Central Coast in a spin over rumours Obama will sink their battleship
|
The NSW government is giving one lucky resident of the Central Coast the opportunity to blow up a navy ship, despite vocal resident objection, as rumours abound in the local community that the President of the United States could drop by for the explosion. Such is the level of interest and intrigue around the sinking of the HMAS Adelaide off the coast of Terrigal, 85 kilometres north of Sydney. The federal government has invested $5.8 million in creating the dive wreck and artificial reef, which is expected to net the local community $11 million annually in tourism benefit. But objectors say the ship is toxic and will be sunk far too close to shore, handing environment minister Peter Garrett another controversial decision. The NSW Premier’s Department told Crikey they have no knowledge of any detour to the sleepy seaside township on the President’s planned Australian tour. But the Roads and Traffic Authority is closing several roads and VIP tents will be erected, with local council plans in place for up to 80,000 spectators — sparking the rumour mill in the community. One local business leader told Crikey a Presidential appearance was highly unlikely. The HMAS Adelaide will be blown up on March 27 — the same day as Earth Hour, environmentalists point out. The President is expected in Canberra to address parliament on March 23 and while his itinerary after that remains a secret he’s unlikely to remain in the country until the weekend. What’s more concerning to residents is the role the state government is playing in the event. It has been running advertisements in the local paper, the Express Advocate, and on local radio and television to promote its “Push the Button” competition. Media outlets will pick winners to watch the event from the VIP tent, with one person selected to pull the trigger (proceeds are being donated to the local surf lifesaving club and rescue helicopter service).
Michelle Meares, from the No Ship action group, believes the government’s zeal to promote the event and local tourism is suppressing information on the environmental damage the sinking will create. “This is a major conflict of interest when every local media outlet is promoting this event of environmental vandalism,” Meares told Crikey. Residents are concerned the 4000-tonne vessel will leak dangerous toxins and heavy metals into the pristine bay. The ship will also be sunk about 1.7 kilometres offshore from North Avoca Beach — the closest scuttled naval ship to the Australian shore. “There was no environmental impact statement about this sinking,” Meares said. “Instead the government chose to take the route of preparing a Review of Environmental Factors which does not require community consultation. This review was only publicly released about four weeks ago — and only once the community put the pressure on. “The Department of Defence is basically using our community as a dumping ground for their scrap metal — they are not allowed to dispose of these ships on land due to the toxic substances in the ship and size and they cost too much to retrofit them so they choose to dump it in the ocean and promote it as a tourist attraction.” Peter Evans, the president of the Avoca Beach Chamber of Commerce, says the wreck will boost tourism but reckons the government has been “caught on the back foot” over the community outrage. A spokesperson from the Department of Premier and Cabinet told Crikey there has been an “extensive, two-year consultation process” including “several advertised and well-attended public meetings… The hull of the ex-HMAS Adelaide was painted with an environmentally-safe paint, known as a self-polishing primer. It does not have TBTs [tributyl tin] or lead in it. To allay any public fears, independent tests were conducted by Airsafe, which confirmed there were no traces of PCBs [polychlorinated biphenyls].” As for the competition? “This is about involving the community, and providing one person from the Central Coast with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sink a ship,” the spokesman said. The final decision rests — uncomfortably, again — with federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett, who must sign a sea dumping certificate. A ministerial spokesperson told Crikey the Department is considering the application which has yet to make it to the Minister’s desk. The HMAS Adelaide was involved in the rescue of asylum seekers from the sunken SIEV 4 vessel in 2001 — the scandal that became known as the Children Overboard affair. Controversy will follow, it seems, to its ultimate seabed demise. |
|
|
|
82 Comments
The NSW government is giving one lucky resident of the Central Coast the opportunity to blow up a navy ship, despite vocal resident objection, as rumours abound in the local community President of the United States could drop by for the explosion.
Sorry to put my pedant hat on, but this is really sloppy writing. The way it was written, someone could think “President of the United States” was a suburb on the Central Coast. You should add “that the” after “community”.
Interesting, a wide variety of former RAN vessels have been sunk as dive wrecks around Australia.
In no case has there been a negative reaction by the local aquatic life (or the local land dwelling kind either).
In each case, the dive wreck acts as a major fish attractor, boosting numbers of fish species in the vicinity of the wreck.
They also provide a significant boost to local maritime-related groups such as dive clubs and recreational fishermen.
As for Miss Meares comments, the ship could be disposed of on dry land, at a substantial cost premium, given the relatively low price on offer for scrap metal.
As for refitting them, Adelaide and her sister ship Canberra are both more than 25 years old and were judged to not be economically viable to be upgraded under the FFG Upgrage program currently being applied to their sisters Darwin, Sydney, Melbourne and Newcastle.
Given the intense competition by coastal communities for dive wrecks, the Central Coast was fortunate to be chosen as a venue for the scuttling of the former frigate, a $11m annual boost to the local economy is not to be sneezed at.
@Michelle Meares - Yeah hippie, go back to Woodstock if you don’t want to blow up anything.
Not expecting an ecological problem myself. But locals might know more. Important not to interfere with local currents depending on depth and site as this changes beach and coastal erosion. Expect this is sorted.
No doubt it will increase fish habitat.
As for toxins as I understand the thing is the ocean is a corrosive liquid and likely to degrade most biochemicals at very low concentrations.
As far as PR controversy goes my reaction right or wrong, was that Tony Kelly, Lands Minister already had his Env Effects report and expert advice lined up, launched a story about it, in order to kick it over and grandstand with some PR for himself, at the expense of local uninformed folks.
In short sneaky ALP choreography. The NSW ALP really are that sick and cynical. Take the story about ozone pollution in undeveloped south west and north west Sydney last Monday in the SMH. Transparently a leaked report to smh and tame greenie leader at the same time, via Minister Sartor, in order to ramp up lead story today of complusory acquisition of land power for inner city intensification agendas. To deliver on big developer donations. That’s how it’s done, more fool SMH.
lets talk navy
the whole fleet is in at garden island
wouldn’t have anything to do with Dr Yudhoyono’s visit would it?
who ordered it? how much did it cost??
ed moran
Oh dear.
There’s nothing like pollies grabbing the headlines by promoting the “let’s have fun with explosives” line.
Perhaps they should consult Kate Carnell about Murphy’s Law.
It seems to be that the NSW Government’s idea of public consultation is to allow a competition for someone to press the ‘detonate’ button. Dumping 4000 tonnes of metal into a previously natural environment is something that warrants some public consideration beyond a website that promotes possible benefits of the project. The community (and the environment) deserves more respect than that.
Criticism of writing style and name calling is not the issue here.
For reasons best known to themselves, the Lands and Property Authority decided to refer to the scuttling as being “off Terrigal” . Not a mention of Avoca until very recently, nor was the Review of Environmental Factors posted on the Hmas Adelaide website until February. Naturally the locals feel that there has been something to hide. Avoca is not a “sleepy village”; on the contrary it is an active surfing community with it’s own identity. To have the government decide that the town needs a new -“worldclass dive site”- identity is offensive.
The cohesiveness of this community is demonstrated by how quickly they have organised themselves in to a protest group- Noship.com, and amassed a wealth of information concerning the scuttling of naval vessels.
The Review of Environmental Factors which seems to be sufficient to win over politicians and councillors has a number of shortfalls. Research cited has not been updated since the 1980’s, site specific studies are limited and based on mathematical modelling rather than on on-site data collection. Four divers doing a half hour transect of the site seems a little inadequate for something that will be corroding in the bay over the next 100 years.
One of the problems in assessing this site is it’s uniqueness. Nowhere else along this coast is a sand bank at 30m depth and yet so close to the shore. Wouldn’t you be wanting to know why? What special circumstances created this and what will happen when we place 4000 tonnes of metal down there? Of course the only way to find out is to send divers down to investigate and guess what they will find when the government is offering them a 5 million dollar playground!
What is really starting to bother me is the continuous string of half truths coming out of the Dept Premier and Cabinet. They say that the ship was tested independentky for PCB’s. Well the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Only 5 samples were taken from the entire ship.(its a big ship) and these samples were not collected by the independent inspector BUT WERE PROVIDED BY THE SHIP CLEANING CONTRACTOR THEMSELVES! How independent can this be? Also the paint used is the following : intersmooth 365 ecoflex spc antifouling. Heres the link to the product info
http://www.pesticideinfo.org/Detail_Product.jsp?REG_NR=00269300188&DIST_NR=002693
now check this out http://www.panna.org/ Next click on TOXICITY. Note the active constituents and check Summary Toxicity Information for the Active Ingredients in this Product. Read the possible health effects. SKULL AND CROSSBONES everywhere. And they wonder why we dont trust the govt!!
Everyone on the Central Coast should be concerned about the toxic pollution likely to affect the beaches and Brisbane Water. And of course the mis-direction over the exact dive site over the previous 10 years and therefore lack of consultation of the residents most directly affected ring huge alarm bells! Check out the info http://www.noship.com.au.
Thanks JFAS, will look at that web reference.
Okay, just the dot au
www dot noship dot com dot au
Michael James 1.40pm says
“As for Miss Meares comments, the ship could be disposed of on dry land, at a substantial cost premium, given the relatively low price on offer for scrap metal. “
I dont know that scrap prices are relatively low. Not as high as they were in 2008 granted (now 235 euros per tonne) but I would have thought that the governments decision not to scrap the vessel will cost taxpayers some money. The 4,000 tonne vessel is worth about 940,000 euros / $1,316,000 by my reckoning.
Before you ask yes it is a tad slow at work today!
JFAS gives it away with the reference to “active surf community”. The real agenda started with this group which just doesn’t want to share the beach with anyone else. They have successfully spread lies and fear through the local community. I’d say they’ve left their run a bit late.
It might be argued that money lost by not scrapping ex-Adelaide will be outweighed over time by attracting divers and their money to the area etc.
4000 tonnes was about the displacement of ex-Adelaide when she was in commission and fully loaded. Strictly speaking, it’s not the weight of her sum parts. There’s no way she displaces that much now. Most of the fittings, machinery and weapons have been removed. The figure is probably closer to 2000 tonnes so Poseidon’s scrap figure is a likely a bit optimistic.
“It might be argued that money lost by not scrapping ex-Adelaide will be outweighed over time by attracting divers and their money to the area etc.”
So I guess there has been a cost benefit analysis to determine the pros and cons?
My original point was about scrap prices being low. I dont know that to be true.
The reason that a significant part of the RAN is alongside at Garden Island is that they are just coming off the twice a year Fleet Concentration period, where the fleet comes togetrher to undertake high intensity trainingas part of a larger task force.
Most of the time the fleet is scattered across the region and beyond, including exercising with the TNI-N (the Indonesian Navy) either in bilateral exercises or as part of wider multinational exercises such as IADS, Exercise Starfish or Exercise Kakadu.
The FCP as it is known, is programmed 12 months in advance so the timing of the Indonesian President’s visit is coincidental.
There is a complete environmental assessment undertaken by the relevant Commonwealth agencies in conjuntion with the Defence Department prior to any scuttling of a vessel as a dive wreck.
Just checked that site reference and it’s actually noship.com.au
Avoca Beach attracts 12000 - 15000 tourists each summer (stats from Avoca Chamber of Commerce) yet Dept Lands estimates 3500 divers to HMAS Adelaide in first year and then based on other wreck stats this will drop 50%. $11 million annual benefit sounds shaky when it equates to $3142 per diver.
The only boat access is Terrigal so all financial spinoffs will remain in Terrigal. Avoca has long been regarded a premier beachside town for its world class waves and pristine beach. With no direct local consultation the government is going to use this unique area to dispose of an obsolete naval warship 1400 metres from North Avoca’s shore, 1700 metres from Avoca.
Due process has not been followed and if I were a resident I would be outraged. This is not just Avoca Beach’s problem, a precedent will be set and the flood gates opened for a quick ‘out of sight out of mind’ solution to the navy’s nightmare at a beach near you. This environmental travesty may not only pollute the waters but the minds of residents and tourists alike which will be just as damaging. The cost benefit analysis just doesn’t add up.
Michael Miss Meares wasn’t suggesting we take another approach based on the $ cost, the price of scrap metal is irrelevent compared to the health and safety of our children and their children. This Worley crowd have specified out dated Canadian standards, six and a half years out of date and who says Canada is the expert in this field anyway.
The council power players sit back and say things like “best practice” thinking it makes them sound smart and will smooth it all over. Doyle’s gone next election whether they dump the ship or not, he will hear that “best practice” chant all the way out the door, he wouldn’t know Best Practice if it sat up and punched him in the mouth. They want to leave a tonne or more of paint on the hull, it might be more than five years since it was applied, but it is going to breakdown into pollution what else is it going to do, turn into water? The rest of us can’t even take a tin of old paint to the Kincumber tip, these scuttlers should get the all the paint off of her and dispose of it out of harms way, that would be “best practice”. It has to get into the sand, where else is it going to go, Doyle’s place. The sand at Avoca is A+ and has moved in and out of the bay and lagoon for centuries. that’s why people have come to Avoca as tourists again and again for decades. If they stuff that up we’ll lose tourist dollar to the South Coast and Coffs.
They didn’t even look at alternate sites out to see, and the “best practice” distance is 7km not 1.7km. Put her at least 2.5KM or more out from shore like the others around the country. What’s wrong with a diver diving down deeper, doesn’t that mean they need more training, more experience, more dives, more $ for the dive shops.
Jeremy, the reports say about 3,900 tonnes with some metal stuff taken out and some concrete put in. But you should go and have a look at her, they haven’t been maintaining her for a while now and so she’s got rusty holes around the water line a real shame for such a ship that looked after the government, the government can’t wait to get her out of sight, and out of mind, then leave us to clean up the mess.
Well as best I can tell there is substantial democratic objection going on here. The rally of 5 March looked really quite big on Youtube, in context, at local estimates of 6-800. And word of mouth continues on from there. It looked genuine, not covert vested interest.
The sense of deception seems palpable about the site being being planned for Terrigal yet now it’s at Avoca Beach. That’s too cute. One gets the feeling the locals are being railroaded. As if it’s become a tourist industry trojan horse on a quiet outlier from Terrigal.
Am left thinking how did the government get a fairly simple issue of consultation and co-operation with locals so out of whack? Have the major parties really been too busy navel gazing and infighting to find a diplomatic solution?
I agree there needs to be a clearer more authoritive ruling on the potential toxicity issues of the paint if it is so close to a well defined semi circle bay. Also the effect on sand flow and rips is unconvincing, without seeing the Environmental Review. It wouldn’t fly 1.7 km out from Bondi Beach where I was a local councillor 4 years.
My experience in local council politics has been that when a matter is genuinely controversial as here it’s a sign the community are not ready, not happy, and time to back off. That’s what democracy is about. It’s surprising how the instinct of the community can often expose what seemed like a good idea to someone in a back room somewhere.
Time for some govt diplomacy here. No one should be making ultimatums it’s going ahead 27th March ‘no matter what’. That’s just plain rude.
Why are the people that do not live here and won’t be affected by the enironmental issues making our decisions for us? If they won’t dump the ship on land because of the toxic substances, why should we allow them to dump it in our back yard? We need to stand together to force the government to do the right thing. It’s our ocean we are defending, once the mistake is made, there will be no chance to correct it. The damage will already be done.
Hopefully Obama can attend, he’s probably aware of the problems they’ve had in the US with their pollution from toxic ships, and the cost of cleaning up the mess. It would be better to get him to explain that to Kev beforehand though, the scuttlers don’t have the permit yet, let’s make sure they don’t get one.
As a local of Avoca Beach… i take pride and in saying we’re an “active surfing community”.
Oh My… they’re are such evil people because they surf and have such a strong attitude in protecting they’re home… Avoca Beach.
It’s a joke that people can’t see that all we are trying to do is protect, preserve and fight for our un-spoilt beloved Avoca Beach.
And as for Mr Brummell… you obviously haven’t been for a swim of late or ever at Avoca Beach? … It’s ok we don’t bite! We’ll say hello and comment on how beautiful the water is.
It must be said there are only 5 other artificial dive reefs created by scuttled navy dive vessels in Australia, the oldest being ex-HMAS Swan sunk in WA 1997. Monitoring of their effects on local marine environment was minimal with testing winding up on exHMAS Perth after only 12 months when the funding dried up. Testing on the Swan showed heavy metal contamination of the surrounding sediment but this monitoring did not continue after four years. It was noted that corrosion will occur on an increasingly rapid scale over time.
The environmental assessment on exHMAS Adelaide confirmed the presence of PCBs (known carcinogens), asbestos, lead and other heavy metals. Minister for Lands Tony Kelly has made assurances that all PCBs have been removed but PCB testing has only been conducted earlier this month in an apparent reaction to the public demand for certification. Expert advice has criticised the sampling and testing methodology to produce this assurance of the ship being PCB free.
With the apparent duplicity in getting this project through the back door displayed by the Labor govt is it any wonder this local community is dubious about accepting these verbal assurances? The contractors cleaning the ship are using the Candadian guidelines which state hazardous materials will be removed “as far as practicable.”
There has never been a naval ship scuttled this close to shore and a populated area before. There is no long term testing data available to ascertain the damage to surrounding environment and health of local residents. Other countries have banned this practice due to public liablility risks. What is this government thinking?
Peter Garrett should think long and hard before signing off on this one. The risks are very real and once it is down, there is no coming up again..
You’ve hit it right on the money John. We might see an extra $11Mill from more divers, but lose $20Mill from less beachgoers and then have to pay another $20 Mill to clean up the mess. Put the ship a few more K’s out to sea, and we all get a win.
Lots of interesting debate and clever talk.
Quite simply, Avoca Beach residents were not consulted
Avoca Beach residents are angry
Avoca Beach residents are damn scared…
For their community, for their families, for their environment
Please do not sink this ship in our Beautiful Avoca Beach
Does anyone else have any reasons left to go ahead with this injustics? No Ship!!!!
Yawn, wall-to-wall Nimbies. Nothing to see here, move along…
4000 tonne of scrap metal dumped in our back yard and they wonder why we are pissed off……..
No consultation with the local community so as to not stir up what is now occurring……….
They say no impact on waves and sand movements but there has been minimal testing done and what if they are wrong…
No toxic outfall but ship is covered in paint that will come off with rust and foul the pristine sand…..
Only 1700m off our shore line, the closest yet by far……………No environmental impact study done….
A promotional campaign with the winner to blow it up - unbelievable !!
….. and a town that will be in total shut down throughout the day, but we get a sausage sizzle.
This whole mad misadventure has the same stench to it as the insulation debacle, Garrett needs to think long and hard before signing off on this one. Trust me when I say this will be fought till the end and it’s only going to get messier…MAINTAIN THE RAGE AVOCA…….N.S.A.G
oh and I don’t want Malcolm in my backyard either !!!
Yeh malcom, why don’t you move along. Somewhere away from here. Preferably far away.
Oh the ignorance of philistines such as Malcolm Street is galling. Such sanctimonious clap trappers should be on the deck of the ex HMAS Adelaide as she is sent to her unwanted watery grave,
To treat the concerns of genuine people who have been treated with contempt by big noting politicians and and businessmen who have no thought for the environmental impact of the ship’s sinking so close to the shore is nothing short of culpable.
Tonight we heard the state environment minister pontificating that the people of Avoca knew that the boat was to be sunk off Avoca two years ago. What rubbish. All along it had been stated that it would be sunk off Terrigal. I say if Terrigal want it let them have it but don’t deceive the good people of Avoca as our politicians have done.
What also concerns me is that the record of our politicians, both state and federal, is hardly one to be placing one’s faith in. The state of our roads, hospitals, infrastructure (the list is very long) is such that I for one just do not trust them to deliver on the so called safety of the operation. This whole episode has been conducted in such a clandestine manner that Mata Hari looks like a rank amateur.
I for one would like a moratorium placed on its sinking until a full environmental impact study has been completed. And what is wrong with towing it another five kilometres out to sea as “A Stakeholder” has suggested.
Finally why have the Brits and the US stopped scuttling ships in recent years? Because they are unsure of the damage that it does to the environment and are not willing to take the risks. When will we take heed and do likewise.
Stop the sinking before its too late…
Disclaimer #1 - I live on the Central Coast and frequent Avoca Beach.
Disclaimer #2 - As a general rule I like blowing things up.
In this case, there has not been nearly enough risk analysis, community consultation, or - frankly - honesty in the process. I was all for the idea when I believed it was to be off Terrigal. If all went well, they might have even taken Crowne Plaza out too. Avoca is, as my parochial fellows state, a beautiful spot. Why even risk f#cking up such a place? It’s as if we, as a species and a people, just cannot resist soiling all that is lovely. What the fuk is wrong with us?
Did you see the article on stateline tonight? Points of note:
1. No PCB’s. There was a frame with large amounts of electrical cabling shown. Wire insulation is known to be full of PCB’s.
2. Minister Kelly stated that there were no rips or waves at Avoca. WTF? He obviously hasn’t been there.
3. He said that the ship would be sunk on rock. What a load of bollocks. The only reason that Avoca was chosen is because of it’s SAND! This is to ensure that the ship embeds itself and doesn’t capsize during the next big storm.
Mr Kelly seems to be ill informed. If he is wrong about the basics, what else is he wrong about?
Well what can I say other than I am extremely disgusted & angry about this whole situation. Why are we bothering being Eco friendly, installing insulation in our homes, trying to look after the environment when the government think it is fine to pollute our environment for amusement? A classic example of politicians working together with the media to get there own way & solve there own problems. MONEY = POWER. What ever happened to people power?
One Final Message to Peter Garrett. You are our last hope. Take a stand. Don’t be coherst like most politicians are. Do what you think is right, not what you are being pushed into doing. Think about the consequences and repercussions this could have on you if this all goes belly up. Not to mention the community. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF ON THIS ONE.
when ever man has messed with nature he has wrecked it , the boat will affect currents and sand flow, it will have waves breaking on it when it is big ,and as far as looking into it properly the government has just laughed it off with an REF instead of the proper enviromental impact study.
shouldnt the people who live there have a say , no one wants it there who lives there.
where is democracy .
Peter garret stand up , where is the man who used to be the peoples hero
where is the man who used to tie himself to trees in front of loging trucks and hate the injustices of governments . jeff hensen allready asked you if you checked your balls in at the door of parliment house.please dont be pressured into signing the paper by government , parliment has not been kind to you but the people will be if you look after them.
a big steel boat does not belong in the sea thats the end of the story no surveys needed or science reports
Dear Government,
You underestimate power of the people of Avoca, we do not believe there is any merit to your reporting of PCB levels, not by the company that founded the information through paper qualification but inexperience, they may have been at that beach in particular but whether or not the correct areas were tested is not proven, in front of it’s local community showing no relevance from your behalf of communal trust, a major thing in your path. Obviosly not.
This is the first insult, secondly corrosion to the local area’s reef is the reason ther are so many rips and it is prided as a well known surfing beach and it’s main source of income through tourists, have you compensated or suggested to anyone compensation if their business goes slower after everyone sights the eyesore? Sure, there were alot of tourists when this happened in Newcastle, who were laughing at the operational skills of the whole venture, you got in too deep then and proven you couldn’t do anything QUICK about it, i saw bigger waves, it did not slow down any tide, it changed the wind direction and caused more denegration publicly and corrossion.
Will somebody intelligent show the community the advantages of your plan and a way of compensating the people, no, because they moved there knowing it was not full of money, it was their serenity, their “affordable” paradise, it might not be the most expensive place in the world but over the past 10 years more has been sold and built there and it still looks untouched, what a credit to the people of Avoca.
I gre up there riding horses on the beach, I was self taught when it came to maintaining the beach, collecting rubbish was not a job, it was something we all took pride in, not graffitti’ing the local businesses but looking to aim for work there and get moved in toward Gosford for further study, we enjoyed our time out there and privacy which built many champions world wide in athletics from the Avoca Beach Surf Club and many wild parties that were always supervised by locals, no one had to worry about out of towners working on ships integrating with community while they were ruining it for money, it’s just not the Avoca Way.
Why do you think people have not ruined it in the last 20 years, because they want their children to return and have more and let mothers and babies relax there and show the ships from far away, they cannot stand the natural pollution up there from time to time as it is.
The biggest news is when some one stupid is swept off a rock up there and you get dare devils that do extreme sports etc, but can you imagine how many kids are going to hurt themselves or feel restricted from going places on a Saturday night because this “ugly toxic thing” is being watched for intruders, you will get pranked 24/7 with calls something is going on when it’s not becuase people will not pay to go up there and see it more than once and then they will remember Avoca for your grossly negligent campaign instead of what is it is, a lovely place untouched to raise your kids.
Government people are not all cold, stupid and only delegating, some of them got there because they care but throw their hands in the air when they are tied or get paid unwarranted amounts for producing bogus reports, remember what you’re doing is illegal and if you are found out 50 years later when you are not around your family will end up knowing your involvement. I think we are dealing with some people that don’t care about the research, insult the local community’s intelligents, and think they are small people.
Think again.
I’m a resident on the Central Coast and I can tell you now that we don’t want NO SHIP!
Well done for the No Ship community group, fabulous job and I’ve got my fingers crossed that the big hunk of dirty metal doesn’t get sunk on our beautiful Avoca Beach !
Easy solution, donate the ship to the Sea Shepperd crew for next years Stop the slaughter of whales. The govt. dont do anything about the illegal murdering of whales in our Whale Sanctuary , by the Japanese Mafia.
How many people will the sinking of the Adelaide really please as opposed to how many will it piss off. With both state and federal elections soon you would think they would be looking after the 900 or so voters who turned up last week. The ship wont be the only thing sunk if this goes ahead.
If the sinking DOES effect the beach conditions who will take the blame?
If a diver, surfer or swimmer is attacked by a shark (there will be increased numbers due to more bait fish present), who will take the blame?
What happened to Renew Re-use Recycle? I can see about 2000 new cars in that ship. Give it to a metal recycler.
Mr Garrett, as beach user yourself, please….DON”T SIGN IT OFF
oh dear. the people of the Robertson electorate are not going to forget this whole detonation debacle any time soon…
Tom McLoughlin sums it up well and we wish our councillors had the same wisdom.
What concerns me most about the process is the assurances that the ship will be monitored for toxic materials and heavy metals after it goes down. Great, but what will they do when they find said nasties ? Dig up the beach, dredge the affected sands , close the beaches until it is safe, ask the contaminated fish to go away or just monitor some more. Is monitoring suppose to reassure us? Surely there is no point unless they have a management plan in place should levels become a problem. Unfortunately you get the impression governments don’t want to think that far ahead.
Monitoring on other ships has not been undertaken beyond 2 years except when a private group went out to the HMAS Swan at 5 years. They found the rate of degradation accelerating as the paint began to fall off and recommended further monitoring. That was in 2004 and no more monitoring has taken place.
Finally I see that press releases estimate that this ship will bring 3000 divers to the coast each year and that will add $11million to the local economy. That works out as each diver will spend $3666 for their dive. Maybe they should take up surfing.
I was not opposed to the scuttling at first, but I became suspicious when, after several years publicity about Terrigal, suddenly as recently as January it was to be at Avoca.
Then it became clear how inadequate the environmental assessment had been, and how irresponsible the policy of dumping ships offshore is, compared with recent practice in comparable countries overseas.
The only stakeholders with anything to gain are the government, which wishes to dispose of a mothballed ship, and a diving business at Terrigal. The other stakeholders — residents and holidaymakers — have been rudely ignored. Is it any wonder our usually quiet apolitical town has been stirred to protest, in the face of such arrogant neglect?
Insult is added to injury when we find that large sections of town will be in lock-down for up to 14 hours on the day. Details of this are as yet sketchy, and half a day’s phone calls gave no indication that local residents can expect the courtesy of being informed of the particulars of this restriction on their civil liberties.
The high-handed way in which we are being treated is outrageous, and will surely not be forgotten at the ballot box.
What about a special collection on the day of the sinking to run a remedial reading programme for newly vocal opponents of the sinking who have sat through the drawn-out campaign to have a wrship sunk off the Central Coast, then suddenly ‘discovered’ it was happening — - after the decision was already made?
Or would it be better to use the money to set up a slow citizens’ bureau to keep them abreast of what’s happening on the Coast? Mind you, the funds could always be applied to buying them waffles, which might be more appropriate.
You are rather missing the point, Mr Hanscombe.
The campaign to have a warship sunk was conducted entirely with reference to Terrigal.
The location was revealed as 1.7 Km off Avoca only in late January.
The Review of Environmental Factors was posted on the web only four weeks ago and, unlike an Environmental Impact Statement, did not require community consultation.
The “decision” is not yet made, in that the Minister, Peter Garrett, is still required to sign off on it.
If you lived closer to the beach, with the prospect of your grandchildren swimming in polluted or toxic water, you might not be so quick to accept this scuttling as a fait accompli.
Dear anonymous “local”, I’m appalled to hear you’re so parochial that a short difference in location turns you from a slumbering, disinterested bystander into a concerned (sic) publicist. Nor can I accept the implication of your apartheid like approach which is based on distance of the grandfather’s home from the beach deciding whether or not the grandchildren swim there. I accept, of course that NIMBYs are a growing problem in our society, but fortunately adherence to this sort of excessive parochialism isn’t yet compulsory.
Sadly, you missed my main point which was (and here I’m assuming there are currents running along the coast which travel even greater distances than the hop, step and a jump between Terrigal and Avoca) that IF any alert, literate Central Coast residents were genuinely concerned about the ‘dangers’ of a vessel being sunk off our coast — - regardless of whether that concern be ill-advised or not — - surely they should have joined the debate a long time back, well before the decision made to seek approval for the sinking was (to use your phrase) a fait accompli?
Norman, your remedial reading program would be better directed at the Government who say they have read the Review of Environmental Factors, but so superficially that they didn’t notice the flaws in it. Then again thats what they do best- think insulation, think solar.
Of course we suddenly “discovered ” it was happening because all the reports lied about the location.
Regardless, even if we are slow readers and need remedial help over waffles, sinking the ship is just a dumb idea.
Dumb for the environment, dumb for the impact on the coast line, dumb for the people of Avoca who clearly don’t want it and dumb for the health of swimmers over the next 100 years.
We wish you well despite your dumb letter.
I promised no name calling but gosh Norman you are stupid and a bit of a bully. I’m sure you’re concerned about all sorts of issues that lie beyond the radar of your locality, some of us are just a little busy and had the Adelaide really been going to be sunk at Terrigal I would have hoped that there might be some environmentally aware folk there to take up the cause.
But, lets face it , all of us on the Central Coast are a little uninformed. There’s no public notice boards in communal spaces and the Express Advocate is only interested in steak prices and angry residents with their hands on their hips and a scowl on their faces. What is astounding is the way notices to be hand delivered to inform residents of Avoca of road closures on the day of scuttling and yet not one notice came by to say that the ship would be in their bay.
Finally Norman, I am not a resident of Avoca, but I do have a degree in coastal geomorphology and I have serious concerns for the houses on the waterfront at North Avoca. Whilst this may not be your house I assure you we will all pay when they go under.
Dear anomymous [and I understand why you’d wish to be anonymous] WHIZZ KID, try not to overuse words, be they ‘dumb’ or any other, as it tends to cause the word in question to lose much of its impact.
I don’t know you well enough to apply ‘dumb’ to you or your backers; but it’s worth remembering that determining which of us more appropriately deserves that adjective isn’t really decided by OUR opinions of each other’s understanding of the situation.
I did not, by the way, mention a programme for ‘slow readers’ as you seem to think. I referred to remedial courses, and they can help those who may even be fast readers, but have difficulty correctly analysing what the words and sentences they read and write actually mean. An example of this would be those who think remedial reading courses must mean courses for faster reading.
But don’t worry too much, WHIZZ, because when people are carried away with what they believe is a ‘noble’ cause and it helps them feel good, cognitive dissonance does the rest for them, and they are able to believe (and believe it sincerely) that anyone who disagrees with them must be ‘dumb’.
If only the real world was so simple? But enjoy your newfound cause while it lasts.
Hey Local
Read the reports below about when the decision was made. Just because you found out in late January it doesn’t mean that’s when we all found out.
“SITE SELECTION
The NSW Minister for Lands, Tony Kelly announced
on 20 June 2008 the gazettal of the HMAS Adelaide
Reserve off Avoca Beach on the Central Coast of
NSW.” Central Coast Reef Newsletter, July 2008
http://www.eje.com.au/bwac/HMAS%20Adelaide_files/02central%20coast%20newsletter%20July.pdf
“1.4 Site Description
Terrigal is located on the Central Coast of New South Wales, approximately 1 hour’s drive from the Sydney CBD (see Figure 2 for locality map).
Studies are currently in progress to select a suitable site to scuttle the ship, probably in around 30 metres of water off Terrigal between Terrigal Headland and Avoca Beach (see Figure 3).” Department of Lands, 28 March 2008. Figure 3 is a photo with an arrow pointing to the middle of the bay at Avoca. http://www.lands.nsw.gov.au/about_us/publications/exhibition/eoi/?a=72976
Wow, anonymous JFAS, you have a degree! Perhaps the problem is that you had to work so hard for it you overlooked the items in the Express and other media about the Adelaide? I have no idea if SURFNDIVE has a degree, but clearly he/she is much better at understanding what’s being reported in the media.
A final helpful suggestion, JFAS, whatever you do, don’t get into a live debate. It’s not enough then to simply attack your poor defenceless opponent by calling him a stupid bully. It wouldn’t be seen as either constructive or gentle.
Hi surfndive, mate Avoca does not have any issue with any divers at all. We just think the Project Adelaide execution was appalling. The Project team has let the divers down, and let Avoca down, and let the NSW public down. Following Stateline on Saturday I really felt for Les Graham, he seems like a nice bloke who has worked hard on this vision. The vision isn’t wrong. It just seems that over a period of years working on this project, it was pretty naive to not drop some flyers in Avoca mailboxes, or organise a few meetings with Avoca residents, at the Bowlo or Surf Club to talk about what you wanted to do. The issue really is that on December 16, 2008 NSW Dept of Lands applied to DEWHA to dump a vessel at sea to create an artificial reef, and the application had false information, i.e. that it was going to be “off Terrigal”, Kelly has now admitted on ABC TV that the location is “off Avoca Beach”. So I reackon DEWHA should reject the application and let NSW Dept of Lands decide if they want to re-submit with accurate information. If this is done in a genuine way, I’m sure we can all get a win.
BTW - does anyone know what Norman is on about???????????
Dear anonymous ‘stakeholder’, it’s about people who belatedly start jumping onto NIMBY bandwagons about something happening off our beaches without having shown any interest in or understanding of what’s been likely to occur for a long time now.
There’ll be far more important problems facing the Coast over the next few decades; but to try to do anything about them requires more long-term involvement, dedication,and careful analysis than it takes to jump onto whatever ‘topic of the day’ gives them a fleeting chance to feel ‘noble’.
Perhaps, though, I was unreasonable to expect so much of the various anonymous commenters?
What a shame that people are so blinded by their own self dignity about how righteous they are and how everybody else has no idea.
What is at stake is a pristine beach, what is to be gained is to feed the already money hungry degenerates, more money to make themselves feel bigger. Its all about, ” Hey look at us, look at how good we are!”. Take a bigger look at the already messed up world due to these money hungry degenerates. This is just another example of how the top end blindsides the rest of town to say that its in their best interests, and let the money roll!
Corruption is the end game and no matter what any one says, at the end of the day its all the same.
So you self professed scientists, have you done your homework or are you just sitting in your arm chair spouting that you are right because you are a top ender. Do you really swim or surf at Avoca beach every day like us locals do. Do you see the changes from storm to storm. Have you eyed a shark or dolphin in the face in the water.
Do you see the pollution that rolls in, in heavy rain down pours, do your kids swim and play at the beach? I can be assured the answers to these questions is NO!
They say the research has been done, but where exactly and over what period have they done the research off this sand bank. Do they know the currents and swells, do they know how the beach changes on any given swell direction and how the currents change the sand banks from swell to swell. Where is the years of research proof?
Norm, solving problems starts with having a dialogue, and the scuttlers have had many many years to start talking openly about what they wanted to do. The Project Team wanted to scuttle a ship in Avoca but did not come and speak to us about it, or put any flyers in our mailboxes, or organise any meetings in Avoca until they thought it would be too late, they had meetings at Gosford and Terrigal which were not widely publisised in Avoca. It is either deliberatly deceptive, or negligently naive. Either way it is appalling.
‘STAKEHOLDER’,with dialogue it’s not unreasonable to expect those passionately interested in proposals to play a mimimally active role in the process by speaking to, writing to, or in one form or another taking steps to communicate with whoever is floating proposals. I realise that nowadays all too many of us tend to feel its our human right (sic) to be permanently spoon fed, so that we don’t need to display ANY initiative; but the world doesn’t always work that way — nor would it be a better place if it did, because this sort of permanent molly coddling is far more resource-destructive than the planet can hope to support.
So accept that if not even one of the aggrieved protesters had either the nouse or the energy to take the remotest interest before now and sound the toscin a tad earlier, then the’d be better off drowsing off again to restore sufficient energy to their weary bodies so that they can be more alert about local issues in the future. Who knows? With enough rest and recuperation, they might even be able to take a small interest in national issues.
Norm, you are right and we are having a dialogue now so - how are the scuttlers going to dump the ship when they DO NOT HAVE A PERMIT. I think it is up to ten years jail for dumping pollution in the sea without a permit. They’ve been trying to get a sea dumping/artificial reef permit for 15 months now, and it is NOT AS EASY NOW is it? Maybe the Project Team just executed badly on the permit like they did with everything else. THE PERMIT HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED, has it? Why are the scuttlers so late in their permit approval process, maybe they thought they would be spoon fed by Canberra. Well it AIN’T GONNA BE THAT EASY with only 12 days to go. With all the hype the Project Team has created with “push the button” when this scuttling is delayed the Project Team button will get pushed, bye, bye.
STAKEHOLDER, a multiple monologue is NOT the same as a dialogue. In any case, ‘dialogue” is merely a trendy word to help obscure the fact that nowadays we tend to avoid genuine analysis by using fancy, loosely defined terms in order that everyone’s ‘self -esteem’ is able to be higher, and everyone can speak confidently on topics not fully understood by them. This is the ‘progressive’ revolution at work, and I guess it DOES make more people feel confident than might otherwise be the case?
Whether or not this approach actually helps lead to better outcomes, however, is a moot point — - a point which can’t be adequately addressed in a few blog ‘sound bites’. In any case, I accept that with emotionally charged ‘causes’ such as the one the anti-Adelaide coterie is busily developing, the zeitgeist is against rational analysis; and since it’s not nearly as ‘vital’ an issue as they seem to believe, why bother?
Hi Norman,
I think it is inadequate to put up a website as the official public communication channel (1), and then only publicly release reports (on 5/2/2010) that include descriptions of unmitigated risks (2) after local pressure following the first local meeting on 29/1/2010.
Regards,
Adrian
___
cited:
(1) http://www.hmasadelaide.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/121416/App_A_Consultation.pdf
“Community to be kept continually updated via:
• Weekly updates on project website
• Release of project documentation via website
• Media releases as outlined in Section 2.6
• Media campaign immediate prior to scuttling regarding scuttling arrangements”
(2) http://www.hmasadelaide.com/enviromental_information/environmental_assessment
Norm, your rants are a great demonstration of how disgenuine and incoherent communication results in flawed and failed projects. We want a new Project Team.
The current Project Team has not only failed to secure a permit in the past 455 days, they have also managed to alienate 3000 voters, and waste Millions in precious NSW funding.
What a wordsmith you are anonymous “stakeholder”. Where did you dig up the word “disingenuine”? It is, however, at least amusing to find you talking about allegedly “incoherent communication” as a problem. An interesting Freudian slip on your part?
Assuming (unlikely as it may seem on the alleged evidence you present) that you’re correct in believing the Adelaide project has alienated 3000 voters, that’s small peanuts alongside the numbers who are likely to be sent in the opposite direction by your group’s belated NIMBY gripes. So for your own sake, even if you’re unwilling to seek remedial help for overcoming your analytical shortcomings, if you want to be more successful with future NIMBY campaigns, you should consider obtaining help re public relations.
The last suggestion holds true, regardless of what eventually happens with Adelaide, because whatever the final decision is, it won’t be the result of your sad intervention into understanding how the world works. Nevertheless, good luck with whatever the noble (sic) cause is when you next decide (hopefully not quite so belatedly?) to don your ‘white knight’ regalia.
Good morning Norm, and thank you for the heads up. I should have referred to your disgenuous communications leadng to failed projects. disgenuous = not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness; “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who…………………….Norm, You have helped us in our No Ship campaign once again, many thanks. 456 DAYS WITHOUT A NO PERMIT. I wonder what the Government Notices have in stall for us today.
Good morning Norm, and thank you for the heads up. I should have referred to your disgenuous communications leadng to failed projects. disgenuous = not straightforward or candid; giving a false appearance of frankness; “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who…………………….Norm, You have helped us in our No Ship campaign once again, many thanks. 456 DAYS WITHOUT A PERMIT. I wonder what the Government Notices have in stall for us today.
Norm, before you say it, Freudian slip? - NO. Just been up checking on national affairs and gazettes, that Goverment Notices web site search capability is diabolical.
You’re certainly consistent, anonymous stakeholder. Coining yet another another new word — ‘disgenuous’ this time. A suggestion. Instead of obsessive compulsive daily reading of Government Notices, not to metion dictionaries, why not take up bird watching? It’s also more intellectually stimulating, and far more useful, than sending the same post twice.
On the other hand, if you’re after a real challenge, since you’re apparently pre-occupied with discovering ‘new’ words, a term well worth coming to grips with (painful as the process may be for blindly ‘certain’ true believers with pet causes) is cognitive dissonance. A very easy concept to grasp. A very easy flaw to see in others. More importantly, though, despite being a sometimes painful tool to apply to oneself, it’s an extremely powerful aid (for those willing to accept the risk) for anyone genuinely wishing to improve his/her ability to analyse situations more objectively than the norm.
So, anonymous ‘stakeholder’, why not give up the admittedly comforting approach of simply going along with the norm, and try instead to apply your dormant critical faculties more rigorously? You just might become a more effective white knight — - perhaps even fighting for more important ‘causes’ than currently seems to be the case. Meanwhile, I’m off with the birds.
Thanks for the advice Norm, but I’ll pass. All I’m interested in is stopping NSW Department of Lands from executing any further on this rushed, under-researched and appallingly managed project so close to my life-long home town. Viable alternatives are available, even you and the birds know that.
Congratulations to the poor soul who wins the competition to press the button to send the Adelaide down! Will you be known as the “one that shot the albatross” for the rest of your life? If this ship proves to be an environmental disaster, which it looks very much on the cards to be, this will be your millstone- along with the gutless pollies who supposedly represent us.
The Central Coast seats are very marginal and there are a lot of disenchanted voters- shame Labor shame.
Peter Garrett will this be another of your debacles?
What delightful irony, anonymous ‘El Brando’ to find you attacking ‘gutless’ politicians because they don’t support your inane cause. If only you and the cowardly cabal who snipe from anonymity had been sufficiently brave (but alert also, which may be too big an ask?) BEFORE now, you might have garnered more support.
You’d still have been poorly informed NIMBYs, of course, but there might have been more of you. I doubt, by the way, that you’d have found you were able to shoot an albatross, which is after all a moving target — - but you certainly HAVE succeeded in shooting your ‘cause’ in its metaphorical foot. Keep your farce going by all means, but if you hope to save yourself embarrassment (and here I’ll borrow your phrase) “for the rest of your life”, I do understand why your group decided to ‘speak out’ on this site using your odd range of nom de plumes.
Hi everyone,
I can see Norman enjoys the arguing more than the argument. I see there is a fixation on the lateness of the action being taken. Therefore I will respond as I see it:
Before February 5, this year, the Environmental Assessment sponsored by the project team was not public. The structure of the document is: there is a draft plan of management that deals with conclusions, and there are surveys and reports as the appendix. Most of the concerns being raised are directly related to the content of the surveys and reports. The reports would likely still be withheld had the Avoca community not insisted on their release following the first local meeting at the SLSC on the 29th of January.
Arguments around who should have known what, and when, are misguided in my opinion. And unproductive. I, for one, am tiring of chuckling Norman and his outraged entourage.
This action by the state government looks like an ambush because it was one.
Regards,
Adrian.
Congrats, Adrian Brightmore, for being more open that your nervous nellie allies seem to be, and using your name. I don’t, however (as you seem to think) “enjoy” arguing — - especially when it’s with what’s coming from belated NIMBY protesters. . Nor am I “fixated” on the question of your tardiness. It’s simply that IF you’re to be helped at all, you need to realise it’s important to have at least ONE among your numbers who knows what’s happening in the outside world. For me to not try to help you overcome this important failing would be most unkind.
Try to understand, Adrian, that I am aware not all the info was available from the beginning. At the risk of shocking you, it’s still not all available. All the information is rarely available on any issue — - and if it were, people who couldn’t realise what was happening much sooner than they did this time, aren’t likely to be ready to absorb it all anyway, even if it was available. What HAS been known to all those who took any interest in what was being discussed in the media — - and are fortunate enough to also have a reasonable memory — - is that there has been a long, well-publicised campaign to have a warship sunk in this general area of the Coast. The time to start an EFFECTIVE protest movement was then, NOT now.
Your Rip van Winkle protest reminds me of the farcical full-page ad protesting against the erection of those units between Circular Quay and the Opera House. I was taking my mother (who’d almost completely lost her vision through cataracts) over to Manly. As the ferry pulled out, she peered at the blurry haze on our starboard, asking what’s that there?. When I told her it was the new building mentioned in the radio news that week, she made a comment which applies to your campaign. “I’m as blind as a bat,” she said, “and I can see it. How come it got this big before anyone noticed it?”
Your blindness has, of course, been metaphorical — - but it’s equally puzzling. What planet have you all been visiting, causing you to miss the lengthy discussions re how the Coast could obtain a ship to help form a reef off the Central Coast? Please remember that IF it’s a bad thing for the ship to be sunk off the Central Coast, moving it a couple of metres or a couple of kilometres isn’t what causes it to become a “bad” idea for the Coast.
Finally, it seems necessary to return to an earlier comment I made — - your group’s need for a remedial English course. You haven’t really been (as you quaintly put it) “chuckling Norman”. Nor do I have any entourage, let alone (in another of your quaint mutations of standard language) an “outraged entourage”. Your group’s novel approach to language does, of course, explain its inability to understand that there was no Government “ambush” — - you simply shot yourselves in the collective foot.
Well… quite.
Do you think that any coast community in the world would be grateful to their government for approving the sinking of an old war ship less than 1.7 km off their beach. For the residents of Avoca Beach it will be a sad day. Someone might win the pushing the button contest in sinking the HMAS Adelaide but for the local community it will be the begginning of the end. It will be the end of a pollution free beautiful beach. The environmental impact that this will have for the future is catastrophic.
While everyone seems to be celebrating and the poloticians are saying how much money the community will bring in as a result of tourism Avoca Beach will be in mourning.
The answer to your question, mark, is yes — - don’t you read papers or listen to the radio? Other communities wanted it (and still want it) which ios why there was such a well-publicised campaign to have it given to the Central Coast. Perhaps you should consider a remedial listening course?
Frankly I haven’t bothered about getting involved in the confused “danger” topic, because it’s expecting too much of belated protest leaders who didn’t even notice there was a months long battle to have a vessel given to the Coast, to expect them to come to grips with more complex issues.
Anyone for tennis?
Should someone check on Norman to see if he’s OK?
My God, another anonymous head peeping over the parapet.
Dear anonymous not very brightanymore, don’t check on Norman, but rather check (no matter how demanding this may be with your limited grasp of what words actually mean) what Norman has written. You’ll find he hasn’t been fussed about the scuttling, per se, but rather concerned for those who’ve been failed so badly by the education system that when it came to analysing what’s happening in the world, they left their protests later than would any half-competent protester, no matter how ‘noble’ their cause might be.
Before you attempt that though, there’s a much simpler task you might consider. One which isn’t too demanding — - read Friday’s Central Coast Express Avocate Editorial (assuming you’re a local?) which points out that “an Avoca Beach site was mentioned [in that paper] as far back as August, 2007” Where were our belated Rip van Winkle protesters sleeping for almost three years? At least the original van Winkle had an excuse, having drunk too much. The same editorial points out that on 31/10/2008 the Express informed those able to read the big words the paper uses, that there’d be a public meeting to discuss the scuttling — - and guess where the two preferred spots were at that time? Off Avoca Beach. Hullo? Was anyone home at the protesters’ cave?
Now (because of the incompetent protesters’ absurdly belated entry, and their legal delaying tactics) many local charities, community groups and small businesses will suffer significant losses. Then, if the protesters’ legal antics fail, the residents of the area will suffer a second disruption as the vessel finally goes to the bottom — not, unfortunately, carrying any of the belated protesters with it.
But the incompetent protesters will have enjoyed their spot in the limelight, and they’ll have been able to feel (however fleetingly) that they were of some significance — - and for some people, I guess that’s extremely important, that’s all that matters?
Norm you obviously have not yet learned the dangers of assuming, and may be interested to know that Mr Brightmore was blessed with a surname that reflects his enormous capacity for researching and providing amazing insight into the ineptitude of NSW State Labor. This “ineptitude” tennis match has been served up by the NSW Opposition and gathers strength day by day. The appalling execution from Project Adelaide public servants is another passing shot missed by Keneally. We wait patiently to hear about Tony’s torrid time between April 20-23. The man from the land, who has no idea about the sea, the scuttler who is about to be scuttled. The timing is good, he’ll be blessed with an extra day in Wellington to ponder his failure, and consider his future (or lack of).
I sit here now with a hot cup of tea, with line of site to the study area off in the distance, the limited study area that contains the two preferred spots and the key consideration of this project, the precious 5-6metre deep sand deposit, selected for some mysterious reason to support a ship that is only expected to settle down to a maximum of 2 metres. Imagine if the scuttlers had set their sights on multiple, suitable study areas, rather than one study area that was ideal. Imagine if the scuttlers had balance the optimum diving depth to appeal to the broadest range of diving experience, with the health, safety and interests of the affected community. This project could have been of benefit to everyone, this project should have been a win-win for all stakeholders, if only the scuttlers had employed a professional project management team, people who understood people and the basics of change management. But alas, I suspect that the scuttlers loss will be Geelong’s gain unless they nominate alternate sites, “off Terrigal” or “off Avoca Beach” does not really matter. The unprecedented distance between the tax and rate paying beachgoers, and the manufactured source of a heightened risk, this is the only thing that matters to us. There are ample suitable sites spread out somewhere in that vast “ex-HMAS Adelaide Reserve”. Sink her at least 1 km further out to sea and at least 5 metres deeper, that way everybody gets some of what they want. These are simple project management concepts Norm - Community Consultation and Compromise.
I’ve watched and listened to the birds since dawn - they fly past all day long in Avoca, but I prefer to listen to them actually. There is not a breath of breeze this morning, so the lake and lagoon look like sheets of glass. The swell is almost unnoticable, there is just the fainest hint of white water at the shoreline. The sunlight is starting to burn off the veil of overnight cloud and break through onto decks and homes in one of the best places a person could ever live. A place that does not need a new identity, as we are happy with the one we have, a place that does not need 4,000 tonnes of pollution.
The sea is calm, because she is happy and in harmony just like the rest of us. We know our sea Norm, and we know what is good for her, my suggestion to you is that you fly and flap about with the other birds of your feather far away from here before you get plucked.
As I look out to the east, there is NO SHIP - excellent - just the way it should be. And if the scuttlers keep going with their single minded arrogance ( borrowing a phrase from the soup nazi) it will be NO SHIP FOR YOU NSW - enter Dive Victoria.
10.31am on March 27, 2010. NO SHIP - excellent!!!! Have had a nice relaxing morning, and Norm - the first down time for a while so also a chance to research cognitive dissonance. You are right Norm, it is an interesting concept. One I believe that the Tony Kelly, Peter Garrett and the Project Adelaide team should take onboard, and one that the NO SHIP campaigners will be abe to apply most effectively against the scuttlers. My favourite explanation from Wikipedia is - The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one’s choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.
Perhaps you should take some of your own medicine as well Norm.
IDear, timbow, that in line with what’s been happening with language skills, the more important aspects of cognitive dissonance may have been blurred. I’d suggest, despite what Wikepedia says, that a more useful way of understanding the term, is that it occurs when individuals accept unquestioningly two premisses which help support whatever comforting conclusions they’d rather not abandon, BUT logically those two premisses can’t both be true, because each of them, if true, entails the falsity of the other. Logically they might both be able to be false. Logically either one of them by itself could be true. It’s just that logically they can’t BOTH be true.
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t suggest the individual is being dishonest about what is believed. It’s simply that our species seems genetically programmed to act in this manner, and one can see (as we wandered through the primaeval savanna) how in an uncertain, barely understood world, it had evolutionary survival value. That’s why it’s so hard for us to even notice, let alone overcome it.
Thanks, by the way, for your well-intentioned suggestion I consider taking a dose of ‘my own medicine’. I have, and in fact was long ago puzzled by this phenomenon, well before it found a name and made its way into Psychology textbooks. That’s probably one of the reasons I seem to pick up inconsistencies in people’s beliefs (my own included) more readily than others do. It’s also why, rather than pontificating about who’s right/who’s wrong, I tend to spend more time suggesting (however futile this may be) that before we start denouncing opponents as being obviously #########, we spend a little time carefully analysing our own basic premisses — - painful as such a process often is.
Thanks for contributing this cognitive dissonance concept to the NO SHIP debate. In the NSAG case, time has been of the essence, and a more instinctive response came into play, that “fight or flight” response to a percieved threat. Now NSAG have been granted some time, it may be prudent to take a dip into the pristine waters of cognitive dissonance. I think the relevant premises for Project Adelaide are 1. that the ship must be at 30m-35m depth, and 2. that 0.91nautical miles from shore is acceptable to the community.
All the best, I’m keen to learn more about this aspect of the debate. Let’s chat again, tomorrow?
Life’s too short, Tim. Adios,
Good riddance.
What a brave little anonymous poster you are, ‘concerned’ (sic). Do you always defend your causes so eloquently? Perhaps, just for you munchkin, I should say au revoir?