Just Grounds Community

For Like minded people who like to see-

PROPOSAL - LET'S REVIEW/CATEGORISE/SAVE “GOOD” SENATE INQUIRY SUBMISSIONS

This discussion has arisen out of sharing some ideas with Dale Stiller.

The final public hearing has been held and the Senate Inquiry http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/climate_change/ind... is required to report on the 30 April 2010.

We believe that AGMates – at least the Peter Spencer “Tower of Hope” People Power Movement should make best possible use of the Senate Inquiry (and especially the submissions) as a stepping stone to progress the cause. We can't leave the Inquiry findings gather dust on a shelf. We also can't just sit back & expect Peter Spencer assisted by Alastair McRobert, Peter King and the other close supporters to do the whole job in the High Court.

AIMS
That we read the submissions, and save the “better” ones (including the better ones arguing against the farmers property rights case) under some logical categories. Objectives include:
• As a basis for developing an independent AGMates overiew and summary of findings from the submissions and public hearings.
• As social/political "documentaries" to use in future campaign/s – there WILL be a Federal election this year and a NSW State election in March 2011.
• Specifically, for the farmer/landowners stories - as a starting point for a future book documenting and telling the stories of the effects of native vegetation laws.

SUGGESTED APPROACH & GUIDELINES
That a group of readers read, categorise and save the better submissions.
Suggested categories:
• Overview
• Legal
• Scientific
• Government Organisations
• Farm Organisations
• Landowner stories and family impacts

PROPOSED GO FORWARD & PROCEDURES
1. Volunteer readers put forward their names
2. We make a list of readers, and for each reader a reviewer (another reader)
3. There are 371 submissions – we work out and agree on which submissions are to be read by which readers
4. Got to work – reader selects a sub-list of submissions to keep, reviewer reads the selections and either confirms or drops some.
5. RULE – can’t nominate your own submission.
6. We ask Steve to setup a drive/folder system so that the submissions can be stored under the categories and with an over-arching commentary that would be our next step.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 24, 2010 at 12:34pm

Dale

If you can start - just go for it (and for time being make your own filing setup).... and post here the submisions you have already dealt with.... and the categories you are using (is the above list OK?). I will contact Steve direct re Drive/folder setup. We will have to categorise - whether or not the selection has been reviewed

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 24, 2010 at 12:35pm

Greg

Please see my response to Dale - can you do the same... perhaps wait until Dale has posted the submissions he is dealing with...

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 24, 2010 at 2:52pm

Readers - suggest when you have completed reading a submission you intend to nominate - try type up a 1-paragraph (few sentences) summary (referring to the submission by number) - summarising the content and main points of the submission. These should help with developing over-arching heading commentaries... and for future use of these saved submissions as a resource...

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 24, 2010 at 5:22pm

I am going to start from submission 371 with objective to review back to submission 350

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 24, 2010 at 6:16pm

Thanks Steve

Sorry - I did not realise that this would be a time intensive project.

For the time being - we readers/reviewers can save on our own hard drives (and back-up or save on a stick file).

But please post here which submissions you have read, and which you have saved. I will keep a tally on a simple spreadsheet.

Permalink Reply by Julene Haack on April 24, 2010 at 10:49pm

Hello,
I will put my hand up for submission 329 to 310.
Cheers,
Julene

Permalink Reply by Dixie Nott on April 25, 2010 at 8:27pm

Hi all

I have already saved submissions that I found useful but they don't have order to them so I will nominate to save 309 to 280.

I Iove this backwards stuff.....as I have started skimming books backwards and wondered if I was a bit nutty but now feel I have friends:).

Regards
Dixie

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 25, 2010 at 10:11pm

Dixie - THANKYOU - you truly are among friends and we all might be nuts.... I decided to start at the back-end because I thought some others had pobably already read and digested many of the earlier ones..... also (sublimally) from a lifetime of reading newspapers from the back (sports pages) first...

Permalink Reply by Julene Haack on April 26, 2010 at 8:02am

LOL!

Ian, have you made contact with Greg to let him know that we have started working through the submissions? I noticed he had offered to help earlier on.

Cheers,
Julene

Permalink Reply by Ian Gordon Hampton on April 26, 2010 at 10:14am

Dear all

Considering the potential for future harrassment - we may need to protect the identity of the submissions (and more important the writers) of those submissions we decide to keep.

Consequently - in the first place - if you/a reader decides that particular submission/s are GOOD (and one/s that we should keep on our "database") - please advise me direct via my AGMates Inbox.. So that selection/preparing summary commentary/later review is NOT in public domain... Not trying to be anal - just think this is a precaution we have to take...

Permalink Reply by Carol Petith on April 26, 2010 at 10:23am

Is there any copyright from the government website to prevent copying this from their website. Not sure. But I think I remember reading it somewhere. I personally don't care but check it out so as not to contravene if the information is to be used at a later date.
Regards Carol.

Permalink Reply by Julene Haack on April 26, 2010 at 8:50pm

Dale, That's my understanding as well. I am having trouble uploading the Senate website at the moment, so will try double-checking another time.

Ian, I'm happy to keep things out of the public domain while we work through the process.

Dale, Ian and Dixie,
I am saving all the submissions in my group, plus writing a brief description of each in a Word doc. I am then highlighting the ones I think are good - these are the ones I will pass on to Ian. But I thought it would be good to save all - for the record. Perhaps overkill?

Also, I was wondering whether it would be ok to split the Landowner category into "Farmer" and "Non-farmer". I am particularly interested in the latter, as a way of reaching city dwellers (I live in Brisbane) - that is, having examples and being able to say, "This could happen to you...." Would that be ok?

Cheers,
Julene