• Private certifier gets nailed – depaNews November 2010
  • Wake up and don't worry - depaNews February 2011
  • HR professionals – depaNews January 2009
  • Upper Hunter gets coy – depaNews March 2011
  • BPB kills off B1 & B2 - depaNews July 2009
  • Councillors behaving badly Part One - depaNews December 2009
  • Councillors behaving badly Part Two - depaNews December 2009
  • Who is Peter Hurst? - depaNews August 2010
  • It's time to go, Peter Part One - depaNews September 2006
  • It's time to go Peter Part Two - depaNews December 2006
  • BPB survey on accreditation – depaNews November 2008
  • Improbable things start to come true – depaNews June 2010
  • Sex, lies and development – depaNews February 2008
  • Pizza man feeds non-members – depaNews April 2011
  • Bankstown wins HR Award – depaNews December 2010
  • Love him or loathe him - depaNews October 2007
  • Good Bad & Ugly issue – depaNews November 2010
  • Upper Hunter lets the dogs out - depaNews February 2011
  • IRC puts brakes on belligerent seven – depaNews June 2009
  • It's Tweedledum and not Tweedledumber - depaNews March 2007
  • 28 April International Day of Mourning - depaNews April 2009
  • IRC orders Hurst 'apology' published - depaNews December 2010
  • Debate on IR policy – depaNews August 2007
  • Developer agrees to apologise – depaNews November 2010
  • OH&S Day of Mourning – depaNews April 2009

The Development and Environmental Professionals' Association (depa)

Welcome to the depa website. We are an industrial organisation representing professional employees working in local government in New South Wales in a variety of jobs in the fields of environmental health, public health, building and development control and planning.

We take a broad approach to our responsibilities to members and give advice and assistance on professional issues as well as industrial and workplace issues. We understand what members do at work and that allows us to take a holistic approach.  Read more about us...

This site will keep you up-to-date with union news and the diverse range of workplace advocacy issues we deal with daily. We have made it easy for members to contact us with online forms and quickly Join depa onlne nowaccess information from our extensive FAQs.

Love him or loathe him - depaNews October 2007


Whether you love him or loathe him, or haven't made up your mind, he’s made up his mind about you

Well, what a bummer. We know that John Howard hates union bosses. That's what he calls the democratically elected officials of unions who get their jobs, and retain them, by having members of the unions vote to appoint them - just like the process of election in Bennelong. But the Howard Government conveniently ignores this democratic process and demonises people acting in the interests of their members as union bosses.

My mother taught me that if you can't say something nice, then you shouldn't say anything at all and while a succession of planning ministers, boofhead councillors, tedious and unimaginative general managers and know-nothing human resource professionals (sic) test my commitment to mum’s advice, clearly John Howard's mum didn't teach her kids such good manners.

But with the election now announced for 24 November, the Prime Minister reveals its not just union bosses he doesn't like. He doesn't like you either.

The Coalition's first election television ad asked the question " Who is more likely to put Australia's economy at risk?" - contrasting the options of "pro-growth" nice blokes like Howard and Costello with pictures of Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan imposed on L plates.

But wait, there's more. Can there be anything worse than learners? Yes, there can, and its "trade unionists". And "anti-business" ones at that.

We know that many of you are easily offended and the idea that you belong to a union, in the eyes of the Government makes you one of those horrible "trade unionists" and that, of course, means you’re anti-business. Shame on you!

We think it's appalling.

More appalling though, is that the Government keeps making the assertion linking trade unionists, growth and the concept of anti-business in a climate where for the past five or 10 years, the best performing superannuation schemes have been Industry Funds, where "trade unionists" sit on boards in equal representation to employer representatives. These funds (and the Local Government Superannuation Scheme, although a government fund is essentially an industry fund) are always found to outperform corporate funds because they are run providing all profit to members. What, does that mean that the Government's obsession with demonising union bosses and union members as being bad for growth/business is wrong?

We also think it's a sign of panic. In the last few weeks there have been two extraordinary examples of the Government launching unacceptable attacks upon academics whose only crime has been to carry out independent research and find that WorkChoices has damaged people's lives and incomes.

On Tuesday 2 October, a comprehensive study on work and life in Australia was released by the University of Sydney's Workplace Research Centre. Jointly funded by UnionsNSW and the Federal Government, it found, amongst other things, that average full-time workers on Australian Workplace Agreements were $106 a week worse off than those on collective agreements. $106 each week.

"Avuncular" Joe Hockey (as he was described by Prime Minister Howard when he was appointed as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to try and recover from the fiasco of Kevin Andrews) immediately launched a defamatory attack upon the authors of the research as well as the significance of 50% of the funding coming from UnionsNSW.

Describing academics who had never worked for unions as "trade union officials who are parading as academics", Hockey didn't hold back. Joined by Treasurer Peter Costello (who was formerly an infamous anti-union Victorian solicitor) they launched a partial, jaundiced and unfair attack upon the research. Soiled and infected by UnionsNSW (depa is affiliated to Unions NSW, so some of the funding would have come from us) he claimed it had to be tainted - even though half the funding came from a Federal research body notorious for being fastidious about research funding and proper scientific method and standards.

None of the four academics had worked as union officials and one of them had never even been a member of a union.

It's shameful and we hope the respected academics at Sydney University act on their legal advice and take defamation action against Minister Hockey. If there's something wrong with the research method, then the research method should be attacked. If there's nothing wrong with the method, then the Government should do something about WorkChoices.

Sadly for the Government, it's hard to find research, done by anyone, that shows that WorkChoices has had a positive effect on employees and Hockey is an old hand at dishonest attacks on academic research. His distorted and untruthful allegations about Professor David Peetz, the author of research from Griffith University which did not please the Government earlier this year, continued to be made after the independence of the research was clearly established and academics rushed to express their outrage at the unfair attacks.

Earlier this month at a public forum at Sydney University, Harvard University Professor of Economics Richard Freeman, claimed that WorkChoices was a "complete distortion of the most conservative economic thinking on how you would make efficient bargaining". He claimed it was "a law that does not seem to follow any economic principle for labour institutions in a market", it represented "outdated" rather than modern thinking and "previous proponents of the reform principles on which it was based - those of the early 1990s capitalist system - had already changed their minds".

Professor Freeman claimed "the outside world is interested because this is a unique experiment … it is unique in that it is large-scale reform that was not precipitated by any economic crisis, industrial disputes were down, the economy was good, and unions were fading away".

Sara Charlesworth is an academic who co-wrote a report for the Victorian Employment Advocate, which was released on 9 October and found some negative impact around maternity leave arising from WorkChoices. Charlesworth was phoned by an officer from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations after the research was published and asked if she "had a union background".

It's not really a question of whether you love or loathe John Howard. While he might have missed out on some important lessons about good manners from his mum and while he might be less than scrupulous with the truth, he is a good role model for older people to keep active with his morning walking program and he hugs his kids.

We think it is more important that he loathes you.

Finally, if you would like to see the Coalition's election ad about nasty "trade unionists" you can do so using this link.

And if you feel like a laugh, you can use this link and see a satire of the ad. Minor language warning, so don't blame us.

Robbo's Pearls...

LGS restores uranium nuclear screening

26 April marks 31 years since the largest nuclear energy disaster in history at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine. The disaster contaminated a huge area of the Ukraine, now known as the Chernobyl exclusion zone covering around 2600 km². The public are excluded from the area, both flora and fauna are contaminated forever and there has been significant animal, fish and human birth abnormalities and deformities. And the area is contaminated forever.

The disaster highlighted the significant risk associated with nuclear energy - as if it needed to be highlighted.

LGS has always taken the concept of responsible and sustainable investment more seriously than the rest of Australia’s superannuation funds - since 2000 when the fund decided not to own tobacco and to develop screening arrangements to reduce investment in nuclear/uranium, businesses with poor forestry practices (like Gunns), gambling etc. etc.

These screening practices have won LGS many accolades from responsible investment organisations, including being ranked number one in the world in the prestigious and authoritative Asset Owners Disclosure Project, twice.

But, despite my reluctance to personalise these issues, pretty much as soon as I had resigned as a director on the LGS Board after 16 years of primary responsibility for the introduction of these responsible investment commitments, a couple of pro-nuclear zealots on the Board thought it made sense to dismantle the Board’s historic screening against uranium and nuclear industries because of the stupid and misconceived understanding that nuclear energy did not produce carbon emissions. Stupid bastards.

We never let go of this, placing a clock on our homepage so that the world could see how many days it had been since that stupid decision was made back in September 2014. It would be a timely reminder of the decision and a constant nagging of the stupid bastards to recognise that the advice they had at the time was right - that there would be no investment advantage and that there would only be reputational damage.

LGS has now announced that the uranium/nuclear screening will be restored. Here is their media release. You will note that it doesn’t say that they should have taken advice from their own investment people at the time, they shouldn’t have behaved like a group of single-issue Montgomery Burns, that seeing nuclear technology as a solution for a low carbon future was one-dimensional thinking at its worst - like thinking that a mass murderer might be okay if they were good-looking and had nice manners. A little bit simplistic and wrong-headed. Stupid bastards.

But, good for them for acknowledging their folly and repairing the damage.

A wasted 965 days, more than two and a half years where people scratched their heads and wondered what kind of loonies had taken over the Board.

Our representative on the Board after the decision had been made, Sam Byrne, pursued this but the decision to restore the screening was a unanimous vote, so clearly everyone had come around to recognise that it was a mistake to remove it. Nice work. There may be a few stupid bastards still involved, but at least they’ve done this.

And we’ve decided to announce this on the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. Just to remind us that nuclear technology is not a viable energy source for a low carbon future when there are so many other renewable energy sources without the disadvantages or risks.

As the Chernobyl disaster happened at 1:24am in the Ukraine (seven hours behind Sydney time) on 26 April, the clock was removed from our homepage at that time.

And in a bit of a scoop and brilliant news for the historic and now reinstated commitment to responsible and sustainable investment, LGS was today announced as the top rated International fund (from a field of 600 institutional investors) in the prestigious and authoritative Asset Owners Disclosure Project.

This means that LGS is, without any doubt, the leading responsible and sustainable investment fund in Australia and it's a fabulous result for the commitment of the recently resigned CEO Peter Lambert who has ensured over more than a decade that the resolve of the Board to do precisely that, has been delivered.

Copyright © 2018 The Development and Environmental Professionals' Association (depa). All Rights Reserved. Webdesign: Dot Online