in rod we trust

went out to botany bay for a fishing session yesterday and came across this boat , botany bay is a open area provides very little to no  cover and can be very dangerous , and many times boats break there mooring as well as some container ships in the past.. this was 20-25 k winds 

5 hours ago, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Still telling lies I see. Is this going to be the mantra from right wing numpties from here on?

 

"Nothing to see here, but if there is it's all the greenies fault."

 

I'll say it again for the hard of reading. Greens and greenies are not preventing preventative burnings. Controlled burnings are not a cure all. They can be as dangerous as any other fire if they are used in the wrong conditions. The wrong conditions are almost all year round now.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048

 

From Sept 2018:

"Deputy chief fire officer with Forest Fire Management (FFA) Victoria, Darrin McKenzie, said autumn burning this year was particularly challenging and the state only managed to achieve about 30 per cent of prescribed burning programs."

"The bushfire season ran into early April and most of the 66,000 hectares of prescribed burning the state managed to achieve was condensed into a two-and-a-half week window."

 

Just stop the lies.

 

To those who say this is not appropriate in this thread. I don't raise these topics, but if lies go unchallenged they quickly become "perceived wisdom". If people would stop lying I would happily stop contesting those lies.

as much as I hate people changing topics in a thread  my hat goes of to you and I agree with what you posted 100% …  

hopefully the insurance companies fork out the cash for those who have insurance , and not play games as some do..

and +1 the koala hospital and WIRES .. its heart breaking seeing just how many dead animals are on the sides of roads from the fires.. 

 on a bit of good news how great is this dog named bear 

https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/bear-detection-dog-saving-koalas-australia-wildfires

2 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

The port authority will have to budget for a solution (or provide a response) to any issues that are in the EIS. It's not up to the EIS to fix it, but the port authority.

 

We asked for the report as you were making claims based on the report. However, the report doesn't show anything to support your claims, hence confirming you did not have a basis to make them (aside from saying they were not given to you)

 

wasn't making any claims based on the port authority report  ,except for some facts 

1 that the report would not be made in full to the public and is hiding behind cabinet in conference 

2  they redacted all the important info needed for anybody from public eye to make a judgement 

3 the amount of dredging required due to the dock size and turning basin 

4 the location of the processing terminal pax .. that due to the size of the docks and there location they cannot build a terminal on the dock and as mention by port authority passenger maybe transport to a facility near by for processing ..

5  breakwall will have to be constructed due to how close it is to the heads , , swell , wind, wave action

6 the dock will be less than 100mtrs from the gas storage facility 

7 the airport authority has placed a limit on ships in botany bay must be within 48 mtrs max from water line , oasis class is 72 mtrs from water line. they have also mention it is a danger to landing planes .. 

there is probably few more to that I have left out

the rest of the facts I made are on record and known.. and plain as day to see 

4 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You've put up your possible fears about why it should not be built - not facts.

 

 

That part is true. But it's not intended for public release, it's just the initial business case about whether funding should be spent for which detailed business cases to be prepared.

 

 

As above, nobody supports attacking you with rubbish, so many defended you in that. But the truth of the terminal is there will be pros and cons and those are yet to be determined, so it's not known yet what is good or bad.

 

the   report has been redacted  and not for the public to see in the port authority report I posted.

there are pro and cons stated , but its been redacted so how are you supposed to make a judgement if you cannot get the full report ..  

at least what I state as facts are all out there to be verified ..  

2 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

You've put up your possible fears about why it should not be built - not facts.

 

 

That part is true. But it's not intended for public release, it's just the initial business case about whether funding should be spent for which detailed business cases to be prepared.

 

 

As above, nobody supports attacking you with rubbish, so many defended you in that. But the truth of the terminal is there will be pros and cons and those are yet to be determined, so it's not known yet what is good or bad.

 

no fears facts ,  they are all well known ..  

1 minute ago, The_Big_M said:

 

There may be consequences arising from the EIS that may need money, but the EIS is not specifically talking about the cost of them, and doesn't require tenders. It states the impacts and what work may be required, but is not commercial info. As such, it should be disclosed.

 

I'm not hiding behind it, I'm explaining why they exclude those elements of it. I also think too much is covered up and hidden by this administration, but that doesn't change the situation.

 

And then you're off with the sweeping generalisations without basis again. Really?

 

Odd that you think I work for the cruise industry, given some of my previous posts in this thread.

 

well if that's the case on the EIS study how can the port authority put in cost in there report if they don't know the extent of the toxic waste that is a well know fact sitting on the bottom of the bay and the impact of it,  or how they are going about it or what to do with those millions of dredged spoil ..  what just dump it out at sea so it will end up at our beaches along the coast like the previous lot from port extension and desal plant..

as soon as another member said its for contract reason they redacted all the vital info you jumped on that wagon .. you asked for the report , I told you many post ago that its useless as it been redacted , so I posted the  report just so you can see it was redacted.

I posted that nobody would be able to get the full report  and that was a fact , its there for you to see 

 I have put up facts about why it should not be built there ..  but some on here just like to dismiss it ,  

I have put up the report from port authority on here that has been redacted by port authority so nobody can read it ,  

 you can go ahead and attack me with rubbish  but the truth in the matter is this terminal is far to dangerous to be built at port botany in many  many ways 

3 hours ago, Russell21 said:

Worse than "Days of Our Lives", bear in mind that it is also people who think like our rod that have for years prevented the annual underbrush clearing and burning, which is contributing greatly to our bushfire problem at the moment.

what a load of crap I go camping .. the state gov manages the forrest the rfa does back burning and the councils are the one's who stop people clearing vegetation ..  that's the way tho go look for people to blame for it ..

6 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

I don't know whether they will or they won't.

 

However, you can't assume they are the same. As already explained to you multiple times, it is the commercial and contractual elements that are typically withheld in the business cases.

 

An EIS is not about _commercial_ elements.

the EIS is  if you think about it as dredging is still going to cost money , what  to do with the spoil sediment all cost money and there will be tender's for that to..  

you can hide behind saying its for contract purpose but the truth is they don't want anyone seeing the negative sides to it ..

now really do we need to destroy that whole area just  royal carribean and for peoples convenience .. have we not seen enough damage from the drought ,  bushfires and what it has done to the wildlife  and rivers , do we really need to destroy a whole bay and the eco system as well...

big  M do you work for the cruise industry in anyway  shape or form ..  to me reads as if you do .. 

1 hour ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Well, that aint reality as at this stage there is not sufficient information for any detailed environmental impacts. That comes later when they do the environmental impact study.

if they didn't release the port authority report in full , what makes you think the EIS will be released in full … you know and I know it wont  nsw liberals will use the same act cabinet in conference  ..   so they can hide behind it ..

1 minute ago, GUT2407 said:

Yet still you allow your wife to cruise, just not on Royal. 

 yep  but she is steering away from cruising atm as she  rather fly there spend more time at the location she is visiting  than being stuck on a ship ..

its ironic tho we are having the same fight here trying to save a great place as they are in the cayman islands, and many other places , that are starting to not want cruise ships in there ports ..  

don't let the climate  activists get a hold of just how damaging some of the cruise industry footprint once they hit international waters ,  the amount of bunker fuel burnt . toxic pollution etc etc if they start to read and hear just how bad they can be, then the cruise industry just may have a bit to answer for..  another carnival cruise ship was fined for dumping crap again ..  so much for being green 

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/04/729622653/carnival-cruise-lines-hit-with-20-million-penalty-for-environmental-crimes

7 hours ago, Russell21 said:

If you had any business knowledge at all you would know that it is quite common practice for a considerable amount of reports in the early stages of studying a possible project, to be redacted. This is an endeavour to guard any commercially valuable information that may, if released, be advantageous to interested parties, thus enabling them to gain an unfair advantage over other interested parties. For a further understanding look up "Insider trading" where information that is not available to the general public is used by people with access to the redacted information. 

you can spin all you want about business practise ..  doesn't take away the fact that its all been kept under wraps ,  and not made available to the general public .. you blokes asked for there info and its there right for you to see.  

now your just looking for avenues to use why it is redacted..  and that's only part of the report ..   

that was just yarra bay and mollineaux point

they also have garden island report , athol bay, and rose bay, port kembla, Newcastle , but there is no use posting it as its much of the same all been redacted..

I said many times its not national security issue therefore should be made for all to see the pro's and con's ..  

 the HON  Peter Collins AM QC . he mentioned garden island could be used by the cruise industry , but Malcom turnbull  just rejected the idea without even reading his report..  he was appointed  chair of the cruise industry reference group .. he also is against the yarra bay and molli point terminal .. he was a guest speaker at one of the meeting the residents had at yarra bay sailing club

now do you think the EIS will be made public as .. no chance it will 

its been raining here in Sydney where I live  for at least 3-4 hours not heavy but a good downfall ..thanks god for the rain 

2 hours ago, The_Big_M said:

 

It usually (or traditionally) means its commercially damaging, e.g. they need to keep secret because of contracts or for commercial reasons e.g. it could give bidders an idea of how much to quote for when they're bidding as one example, or there are contracts requiring secrecy as tenderers may not wish to disclose how much they're paying for competitive reasons as another example.

doesn't matter what they bid as by going off any other nsw projects it will be 2-3 times more than the gov estimates..  and I don't agree on that keeping it secret for contracts , to me and many others , its because they don't want to tell you how damaging it is to the environment and what they will destroy building it  or what it will cost..  

https://www.cruiselawnews.com/2011/02/articles/taxes/no-taxes-the-cruise-lines-dirty-little-secret/

7 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

I didn't bother to read all of the paper you referenced. Here is part of it:

 

Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. Cruise lines escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries, i.e. Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas.  In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lackadaisical labor laws. Worst of all, employees will find little to no recourse pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament.

 

I agree with the comment about avoiding labour laws, but the paper you referenced does not state that the companies avoid paying tax in the countries where they are registered. If you think this is the case, you obviously do not understand corporate law.

 

BTW the Carnival Corporation is registered on the New York Stock Exchange and pays taxes in USA. It is also registered on the London Stock Exchange. Some of Carnival Corporation's ships are registered in Bermuda for which it pays fees to the Bermudan government, and others are registered in London. But, once again, the port of registry of ships is irrelevant when discussing income tax. It is a proverbial red herring - not one caught in Botany Bay. 😁

yeah sorry not countries where they are registered but ones they visit .. the list I have has carnival flying the flag of the Bahamas  it also shows royal  carribean flying the same flag 

https://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/758-cruise-ship-registry-flags-of-convenience-flag-state-control

13 minutes ago, The_Big_M said:

 

When that information was released, it should also state why some information was hidden. What was the reason?

 

 

cabinet in conference  .. again what are they trying to hide by not releasing the whole report .. its not a national security issue 

7 minutes ago, Aus Traveller said:

Claiming cruiseships are registered in countries such as Malta is so they can avoid paying taxes is totally wrong and I have to say, shows your lack of understanding of the cruise industry. Just because the ship might be registered in another country does not mean that the company avoid paying tax. The port of registry is totally irrelevant when it comes to tax. The major cruise lines are corporations registered in USA and/or UK and that is where they would declare their profits on which they pay tax.

http://www.cruiseresearch.org/Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships.html

4 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Aruba, I believe, is a port of call destination, not a port for starting / ending a cruise so has no real relevance to your argument (again)

what you picked one place only did ya bother to read it all 

1 minute ago, The_Big_M said:

 

Ok, to clarify we're talking about _relevant_ facts. Sure you've posted historical speeches, videos about other countries, stuff from the last century about other places. But facts about what we're talking about... not a lot.

 

And the above is also low on content. You posted a blurred out report - and then claim that makes it all a conspiracy. That's not a fact, there's other reasons that details can be excluded. And as already covered, it's only early stages and even states in that report you've posted they recommend actually doing detailed studies. That's when you get some real information - and I hope that is made available to all.

 don't hold ya breath for that info 

if its low on content , then why redact it if they have nothing to hide release it for all to see and make judgement .. I didn't post a blurred out report , port authority sent that to us and mind you we were expecting the full un redacted report but ended up with that

10 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Your posts make no sense..total dribble.

 here just for you to read 

http://www.destinationdevelopmentwatch.com/can-destinations-increase-revenue-limiting-banning-cruise-ships-yes-keep-reading/

2 minutes ago, gbenjo said:

Your posts make no sense..total dribble.

 whatever but all I know the info is out there not going into it again just for you..

maybe you should contact port authority and state gov im sure they wont lie to you  ..

1 minute ago, gbenjo said:

 So you are making conclusions based on the information that was redacted and you have not even read??????????

 no

Im  stating facts based on the bay and past developments and there impacts and the many reports that have been done on dredging toxic toxins in the bay ,  and many other facts