Ok, here is another of my posts from the Chalice threads, which may also interest any genuine VMS Holders.

I did the research last year, so you can guess which Tassie VMS projects I was thinking about at the time.


It's actually only the 2nd of 2 posts I shared to that thread today, but it's the only one that's somewhat relavnt here to VMS.

But if anyone cares to see them both anyway (in proper context with the rest of the chat re delays by Julimar forest protestors or the convenor of the review committee), the links are:

1) https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/60976844/single

2) https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/60980665/single

-----------------------------------------

PS... Please note, I am not suggesting that the convenor may be deliberately dragging their heals.

I'm not suggesting that any delays are deliberate at all, actually.

Maybe it's true that local protestors never noticed any of the Chalice-sponsored Christmas Street Parties, Community awareness nights, local newspaper articles or newsletters... It's been a crazy 2 years, even for most normal folks.

But these latest mounting delays (since the Christmas quarter) are certainly starting to edge towards unbelievable excuses by potentially questionable "protestors".

Or perhaps, it may soon become appropriate to consider lobbying for a full and formal departmental review to ensure that there is NOT ANY government employee who informs the process at ANY stage who may have been causing any deliberate/negligent delays and/or mis-insformation, (at all levels of staffing, including research assistants, filing clerks, internal mail clerks, student interns... or their supportive friends or family who are (also) employed in more critical document processing roles).

And it should not be limited to the Mining Department, I dare suggest.

Eg WA State Department of Planning,Lands & Heritage is also critical to the process of progressing applications, and therefore also needs to be held to the highest standards of accountability. I certainly hope and trust that they can be. But even volunteer forest tour guides and "eco scientists" in other states can gain questionable access to either computers or critical associates with some degree of influence over the process... in the past, at least.

NOTE: UNlawful protests are not to be confused with lawful, non-sabotageprotests, (with the obvious exceptions of any conduct which falls under National Security Laws in relation to deliberate delay tactics inflicted against critical minerals & infrastructure).

REF Also: Critical Minerals List, which shows Julimar's Cobalt, Chromium & PGEs are all ranked at the highest level of "Highly Critical":
LINK: https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/2022-critical-minerals-strategy

& REF: https://www.ga.gov.au/data-pubs/data-and-publications-search/publications/australian-minerals-resource-assessment/critical-commodities.
.
.

& REF ALSO (Definitions for Sabotage Penalties) Clause 82.1 National Security Act 2018: where damage can include any conduct which limits or prevents access to any part of critical infrustructure.... and where Clause 82.2 Defines critical infrastructure to include any premises in Australia, including for the mining/processing/transport of any critical goods.

LINK: https://www.legislation.gov.au/details/C2018C00506

Please note: I have no personal experience or qualifications with the National Security Act, (thank goodness!! LOL), so if anybody spots any mis-interpretations, please feel welcome to correct me.

But in any case, Public Servants have much simpler (yet VERY strict) codes of conduct (and penalties for breaches) which apply to many unlawful protests, tactics and various behaviours eg:

Code of Conduct: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1954758035/view

& Departmental Policies: wadaa.sharepoint.com/sites/DPLH/Governance/Pages/policies.aspx

Apply to: ALL full time, part time, casual & unpaid/volunteer work agreements
.

Expiration: None. The agreement survivesafter leaving their job (for the purposes of prohibiting any futhergovernment employment in ANY State or Territory of Australia, following a breach), and specifically stateson Pages 5 to 8:

1) Employees MUST

a) “... conduct [themselves] in a mannerthat doesn’t reflect adversely on the public sector, the department or fellowemployees”.

b) disclose any close associationwith any political/charity (including environmental protest groups used as a fundraising platform for political purposes)

c) “notify theirmanager if they are charged with a criminal offence…” Found guilty or not, if it impacts or throws disrepute over the WA Departments in any way

d) “… act ethically and with integrity…”

e) “… comply with departmental and public sector policies… followlawful instructions...

2)Employees MUST NOT engage in any activity, anywhere, re:

a) strong conflicts of interest between personal activism and employmentobligations as a government employee/volunteer.

b) throws heavy suspicion on abilityto their position and/or government contacts in any government department for their ownpersonal agenda

c) throws heavy suspicion overwhether they use any departmental travel expenses, time, internet access, phonecalls, information or any other departmental assets to support their private

d) throws disrepute over the department for failing tomanage breaches of the code

e) harass, bully [any] employees or members of the public… in any way whichfails to have proper regard for their interests, rights, safety and welfare (includingthe rights of any lawful explorer/mine developer).

3) Page 6 specifically states thatemployees/volunteers also commit a breach, if they:a) are negligent…

b) commit an act of misconduct

c) contravene any provision of the PSMA, any public sector standard or code of ethics

or d)disregard or disobey a lawful order. (In any state)... which can include refusing to budge from an unlawful blockage.

4) Page 9 re Contact with Lobbyists specifically states: “On occasion our duties may involve contact with lobbyists. We must ensure any contact is conducted in accordance with the Public Sector Commission’s contact with lobbyists advice; and meets the public’s expectations oftransparency, integrity and honesty. Lobbyists must advise of the third party they represent, the nature of the issue they are supporting and must be listed onthe Public Sector Commission’s Register of Lobbyists.”
5) Page 16 re Conflict of Interest also warns that:

a) conflictsmay arise with secondary employment… if they “fail to demonstrate impartiality…”.

b) “must always disclose a personal interest thatcould, now or in the future be seen as influencing the performance of duties in accordance with policies and procedures”.

Page 17 continues to clarify thatpublic servant/departmental representatives:

a) MUST “…identify, declare and appropriately manage any conflict of interest, whether actual, perceived or potential between your personal interests and your public duty.

b) MUST NOT engage in political or other outside activities which may conflict…

c) MUST seek permission from the Director General before undertaking secondary employment, or accepting work(paid or unpaid) outside the department.

So obviously, in relation to Chalice, it is not possible for any normalshareholder to tell if any particular public servant or protestor is genuinely guilty of anything.

But each of us, as normal law abiding citizens, are obliged to assist and support the appropriate authorities, if we happen to notice something/someone suspicious... or come into any information, which may seem suspicious enough to warrant formal investigation... ESPECIALLY in relation to the National Security Act.

In these crazy times, it's no longer outside the realms of possibility that certain local protests or delays may be sponsored by Russia or China, who own the two biggest rivals to Julimar.

And as shareholders, each of us have signed broker agreements which obligates us to immediately report any suspcious activity or social media comments which may be related to market manipulation (by any means, including suspicious down-ramping coincident to bot attacks, and/or damaging activism, including any attempts to mis-inform investors with false or mis-leading information.

REF: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/how-to-complain/where-asic-can-help/shares-and-market-misconduct-insider-trading-etc/dyor & gltah


Bottom line: Chalice is a highly reputable explorer, using all the most advanced techniques, and with all the highest moral and social standards for protecting wildlife and rare species.

As responsible human beings, we should be working towards solutions... not blanket banning mining in any semblance of a forest where approval to mine has already been extensively investigated by the government's Geoscience Australia, assessed by all relevant parties, and approved for the extract of minerals UNANIMOUSLY by both side of Parliament.


Otherwise, by my rough estimate, and in a completely fair system, it seems to me that the local protestors would personally owe shareholders at least 3 billion in compensation for each 3kms of mineralisation inside the forest, (which are already mapped and targeted).

Or possibly jail up to 15 years each, if they break the law to protest the supply of critical minerals.

Just my opinion.

dyor & gltah

Share

Originally posted by Tarampa: ↑

PS... Please note, I am not suggesting that the convenor may be deliberately dragging their heals.

I'm not suggesting that any delays are deliberate at all, actually.

Maybe it's true that local protestors never noticed any of the Chalice-sponsored Christmas Street Parties, Community awareness nights, local newspaper articles or newsletters... It's been a crazy 2 years, even for most normal folks.

But these latest mounting delays (since the Christmas quarter) are certainly starting to edge towards unbelievable excuses by potentially questionable "protestors".

Or perhaps, it may soon become appropriate to consider lobbying for a full and formal departmental review to ensure that there is NOT ANY government employee who informs the process at ANY stage who may have been causing any deliberate/negligent delays and/or mis-insformation, (at all levels of staffing, including research assistants, filing clerks, internal mail clerks, student interns... or their supportive friends or family who are (also) employed in more critical document processing roles).

And it should not be limited to the Mining Department, I dare suggest.

Eg WA State Department of Planning,Lands & Heritage is also critical to the process of progressing applications, and therefore also needs to be held to the highest standards of accountability. I certainly hope and trust that they can be. But even volunteer forest tour guides and "eco scientists" in other states can gain questionable access to either computers or critical associates with some degree of influence over the process... in the past, at least.

NOTE: UNlawful protests are not to be confused with lawful, non-sabotageprotests, (with the obvious exceptions of any conduct which falls under National Security Laws in relation to deliberate delay tactics inflicted against critical minerals & infrastructure).

REF Also: Critical Minerals List, which shows Julimar's Cobalt, Chromium & PGEs are all ranked at the highest level of "Highly Critical":
LINK: https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/2022-critical-minerals-strategy

& REF: https://www.ga.gov.au/data-pubs/data-and-publications-search/publications/australian-minerals-resource-assessment/critical-commodities.
.
.

& REF ALSO (Definitions for Sabotage Penalties) Clause 82.1 National Security Act 2018: where damage can include any conduct which limits or prevents access to any part of critical infrustructure.... and where Clause 82.2 Defines critical infrastructure to include any premises in Australia, including for the mining/processing/transport of any critical goods.

LINK: https://www.legislation.gov.au/details/C2018C00506

Please note: I have no personal experience or qualifications with the National Security Act, (thank goodness!! LOL), so if anybody spots any mis-interpretations, please feel welcome to correct me.

But in any case, Public Servants have much simpler (yet VERY strict) codes of conduct (and penalties for breaches) which apply to many unlawful protests, tactics and various behaviours eg:

Code of Conduct: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-1954758035/view

& Departmental Policies: wadaa.sharepoint.com/sites/DPLH/Governance/Pages/policies.aspx

Apply to: ALL full time, part time, casual & unpaid/volunteer work agreements
.

Expiration: None. The agreement survivesafter leaving their job (for the purposes of prohibiting any futhergovernment employment in ANY State or Territory of Australia, following a breach), and specifically stateson Pages 5 to 8:

1) Employees MUST

a) “... conduct [themselves] in a mannerthat doesn’t reflect adversely on the public sector, the department or fellowemployees”.

b) disclose any close associationwith any political/charity (including environmental protest groups used as a fundraising platform for political purposes)

c) “notify theirmanager if they are charged with a criminal offence…” Found guilty or not, if it impacts or throws disrepute over the WA Departments in any way

d) “… act ethically and with integrity…”

e) “… comply with departmental and public sector policies… followlawful instructions...

2)Employees MUST NOT engage in any activity, anywhere, re:

a) strong conflicts of interest between personal activism and employmentobligations as a government employee/volunteer.

b) throws heavy suspicion on abilityto their position and/or government contacts in any government department for their ownpersonal agenda

c) throws heavy suspicion overwhether they use any departmental travel expenses, time, internet access, phonecalls, information or any other departmental assets to support their private

d) throws disrepute over the department for failing tomanage breaches of the code

e) harass, bully [any] employees or members of the public… in any way whichfails to have proper regard for their interests, rights, safety and welfare (includingthe rights of any lawful explorer/mine developer).

3) Page 6 specifically states thatemployees/volunteers also commit a breach, if they:a) are negligent…

b) commit an act of misconduct

c) contravene any provision of the PSMA, any public sector standard or code of ethics

or d)disregard or disobey a lawful order. (In any state)... which can include refusing to budge from an unlawful blockage.

4) Page 9 re Contact with Lobbyists specifically states: “On occasion our duties may involve contact with lobbyists. We must ensure any contact is conducted in accordance with the Public Sector Commission’s contact with lobbyists advice; and meets the public’s expectations oftransparency, integrity and honesty. Lobbyists must advise of the third party they represent, the nature of the issue they are supporting and must be listed onthe Public Sector Commission’s Register of Lobbyists.”
5) Page 16 re Conflict of Interest also warns that:

a) conflictsmay arise with secondary employment… if they “fail to demonstrate impartiality…”.

b) “must always disclose a personal interest thatcould, now or in the future be seen as influencing the performance of duties in accordance with policies and procedures”.

Page 17 continues to clarify thatpublic servant/departmental representatives:

a) MUST “…identify, declare and appropriately manage any conflict of interest, whether actual, perceived or potential between your personal interests and your public duty.

b) MUST NOT engage in political or other outside activities which may conflict…

c) MUST seek permission from the Director General before undertaking secondary employment, or accepting work(paid or unpaid) outside the department.

So obviously, in relation to Chalice, it is not possible for any normalshareholder to tell if any particular public servant or protestor is genuinely guilty of anything.

But each of us, as normal law abiding citizens, are obliged to assist and support the appropriate authorities, if we happen to notice something/someone suspicious... or come into any information, which may seem suspicious enough to warrant formal investigation... ESPECIALLY in relation to the National Security Act.

In these crazy times, it's no longer outside the realms of possibility that certain local protests or delays may be sponsored by Russia or China, who own the two biggest rivals to Julimar.

And as shareholders, each of us have signed broker agreements which obligates us to immediately report any suspcious activity or social media comments which may be related to market manipulation (by any means, including suspicious down-ramping coincident to bot attacks, and/or damaging activism, including any attempts to mis-inform investors with false or mis-leading information.

REF: https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/how-to-complain/where-asic-can-help/shares-and-market-misconduct-insider-trading-etc/dyor & gltah


Bottom line: Chalice is a highly reputable explorer, using all the most advanced techniques, and with all the highest moral and social standards for protecting wildlife and rare species.

As responsible human beings, we should be working towards solutions... not blanket banning mining in any semblance of a forest where approval to mine has already been extensively investigated by the government's Geoscience Australia, assessed by all relevant parties, and approved for the extract of minerals UNANIMOUSLY by both side of Parliament.


Otherwise, by my rough estimate, and in a completely fair system, it seems to me that the local protestors would personally owe shareholders at least 3 billion in compensation for each 3kms of mineralisation inside the forest, (which are already mapped and targeted).

Or possibly jail up to 15 years each, if they break the law to protest the supply of critical minerals.

Just my opinion.

dyor & gltah