HMAS Adelaide Being Sunk 27th March On Central Coast

[tracy_from_oz]

From the Express Advocate. (No copyright intended).

 

[D_B]

From a post on the FB support site ...

The noship group's reference to the SMH article on How five surfers with a laptop sank a scuttling is a hollow victory claim.

Quite frankly all that NSAG have achieved is to get a stay on the basis that Justice Gary Downes believed that there was insufficient time allowed in the paperwork process. This reason for ruling for a stay is all about process, not because NSAG were able to show the court anything whatsoever of their claims that the artificial reef would cause environmental problems.
This is despite the fact that NSAG and their "Google researchers" have had months since they raised their objections and $12,000 in donations, to fund and gather evidence of it's claims.

In fact Justice Downes said:
- the evidence that they tendered at the hearing was "wholly inadmissible"
- that the evidence raised in the photographs was only in the mind of the NSAG's chairman, who has "no relevant expert qualification"
- and the NSAG case could be called a "a fishing expedition"

The court transcript link is http://www.aat.gov.au/AATdecisions/docs/2010AATA212.rtf

I think this newspaper article would be better titled "How five surfers and a laptop cost the taxpayer millions on a Fishing Exercise."

So let's use our laptops to put on the pressure to get this ship sunk.

 

[sydney-diver]

Seems to me the only reason the Judge granted the stay is contained in S21, the merits review system 1975 provides the right for review in the Administritive Appeals Tribunal and the granting of the permit only days before the sinking date didn't provide for such a review. Having said that I very much doubt that the review will come up with anything out of order.

S23 "Frankly, it seems to me that a decision-maker, such as the person who determined the date for the sinking of this ship, should have had in mind the existence of the Commonwealth legislation, should have had in mind the existence of the right of review in the tribunal and should have so fixed the timing of the sinking of the ship as to give an opportunity to persons or bodies who would have standing to challenge the decision to grant the permit under the legislation, an opportunity, first, to think about whether they wished to challenge the decision, and secondly, if minded to do so, to undertake that course"

 

[thanksforallthefish]

This is a pdf of the link supplied by D_B in case people cant read the document

View attachment 2010AATA212.pdf

 

[burna]

Same problem with 'NIMBYs' over the other side of the puddle.

http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/we...polis-attempts-sink-sunk-dfo.html#post5198579

Are these NIMBY groups run by professional protesters or what?

 

[D_B]

?
why dont they come out here and give ours a dive, and see just what DOES happen after you sink one?
the HMCS Yukon has been down 10 years , that should be enough time to show changes, good or bad (no ones seen any bad ones by the way)

 

[tracy_from_oz]

From the Central Coast Express Advocate

 

[bracko]

so i believe the case has been ajourned until July 18th (I read this about a month ago, so I'm not 100% sure of the date).

assuming the outcome is positive, sinking on or around the 25th July, 8 weeks settling time, just in time to start diving in October when the sun starts to warm up \o/

 

[tracy_from_oz]

Yes sadly the case is ajourned again but the out come I hope will be the same and positive for her being sunk.

 

[tracy_from_oz]

The Express Advocate July 2nd 2010

No Copyright intended