val Schier could have hung her hat on it and said: 'I made a change. I listened to the people and I showed the State Labor Government that they were wrong on this issue.'

We wanted and needed a Mayor, a city leader, to stand tall, be counted and represent the views of the community, no matter how difficult that is in the face of party politics.

This is yet another damaging PR disaster for her credibility. We all want her to succeed. We want her to perform and engage with the community. We want her to allow us access to the Council and impact change from our side of politics. It's why so many advocated for a change.

If this is all simply a stuff up that Council's media unit created, then she should fire them. However I doubt that it was. Val told me in her office on Wednesday that at the last minute, she had a 'strategy meeting' to go to. "Noel Briggs came into my office and asked if I was coming down to the media conference about Di, and I said ummm, no."

There's something rather repugnant, if not improper, when a $300,000 public servant lectures ratepayers about a code of conduct inquiry that doesn't exist. It merely invited someone to complain.

Val Schier told me that she needs to make decisions about what is important for her to spend her time on. "I don't want to bother myself with those who play in the sandpit." It's a reference I'm still trying to work out. She also acknowledged if she did attend the media conference that morning, she would have said something about not condoning Cr Forsyth's actions, it was an issue she was entitled to speak out on. It was suggested that this direct action of civil disobedience would not have been necessary should the Mayor have successfully got the Premier to a meeting with the Cairns community about the Yacht Club building issue. That is what the whole story was about.

Val left my meeting angry and flustered that her actions and decisions that day had been viewed with great disappointment. The Mayor needs to realise that such decisions have a wide-ranging effect on how people perceive her and what signals that sends out. I asked for a quick photo opp as we stood up. "Nah, I don't think so," she said and she turned her back symbolically.

The sad thing is that such actions and reactions, damage the high office of Mayor. It's a tough job being the city leader. However, you hit this job running, with little settling in. People expect and want their views listened to and at least acknowledged.

"If people want to vote for me in four years, then that is their decision," Val said in parting with our brief 15 minute chat. "If I don't get in then that is also their decision." But it's our job as ratepayers to keep our elected Councillors informed and accountable.

It was another day. Another poor response from the Mayor of our town.

Forsyth's case adjourns till Friday November 21st, so O'Reilly Lawyers can pay for their Christmas staff party.

Another reason to retire from Townsville

The Townsville Bully reports that wallabies are terrorising a retirement village.

They're "knocking over residents and defecating on lawns and patios," the story goes. Check out the gallery of the rogue wallabies from Carlyle Gardens retirement resort!

Personally, I think people who live in Townsville, get what they deserve.

Foley Road: Lessons from the Lookout

You'd have to be stuck in a Council Strategic meeting to have missed this one. I've been rabbiting on about the debacle unfolding up near Palm Cove at Foley Road, for three months now.

A number of concerned residents near the ensuing mud slide, have communicated many horror stories with me about this dodgy development.

Keith Martin is one local resident, who has seen first hand the effects of what this ill-conceived and Council sanctioned development will have. Keith has recounted to me some of the goings on that has allowed this appalling hillside environmental raping to be carried out.

He says that with the current focus on a potential threat of erosion and off-site sediment transport at the Foley Road development, it's interesting to review the response of Council, EPA and the developer the last time a similar incident occurred, just a few kilometres away.

In December 2005 and January 2006, Hedley Constructions commenced clearing and excavation works on a hillslope development at Paradise Palms called 'The Lookout'. This development was an almost identical situation to the Foley Road site – a 9 lot residential subdivision on a steep elevated hillslope. A feature of this development was the construction of a 4 m deep drainage trench, rock-hammered up the hillside just 100 m from Deep Creek, with the associated spoil dumped adjacent. Downstream neighbours feared an imminent sediment inundation threat to their property and to the environment. Council were notified on a number of occasions, including written notification from lawyers.

Despite these pleas to stop the work and stabilize the site for the wet season, the land disturbance was allowed to continue unabated.

When the first storms of the wet season eventuated, masses of sediment escaped from the development site and flowed into neighbouring properties and nearby Deep Creek, an Endangered regional ecosystem. Again, Council were alerted, and again nothing was done. Following further wet weather, neighbouring property owners notified EPA of the issue and, on inspection of the development site, commenced an investigation which eventually led to a successful prosecution. In October 2007, EPA won a court case against Hedley Construction on two counts of unlawful environmental nuisance, and they were fined $90,000 plus court costs. The engineers, CMC Engineering were also fined $20,000 for “contravening a condition of a Cairns City Council development permit”. A press release from EPA, dated 18th October 2007 read in part:

• EPA Northern Region Director of Environment Rob Lawrence said the $90,000 fine awarded by the court sent a clear message to developers and builders across the state regarding their environmental responsibilities.
  
  “In this case several hundred metres of a relatively pristine tributary of Deep Creek was contaminated with sediment from the Paradise Palms site.
  
  “This conviction should serve as a warning to developers and builders in Queensland to make sure they have sediment and erosion control measures in place to protect our waterways from incidents of this kind.”

Given the current situation at Foley Road, have the developers really received that “clear message”, are they solely to blame for the problem anyway, and would EPA step in this time to prosecute if necessary?

It is now clear that the 'Lookout' prosecution did little to improve the environmental performance of the developer at this site. Sediment runoff continued from the site for two wet seasons following the initial complaint. At one point in 2007, sediment laden water was re-directed into the neighbour’s property, nearly flooding the house. There have been numerous breaches of Council regulations and their development permit since then but no subsequent action has ever been taken. Despite all this, in March 2008 the same developer applied to further reduce environment controls over the site, which is within the Conservation Planning Area Code. A Development Approval was submitted to reduce the level of assessment of buildings in the subdivision from 'Impact' to 'Code' assessable. This effectively removes any public notification. Cairns Council approved this application, saying that the previous prosecution was irrelevant.

Are the developers really to blame though? It has to be accepted that they have no interest in environmental protection. They view the approvals process as an annoying hurdle to be jumped before the real work commences. They will do whatever actions they are allowed to do by the regulators within the often vague conditions of their development permit. That is their legal right.

Council is the sole regulator in this case. They approved the development permit, set the environmental performance conditions, and also approved the operational works and soil and erosion plans that EPA and the courts later found to be inadequate. Council was responsible for monitoring the site, and had ample warning from the public that a problem existed. Council had every opportunity to ensure that the environmental breach at 'The Lookout' was avoided, but they did not act to prevent it. You don’t have to be an expert to know that major earthworks on a hillslope in the middle of the wet season is a bad idea.

So how come Council got off scot free in the prosecution? Why did the developer and engineer incur fines, when it was Council - the regulator - who really failed to act in the best interests of the community and the environment?

There is a basic problem. In their quest to develop the Cairns northern beaches to the limit, Council planners continue to support the developers by recommending approval of development applications with minimal regard to the environmental consequences, the community or even their own planning scheme. They attach no substantial conditions to these approvals, even though they are duty bound under the Integrated Planning Act to properly assess and regulate the effects of development. Subsequent Council monitoring and enforcement is weak or non existent, and appears driven only by the level of public complaint.

It now appears that in the case of Foley Road, Council and EPA have assessed the situation, and as a result, Council has instructed the developer to initiate a program of mitigation and stabilization, which is to be commended. Let us hope it is successful.

The trouble is that all this probably would not have occurred if it hadn’t been for the very vocal complaints of locals and community groups, and the subsequent intervention of politicians. At the “Lookout” the site was away from public view and only near neighbours knew what was happening, and they were ignored by Council. It shouldn’t be that way. Council has to start doing the job that ratepayers expect, and it starts with more robust planning assessments. It means rigorous assessment of Development Approvals, serious compliance with existing environmental regulations at all levels, strict approval conditions set, monitoring of job sites, and real enforcement of any breaches found.

This is what the community expects, not excuses and delayed reactions in response to public outrage.

BBS

It's been a busy week for me, so apologies for less blogging.

With the State Government in town, and so many drinkies to hob knob off to, however there's a lot to share.

I had a session with Mayor Schier in her private chambers on Wednesday. It was a rather interesting chat, to say the least. This was the first formal interaction we've had since a telephone call we had two days after her March election win. Gotta say, I wish I had worn my surgical gloves before the chinwag.

I also had the delight to talk with various mobs protesting outside the Parliamentary sitting. Very few pollys bothered to engage and talk with them. In fact, as we know the Fire Service were banned from entering the building. Even Springbored [sic] hardly defended their right.

I also had a good natter with Telstra's Wally Donaldson about his plans to put up another mobile data receiver at Clifton Beach, which got voted down by Council today. I'll share more on this separately as the two sides of this debate need a good airing.

And today, the new lad on the block who is challenging Desley Boyle for her luke-warm seat, LNP's new wonder boy Joel Harrop, bribed me with a Mocha at the Corporate Tower coffee shop. The only thing in common with Kevin Byrne, whom many thought would be running, is his army background. However, Joel needs to get at least three defamation cases under his belt to match KB.

This morning I went to the Cairns Courthouse to support Cairns Regional Councillor Di Forsyth's appearance on her trespass charge of the Yacht Club building three weeks ago. Dianne is a rare politician who stood up to be counted. Fellow Councillor Robert Pyne was also there to share some words of support about democracy in our fair city.

Hopefully, sometime Friday, former Val love child, Councillor Julia Leu and I are hoping to sneak off for a catch up. She's really been the surprise in this new Regional Council. I'm sure most locals north of Cairns are delighted Julia is representing the good folk of the Douglas Shire.

Oh, and look out for tomorrow's regular Friday cartoon by Circusmouse. It's a shocker.

If the world could vote

In under a week, on November 4th, America goes to the polls and will choose a new president.

The President of the United States of America is a strategically important head of state, that affects many countries.

Unlike Australia where it's composary to vote, only 64% voted in the 2004 presidential election, up from 60% in 2000. Of 197 million Americans, 72% (142 million) are registered to vote.

So, if you could vote, who would you vote for? Have your vote today!

Genetically modified orgasms

Federal Liberal MP for LaTrobe, Jason Wood made a dickhead of himself recently - your tax dollars hard at work.

In this speech the nuff nuff MP stumbles on many words including "organisms" which he pronounces "orgasms". He assured everyone he hadn't been drinking while addressing the chamber in support of Green party policies. At least that would have been an excuse for his performance.

Maybe he should have gone to a private school? God help us.