WUWT readers may recall that I asked for help in supporting this family back in 2010. The issue was an out of control agency (DEC) that granted, then revoked, an operating permit for a feedlot operation based on nothing more than a couple of neighbor complaints about “smell”. You responded, and it made a difference. Matt and Janet Thompson have provided this update which I repeat in entirety. – Anthony
Dear Readers of WUWT and Jo Nova:
We would like to give an update to all of you who have supported us in a variety of ways, including with donations (in-kind and monetary) for our children, writing letters, and contacting politicians and our bank.
For a refresher on the background to our story, please see the original YouTube we produced, including the important Part 2:
Part 1: http://youtu.be/tgFPDcPr5yA Part 2: http://youtu.be/pCsi1Inc-rE
We returned to the USA for Christmas in 2011 on frequent flyer tickets given to us by family. Matt’s dad had been having health problems, and had had a major surgery in July. After seeing our parents again, we were moved to reconsider our living situation; namely the fact that since our business was not operating, we could no longer afford to fly our family back to the States should something sudden arise. (Matt’s dad had another surgery in February, and we were thankful to be here for that.)
In addition to the desire to be within driving proximity to our families, we had become acutely concerned over the deterioration in political, legislative and regulatory circumstances in Australia. We worried that even if we were to win our case against the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) (a case that is still in progress), the passage of the Carbon (sic) Tax in 2010 made the possibility of ever operating our feedlot again impossible. It meant that even if we won in court, most of our efforts to profitably operate our business would have gone towards convincing some bureaucrat that we weren’t causing greenhouse gas emissions, when in fact we were. Productive people do.
Finally, while in the US, Matt was offered a job in Texas, and we felt, all things taken together, we should make the heart-wrenching decision to move our family to America. This was not a decision taken lightly. We had lived in Australia for 10 years. Three of our four children had been born in Narrogin, and the first had been only 11 months old when we moved down under. We have many close, stalwart friends, and our lives in Western Australia, despite the obvious problems, had been happy and rich.
After fighting through the court system on three fronts (bank, receivers, and DEC) since mid-2010 to save our business and attempt to pay back our unsecured creditors (who have been unbelievably kind to us throughout the ordeal), we came to an agreement with the NAB and Ferrier Hodgson (the bank-appointed receivers) last month. The details of the agreement are confidential, but we feel that concentrating our legal efforts on the DEC (bringing it down to a one-front war, if you will) is the most prudent thing for us to do.
So our property has been handed over to the bank and receivers.
Very importantly, we continue to pursue the case against the out-of-control, bureaucratic and inept DEC, still hoping to pay back our unsecured creditors. Still hoping that our story will make a difference to society. Still hoping for some semblance of justice for ourselves after losing our lives savings and thriving business due entirely to a government agency’s edict, after being told by that same entity in the beginning that we could proceed.
Our children were devastated when we broke the news to them in late January that we were not to return to Australia. Matt and I have both struggled with the fact that we were not able to say good-bye to our close friends, and we have been missing them and our life in Narrogin. Adding to the pain, the subtle nuances of our legal situation required us to quietly pursue our course without communicating publicly to the people who directly contributed to keep a roof over the heads of and food on the table for our children. Had it not been for your faithful generosity, our situation would have been impossible.
While that silence was difficult, it was necessary. Walking the fine line of dealing directly with our treacherous situation and communicating openly and often has been tough. We hope you understand. From our direct communications with many of you, we are certain you do. From the bottom of our hearts, thank you.
On the broader front of the hoax of climate change, we are very proud that we spoke out strongly and publicly — and early on — against the attack on productivity and productive people. We know that it cost us our business, our entire lives savings, and the life of one of our closest friends.
We continue to be concerned in the extreme about the situation and the fundamental factors that led to the birth and unobstructed growth of such an insidious and damaging monster. We continue to be involved with grassroots actions, hoping to make a difference. We believe our four children and their generation deserve better than to inherit the current financial and political mess. These concerns and our actions affect our ability to produce real goods and services as we would like to, but we will survive and do what we must while doing what we can.
Thank you again for your warmth, support, understanding, and patience. Please don’t hesitate to contact us through Jo or Anthony (with “The Thompsons” in the Subject line) if you feel moved to do so. Thanks again and again.
==============================================================
If this episode over some cow odors forcing a family to abandon their farm isn’t enough, I felt that it would be appropriate to post this video as a reminder of what sort of mendacity the government of Australia has been up to.
Good Luck Thomsons.
Australia’s loss. You have returned to the ‘land of the free’ from the ‘land of the fee’. This was a fight you could not win. Unfortunately any cavalry on the horizon are similar in pedigree (the trash out of arts/law faculties) to the vultures feeding on you. When and if they arrive they would only turn you over and clean out your pockets.
While Australia is addicted to welfare, this country will not be safe for productive people who attempt to operate within the multitude of laws and regulations.
Though you had a family in the community of Narrogin, better to be where you can look after your parents.
I put this comment on Jo’s blog but I’ll copy it over here
This is indeed a tragic story and through it all the family have remained outwardly at least courageous and good humoured for which I applaud them.
The DEC have behaved deplorably. I urge readers to read Jo’s post at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/thompsons-part-10-the-dec-admits-it-treated-them-unfairly/
and particularly the minutes of December 2009 which Jo has linked there
Jo also has in that post a statement from the relevant Minister
“
DF: There is a clear process that is gone through in these situations. Letters are sent out advising of the problem and providing a time frame for correction. Then an Environmental Field Notice is issued and the proponent is given time to comply. Then and Environmental Protection Notice is issued, and the proponent is given time to deal with that. Only after that exhaustive process, would an operation be shut down…or limited in throughput which would lead to it shutting down. We have had the same situation with waste treatment facilities. This is standard procedure. The Department is not interested in shutting the operation down.
The DEC never followed that procedure in this case. As a result the Thompsons lost their considerable input capital, I suspect they incurred considerable debts and they lost their livelihood. When you’re in that situation it’s very difficult to get sustained legal assistance of the type that’s needed.
Pro productivity – what’s it mean?
This outcome is an indictment of the present Political Climate in Australia and the corrupting effect of CAGW. . The DEC have behaved extremely deplorably. These tyrants in Canberra are destroying the Australia that we love.
Good luck to the Thompsons for their future back in America,
If you want to read what the neighbours are complaining about, there’s this:
http://narroginlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/neighbour-presentations.pdf
It’s not just the EPA complaining – There’s an Agricultural College downwind of it that employs 60 people, 130 students live on site. They are one of the ’20’ complainants, which really means it’s affecting a lot more people.
This story kinda smelled funny, it’s interesting to read the other side of things.
Sorry to hear we have lost the Thompsons, who are the kind of people any country needs, and best of luck with obtaining some recompense from DECC’s petty dictators.
Western Australia has a particularly pernicious strain of greenies. Their current focus is on stopping a major gas project which will not only benefit the national economy (ie everyone), but in particular provide jobs and economic opportunities to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in Australia – the local Aboriginal population, who own the land there.
The cognitive dissonance which enables these idiots to turn a win-win into a lose-lose every single time is extraordinary. I sometimes think they must all have been dropped on their heads as babies.
I’ve read and thought a bit more about the complaints – the farm sounds like it has an ungodly stench of urine coming from it, so much so that residents of the town have to close windows, shut off air conditioning, take clothes off the line before the smell permiates everything.
I imagine the Ag College teachers would be comprised of experienced farmers, vets and environmentalists and students wanting to become the same. Hardly the people that should be complaining over regular farm smells. It’s got to be pretty bad for the whole college to be complaining about it.
Most Ag students/farmers I know are fairly conservative types, for them to be complaining to the DEC it’s got to be extend past an us vs them, greenies = bad mentality.
Geoff, the Thompsons two nearest neighbours (closer than the college and also “downwind”) signed letters saying they not only wanted the Thompsons to stay — they were happy for the number of cattle to increase.
The Ag college is also downwind of the large piggery that is next to the Thompsons farm. The piggery has been there for nearly 30 years. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/2010/09/thompsons-part-5-community-support/
The neighbours are also benefitting from the farm by way of fertilizer to help their own businesses, so they both have a commercial interest in the farm remaining open.
Neighbours had no serious problems for the most part with the piggery according to the letters submitted – different kinds of smells, or at least different handling of the effulent/waste.
Also everyone has different tolerence levels to certain things. Some people don’t mind living next to train lines either. No one seems to hold anything personal against the Thompsons, it seems like it’s purely a smell / quality of life factor.
It would be like having an old cat lady move in next door. People across the street may love her, she might be really nice, but you have to live next door and smell the stale urine smell every day.
I’ve had a look at that link to which Geoff refers – I’m uncertain as to when those letters were written – the only one on which I can find a date is dated 20/5/2009
the best background to the complicated Thompson story is probably Senator Cory’s speech linked here http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/thompsons-part-9-senator-cory-bernardi-speaks-out-in-parliament/
In that speech and I’m assuming the facts are correct the Senator says ‘Matt and Janet Thompson came to Australia from the United States in 2001. They had expertise in cattle farming and they applied their life savings to establishing a feedlot in Narrogin in Western Australia. It took a year for them to receive approval from the Department of Environment and Conservation for that feedlot, which is nearly five kilometres from Narrogin….. Approval was given for the construction of a feedlot to house up to 15,000 cattle—or slightly less than 15,000 cattle. …
… they gradually built their farm up to house more than 10,000 head of cattle by 2007
… in 2007 the department started to make further inquiries into the feedlot operations because of complaints about the smell
… The end result of this is that rather than continue their licence for 10,000 head of cattle which the Thompson family had invested in—they had entered into contracts for feed and water for those cattle—the licence was cut to 6,000 for the Thompsons’ feedlot operation. They could not sustain that. They could not sustain their operations and fulfil their contractual operations with only 6,000 head of cattle. Everything, all the capital they had invested—some $10 million in input costs in the previous year—had come to nowt because this licence was cut unilaterally.
… I would suggest that something smells in Narrogin, but I do not think it is the Thompsons’ feedlot. Something smells when people come here, invest their money and seek unbiased advice and then find that government departments are running roughshod over people who have not broken any law and have complied with all the environmental requirements made of them and find that individuals who are advising these people on how to deal with their problems are also running organisations which specialise in advising people on how to mount such spurious complaints. Something does smell in Narrogin. Having now raised it in this place, I feel it might be too late for the Thompsons. …”
The Thompsons had a great deal of support from the local town and the letters on the site to which Geoff refers are few compared with the support I understand they received but in the end result it is the behaviour of the DEC which provided the licence and then revoked it or subjected it to the type of conditions on which no self respecting bank could continue to lend which is the problem
It’s a lot easier to support something when you’re not directly affected by it. A lot of the town didn’t have a very high smell rating, and the Thompsons seem like nice people, so it’s understandable that a proportion of them support the farm.
I’m not saying that the DEC didn’t jerk them around a whole lot and fail to address the issues in a timely manner, or that the whole matter could have been dealt with in a much more appropriate way from the outset (planning approval properly reviewed, etc).
The story just sounds like it’s blaming ‘environmental extremism’, when it’s really more that the DEC just dropped the ball on this one with the planning permits. The policies themselves serve a useful purpose, it’s just were bungled here really badly.
Senator Cory’s speech also has a few little plot holes – he says “government departments are running roughshod over people who have not broken any law and have complied with all the environmental requirements made of them”. According to the letters I referred to earlier the Thompsons were supposedly in breach of the EPA Act, s49. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_act/epa1986295/s49.html Sometimes the byproducts of purely legal activities can still impact on other peoples lives in detrimental and potentially illegal ways.
I’m all for property rights, but you don’t have unlimited rights on a property, you have to respect your neighbours.
Also I’m not really liking the whole “the original 40-minute consultation they were charged $4,000—at $100 a minute it is not bad money”. It’s a bit disingenuous. The lawyer would have put in a lot of research into the legal status of the farm, there’s always a lot of reading to do in terms of the particular scenario of a client. That $4000 would cover a lot more than just a 40 minute meeting.
so Geoff what evidence do you have for that statement ” A lot of the town didn’t have a very high smell rating, and the Thompsons seem like nice people, so it’s understandable that a proportion of them support the farm. ‘
give us a link please
I’m basing it a bit off this:
http://narroginlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/minutes-21st-april-2009.pdf
and this:
http://narroginlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/minutes-of-meeting-21st-may-2009.pdf
and joannenova’s pages.
I’m sure there are more.
They mention that the ‘smell levels’ have decresed in the town somewhat, however the Ag School was not present at the April meeting to voice their dissent from the LCCC letter, or their views.
Wish you the very best. Texans, I think, are much less given to ideology than Australians. And, unless something unthinkable has happened since I lived in the USA, government bureaucrats in Texas wouldn’t dare behave like their Australian counterparts. Our loss, hopefully your gain.
WTF has happened to Oz? It used to be so …. robust!
@ur momisugly geoff:
So you’re saying that yes, the Thompsons were screwed over, it was handled badly, but despite the over 6000 negative smell tests there were some complaints so the government was justified in whipping out their enforcement.
Sounds like a variation of “Well some of the townspeople said she dressed kind of slutty so she had it coming, but I agree he didn’t have to be so rough and could’ve used a condom.”
Geoff doesn’t get the message, the simple message is as I said above:
The DEC have behaved deplorably. I urge readers to read Jo’s post at http://joannenova.com.au/2010/09/thompsons-part-10-the-dec-admits-it-treated-them-unfairly/
and particularly the minutes of December 2009 which Jo has linked there
Jo also has in that post a statement from the relevant Minister
“
DF: There is a clear process that is gone through in these situations. Letters are sent out advising of the problem and providing a time frame for correction. Then an Environmental Field Notice is issued and the proponent is given time to comply. Then and Environmental Protection Notice is issued, and the proponent is given time to deal with that. Only after that exhaustive process, would an operation be shut down…or limited in throughput which would lead to it shutting down. We have had the same situation with waste treatment facilities. This is standard procedure. The Department is not interested in shutting the operation down.
The DEC never followed that procedure in this case.
That’s the simple message – you could argue till the cows come home about what you think about the other things like the smell, whether neighbours benefited from fertiliser, ; but it comes back to that simple question – what did DEC do; basically it shut them down because the conditions added to the licence were such that banks would not continue or renew their current overdrafts nor review their financial arrangements
and related to that question is what was DEC procedure? Well it’s put quite simply in the Minister’s statement. Did DEC follow that procedure in this case? No. As a result the Thompsons lost their livelihood … (as I’ve said that in my previous post)
the Thompsons lost their considerable input capital, I suspect they incurred considerable debts and they lost their livelihood.