________________________________________________________________________________
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

 

      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.

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.

Its "funny" that Mr. Moore should not understand the obvious!

 

The fact that BHP pinched the rights to my invention is about the worst kept secret on the planet so Mr. Moore's Answer (3) makes me think that either he lives in a time warp or he thinks that I am an idiot and I will believe that he speaks the truth!

 

I was so disgusted with the response from the industry that way back in 1995 I undertook an estimation of the worth of the invention.  The exercise involved schoolboy arithmetic and a very limited knowledge of underground mining.  You can tell who went to a public school and gained an education and who went to a private school and didn't comprehend what was being taught!  Mr. Moore's Answer (4) is just wholly inadequate - as one would expect!

 

signed:  John Edwin Pink

________________________________________________________________________________
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

 

      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.

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.

Its "funny" that Mr. Moore should not understand the obvious!

 

The fact that BHP pinched the rights to my invention is about the worst kept secret on the planet so Mr. Moore's Answer (3) makes me think that either he lives in a time warp or he thinks that I am an idiot and I will believe that he speaks the truth!

 

I was so disgusted with the response from the industry that way back in 1995 I undertook an estimation of the worth of the invention.  The exercise involved schoolboy arithmetic and a very limited knowledge of underground mining.  You can tell who went to a public school and gained an education and who went to a priivate school and didn't comprehend what was being taught!  Mr. Moore's Answer (4) is just wholly inadequate - as one would expect!

 

signed:  John Edwin Pink

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/notpaper/rnp073.pdf

page 37 of 41

No. 73—1 December 2005 3251
*2757 MR B. P. O'CONNOR: To ask the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—
(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2544 (Hansard, 29 November 2005, page 88), (a) is it the case
that the legal service providers will be paid regardless of whether work is undertaken, (b) is his
department contractually bound to provide $3 million over three years for each legal service provider
regardless of services performed, and (c) did the legal service providers provide a contractually
assured undertaking to perform a minimum level of service to the department.
(2) Have any of the legal service providers received any money; if so, (a) in which specific fields of
departmental responsibility has the legal service provider been involved, and, (b) what sum has been
paid to each legal service provider.
(3) In respect of the statement that the legal service providers will be working independently and will not
deal with the same or similar issues, (a) can he provide information on the different duties provided
for in each contract, and (b) will the Chief Legal Counsel be publicly disclosing the activities of the
legal service providers.
(4) In regard to the tender process, (a) how many other legal service providers were involved in the
tender process but were unsuccessful in obtaining a contract, and (b) why were the unsuccessful legal
service providers not selected.
*2758 MS BIRD: To ask the Treasurer—
(1) Has the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) 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 relevant company executive.
*2759 MS BIRD: To ask the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources—
(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.

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/notpaper/rnp078.pdf

page 81 of 111

No. 78—7 February 2006 3515

questions

2758 MS BIRD: To ask the Treasurer—
(1) Has the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) 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 relevant company executive.

questions & answers to Treasurers

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr270206.pdf

page 168 of 196

148 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 27 February 2006
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
ceived specific intelligence and police information about a potential terrorist threat. The Government
was satisfied on the advice provided to it that the immediate passage of the bill would
strengthen the capacity of law enforcement agencies to effectively respond to the threat.
The Prime Minister and other relevant Ministers have ongoing dialogues on law enforcement and
national security issues with the relevant agencies.
(5) No.
BHP Billiton
(Question No. 2758)
Ms Bird asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 1 December 2005:
(1) Has the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) 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 relevant company executive.
Mr Costello—The answer to the honourable 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 advises that Mr Pink’s concerns were also referred to it by the
NSW Attorney General’s Department in November 2001.
(2) ASIC advises that it assessed Mr Pink’s concerns, both at the time of his initial complaint and following
the referral 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 regard to Mr Pink’s allegations.
(3) Section 250S of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Corporations Act) requires 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 250T of the Corporations Act, the chair must also allow reasonable opportunity for
members as a whole at the meeting to ask the auditor questions relevant to the audit and the preparation
and content of the auditor’s report. Further, section 250PA allows a member of a listed company
who is entitled to vote at the AGM to submit a written question to the auditor prior to the
AGM.

questions and answers to Minister for Industry, Tourism & Resources

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr090206.pdf

210 of 216

192 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, 9 February 2006
QUESTIONS IN WRITING
(3) Can the Minister confirm that this position impacts unfairly on certain ADF members who elect to
transfer the entitlement to Recreation Leave Travel to a nominated family member.
(4) Has the Government considered legislative change to amend this particular aspect of the Fringe
Benefit Tax system.
Mrs De-Anne Kelly—The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the
honourable member’s question:
(1) Yes.
(2) (a) Recreation leave travel taken by an ADF member is subject to fringe benefits tax (FBT). This
FBT is paid by Defence, but is reported on the member’s payment summary.
(b) Yes, and is reportable on the ADF member’s payment summary.
(3) and (4) No.
Patent Applications
(Question No. 2759)
Ms Bird asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and 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 honourable member’s question is as follows:
(1) Yes.
(2) Application PCT/AU92/00555: Yes, it was granted on 25 September 1996, and ceased on 28 May
1998;
Application PCT/AU95/00038: No, it lapsed on 8 May 1997.
(3) Application PCT/AU92/00555 was lodged by John Edward Pink, and Brian Lesley Joseph Buffier.
Application PCT/AU95/00038 was lodged by John Edward Pink, and Barbara Joan O’Brien.