Letters to the Editor 


Please find attached an Open Letter to the Australian wool industry from the RSPCA (national), regarding the mulesing issue and the phase out by 2010.

It was sent to WoolProducers Australia (the national body representing Australia's woolgrowers).

Greg Weller Executive Director WoolProducers Australia.


Dear Greg

Importance of 2010 deadline for wool industry to cease mulesing RSPCA Australia strongly supports the 

majority of wool producers who are committed to meeting the 2010 deadline for the phase out of mulesing.

We are very pleased to see an increasing number of producers assessing whether they can overcome the

danger of flystrike through alternative husbandry procedures and closer management.

We fully support the research that is currently underway to identify humane alternatives to mulesing, in particular,

the injectable treatment, the clips, and the breeding of sheep with a naturally bare breech. Although the clips research

is as yet unpublished, the preliminary results show a significant improvement in the performance of clips over the

conventional mules.

We look forward to seeing the full published research.

We believe that management techniques, such as the breeding of strike-resistant sheep, are likely to be the more

humane long-term solution and so commend ongoing investment in research in these areas.

For those producers who feel it necessary to continue with conventional mulesing until 2010, RSPCA Australia

encourages the use of a topical anaesthetic post-mulesing to alleviate the pain and suffering caused by the


However, RSPCA Australia does not support the continuation of mulesing with pain relief beyond 2010 – we

expect that this deadline will be met and that viable alternatives will be in place.

RSPCA Australia expects wool producers to honour the industry commitment to phase out mulesing by 2010

and we commend those producers who have already put in place alternative safe and humane measures to

reduce the risk of flystrike.


Heather Neil

Chief Executive Officer


Australia Inc


Is the Minister about to consign Mintabie, SA into adefacto Secession from Australia?


One could think so when the Hon Jay Weatherill MP, with his soon to be presented Anangu Pitjantjatjara

Yankunytjatjara (Mintabie) Amendment Bill 2008 (and related Amendments to the Opal Mining Act 1995).

This impending Act deems that the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 or the Retail and Commercial Leases

Act 1995 will not apply to the township of Mintabie or it's residents.

Why not? Ouch! I feel my civil liberties being breached.

How can an Australian State Minister, at a stroke, remove protective legislation from a specific group of

Australian citizens? Who is watching these law makers?

Obviously the Residential Tenancies Act 1995 was made to protect citizens rights and outline their


Why is Mintabie to be left unprotected if the above legislation is passed? Whose, and what, civil

liberties will they breach next? Oh, that's right, the same proposed bill would remove the right

to drink in our own homes. And Mintabie residents will be required to pay for compulsory

yearly police checks or they will deport us back to Australia?

Are these but the first steps to seceding from Australia with all it's attendant laws, Constitution,

and civil liberties? Remember always check the fine print of proposed bills.


S. James



How to save money, SA style


Not enough money to fund an effective police force to deal with a minority of inebriated troublemakers?

The SA Government's shortsighted solution?

Cobble together a tyrannical, anti-constitutional law that will stop people from drinking in their own homes.

Let's force them, by law, to drink at the pub. This law may make for more drink drivers on the road, and it

may make criminals of innocent, previously law abiding citizens, but what the hell, it sure will save the government

wasting money funding police in one legislative stroke.

Was this the discussion while drawing up the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (Mintabie) Amendment Bill 2008

(and related Amendments to the Opal Mining Act 1995), soon to be presented to State Parliament by the Hon Jay

Weatherill MP?

They appear to think freedoms and liberties are totally expendable and the sheep voters will calmly accept their removal.

Wrong! In what other areas will the SA government legislate against with the view to saving money?

What other freedoms and liberties could they remove from the majority, in their efforts to deal with minority wrongdoers.

Heaven help us if the other ALP states follow this lead.

In the lead up to the federal election in November 2007, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) stated that, if it was elected to

form the federal government, it would initiate a public inquiry about the best way to recognise and protect human rights

and freedoms in Australia.

According to the ALP, such an inquiry would establish a process of consultation which would ensure that all Australians

would be given the chance to have their say on this important question.

I would say the best way to protect my human rights and freedoms would be to put a firm, restraining leash on the South

Australian ALP legislators.


Yours cordially,

E. Hooper



Amendment Bill


Can the SA government introduce legislation that will enforce criminal history checks (as far

back as 1987) on a small, remote township, then proceed to evict residents who have a criminal


This is what will happen to the small town of Mintabie, SA if a draft bill - Anangu Pitjantjatjara

Yankunytjatjara (Mintabie) Amendment Bill 2008 (and related Amendments to the Opal Mining

Act 1995), about to be presented to State Parliament by the Hon Jay Weatherill MP, is passed.

I await for your reply with interest,


Yours cordially,

E. Hooper





The Mintabie Miners’ Progress Association Inc. identifies the

following as the main concerns with the APY (Mintabie)

Amendment Bill.


• Insertion of section 19A –

Special provision related to application for and registration

of tenements on Mintabie precious stones field


(1) In addition to the requirements of section 19, an application

for registration of a precious stones tenement on the Mintabie

precious stones field must be accompanied by any other information

reasonable required by the Director (including in the case of an

applicant who is of or above 18 years of age, information

in relation to the criminal history of the applicant).


(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, the Mining Registrar

may refuse to register, or refuse to renew the registration of, a

precious stones tenement on the Mintabie precious stones field

if the Mining Registrar is of the opinion that the applicant is not a

suitable person to be the holder of such a tenement.


• Substitution of by-law 6– delete by-law 6 and substitute:


Despite the provision of bylaws 3 and 4, a person who is entitled

to be on the Mintabie precious stones field under section

19(8) of the Act, or under 29C(2) of the Act and who does not have

any other right to be on the lands under the Act, may (in accordance

with any relevant licence) possess liquor at premises on the

Mintabie precious stones field licensed under the Liquor

Licensing Act 1997.



Back to October 9, 2008