Media Watch Witch Hunt

IN the old days they would have just bound her, thrown her into the lake, and waited to see if she floated. That was how one viewer responded to the vicious dunking of Jennifer Marohasy by Jonathan Holmes on their Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s (ABC) Media Watch program on March 19, 2012.

Dr Marohasy just wants to restore the Murray River’s estuary, but the pushback from the ABC ’s Media Watch program was personal and aggressive.

My name is Koala and I’ve been studying a complaint about that Media Watch program made by Bob Fernley Jones, a retired professional engineer, to the ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs (A&CA). As Mr Fernley Jones explains: Media Watch ignored all the evidence in condemning Dr Marohasy and broke its own rules and standards. Mr Fernley Jones made it easy for the A&CA by listing all the standards that have been breached.

But according to the A&CA, Jonathan Holmes was just expressing their opinions, and under the Editorial Policies, there is no requirement for accuracy in their opinion. So the A&CA has rejected this complaint from Mr Fernley Jones. What a nonsense ruling!

Even a Koala can see that Mr Holmes was very naughty and nasty.
*********

Media Watch of 19 March 2012 (What’s in a Name),

By Bob Fernley Jones

SUMMARY:

These complaints concern extreme bias and errors of fact as communicated by Jonathan Holmes in the ABC Media Watch program of March 19, 2012 entitled ‘What’s in a Name’. The show very obviously broke key ABC Editorial Policies in these ways:

A. Jonathan Holmes presented his personal interest views in a gross subjective manner

B. Critical information was withheld from the viewers

C. There was no balance and group-think was apparent in the Media Watch team

D. The scientific consensus on the Lower Murray estuary was seriously misrepresented

E. The program overtly attacked the reputation of two Australian scientists, Jennifer Marohasy and Peter Ridd, and also the Australian Environment Foundation

F. ABC Media Watch should issue an apology to Dr Marohasy, Professor Ridd, the Australian Environment Foundation and the public

 

MEDIA WATCH AND ABC EDITORIAL POLICY:

Here follow some important extracts from the ABC Editorial Policies (my bold):

4 -Principles: The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism…

…Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective viewof any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:

• a balance that follows the weight of evidence…

…Assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:

… the likely audience expectations of the content…

Media Watch is a unique show in which the “likely audience expectation” is that that the presenter will reveal facts to argue a case. A fairly common example is of exposing plagiarism by illustrating an earlier authorship of the same. Almost by definition, the issue of “personal subjective views” should not be significant in the Media Watch show, and any such opinion should be clearly expressed as such. Concealment of any internally known facts that contradict a Media Watch assertion would be blatant bias and show disregard for issues of evidence that are at the core of ABC Editorial policy.

 

LIST OF CONCERNS:

The core of the following two items were also Emailed on 11/April to the ABC Editor-in-Chief for his consideration:

 

1) The Scientific Consensus Regarding the Lower Murray:

In the show, “What’s in a name”, Jonathan Holmes gave inordinate emphasis around a report on the River Murray Lower Lakes prepared by Dr Jennifer Marohasy for the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF).

Some statistics are that there were 27 references by Mr Holmes to this renowned environmental scientist by name alone, (see her publication record and click all links), and 22 to the AEF, plus 11 to sister organisations here and in the USA. It was clear in the body language etcetera that Mr Holmes has a personally strong disdain for Dr Marohasy and the AEF.

In closing, Mr Holmes’ asserted:

We are saying that journalists too easily swallow, and pass on without challenge, highly controversial claims put forward in the name of science, by organisations whose agendas aren’t obvious from their names.

However, as exampled below, Media Watch was guilty of not checking the validity of their own claims, by asserting that some were controversial when they were NOT on a scientific consensus basis, and insinuating that the AEF has some kind of undefined dodgy agenda.

For example, quoting Mr Holmes:

The new report is supported by other peer-reviewed science papers and the historical record of the Lakes.

— Stock Journal, 29th February, 2012

That’s an extraordinarily contentious claim.

However, all the scientists specifically working on that issue in that field including the following thirteen scientists have variously reported that the lower lakes were indeed estuarine prior to the barrages!

These thirteen experts have applied data to define estuarine conditions prior to the barrages: R.P. Bourman, A.P. Belperio, C.V. Murray-Wallace and N. Harvey, E. Barnett, J. Cann, P. Gell, Fluin, Haynes, Tibby, Battarbee, Bennion, and Rose. In addition there is much history including photographs.

For instance, in the Media Watch Email enquiry to Dr Marohasy, I quote the first Q & A:

Media Watch: Do you accept that the vast majority of recognised experts on the natural history and hydrology of the Lower Lakes disagree with your conclusion that they were estuarine immediately prior to the erection of the viagra Murray Mouth barrages, or at any time in the past 2000 years?

Jennifer Marohasy: No. The relevant scientific literature, as published in peer-reviewed journals by recognised experts, indicates that the Lower Lakes were estuarine prior to the erection of the Murray Mouth barrages.

The following quote from a scientific paper published in the journal Marine Geology by Professors R.P. Bourman, A.P. Belperio, C.V. Murray-Wallace and N. Harvey, citing E. Barnett, seems to sum up the conclusion of these recognised experts:

“Originally a vibrant, highly productive estuarine ecosystem of 75,000 ha, characterised by mixing of brackish and fresh water with highly variable flows, barrage construction has transformed the lakes into freshwater bodies with permanently raised water levels; freshwater discharge has been reduced by 75% and the tidal prism by 90% (Bourman and Barnett, 1995; Harvey, 1996).” [Replying in part]

Yet, the lead author Prof Bourman was asserted by Mr Holmes to oppose Dr Marohasy with this quote:

Others, including Professor Bob Bourman and Dr John Tibby, vehemently reject her conclusions. Professor Bourman writes:

The paper appears to be a Crusade against the barrages and the scientists who have actually carried out their unbiased science there, rather than a sound scientific paper.

— Professor Robert Bourman, University of Wollongong, 15th March, 2012

It is astonishing that Media Watch either did not notice this strong contradiction in Bourman, or chose not to employ investigative journalism to check it out.

{Breached Standards Include 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.4, 4.5 & 5.3}

 

2) A Consensus is not respected in This Case:

…here was [one other thought for the MD], a quickie, where Mr Holmes asserted:

The new report is supported by other peer-reviewed science papers and the historical record of the Lakes.

— Stock Journal, 29th February, 2012

That’s an extraordinarily contentious claim.

How can it be extraordinarily contentious, if most scientists in that area of expertise have agreed that the so-called lakes were indeed estuarine prior to the barrages?

{Breached Standards Include 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.4, & 4.5}

 

3) Global Warming Consensus Irrelevant:

In my first supplementary concern to those above addressed to Mark Scott the MD, I quote Mr Holmes:

And on her own website, Dr Marohasy declares that she is
…sceptical of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming.[AGW]
— JenniferMarohasy.com/ Blog, 5th March 2012
As well as climate change scepticism, the Murray River has been one of Dr Marohasy’s long-term interests.

Now let’s put that into some context, quoting that same website:

Dr Marohasy has a Bachelor of Science and a PhD from the University of Queensland, worked for twelve years as a scientist for the Queensland government, then six years as environmental manager for the Queensland sugar industry, and then five years as a researcher at the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs. She is currently an Adjunct Research Fellow in the Centre for Plant and Water Science at Central Queensland University.

Dr Marohasy is sceptical of the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming. In her opinion there is no unifying theory of climate, the discipline is in its infancy and there are many drivers of climate change.

Notice that Dr Marohasy is not sceptical of climate change per se, but is as to its cause which is a totally valid scientific process. However, she has made no connection between AGW and the concerns about the lower lakes, so it is NOT relevant here.

Mr Holmes (despite his self-admitted lack of scientific expertise) makes innuendo that scepticism of the A in AGW is a sneer against any scientist that has such concerns. However, a study of Dr Marohasy’s impressive publication record reveals (and be sure to click the internal links) that she is a skilled scientist giving much emphasis on many environmental issues, such as on mangroves and the Great Barrier Reef.

It is also interesting that Mr Holmes has contempt for some of the Editorial Policies, for instance; standard 4.2, WRT various polling over time showing that a growing majority of the public do not support his dogma, my bold:

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded ordisproportionately represented.

His persistent bias in a show which should be totally neutral is also well known elsewhere such as when he strongly objected to the address in March 2010 by the then chairman Maurice Newman whom pleaded for less group-think within the ABC.

{Breached Standards Include 2.1, 4.2 & 4.4}

 

4) Misrepresentation and Cherry Picking:

Quoting Mr Holmes again:

And yet it should be obvious that the claims that Dr Marohasy makes in her new report are, to say the least, contentious. 
In its summary, she states baldly.
…there has developed a false narrative based on junk science and misguided expectations that the buy-back of large volumes of irrigation water …[text omitted by MW] will solve the problem.
[Report; Plugging The Murray River’s Mouth]

However, to add some context to that cherry-picking, here is the complete version of just that one paragraph from the report.

Long-standing government policy and vested interests preclude discussion of the coastal processes that are growing Bird Island that may one day permanently block the Murray’s mouth. Instead there has developed a false narrative based on junk science and misguided expectations that the buy-back of large volumes of irrigation water and federal monies for the dredging of the river’s mouth will solve the problem.

Now please read two extracts from a letter to the MDB Authority from no less than professors Bourman and Harvey dated 23 MARCH 2012, which confirms yet more of the perspective.

[1] An engineering option that would impact directly on clearing the mouth of accumulated coastal sediments and maintaining an opening to the sea, would be the replacement and automation of Mundoo Barrage, which lies directly inland from the mouth. The most direct route to the sea with the steepest gradient is from Mundoo Barrage. Even given the reduced river flows due to upstream abstractions, which have narrowed the mouth, scouring would be enhanced by flows through the Mundoo (and Boundary Creek) Barrages.


[2] Aerial photo showing the vegetated Bird Island and the peninsula above it, which have formed since Mundoo Barrage was permanently closed more than 70 years ago. Renewed river flows through the Holmes Creek (Mundoo Channel) would help to clear these accumulations and more easily maintain the Murray Mouth.

Mr Holmes asserted that Prof Bourman vehemently opposed Dr Marohasy on her report although the details were scant, and Mr Holmes seems to think that it is all about whether the lakes were estuarine prior to the barrages. Yet, Professor Bourman himself with many other experts (= a consensus in the field), have indeed confirmed that Lake Alexandrina was previously estuarine.

Mr Holmes also described the previous estuarine conditions as extremely contentious despite this scientific consensus. Maybe he made that assertion on the advice of two contrarians including the “blistering” activist Prof Kingsford, whilst also ignoring the historical record?
Also, careful study of the Dr Marohasy report (link repeated), including its many footnotes, reveals that Prof Bourman and Dr Marohasy are not far apart on the issues of the continuing growth of Bird Island and the previously estuarine conditions.

See also Dr Marohasy’s response to Media Watch. (link repeated)

{Breached Standards Include 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.4, & 4.5}

 

5) Junk Science in Context:

Mr Holmes opened his attack on the AEF with:

MD Basin plan based on junk science says new report 
— Australian Environment Foundation, Press Release, 29th February, 2012


I agree that this is a stark headline, as is often found in media reports, however, from study of what the release actually says in the text and other information given here, it is evident that Media Watch disregarded the detail and instead preferred agenda driven innuendo in the headline. Such attention grabbing headlines are also seen in Mr Holmes’ transcript use of ‘Alexandrina always was a freshwater lake’ by Associate Professor Keith Walker. However, the said professor admits therein that the lakes were in fact estuarine whilst arguing about its extent and ignoring published data and historic accounts including photos. (See Concern 8). It also works the other way when a headline may seem benign. For instance Mr Holmes cited: ‘Human Impacts on Lacustrine Ecosystems’ . However, Media Watch seems to have overlooked section 4.8 which is in agreement with Dr Marohasy, the AEF and a majority of scientists in that field; quote:

…In the case of the estuary of the River Murray palaeoecological evidence has shown that the ecological character description at the time of listing under Ramsar reflects recent disturbed states rather than the long-term historic condition (Fluin et al., 2007). Regulation, diversion and abstraction have caused a coastal lagoon to become hypersaline and the lower lakes to become largely fresh, at variance from their naturally tidal state (Figure 27.3). In both instances their natural ecological character was wrongly inferred, complicating efforts to remedy for recent degradation.

The referenced Fig 27.3 clearly shows that salinity varied over thousands of years, as would be logically predictable between periods of drought and flood, and as determined from proxy diatom species sedimentation. BUT, after the barrages were installed the lakes became fresh and at generally increased elevation above sea level. None of this gets the slightest mention in the show!

Mr Holmes whinges about The Media not investigating the science, and yet their substantial team (11? members of the Media Watch team) are equally culpable. The majority expert opinions supporting previously estuarine conditions are found in Dr Marohasy’s citations which are repeated on-line by Media Watch. BTW, these experts are independent from the AEF/Dr Marohasy including any funding:

Bourman, Belperio, Murray-Wallace, Harvey, Barnett, Cann, Gell, Fluin, Haynes, Tibby, Battarbee, Bennion, Rose, Ryan, Heap, Radke, and Heggie.

{Breached Standards Include 2.1, 2.2, 4.1, 4.4 & 4.5}

 

6) Mr Holmes also attacked the AEF on their funding and conference sponsorships including:

In 2008, the AEF launched a subsidiary organisation called the Australian Climate Science Coalition. On its Scientific Advisory Panel are some of Australia’s most prominent climate change sceptics. According to accounts filed with ASIC in the 2009 and 2010 financial years, the Australian CSC received almost all its funding – more than $100,000 – from a sister organisation in the United States, the American CSC [CSCA]… …that means that an American climate change sceptic group has been the largest single contributor not just to the ACSC but through it, to the AEF.

Between them, the AEF plus ACSC have listed 16 active experts, and the ACSC received from the CSCA (which BTW has an impressive scientific membership); in 2010: $46,343 and in 2009: $60,699.

The AEF predominantly covers a wide range of environmental issues, whereas the eleven scientists in the ACSC are predominantly active with climate change concerns. This funding is extraordinarily trivial compared with that for various other environmental or scientific organizations that receive many millions of dollars, and where that money comes from is not necessarily relevant to the research itself. Again, this is just another example of Mr Holmes’ agenda driven stance, this time trying to make something sensational out of the trivially un-sensational.

Compare the ACSC + AEF for instance with the similarly modest Wentworth Group:

[He, Mr Rob Purves] stumped up $10 million to start the Purves Environmental Fund… …And, more significant than any of this, Purves has funded the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists for the last decade,

The Wentworth Group exists thanks to the generous support of the Purves Environmental Fund. [and some lesser donations]

{Breached Standards Include 4.1, 4.4 & 4.5}

 

7) Peer Review:

Arising apparently from a telephone interview not divulged in full by Media Watch…. (my bold added below):

Professor Ridd is a director of the AEF and has known Dr Marohasy for years. He told us :

…if what you are saying is, there is a possibility that we are friends and I haven’t seen all the flaws in it, then I’m quite happy to accept that.

Professor Peter Ridd, Director, AEF, 14th March, 2012

So much for peer-review.

Well it would be interesting to hear the whole of the impromptu telephone discussion, but here is an extract from an Email to the exec producer et al from Prof Ridd (an environmentalist and Head of Discipline, Physics BSc, Dip Ed. PhD at JCU):

I am quite cross [= British understatement of ANGRY; usually] about the way my comments have been used by media watch. The point I was trying to make was that peer review is not supposed to be a process where all the flaws in a paper are found before publication. It is only by getting the paper out in the open that people can debate the ideas and challenge what may be right and what is wrong. I reviewed Jennifer’s paper as part of a process within the AEF. I think that it is an excellent paper, but there may be some flaws in it. So far I have not seen any other scientists make a significant dent in it however.

Regarding being a friend of Jennifer. Yes I consider myself to be one even though I think I have only met her 4 or 5 times mostly at the odd AEF conference. That might surprise you…

Read much, much more, here.

And here follows his brief bio quoted by AEF:

Professor Peter Ridd is a Reader in Physics at James Cook University and has extensive experience in environmental research primarily in marine settings including experience designing, manufacturing and using electronic and optical instrumentation for monitoring environmental parameters on coral reefs, mangrove swamps and other environments. Professor Ridd has had a long history of association with environmental organizations including the Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland and Sustainable Population Australia.

He believes that some environmental campaigns run by environmental organizations, and some decisions made by Government lack sound scientific backing which potentially [leads] to misplaced priorities for environmental funding and legislation.

A huge paradoxical aspect of this is that generally, environmentalists are loudly insistent on maintaining or restoring natural ecosystems. Yet; despite opposition from such popularists, vested interests and politicians, the AEF stands out for doing just that; in wanting to restore the Murray Estuary to its formerly pristine conditions. Even the iconic environmentalist Prof Tim Flannery had a similar approach at the height of the recent (not unusual) drought. Quoting The Australian:

Former Australian of the Year Tim Flannery has backed the controversial option of flooding the Murray’s Lower Lakes with salt water as a “heroic measure” to save their dying ecosystem.

And this from the SMH, before the “never to happen” floods intervened:

State and federal water ministers have agreed on a worst-case scenario plan of action to save South Australia’s Lower Lakes from acidification. The plan includes pumping sea water into the freshwater lakes to stop the spread of acid sulphate soil.

So these AUTHORITIES agreed with the AEF on the crisis then immediately at hand prior to the relieving floods. So much for “bad environmental agenda” accused of the AEF!

BTW, Mr Holmes also vaguely gave the AEF snipe for holding conferences largely about environmental, social, and economic impacts, quote:

Speakers at its conferences have been, for example, hostile to wind power, against reducing water allocations to irrigators, in favour of genetically modified crops, and supportive of the timber industry and the Tasmanian pulp mill.

Well Mr Holmes clearly shows where his personal interests rest. But for instance very briefly to counter his gross bias, wouldn’t more productive crops that are drought and salt tolerant be of big environmental world benefit? What about feeding the burgeoning global population? Is it OK that some of the alternative energy schemes overseas are facing a variety of problems such as bankruptcies? Were ALL the speakers at the AEF conferences hostile, and to what? So many questions!

{Breached Standards Include 4.1, 4.4 & 4.5}

 

8. History Ignored!

Both Dr Marohasy’s report and her reply to Media Watch advised brief histories recording estuarine conditions in the lakes prior to the barrages. It is baffling that there was zero mention of this in the show to support her and the AEF. Maybe the saline distribution maps and newspaper articles were too complicated for Media watch staff to understand? Maybe just a couple of photos below can help to clarify?

Sources: Porpoise/Dolphin and Mulloway

{Breached Standards Include 4.1 & 4.5}

 

9) The Story Had Never Made It Beyond Rural Radio

Mr Holmes presented a bunch of local interest regional ABC and commercial radio sound-bites about the AEF release.

Let’s be clear, the story was yet to make the national media. The issue of restoring the Murray River’s estuary should and could be the focus of a story on say “Four Corners” or any such ABC program concerned with science and current affairs. That the ABC has ignored this issue for so long is extraordinary, that it chose to first give it national media prominence on Media Watch is bizarre.

{Breached Standards Include 1.3 & 2.2}

 

10) A farrago of views including hostility from Mr Holmes:

a)None of this scientific opposition is even hinted at in most of the media coverage. Some reports at least included responses from federal or state politicians. Many don’t.

b)At the time the barrages were built in the late 1930s, [Dr Marohasy] claims, the lakes were 
developing from intermittently closed to fully tidal…
— Plugging The Murray River’s Mouth… Jennifer Marohasy, February, 2012
Well it’s not Media Watch’s job to argue with Dr Marohasy on the science. But …

c)Secondly, we asked Dr Marohasy if she could point us to any other experts who would support her conclusions. We approached some of those whose papers she mentioned in her response. 
One, Professor Peter Gell of the University of Ballarat, broadly supports her. 
Others, including Professor Bob Bourman and Dr John Tibby, vehemently reject her conclusions…

d)Dr Marohasy several times makes points like this:
It appears Media Watch is contemplating asserting or implying that my professional judgement and integrity as a scientist has been influenced or corrupted by personal financial gain.

e) Let me be clear. [Re 4] We’re not suggesting anything of the sort. Nor are we disputing the AEFs right to promote her views.

f) But in all the media reports we’ve seen, nobody did look at the science, and nobody looked at the Australian Environment Foundation either…

All of these views are problematic but the most egregious is arguably d) & e) combined. Media Watch sent a hostile Email to Dr Marohasy on 9/Mar Friday afternoon requesting a prompt reply in readiness for the following Monday show. (12/Mar). She sent a 13-page corrective reply over the weekend, and both she and Dr John Abbot expressed serious concerns about the tenor of the request. (link repeated) The show went to air a week later than intended without any corrections or apology for the distress etcetera caused! It is also extraordinary that these points were aired by Mr Holmes because they had absolutely nothing to do with his expose of topics in the show.

{Breached Standards Include 3.1 etc}

 

IN CONCLUSION:

One of the alarming things about all this is that Media Watch seemingly chose to ignore that a majority of relevant experts have supported the evidence that the lakes were previously estuarine. Media Watch also inferred that several of these have apparently been strongly supportive of some political views, especially those of the SA government, that the lakes should be maintained as fresh at increased elevation over sea-level. This is despite that those scientists have not retracted their earlier papers giving that the NATURAL ecosystem was varyingly estuarine, depending on rainfall, prior to the barrages. A few scientists have recently asserted that the lakes were predominantly fresh beforehand, without defining what they mean as predominantly or whether it is relevant to proven historical incursions of marine conditions, the frequency of which was dependent on the natural cycle of flood and drought. Furthermore, Fluin et al (2007), data in fig 27.3 etcetera contradicts that they were predominantly fresh anyway. It would be interesting to see the ABC do some investigative journalism on these contradictions; like has it got anything to do with funding for continued research, but Media Watch would not seem to be an appropriate platform, given their current staff “attitude”.

Consider also this related claim by Mr Holmes:

We approached some of those [experts] whose papers [Dr Marohasy] mentioned in her response. 
One, Professor Peter Gell of the University of Ballarat, broadly supports her. 
Others, including Professor Bob Bourman and Dr John Tibby, vehemently reject her conclusions. Professor Bourman writes:

“The paper appears to be a Crusade against the barrages and the scientists who have actually carried out their unbiased science there, rather than a sound scientific paper”.

When Mr Holmes said “others including” why did he not give the actual number or who they were by name? The tenuousness of it should ring alarm bells given that allegedly Dr Tibby (no detail given) vehemently opposed Dr Marohasy whilst Prof Gell supported her and yet they are both co-authors in the paper by Fluin et al 2007 which confirmed estuarine conditions prior to the barrages.

A month has passed to date since I alerted the Editor-in-Chief et al of gross errors via Email, but I’ve not seen any corrections or apologies.

{Breached Standards Include 3.1 etcetera}

 

Bob Fernley-Jones 8/May/2012

***********

Key Editorial Standards for Reference:

1.3 Ensure that editorial decisions are not improperly influenced by political, sectional, commercial or personal interests.

2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.

2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information [?]

3.1 Acknowledge and correct or clarify, in an appropriate manner as soon as reasonably practicable: a) significant material errors that are readily apparent or have been demonstrated; or b) information that is likely to significantly and materially mislead.

4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.

4.2 Present a diversity of perspectives so that, over time, no significant strand of thought or belief within the community is knowingly excluded or disproportionately represented.

4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.

4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.

5.3 Where allegations are made about a person or organisation, make reasonable efforts in the circumstances to provide a fair opportunity to respond.

**********

Support independent media! Make a donation so Jen and i (Mr Koala Bear) can buy a new computer and video camera and start making YouTube videos. Even podcasts of koalas falling out of trees (or over sea dykes).

Send dollars here by bank transfer:

Jennifer Marohasy
BSB 06 4449
Account Number 10376039