Science panel looks at water, not sick fish

From the Queensland Telegraph and also published at The Great Barrier Reef Blog
http://www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/new-science-panel-looks-at-water-not-sick-fish-by-john-mikkelsen-the-queensland-telegraph/

By John Mikkelsen

SPECULATION has been running hot over membership of the State Government’s new science panel to oversee Gladstone Harbour water quality, with claims there is no focus on the health of marine animals.

Makeup of the panel under the leadership of marine scientist Dr Ian Poiner was announced recently by Environment Minister Andrew Powell, but in local media comments, some Gladstone residents have pointed out the notable omission of a scientist who has already conducted independent research in the harbour, aquatic veterinarian  Dr Matt Landos.

Dr Landos yesterday confirmed to the Telegraph there was no one on the panel with veterinary fish health expertise.  He said the Australian and New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists had an aquatic animal health chapter, of which he was a long term member.

“None of the members are on the panel. Only registered vets are qualified under the Veterinary Surgeons Act to make a diagnosis as an act of veterinary science.

“You go to a doctor when you are sick for a diagnosis.....not some other scientist. 

“They are obsessed with looking at indirect measures of health- for example, water quality, rather than look at the outcome- which is the animals living in the toxic soup they are creating.

“A classic case of they don’t know, what they don’t know, so a multi-disciplinary team approach is warranted…” he  said. (Dr Landos recently released a detailed scientific report on behalf of charity group, the Gladstone Fishing Research Fund, which blamed major dredging as the most likely cause of continuing disease in marine life).

Mr Powell said the science panel was tasked with providing independent expert advice about the long term management of water quality in Gladstone Harbour . It would provide open, transparent, peer-reviewed science to the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.

"The Independent Science Panel brings the key experts together at one table to integrate research and monitoring into a report card that gives a picture of the management of Gladstone Harbour and its surrounds," Mr Powell said.

He said the other panel members were chosen by Dr Poiner and were experts in their particular field. Local expertise was also being sought on the panel  from Central Queensland University.

Panel members to date include: Dr Richard Brinkman – hydrodynamics; Dr Michele Burford – biogeochemistry; Dr Rob Coles - marine biodiversity; Dr Cathy Dichmont - decision support and modeling; Dr Britta Schaffelke - water quality;Dr Jenny Stauber - marine toxicology; Dr Eva Abal - ecosystem health.

 Mr Powell said some of the first tasks the panel would undertake included mapping existing monitoring and research in the harbour to identify duplication and knowledge gaps.

"They will make recommendations to the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership on actions required to address any emerging science issues.

"The group will also develop the design for future Gladstone Healthy Harbour Report Cards,” Mr Powell said.

"This is an important step that sees industry, government, research and the local community all working together to achieve and maintain a healthy Gladstone Harbour."

Musical Comedy

Sometimes you have to allow yourself a diversion, just to remain sane.

A scene from the 1941 movie 'The big store', Chico & Harpo Marx

 

There a  hundreds of  clips available of the Danish born pianist and comedian,Victor Borge. This one is called, The History Of Piano

 

 

Lastly a much more recent performance by someone you can't image being a musician; Rowan Atkinson - Invisible Drum Kit

 

 

The War on the West - Creeping Communism

The War on the West - Part 2 Agenda 21.

This Post is in two halves. 

Both based on the works of Dr Amy McGrath OAM.

Part 1 The Frauding of Votes; (link to Part 1)

Part 2 The Fabian Societies and Agenda 21.

Dr Amy McGRATH, OAM, JP was educated at Telopea Park High School, Canberra and at Sydney University (BA Hons; MA; PhD, 1975). In 1970 and 1971 she travelled to the USA and the UK, respectively, on U.S. State Department and British Council grants, and in 1996 became the founding convenor of the H S Chapman Society, a body established to raise public awareness of the prevalence of electoral fraud in Australia.

Dr Amy’s latest book is about the “Communism by Stealth" organisation the Fabian Society titled "Wolves in Sheep's Clothing" and is available from, Tower Books, PO Box 737, Post Office Kensington, NSW 2033 for $10 plus $5 postage. (or on-line in pdf form - link)

Dr Amy McGrath's latest book is a revelation of Fabianism, George Soros, The Club of Rome, GetUp and Agenda 21. It reveals the plan to use Creeping Communism to take over the World and lead to One World Government. The New World Order Observer wrote on September 3, 2009

CREEPING COMMUNISM

The Fabian Society, along with other Secret Societies, work together for the ‘Common Purpose’ of a New World Order... We see this consistently, with denial and delay tactics used in response to complaints by the people and the lies, omissions and twisted truths that spin doctors play to the public in the mass media.  

At the beginning:

It is now 1884 and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs would be known world-wide as the founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells and numerous others of similar caliber. The Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are members, not the least of which is England’s Ex-Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

Australia has had five successive Fabian Prime Ministers since 1970 – Gough Whitlam, Robert Hawke, Paul Keating, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard plus various deputies.

Why Fabians? The movement is named  The Fabian Society because they favoured gradual change rather than revolutionary change and was named  in honour of the Roman general Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy advocated tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal.  (Wikipedia)

Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, and their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny. Leninists on the other hand, tend to be Wolves in Wolves’ Clothing and their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak, and where people are used to dictatorships anyway.

Were the Fabians humanitarian?

To give you an idea of the type of world these people would like to “remould” here is a quote from George Bernard Shaw:

“Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught and employed whether you like it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner (my emphasis), but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well. In the ultimate ‘nanny State’, with no free will or right to choose, you are owned by the elites and discarded when you are no longer any use.”

As mentioned above, the Webbs were founders of the London School of Economics.

Fabian Society members not only founded the London School of Economics but also the International Court of Justice at the Hague and were largely involved in the creation of the UN and the League of Nations. They are very strong advocates for the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) pseudoscience (my emphasis) because they are the types of people who have hijacked the environmental movement in order to use it to their political advantage. Their intent is to use environmental issues as a means to cause people to unite and demand that the issues be fixed, intending us to demand a global government that has the authority to ‘fix’ global warming because sovereign national governments lack that ability.

The UN’s Agenda 21 is an example of a Fabian Society program that sets international requirements of how people must live, learn, travel, eat and communicate. its sole purpose is control of people, not protection of the environment.

What is Agenda 21?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agenda 21 is an action plan of the United Nations (UN) related to
sustainable development and was an outcome of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio
de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is a comprehensive blueprint of an action
to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organisations of the UN,
governments and major groups in every area in which humans directly
affect the environment. 

Development of Agenda 21 – 1992
The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the Rio de Janiero United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit)
held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992 where 178 governments
voted to adopt the program. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation and negotiation culminating at the two-week conference. 

The number 21 refers to an Agenda for the 21st century.

DR McGrath quotes an item in Town Hall Magazine (July 7, 2011) by Rachel Alexander:

....The UN has mostly bypassed national governments, using the adoption by Agent 21 of an international Council of Local Environmental initiatives (lCLEI) to make agreements directly with local governments. ICLEI’s presence has grown to include agreements with over 600 cities, towns and counties here, which are now copying the land use plans prescribed in Agenda 21. Some conservatives are trying to attract attention to Agenda 21 by labeling it as a secret conspiracy to create a one world government.
While that will wake some people up, it will turn off others. 

Agenda 21 seeks to promote “sustainability”, the latest revised word for “environmentalism” since Americans have learned too many negative things about it. 

“Sustainability” is just an amorphous concept that can be interpreted to an extreme degree that would regulate and restrict many parts of our lives. When will the level of carbon emissions be low enough? How much must we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels? 

Preserving the environment is a dubious science and what steps are really necessary to protect the environment are anybody’s guess.

!n 1995, Australia issued a report to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNSCD)

Implementation of Agenda 21

 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

Foreword by Prime Minister Keating
As the pressures on world resources continue to grow, the concept
of Sustainable Development becomes an imperative for the global
community. Australia is proud to present its second report to the
Commission of Sustainable Development. This details our nation’s effort
toward implementing Agenda 21. 

 WHO STARTED IT?

Journalist Jim Ball had no doubt that Maurice Strong was culpable in an interview with Australia’s renowned 2GB radio host Alan Jones. “He very deliberately did it. He set up the un Environment Program, and then he worked through that with the World Meteorological organisation (WMO) and the international Program of Climate Change (iPCC) was set up by them. That meant that every government weather agency around the world was involved in the IPCC. They appoint the scientists that they want to be on it, and they also of course provide the funding. That has meant that the funding has only got to one side of the debate. Strong knew that. This is why he organised it through the WMO.

AGENDA 21

the Greatest Fraud perpetrated on mankind 

By Vivienne Skeen

I have been researching Agenda 21 since I first became aware of its existence in 2010. I do not profess to be an expert on Agenda 21, but what I have discovered has exceeded all my worst fears. Agenda 21 is nothing more than world government, world domination and the end of all freedom for all mankind.

My biggest concern is that the public are asleep on this, as I was, until one of my sons asked me if I had heard of Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is the ‘United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 21’ that is taking over Australia, as it is every other nation in the entire world.



Links: UNEP - Agenda 21 Pages (link)
Michael McLaren speaks with Dr. Amy McGrath on 2GB (link)

Agenda 21 for Dummies:

Are they awake?

 

In May 2012 Donna Laframboise, journalist and author from Toronto, Canada, declared in a blog article, The World Wakes Up to the World WildlifeFund.  

Donna Laframboise sights two recent articles, the first by Christopher Booker the veteran, well known journalist for the UK newspaper The Telegraph called, How climate change has gotWorldwide Fund for Nature bamboozled. Very kindly the second article recommended was by myself and called, Can producers trustWWF to be accountable? 

Christopher Booker writes about how far WWF has come from its formation in 1961 “for the admirable purpose of campaigning to save species endangered by human activity, it has morphed in the last 20 years into something very different, more akin to a multinational corporation.”

WWF now, Booker writes, “is the largest, richest and most influential environmental lobbying organisation in the world.” WWF is gaining increasing revenues from partnerships with governments; using its iconic panda logo undertakes commercial activities and by emotional appeals to the public for funds to solve dire environmental problems as Booker says the “most fashionable and lucrative of environmental causes, the “battle to halt climate change”. 

The opinion article, Can producers trust WWF to beaccountable, was published just days before Beef Expo 2012 in Rockhampton during which the Sustainable Beef roundtable seminar was held chaired by Guy Fitzhardinge, who also as a WWF Australia Governor is charged to “use their expertise, influence and networks to enhance WWF’s ability to achieve its programs in Australia and the region.”  Those attending the seminar made it clear that there was little trust by beef producers of WWF’s involvement in the proposed formation of the Australia Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (ARSB). There was also the admission by WWF Australia sustainability manager Rob Cairns that not all of WWF’s campaigns in the past that impacted upon Australian beef producers were science based. An Agforce representative expressed their reservations and NT Cattlemen’s Association executive director Luke Bowen made some poignant observations.

 Photo sourced Beef Central of Guy Fitzhardinge

The debate over the need for an Australian roundtable for sustainable beef and should Australian beef producers accept the involvement of WWF raged for most of 2012 starting in February when WWF placed an advertisement in Rural Press’s Queensland Country Life (QCL) for the position of Sustainable beef project coordinator. There were a number of articles in Australia’s online beef production publication, Beef Central and there was only a rare week when if there wasn’t an article about this issue, there was a letter to the editor in the QCL. Property Rights Australia (PRA) was very active providing well researched information into the debate and took the strong stand of no involvement with WWF. Senator Ron Boswell, retiring next election after a 30 year “remarkable career”, made two strong speeches to the Senate and was published twice on this topic at Quadrant Online which was subsequently published at QCL. Senator Boswell’s endeavours were not missed by prominent national opinion columnist Piers Akerman who wrote [this article] fully endorsed Boswell.  

All this time the national organisation that is supposed to represent the interest of Australian beef producers, Cattle Council of Australia (CCA) ignored all criticism of its unreserved engagement with WWF and did not try to answer factual information presented into the debate that clearly showed the need for great caution. The one time that CCA did consult with beef producers about its future operations with the online survey, Your say beef 2015 and beyond; the highest number of responses was to the question about engagement with WWF with the overwhelming majority saying no.

In February 2013 Senator Ron Boswell wrote,

“primary producers and their peak organisations needed to take a united stand against plans by environmental non-government organisations (ENGOs) to influence their production methods.

"If environmental activists get their way, farmers will be paying thousands of dollars a year to get a 'green tick' just so they can continue marketing their products," he said.

"Groups like WWF and Greenpeace want to force all our primary producers into expensive certification schemes.

"They have started with timber and seafood and are moving into beef, sugar, cotton and other commodities as well. Grassroots producers and their representative organisations must fight these schemes or they will cripple primary industry."

"One of the ENGOs' most successful tactics has been to pressure companies occupying strategic positions in the supply chain, such as dominant buyers," he said. "For example, WWF is sitting at the head of the table in talks with the likes of McDonald's, our largest single buyer of Australian beef, and JBS, our largest meat processor, at the so-called Australian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef. WWF convenes roundtables, such as that for design standards, which are ultimately certified by an independent third party. The participants then have to publicly commit to producing, buying and selling within these standards, to be part of the commodity roundtable, forming what WWF calls 'a chain of sustainability'.

"For farmers, it adds up to a lot of money. These are schemes that cost individual producers thousands of dollars for the initial certification process and then regular, ongoing costs for auditing.

"It's completely unnecessary because our primary industries already work sustainably, but it produces a river of gold for the ENGOs and their mates doing farm inspections and auditing.” 

Central Qld cattle producer and PRA board member, Ashley McKay, in the March 7^th issue of the QCL had a letter to the editor, featured as, Issue of the week. Ashley McKay congratulates Senator Ron Boswell’s “excellent and accurate denunciation of the WWF’s sustainability schemes” and gives examples of the multiple times WWF have been proven to have made grossly exaggerated, emotionalised claims in what Booker called the “most fashionable and lucrative of environmental causes, the “battle to halt climate change”. Donna Laframboise wrote that the world is waking up to the WWF but it appears not Australian farming industry bodies; Ashley continues:

“How much more evidence is needed for CCA and Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) to wake up and accept the Greens and WWF have promoted policies and actions damaging the cattle industry for some 20 years and cost us uncountable millions of dollars in lost production and diminished asset value.”

On the same day Ashley McKay’s letter has been published both CCA and ARSB chair and WWF Australia Governor, Guy Fitzhardinge issued separate media releases. They can be read in [this article] at Beef Central. Turns out to be a good news, bad news scenario; plans for the Australia roundtable for sustainable beef has been scrapped. This could be seen as a small victory for beef producers. However CCA are now joining the Global roundtable for sustainable beef.

If Cattle Council of Australia are awake they certainly aren’t listening. Why? Well you tell me and you can do so by commenting below. I have a theory but that will have to wait to the next installment.

A bridge in the climate debate

The ideas as revealed in this essay are considered by its author, Anthony Watts, to be such a ‘light bulb’ experience that he has pinned it to the top of his blog site, which just happens to be the largest climate change blog site in the world Watts Up With That. Anthony writes in his essay as copied below with his permission that, “it is one of those seminal moments where I think a bridge has been created in the climate debate, and I hope you’ll seize the moment and embrace it.”

My own thoughts are that this video is well worth viewing and provides the opportunity to reflect. I haven't always agreed with all that Dr. Savory says, but he has over the years made an important contribution to the improvement of beef production systems and an understanding of its interaction with the environment especially strong evidence that refutes demands that livestock must be removed from ecosystems. Where Dr. Savory   and the Savory Institute have gone beyond the realms of where I can agree is when they wish to introduce arbitrary and undefined concept of  sustainable beef production and also their involvement in the Global roundtable of sustainable beef.

Anthony Watts continues: A bridge in the climate debate – How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change



Imagine, shooting 40,000 elephants to prevent the land in Africa from going to desert because scientists thought the land couldn’t sustain them, only to find the effort was for naught and the idea as to why was totally wrong. That alone was a real eye opener

The Sahara Desert in Africa, as seen from space – Image NASA

Every once in awhile, an idea comes along that makes you ask, “gee why hasn’t anybody seen this before?”. This one of those times. This video below is something I almost didn’t watch, because my concerns were triggered by a few key words in the beginning. But, recommended by a Facebook friend, I stuck with it, and I’m glad I did, because I want every one of you, no matter what side of the climate debate you live in, to watch this and experience that light bulb moment as I did. The key here is to understand that desertification is one of the real climate changes we are witnessing as opposed to some the predicted ones we often fight over.
It is one of those seminal moments where I think a bridge has been created in the climate debate, and I hope you’ll seize the moment and embrace it. This video comes with my strongest possible recommendation, because it speaks to a real problem, with real solutions in plain language, while at the same time offering true hope.
This is a TED talk by Dr. Allan Savory in Los Angeles this past week, attended by our friend Dr. Matt Ridley, whose presentation we’ll look at another time. Sometimes, TED talks are little more that pie in the sky; this one is not. And, it not only offers a solution, it shows the solution in action and presents proof that it works. It makes more sense than anything I’ve seen in a long, long, time. Our friend Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., champion of studying land use change as it affects local and regional climate will understand this, so will our cowboy poet Willis Eschenbach, who grew up on a cattle ranch. I daresay some of our staunchest critics will get it too.
To encapsulate the idea presented, I’ll borrow from a widely used TV commercial and say:

Beef, its what’s for climate

You can call me crazy for saying that after you watch this presentation. A BIG hat tip to Mark Steward Young for bringing this to my attention.

“Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.

Published on Mar 4, 2013

There’s a longer version with more detail below, about an hour long. Also worth watching if you want to understand the process in more detail:

Feasta Lecture 2009
Extracts available at vimeo.com/8291896
Allan Savory argued that while livestock may be part of the problem, they can also be an important part of the solution. He has demonstrated time and again in Africa, Australia and North and South America that, properly managed, they are essential to land restoration. With the right techniques, plant growth is lusher, the water table is higher, wildlife thrives, soil carbon increases and, surprisingly, perhaps four times as many cattle can be kept.
feasta.org/events/general/2009_lecture.htm
Recorded 7 November 2009, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

Petition against abuse of power by Powerlink

There is occurring a rapid development of coal seam gas fields between Wandoan and Injune. Powerlink is planning to construct a web of high voltage transmission lines and a large power substation and are falsely seeking to designate this as community infrastructure. Landowners are being dealt with by Powerlink in an appalling manner, who are using antiquated laws to negate their responsibility towards landowners for resource sector projects.

The affected landowners have drafted an E- petition with the help of the office of their local state member for the seat of Warrego,  Howard Hobbs, who is included as sponsoring Member on the petition form. To sign you need to a Qld resident but you don't have to be 18; it is only required that you can understand the issue. I ask you to please go to this link sign this petition and to encourage others to sign this petition.
http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/work-of-assembly/petitions/e-petition?PetNum=2058

Below is a scanned copy of a newspaper article published Saturday 9th March & written by John Mikkelsen followed by comment by Property Rights Australia chairman, Joanne Rea.

 

 





Property Rights Australia president Joanne Rea, a Marlborough district grazier, said that some landowners had as many as a dozen mining, CSG and infrastructure companies all wanting access to their properties.

“They expect landowners to be at their beck and call, interrupting work schedules,” she said.

“Powerlink has added to a long list of companies, some of whom have a high-handed attitude, who are trying to paint landowners as unco-operative simply for trying to make a time to consult which fits their very hectic work schedule, gain more information and negotiate an outcome which causes minimum disruption to their business,” Mrs Rea said.

“Landowners have already won the right in court to have mapped details of where all infrastructure is to be located by CSG companies before they sign any agreement, but Powerlink in some cases, is refusing to give even basic details of where infrastructure will be.

“The fact remains that landowners have already been down the path of little to no consultation, poor access arrangements, inadequate compensation, lack of respect, no interest in being flexible to cater for the needs of a farming or livestock business and reported intimidation. If Powerlink thinks that this is the way to win the best deal for itself, it is mistaken,”

 

UPDATE #1 Follow up discussion

Power price rise link to Powerlink 

 

UPDATE # 2 Article in the Queensland Country Life

Powerlink project sparks concern

          

UPDATE #3 Letter to the Queensland Country Life 26th March 2013 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE # 4

DEPUTY Premier Jeff Seeney and gasfields commissioner John Cotter have publically said that there is a problem. Powerlink exposed for misrepresenting the  Lowry v Coordinator General land court judgment to deceive Landowners into believing they weren't entitled to compensation.

 Read More in - Powerlink approach slammed 

.

UPDATE #5

 8th August,  Follow up discussion

 

Scrutiny needed for Powerlink projects

 

.

Gladstone Ports Corp should stick with coal, not seafood marketing

From Saturday's Queensland Telegraph. Would you be lining up to buy seafood caught in Gladstone Harbour at your nearest fish market, fish n chip shop or restaurant? Probably not unless you had been totally brainwashed.

By John Mikkelsen

A  LEADING  seafood wholesaler has reacted angrily to news of a Gladstone Seafood Promotional Fund established by the Ports Corporation, and a call for expressions of interest from industry representatives.

The GPC announced it would contribute $1.5 million to the fund as part of its

environmental and harbour health programs. This would  be administered by a committee independently chaired by Mr Peter Milne, who is also chairman of  Safe Food Production

Queensland, Animal Health Australia and is the previous president of the Cattle Council

of Australia.

But Gladstone Seafood Markets manager Simon Whittingham says the GPC should stick with coal, not seafood marketing.

He has had a long-running battle with Safe Food Production Queensland in an attempt to have local seafood officially declared fit for sale, rather than having the onus  placed on his own judgement. His business made the decision not to accept seafood from the original fishing closure area imposed in 2011 and had spent a considerable sum successfully advertising this policy.

“What the ---- do the GPC know about Seafood Marketing ? They are environmental vandals and to put it simply, they load coal!

“We will be submitting our advertising bills for reimbursement, which I think is fair and reasonable, “ Mr Whittingham told The Telegraph.

“Is this an admission that they have ruined the Gladstone Seafood Brand? I will be waiting for an invitation, I will not be showing any expressions of interest,” Mr Whittingham said.

He said he had contacted Mr Milne as the then chairman of the original steering committee when the government closed the Gladstone Harbour to all forms of fishing, expressing his concerns then about what impact the decision was going to have on the local seafood brand.

“I was then a committee member of the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association and also represented the marketing sector on the Queensland Fishing Advisory Committee, (but) I was advised by the then chair there was no room to facilitate me and my concerns,” Mr Whittingham said.

“ I had to make a decision based on a lot of doubt with regard to the water quality and the product harvested from that water. The condition of the product was not fit for purpose. It wasn’t then and it’s not now.

“ I want test results from 2011, I want Safe Food Production Queensland to release me of my responsibility, if there is nothing wrong, then state it. …We have had great feedback from our customers with regards to our decision making, we will not change our decision until there is a full clearance given with regard to the product’s purpose,” Mr Whittingham said.

According to the GPC, the new committee’s primary role would be to develop recommendations to its board for initiatives which would assist in restoration of the Gladstone seafood brand locally, nationally and internationally.

Mr Milne said he looked forward to working with the local seafood industry and the

Gladstone Ports Corporation.

“I welcome the establishment of the fund by GPC and look forward to the opportunity of

working towards getting the local seafood industry brand back on track,” he said.

Expressions of interest are now being sought from local commercial and recreational

fishermen and fish wholesalers to sit on the committee. which will also include

representatives from GPC, Gladstone Area Promotion and Development Limited

(GAPDL) and Queensland Fisheries.

For more information and/or expressions of interest contact Gladstone Seafood

Promotion Fund Committee Chair Peter Milne on 0419 491 853 or via email

pc.milne@bigpond.net.au. 

This slatey bream (dusky morwong) with obvious disease marks was caught last Monday near the ocean spoil dumping grounds off Facing Island in the GBR World Heritage Area. This is a saltwater species found mainly in open waters near reefs and would not have been injured by the flood spill over Awoonga Dam or stress related to the flooding. Meanwhile dredging continued during the week after more heavy rain run-off and very muddy harbour.