'a strong collective voice'

Firstly, congratulations to Tim Baier on his 'Unmineable Minds' taking second place in the Australian Ethical Investment's mini-documentary competition. Tim's film addresses the issue of the mining industry's targeting of Arkaroola.

Secondly, Tim's 3D movie of the northern flinders Ranges and Arkaroola is screening this week here in Adelaide. Session details are available in the previous blog or from from the Fringe's Standing in Amazement page.

To give you an idea of what to expect, the video above shows Tim's time-lapse photography set to music, though in nothing like the quality you'll get to see at one of his screenings! And not in 3D!

Thirdly, if you put in a submission on 'Seeking a Balance' you've probably received an e-mail requesting that you allow the publication of your submission.

Publication of submissions is generally desirable, in that it will let the public actually assess both their 'quality' - the actual content - and the quantity - how many were in favour of mining, how many against - for themselves. And also allow us all to identify any vested interests and assess the merits of any arguments accordingly.

The Seeking a Balance submission assessment process should not be reduced to a black box, with the state government later assuring us that in evaluating them and crafting their response they 'did the right thing, don't you worry about that!'

In the words of the latest 'From the Ark' Arkaroola update 'We need a strong collective voice in the public domain if we are to protect Arkaroola’s uplands.'


'respondents should not be intimidated'


But this e-mail also contains two scaryish, 'on your own head be it' style disclaimers, the second of which is the gloriously ungrammatical -

# I understand that I/organisation am/are responsible for the content of the submission.

('I understand that organisation are responsible for the content of the submission.' Sheesh!)

The first has already noted that that the criteria for which you'd need to assess that content might include 'breach of confidence or defamation.'

You probably aren't, but in the golden words of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - 'Don't Panic'! You're almost certainly right not to be!

I've included the full text from the latest Arkaroola update below that sums up the situation nicely. But in short, I cannot say it better than 'Respondents should not be intimidated by the language in the email. Criticism of policy, of instruments used to inform the development of policy, and of company behaviour is justified. However, any content that cannot be defended, has no place in submissions.'

I have read many submissions, and like the ones I have placed on this site in various postings below they overwhelmingly deal with government policy and the undesirabilty of its facilitating mining access. This is entirely unproblematic.

And it's also worth noting from the outset that a corporation cannot sue for defamation. Individuals in a company may, but only if they've been specifically identified and grossly defamed.

So, if I was to make a public submission on some hypothetical issue - let's say An Administrative Inquiry into Corporate Rectitude - and was to say, for (absurd) example, 'the Managing Director of Company X is the founder of the local chapter of the Church of Satan and enjoys bathing in the Blood of Virgins' I'd probably be liable to a lawsuit.

(Though if the local newspaper had recently published a front-page exposé of the diabolic cult and a photo featuring the MD in all his blood-soaked Satanic regalia I'd still be on pretty solid ground! Even so I'd have been well advised to have said 'according to the Local Argus of such and such a date' before making the claim!)

But I'll let the Arkaroola update handle the issue in detail -

Because of the high level of interest in SaB, the Government has decided to make submissions public. As this was not intended nor planned for, submissions cannot be publicly released without respondents’ permission. We have been advised that: “It is your obligation to assess its content for any possible legal ramifications, for example a breach of confidence or defamation.” Should respondents elect not to make their submissions publicly available, only their name and organisation will be released on the website where submissions will be posted.
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/minerals/public_notices/northern_flinders_ranges_project

Whatever the motivation for this late development, Arkaroola encourages all respondents to make their submissions publicly available. We have no other way of judging whether the public consultation process will have any bearing on the final recommendations made by the architects of the policy, to their Ministers. This is not a set of issues where a simple show of hands should determine the outcome: 251 for, 250 against, I think the “Ayes” have it.

Predictably, shareholders and mining companies are likely to have argued strongly for greater access to iconic northern Flinders Ranges landscapes for mining, motivated by profits and personal wealth. However, those arguing for stronger protection, unpredictably, include geologists and geo-academics, as well as protected area managers, local government, tourism bodies including Australia’s peak ecotourism association, conservationists, and traditional owners. For all of these groups, the issues are not about personal gains but rather, about a greater public good. Their submissions reflect our responsibility for the protection of natural systems that are already under stress, that they may be enjoyed by those who come after us.

Respondents should not be intimidated by the language in the email. Criticism of policy, of instruments used to inform the development of policy, and of company behaviour is justified.

However, any content that cannot be defended, has no place in submissions.

We need a strong collective voice in the public domain if we are to protect Arkaroola’s uplands