I have spent over 100 days this past 2002 year protesting outside State Parliament without much support. There has been improper use of the Protection of the Environment Act 93 section 276 Noise Abatement Directive, for 28 days.In an attempt to silence my accusations.

Brian Steffen Director General of Energy and Utilities, has written 18/12/2002 ( DIM Ref: D17768, D16290@ D16609 MEU Ref: 02/01570 File 9092 ) "The Ministry of Energy and Utilities has recently commenced proceedings for the review of the NSW Service and Installation Rules. We expect the review of the New South Wales Service and installation Rules to take approximately one year to compleat." Effect to bury this till after the elections.

Brian Steffen also writes he believes my concerns have been addressed in previous correspondence. He is mistaken, unless that "addressed" he referred to did not reach my hands. This issue has been documented as on going since response from the Minister K Yeadon in August 2001. And written advice from the Premier Carr that Energy Australia was not required to comply with The Marketing Code of Conduct, because it is not a retailer of electrical energy.

 The Regulation of the Electricity Supply Act has happened, There is documented evidence that Property Owners have been set up to be responsible for the Insurance Liability of Electricity Supply line outside their property. Pages 11 and 12 of the NSW Service and Installation Rules March 1999 show several diagrams the one thing in common to all is the 'Point of Supply' always outside the boundary of the property. On page 16 is the mention of Considerations of Potential Liability, and page 18 the Energy Supplier may ask the customer to do any of the following : Supply and install an underground or overhead supply.

The involvement of and the refusal to respond honestly with definitive answers to my questions by these people is an indictment in itself. Premier Carr,  K. Yeadon, Hans Wesseling, Cathy Williamson IPART, Brian Steffen Director General Energy and Utilities. among them. Also my concern that Questions on Notice were worded to avoid putting the Government in a difficult position.

Did Gosford Council ask Ratepayers to "retain ownership of Electricity Supply Line from the Power distribution Board to the Low Voltage Supply Pillar" answer Yes!  Actual Question on notice, Did Gosford Council ask ratepayers to be responsible for the Electricity Supply Line Answer NO!   Responsibility was not used in the written approach by gosford council on behalf of Energy Australia, common sense allows that responsibility comes with ownership. And that ownership can be enforced under the regulation of the Electricity Supply Act 95.

The reason this has happened is simple the State Government has always been the insurer of last resort on behalf of the people of NSW with regards the Electricity Supply Grid, but to priviatezise there was no chance that potential owners would consider being responsible for that insurance liability so the State Government found that property owners could be responsible for the most expensive part of the liability by becoming owners out to the "Point of Supply", so the regulation happened with the involvement of Liberal Coalition and Labor, hence the wall of silence.

I am just sad that I do not have the skills to lobby this to the point of prominence that it deserves, consider the debacle of motor vehicle insurance. Then ask why a responsible Government would consider creating a situation where every property owner ( Millions of them always increasing) is responsible for some piece of the Electricity Supply Grid not in their direct control outside their private holdings. A JOKE! 

Ministerial involvement in accommodating criminal activity, Harry Woods and Andrew Refshauge are entitled to their Ministerial Prerogative.  That's the Law as is John Brogden and Chris Hartcher but why when there parties are running a high profile Law and Order Campaign presenting themselves as supporters of law and order, would they all be comfortable with allegations "MPs Ignore Crime" that involves employees of the Gosford Council?

                        Published threats to sue me for defamation implies that I am lying when I say Gosford Council is Corrupt. I have copies of Falsified Instruments signed by Grant Killen for Gosford Council and relied on to mislead the afore mentioned Ministers. Consider that all councillors and management have been approached in writing with no proper response, this same council has seen Councillors and friends of Council feather bedded when they illegally used the public property for commercial benefit and continued after the matter was drawn to councils attention this relates to non compliance with Sections 626 and 627 of the Local Government Act 93   Illegal nuisance use and Non Complying use. Management and ranger supervisor Rod Giffen have been asked  was there a written directive for Rangers to ignore issues of law enforce in selective instances.   Matters that had to be brought to the attention of the Pecuniary Interest Tribunal and the Department of Local Government both of whom inform me that on these matters they cannot advise me. This is a Council that involved itself in improper use of community resources pursuing all issues of defamation, Council as a corporate entity has no avenue to prosecute defamation.  Supreme Court Ringland v Ballina Shire 1993

 As far as I am concerned Matters of Corruption are public business and the conflict and pecuniary interest issues that arise when Ten Million Dollar insurance requirements and rent are ignored for almost four years through council reviews is certainly the concern of responsible ratepayers across this State!

Edward James   

 0418486260

https://gosfordcouncil.tripod.com/