Apparently
criticism isn’t welcomed at Middlemount, a coal mining town in Central
Queensland roughly 240km’s west of Mackay. The story of the post
office's licensee, Louise Hawkins and husband Chris Griffiths being evicted
from the shopping centre which is owned by Anglo American coal has received media
attention. This article was published in the APN chain of regional newspapers, Middlemount
Post Office couple evicted over sign.
“The sign copied the local telephone directory featuring a child's drawing
that said everyone was welcome at Middlemount.
Mr Griffiths added, "except families, except children, except
visitors" prompting the breach of lease notice.
"They are limiting the number of families and children who can live
here and making it hard for them," he said. "The media is partly to blame for what's happening in small mining
towns…no one is prepared to ask the hard questions and they get away with
it."
Mr Griffiths, who has lived in the area since 1971 and served his
apprenticeship at Utah Mine said he was pro mining.
"But I'm pro Middlemount as well and pro Dysart and Tieri, and pro
agriculture.”
It’s my view that the core issue here isn’t pro or anti
mining; in the quote above Chris Griffiths has said that he is pro mining. There
is a debate to be had over a fly in, fly out (FIFO) workforce whose effects was
what the post office operators were offering an opinion about. No the core
issue is the basic right of freedom of speech.
The sign offered
an opinion, you may not agree with it as have some other locals as quoted in
this follow
up news story; but was it offensive, racist or sexist, did it denigrate
any individual, and was it 1metre high spray painted graffiti next to the
shopping centre entrance? No it was an A4 piece of paper stuck on a notice
board in front of their own business. The message could have been presented childishly,
perhaps, but is that a crime? Why has Anglo American got such a corporate glass
jaw over this issue?
Although this
web page is obviously designed to offer a positive view of family life
in mining towns it does provide an insight into who Anglo American are and just
how much they do own the town of Middlemount.
“Anglo American’s
Metallurgical Coal business owns most of the 700-odd houses in town and
rents the accommodation back to employees at subsidised rates, so the town is a
great place to save money.
There's a fairly
balanced mix of residential families and FIFO/DIDO workers and at the last
count the population was 3,500.
Anglo American has seven
mines in the area: Capcoal, Foxleigh, Central, Southern, Bundoora, Grasstree and
Lake Lindsay mines. They're all located within about 15 minutes from town.
Macarthur Coal has
Middlemount Mine and their workers also live in town.
If you're thinking of
buying a house, think again. There's only a very small number of
privately-owned homes so it's hard to live in the town if you're not employed
by the mines.”
It may have not entered their calculations, but by
evicting the couple Anglo American has created the opportunity for them to
enlarge on their opinion about the effects of FIFO to a now interested media.
In the Australian
Mining magazine Chris Griffiths expanded by saying:
“Griffith said he is
“pro-Middlemount” but growing up in the area he is concerned about the effects
mining camps are having on the region.
“We think [the sign] is
true, families and children aren’t welcome,” he stated.
He explained the
increasing number of mining camps and the transient nature of the workers means
there’s “not a lot of families and children here”.
“It’s creating a culture
that denigrates the region.”
Alan Jones interviewed Chris Griffiths on his high profile national
radio program where Griffith having lived in the area since 1971 said that once
FIFO camps were once only for temporary construction and only used as single
workers quarters on a permanent basis. Nowadays there are camps everywhere;
families no longer move to the mining towns rather the mine worker is housed in
a camp while the rest of the family stay behind usually in urban centres on the
coastal strip. With fewer families and children in the likes of Middlemount,
Griffiths believes it creates a social dysfunction. Those few families that do
try and move to Middlemount find this prevailing culture too hard and often
move away again.
The sign was a reference to the explosion of temporary worker accommodation
camps in Middlemount and Anglo’s preference for housing workers in camps over
family housing.
“Instead of addressing the concerns raised in the sign, Anglo’s heavy-handed
approach is to shut down the post office,” said Mr Pearce.
“There are currently about 160 company-owned family homes sitting empty in
Middlemount, while the company packs people into camps.
“This is severely undermining the social fabric of the town.
“The company is housing married couples in single men’s quarters. It is
dissuading families from moving to Middlemount to settle.
“It is pocketing tax concessions for using FIFO workers and housing them in
camps, rather than supporting the local community.
I have
done no research into if it’s true as the union maintains that tax concessions
have influence the rise in using FIFO camps. If you read the comments in the
various links above there are people involved in the mining industry offering differing
views. It’s the ability to offer a different view that I wish to return to;
surely even in a company owned town we still have freedom of speech
Property
Rights Australia provides these additional observations to the legal aspects
mentioned in the WWF Taylor report.
Wyandra Landowner Trenton Hindman with his Barrister Phillip Sheridan outside the Charleville Magistrates court after being fine $110,000 for selectively clearing a woody weed.
Not only
has WWF’s Mr. Taylor attempted to quantify potential effects on the environment
of the Vegetation Management Framework Amendments in his report, Bushland at
risk of renewed clearing in Queensland, but he has waded into the strictly
legal aspects of the Amendments based on scant legal knowledge other than the
deep convictions held by WWF that any end justifies the means including
vandalism of our legal system.
According
to Mr. Taylor,
"The VMA
amendments would also allow defendants facing prosecutions for illegal clearing
to be able to employ new defences of ‘mistaken belief”.
There is no
“new defence” of ‘mistaken belief’. What has been reinstated by the Amendment
is the old defence of “mistake of fact” whose removal in the Vegetation
Management Act 1999 was considered an abrogation of civil liberties.
Similarly
he contends that,
"Defendants
would be allowed to withhold incriminating information from the prosecution."
The Rule of
Law Institute of Australia (RoLIA) has condemned the NSW Government for
removing the right to silence in the case of a serious indictable offence which
is an offence which carries a penalty of 5 years imprisonment or longer. The
right to silence was removed from landowners by the Vegetation Management Act
1999 (VMA) along with the presumption of innocence.
“Until now, no jurisdiction in Australia
has tampered with the principle that no person is required to incriminate
themselves”
This just
demonstrates that as a small community agriculturalists can be used as guinea
pigs and the rest of the country, including professionals in the field, can
remain unaware.
"The
right to remain silent when being investigated is a fundamental principle of
our system of justice, alongside the presumption of innocence until proven
guilty. It is the “golden thread” that runs through our common law system of
criminal justice, as well as international human rights law, civil law and Sharia
law."
Taylor also
takes issue with the removal of the presumption that it is necessarily the
landowner who has carried out illegal clearing or that “a person other than the
defendant was responsible for the clearing.” He virtually explains this himself
by stating that 12.5 % of clearing is unexplained and rising. The disrespect
shown by referring to the landowner as the defendant is palpable.
All other
contentions in this section of the paper are simplistic at best and dishonest
at worst.
Self
assessable codes will not make it more difficult to detect illegal activity as
detection is carried out by satellite.
The
Vegetation Management Act 1999 has always ignored the complexities of science,
the civil rights and property rightsof
landowners, has shown scant regard for the basic tenets of our legal system,
there has been injustice, inconsistency and heavy handedness in sentencing and
ill resourced landowners have had to contend with the unlimited financial and
technical resources of the State. All this adds up to a system of justice which
leaves fewer rights available to landowners than are generally considered
minimal to the most violent of criminals including organised crime.
Hats off to Premier Campbell Newman for having the
courage to make much needed reforms to the Vegetation Management Act. With many
of the worst attacks on our civil rights such as reversal of the onus of proof,
denial of the right to silence and mistake of fact, to be reversed. These rights
have long been considered basic principles of the Westminster system and their
removal has received criticism from jurists and legal academics.
The Queensland government has acknowledged that it
will not stay in power without the support of the South East corner and that a
well organised and vocal environmental front will seek to portray any reforms
as environmental vandalism. We are mindful of that.
Photo sourced Courier Mail
Property Rights Australia (PRA) appreciates and
applauds the reforms made on behalf of rural Queenslanders by the Newman
government.
The Vegetation Management Act 1999 had almost 400
amendments made during the terms of the Beattie and Bligh ALP governments with about half being retrospective. Clearly it was hastily drafted
and unworkable.
The prosecution of the Act was shambolic with the
Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) and its predecessors
completely forgetting that as a government agency it was required to be a model
litigant which requires it to adhere to the highest standards of probity and
fairness in its conduct of litigation. It is also required to spend taxpayer's
money with due cause and due process. Many who believed they were innocent were charged but were unable to field the resources to challenge against the might
of the State. Charged but exonerated were landowners such as Ashley McKay who
had a legal permit to clear.
Using taxpayer funds to chance their arm and to the
ire of some Magistrates the Department brought cases which were out of time,
where correct certified vegetation maps as specified by the legislation were
not produced and one case where a government officer was charged with contempt
of court. Other examples can be found of cases where fabrication of evidence
and perjury were a feature.
Fines have been exorbitant and appear to have been
administered in an ad hoc manner, with the penalties being many times higher
than mining companies are commonly required to pay under other environmental
protection regulations. Given the stress and financial hardship caused to
landowners by these regulations, the amendments to this Act are well overdue
and much appreciated.
Property Rights
Australia has long advocated the necessity for reform and we are prepared to
defend the Amendments against criticism in any forum
.jpg)
.jpg)
