Untitled Document

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES

Unofficial Hansard

WEDNESDAY, 5 APRIL 2000

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

(173 of 177)

Wednesday, 5 April 2000

REPRESENTATIVES

15385

________________________________________________________________________________
Coal Industry: Face Emplaced Services Support Device
(Question No. 1206)

Mr Hollis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and
Resources, upon notice, on 6 March 2000:
(1) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to an invention called a Face Emplaced Services Support
device, designed for use in the underground coal mining industry (Patent Application Number
PCT/AU92/00555 and PCT/AU95/00038).
(2) If so, who (a) has owned the intellectual property and (b) is the current owner.
(3) Are any Australian and international companies involved in underground mining using the Face
Emplaced Services Support device; if so, which companies.
(4) What is the estimated value of the intellectual property to Australia.

Mr Moore—

The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following
answer to the honourable member’s question:
(1) Yes.
(2) IP Australia’s records indicate that the ownership details are as follows:
PCT/AU92/00555 Patentees: John Edwin Pink
(Patent No.668524) Brian Lesley Joseph Buffier; Barbara Joan O’Brien
PCT/AU95/00038 Applicants: John Edwin Pink; Barbara Joan O’Brien

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

(174 of 177)

15386

REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, 5 April 2000

According to IP Australia’s records, both the patent and the application have lapsed.
(3) There are a large number of Australian and international companies involved in underground
mining. My Department does not have details of the particular types of technology all these companies
are using.
(4) The Government is not in a position to determine the value of this intellectual property. This is a
matter determined by the market, and is dependent on many factors. Success in the marketplace is the
ultimate test of the commercial worth of an invention.

use the hyperlink. http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr050400.pdf .for the official version of Hansard

(N.B. Be prepared to wait quite some time for the file to download! As a new window is launched)
(you are able to refer back to this Unofficial version of HANSARD for the House of Representatives)
(for the page numbers - 173 & 174 of 177 and 15385 & 15386 for Wednesday, 5 April 2000.)

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

Discussion of Answers

With reference to Question (1) of course Mr Moore would be aware of the Face Emplaced Services Support device because BHP have only done what most other big corporations do - rip the average Aussie off! You can understand from the "helpfullness" displayed in the examination of Mr Moore's other answers (following) that he has supported this theft to the best of his ability!

In Mr Moore's answer to Question (2) he ignores the possibility that there have been applications for patents made in other countries. In fact the acronym "PCT" is short for "Patent Cooperation Treaty" and it would be hard for someone to mis-understand the situation to be that I used this PCT facility and applied for a patent in Australia only or Australia has a treaty with itself! It would also be difficult for someone to confuse a PCT application with an Australian patent application or Australian patent and the difference can be noted in Mr. Moore's own answer where he quotes the Australian Patent Number as 668524 and the PCT Application as PCT/AU92/00555.

Additionally if the http:/clusty.com search engine is used for the words "patent cooperation treaty" the second entry hyperlink reveals the following information;

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (or PCT) provides a unified procedure for filing patent applications to protect inventions worldwide. A single filing results in a single search (and optionally a preliminary examination), after which the examination (if provided by national law) and grant procedures are handled by the relevant national or regional authorities.

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

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

House of Representatives

Unofficial Hansard

No. 1 of 2006
Thursday, 9 February 2006

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

(210 of 216)

192

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Thursday, 9 February 2006

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Patent Applications

(Question No. 2759)

Ms Bird asked the Minister Industry, Tourism & Resources, in writing, on
1 December 2005:
(1) Is he aware of patent applications PCT/AU92/00555 and PCT/AU95/00038.
(2) Were the applications registered.
(3) Which company lodged the patent applications.

Mr Ian Macfarlane—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows
(1) Yes.
(2) Application PCT/AU92/00555: Yes it was granted on 25th September 2006, and ceased on 28th May 1998;
......Application PCT/AU95/00038: No it lapsed on 8 May 1997.
(3) Application PCT/AU92/00555 was lodged by John Edward (sic)Pink, and Brian Lesley Joseph Buffier.
......Application PCT/AU95/00038 was lodged by John Edward (sic) Pink, and Barbara Joan O'Brien.

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

use the hyperlink. http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr090206.pdf .for the official version of Hansard

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

Discussion of Answers

With reference to Question (1) of course Mr Ian Macfarlane would be aware of the Face Emplaced Services Support device because pollies of all stripes conspire to rip the aussie off! Basically every policitian, including so-called Greens, are there to make it appear that Australia is a democracy but all what really happens is that these pollies get publicity for something insignificant and the really big issues, which affect everyone in a very material manner, are ignored!

In Mr Ian Macfarlane's answer to Question (2) he ignores the obvious "trick" that IP Australia (the Patent Office) uses to conceal the theft of the patent rights by having a PATENT OF DIVISION* where the valuable intellectual property is transferred into this newly-created patent application and no link back to this initial patent is advertised. The original patent application can then be allowed to lapse! To most people it appears that the patent was not continued and this can be claimed by investigating officials as was the case with Detective Superintendent Colin DYSON, of the NSW Police Force, in his correspondence to me. (Other inventors will realise that this "Patent of Division" trick has been done with their inventions too!)

* a "Patent of Division" is is just a a patent which is branched from the original patent application because the Commisioner of Patents considers that the material encompasses more than one invention

In this idiot, Mr Ian Macfarlane's answer to Question (3) he couldn't even make sure that my name was spelt correctly! My middle name is "Edwin". He is quite prepared to give a correct answer to a question which is completely irrelivant.

The person placing the "Questions on Notice", Gino MANDARINO - Senior Advisor to Sharon BIRD, the Member for Cuningham, made sure that these questions were not even entered in Hansard till after the BHP (Billiton Ltd) AGM so I could not refer to this issue with backup.

signed: John Edwin Pink

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

House of Representatives

Unofficial Hansard

No. 3 of 2006
Monday, 27 February 2006

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

(168 of 196)

148

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Monday, 27 February 2006

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

BHP Billiton

(Question No. 2758)

Ms Bird asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 1 December 2005:
(1) Has the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) been approached by been approached by Mr John
......Edwin Pink regarding BHP Billiton and concerns about the company's share price.
(2) What action has ASIC taken on Mr Pink's concerns.
(3) Is it a requirement that questions put by a shareholder at a company annual general meeting must
......be answered by the relevent company executive.

Mr Costello—The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows:
(1) ASIC advises that Mr Pink first approached ASIC in May 2001 raising his concerns about a fall in
......the BHP share price in 1997. ASIC also advises that Mr Pink's concerns were also referred to it by the
......NSW Attorney General's Department in 2001.
(2) ASIC advises that it assessed Mr Pink's concerns, both at the time of his initial complaint and fol-
......lowing the complaint from the NSW Attorney General's Department. ASIC concluded that the facts
......identified by Mr Pink did not support his allegations of wrongdoing. Accordingly ASIC did not
......take any further action in fegard to Mr pink's allegations.
(3) Section 50S of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act) requires that the chair of an annual
......general meeting (AGM) to allow reasonable opportunity for the members as a whole at the meeting
......to ask questions about, or make comments on, the management of the company.

......Under section 50T of the Corporations Act, the chair must also allow reasonable opportiunity for
......members as a whole at the meeting to ask the auditor questions relevant to the audit and prepa-
......ration and content of the auditor's report. Further section 50PA allows a member of a listed com-
......pany who is entitled to vote at the AGM to submit a written question to the auditor prior to the
......AGM.

use the hyperlink. http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr270206.pdf .for the official version of Hansard

(N.B. Be prepared to wait quite some time for the file to download! As a new window is launched)
(you are able to refer back to this Unofficial version of HANSARD for the House of Representatives)
(for the page number - 168 of 196 and 148 for Monday, 27 February 2006.)

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

Discussion of Answers

With reference to Question (1) doesn't one think it odd that that the NSW Attorney General's Department was concerned enough to write a letter referring the matter to the ASIC for determination when their understanding of the law and its application would be considerable - even in this situation. All they were doing was avoiding giving a determination and "passing the buck" to the ASIC to do their dirty work!

In Mr Costello's answer to Question (2) somehow the NSW Attorney General's Department concern warrants re-investigation of the matter. There should be no need for re-investigation of the matter because if the matter was investigated properly the initial time, because of my complaint(s), the determination then should not have altered. The problem of the ASIC covering for the politician concerned (Mr Campbell "representing" the state seat of Keira), through the Attorney General's Department is exposed.

In answer to Question (3) is an attempt divert attention away from the political sphere. They know that people asking legitimate questions at AGMs are sabotaged and this suits them fine!

So there you have it - a complete zero in the policital arena! Pollies of all stripes (many have been aproached) are just the "lick spittles" of huge corporations!