Australia’s international standing sinks to a new low under Prime Minister Tony Abbott

The United Nations reacts.

International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (ICC) letter to Prime Minister Tony Abbott concerning his government's treatment of the President of the Australian Human Right Commission, Prof. Gillian Triggs.

This letter was copied to the United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights.

International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rig...

http://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/article/files/the_prime_minister_of_australia.pdf

On 26 February 2015 the ICC Chairperson spoke to ABC News Radio about his letter to Prime Minister Abbott and expressed his concerns about the federal government's treatment of the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission. 

The next ICC Bureau Meeting will take place on 11 March 2015 at the United Nations Palais de Nations in Geneva and, I suspect that the Australian Government will be discussed at some point.

Abbott Government is bidding for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2018? *cue cynical laughter*

Australia is reportedly bidding for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council when an Asia-Pacific seat becomes vacant in 2018.

This is what the Human Rights Watch organization is telling the world about Australia’s human rights record in its 25th annual review, World Report 2015: Events of 2014:

Australia

Australia has a solid record of protecting civil and political rights, with robust institutions and a vibrant press and civil society that act as a check on government power. The government’s failure to respect international standards protecting asylum seekers and refugees, however, continues to take a heavy human toll and undermines Australia’s ability to call for stronger human rights protections abroad. In 2014, Australia introduced new overbroad counterterrorism measures that would infringe on freedoms of expression and movement. The government has also done too little to address indigenous rights and disability rights.

Asylum Seekers and Refugees

To deter boat arrivals of unauthorized migrants, the government has continued its harsh policy of transferring all asylum seekers who arrive by boat to other countries for processing and resettlement. In 2014, the government concluded negotiations with Cambodia to accept refugees from Nauru for resettlement, ignoring concerns about safety and the lack of capacity of the Cambodian government. As of October 31, 2014, 1,056 men were detained on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, and 1,095 men, women, and children were detained on Nauru. At time of writing, only 10 of the Manus Island detainees had received final refugee status determinations. As of October 31, 2014, 261 of the Nauru detainees had been determined to be refugees and released into the community; 72 were denied refugee status. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has criticized Australia’s offshore detention policy as “return-oriented.” The detention centers are overcrowded and dirty. Asylum claims are not processed in a fair, transparent, or expedient manner, with significant cost to detainees’ physical and mental health. According to media reports, gay asylum seekers detained on Manus Island fear persecution and sexual assault. They also fear resettlement in Papua New Guinea, where consensual adult same-sex relations are criminalized. The government has offered cash payments of thousands of dollars to entice asylum seekers to return home.

In February 2014, the Australian Human Rights Commission launched a national inquiry into the approximately 1,000 children in immigration detention. Staff working at detention centers gave evidence that conditions were substandard, unsafe, and inappropriate. As of October 31, 2014, 2,693 people were in immigration detention on Australian territory. About 50 refugees are being detained indefinitely based on adverse security assessments and many have been in detention for over four years. In May, the government passed the Migration Amendment Bill, further strengthening Australian Secret Intelligence Organization’s (ASIO) power to administer adverse security assessments through a secretive process that is not subject to judicial review. Immigration authorities use “enhanced screening” techniques whereby immigration officials conduct cursory interviews to determine asylum claims. More than 3,500 asylum seekers, over 99 percent of whom are from Sri Lanka, have been screened under this procedure, with no access to legal representation or right to appeal. Of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers, 42 percent were screened out and 32 percent were screened in, but no outcome was given in the remainder of the cases. In June 2014, Australian custom officials separately intercepted two vessels in the Indian Ocean carrying Sri Lankans bound for Australia. After cursory screening interviews at sea, customs officials handed over all 41 asylum seekers aboard the first vessel to the Sri Lankan navy who returned them to Sri Lanka. The High Court issued an interim injunction to prevent the return of the second vessel. After almost a month of detention at sea and failed attempts to send the asylum seekers to India, the Immigration department eventually sent all 157 Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers to Nauru for processing. In September 2014, incoming UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein stated that Australia’s policies are “leading to a chain of human rights violations, including arbitrary detention and possible torture following return to home countries.”

Indigenous People’s Rights

The government controversially established an indigenous advisory council while defunding the Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. The government has taken some steps towards a possible referendum on changing the constitution to recognize indigenous Australians. While indigenous Australians account for only 3 percent of Australia’s population, they account for 27 percent of Australia’s prison population. In part because they are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, indigenous Australians are more likely to face stigma and discrimination in employment. While some health and socioeconomic indicators are improving for indigenous Australians, they still on average live 10-12 years less than non-indigenous Australians, have an infant mortality rate almost two times higher, and continue to die at alarmingly high rates from treatable and preventable conditions such as diabetes and respiratory illnesses.

Disability Rights

In April, the Australian Human Rights Commission found that inadequate safeguards and poor access to support services leave many people with disabilities without adequate legal or social protection when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. Forty-five percent of people with disabilities live near or below the poverty line. People with disabilities are also disproportionately at risk of violence in the community and in institutional settings, and are more likely to be jailed. Some are deemed unfit to stand trial based on prejudicial assessments of their competency to give evidence and then indefinitely detained in prisons, psychiatric facilities, or other highly restrictive places of detention without appropriate review mechanisms. In its 2014 Federal Budget, the government committed to fully funding the rollout of the new National Disability Insurance Scheme but announced changes to the Disability Support Pension which will likely result in many people with disabilities being moved to significantly lower welfare payments. The government also effectively abolished the disability discrimination commissioner position at the Human Rights Commission, leaving people with disabilities without a fulltime advocate.

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Despite increasing public support for same-sex marriage in Australia, marriage remains restricted to heterosexual relationships in accordance with the federal Marriage Act. Some states or territories have moved to develop laws recognizing same-sex marriage, but only one territory actually enacted laws. In December 2013 the High Court ruled that the laws recognizing same-sex marriage were inconsistent with federal legislation and were therefore invalid.

Freedom of Expression

In July 2014, the government revised its agreements with community legal centers to prohibit such centers from using federal funds for law reform or advocacy efforts. In August, bowing to pressure from ethnic and community groups, the government dropped its proposed repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful for a person to commit an act that is likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate someone on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin. Also in August, the government announced the introduction of a range of new counterterrorism provisions in response to the threat of “home-grown terrorism.” The law introduces an overly broad new offense of “advocating terrorism” and extends use of control orders and preventative detention. It also makes it a criminal offense to travel to “declared areas” abroad unless the travel is for a legitimate reason, which overly restricts freedom of movement. The government has also proposed additional measures that would force telecommunications companies to retain metadata for a period of two years so Australian intelligence organizations can access the data. The National Security Legislation Amendment Act, passed in October 2014, grants Australian Security Intelligence Organization officials immunity from civil and criminal prosecution for acts committed in the course of security operations. The legislation also makes it an offense for intelligence staff or contractors to disclose information relating to “special intelligence operations.” Journalists who disclose information relating to a “special intelligence operation” face penalties of up to 10 years prison. The legislation does not provide any “public interest” exception to this offense.

Foreign Policy

Australia held a two-year rotating seat on the UN Security Council starting in 2013. In 2014, it used its seat to press for resolutions on Syria, call for the provision of humanitarian aid, and call for unfettered access to the MH17 Malaysian Air crash site in Ukraine. In January 2014, the government announced that it was cutting its foreign aid budget by more than $A600 million (US$526 million). Its foreign aid priorities are the Asia-Pacific Region, economic empowerment, and private sector partnerships. Indonesia and Papua New Guinea remain the top two aid recipients. The government held closed-door human rights dialogues with China and Vietnam in 2014 but failed to back up these dialogues with public statements on rights in high-level visits. Besides trade and security, a large driver of the Australian government’s foreign policy is its single-minded focus on ensuring that all asylum seekers or refugees are processed at offshore facilities. The government has muted its criticism of authoritarian governments in Sri Lanka and Cambodia in recent years, apparently in hopes of winning the support of such governments for its refugee policies. In March 2014, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution establishing an international inquiry into human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. Australia did not co-sponsor the resolution as it had done in previous years. Instead, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said that she was not convinced that a resolution calling for “a separate, internationally-led investigation without the cooperation of the Sri Lankan government is the best way forward” and that the resolution did not adequately recognize the “significant progress taken by the Sri Lankan government to promote economic growth.” Australia is bidding for a seat on the Human Rights Council in 2018.

The next U.N. Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review report deadline for Australia is 20 June 2015.

The truth about the Australian Prime Minister's address to the United Nations on 25 September 2014

Prime Minister Tony Abbott  addressed  the 69th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York on 25 September 2014 during the Opening of the General Debate.

There was the standard set image of his attendance on the UN website:

Other more animated images in the Australian media such as this:

However, there were no long shots of the audience listening to Abbott’s speech.

This is one possible reason why…..

US President Obama speaking during the Opening of the General Debate in front of a packed audience of delegates on 24 September:

This was Tony Abbott speaking during the same Opening of the General Debate with a decidedly sparse audience the next day:

Like the difference in the size of their official audiences, the messages they delivered to the world were starkly different even when both were addressing the situation in Syria and Iraq.

These were President Obama's opening remarks:

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear and hope.

Around the globe, there are signposts of progress. The shadow of World War that existed at the founding of this institution has been lifted; the prospect of war between major powers reduced. The ranks of member states has more than tripled, and more people live under governments they elected. Hundreds of millions of human beings have been freed from the prison of poverty, with the proportion of those living in extreme poverty cut in half. And the world economy continues to strengthen after the worst financial crisis of our lives.

Today, whether you live in downtown New York or in my grandmother’s village more than two hundred miles from Nairobi, you can hold in your hand more information than the world’s greatest libraries. Together, we have learned how to cure disease, and harness the power of the wind and sun. The very existence of this institution is a unique achievement – the people of the world committing to resolve their differences peacefully, and solve their problems together. I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever before to be literate, to be healthy, and to be free to pursue your dreams….

While these were Prime Minister Abbott's:

I’m happy to be here at your urging, Mr President. It is the weightiest of matters that brings us together today.

Right now, thousands of misguided people from around the world are joining terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq because they claim Islam is under threat and because they are excited by the prospect of battle.

But whatever they think or say, these terrorists aren’t fighting for God or for religious faith.

At the heart of every terrorist group is an infatuation with death.

What else can explain the beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions, rapes and sexual slavery in every town and city that’s fallen to the terrorist movement now entrenched in eastern Syria and northern Iraq?

A terrorist movement calling itself “Islamic State” insults Islam and mocks the duties of a legitimate state towards its citizens.

And to use this term is to dignify a death cult; a death cult that, in declaring itself a caliphate, has declared war on the world.

So, countries do need to work together to defeat it because about 80 nations have citizens fighting with ISIL and every country is a potential target….

Full transcript of Obama's speech.

Full transcript of Abbott's speech.

The Australian goes into overdrive as it tries to resurrect Tony Abbott's political reputation

Russia responds after Tony Abbott’s warning about MH17 crash site probe trumpets The Australian on 21 July 2014 at 8:35PM – in a vain effort to recast Prime Minister Tony Abbott as an international hero.

Abbott’s media team may be working overtime on the Prime Minister’s image, but the fact remains that he was at the back of the queue when it came to contact with the Russian president and, did little more than repeat the early stance of the United Nation’s Security Council.

The day after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 was reportedly shot down over Ukrainian airspace the Council issued this media release:

At least one media report stated that on 18 July that Russia also demanded a full, independent probe of the downing.

As one of the twenty-four nations speaking at the two-hour long emergency meeting of the Security Council on the same day, the Australian delegation quite properly had this to say:

PHILIPPA KING ( Australia) pointed to mounting evidence that a missile had downed a Malaysian Airlines plane in Ukraine, and that Russian-backed rebels were responsible.  Welcoming the separatists’ decision to allow access to the crash site, she urged the Russian Federation’s full cooperation with investigations.  Despite a Council press statement calling for an investigation, she urged adoption of a resolution that would reinforce the need to grant access to the crash site and for a full, thorough, independent and international investigation.  In 19 Council meetings on Ukraine, “the overwhelming majority” of members had called for an end to violence and destabilization, together with de-escalation of tensions, the laying down by separatists of their weapons and genuine dialogue.  It was “time for the equivocation and dissembling and false narratives of some to stop”, she said.  Russia needed to end provocations and any support for separatists, and to prevent weapons, equipment and fighters flowing across the border.  Pointing to the promise of the four party talks, she hoped to see results from their agreements.

Prime Minister Abbott's rather intemperate language megaphoned through the media saw the Russian president delay making direct contact with him until the evening of Sunday 20 July.

Update 7.26am - the UN Security Council unanimously voter for a draft resolution co-sponsored by thirteen countries, condemning the downing of MH17. The text of the resolution was based on an initial Australian draft amended to remove language which presupposed the result of any independent crash investigation.

One has to suspect that behind the scenes it is Australia’s professional diplomats who are doing the heavy lifting on this issue, while both News Corp and the prime minister’s spin doctors attempt to give all the credit to Abbott.

UPDATE

The Australian rewriting history in Leadership in face of tragedy on 22 July 2014 at 12:00am:

Tony Abbott has found his voice and heart in the wake of the shooting down of Flight MH17. In seeking to reflect the nation’s grief and outrage, the Prime Minister has been tough, measured, compassionate and intuitive. Mr Abbott’s natural instincts have been spot on in asserting the nation’s honour and leading the global community’s response in calling for justice, respect for the victims and proper processes. Bill Shorten, too, has displayed his best characteristics at a time of sorrow and anger. Both leaders have stepped above the domestic fray and presented a united front in demanding action.

This experience should serve as a reminder that Mr Abbott, contrary to the expectations of critics, has made an assured impression on the world stage. His first overseas trip as Prime Minister was to Indonesia during a difficult time for bilateral relations. There were revelations from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden about the tapping of the phone of Indonesia’s first lady, on Labor’s watch, and tensions over boat turnbacks, yet Mr Abbott handled the matters with aplomb. On a trip to North Asia, combining visits to Japan, South Korea and China, Mr Abbott led an impressive delegation of business leaders. The venture managed to promote our trade and economic ties with key partners, while balancing security considerations in the region. On a long-haul trip that included D-Day’s 70th anniversary in France and a meeting with US President Barack Obama in Washington, Mr Abbott showed dignity, a knowledge of history and confidence in handling the complexities of strategic diplomacy.

His nuanced, instinctive approach in these matters is a pointer to the sort of leader he could be if he reached out to voters beyond the comfort zone of talking points and daily retail skirmishing, an operating mode that diminished his Labor predecessors Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. This newspaper has chastised Mr Abbott for relying on a low-risk formula fashioned by his backroom, which has stunted his ability to speak openly and show voters he is intelligent, big-hearted and steady. The current crisis will continue to test his character and skills but it is an opportunity he must grasp.

The Australian's stablemateThe Daily Telegraph joins in:

Taken from @NewtonMark

The truth that Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition seek to deny

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott may think that climate change is 'crap', refuse to agree to a CHOGM climate change fund to finance climate change initiatives and, limit the inclusion of climate change 'clutter' on the agenda of the 2014 G20 Summit in the face of global concern.

However, science reveals that all Australians are at risk from global warming/climate change:

U.N. International Government Panel On Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC Wo...

Timor Leste v Australia: International Court of Justice orders Australian Attorney-General George Brandis to seal seized documents and prohibits Australia from interfering in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers

Noting moreover the likelihood that much of the seized material contains sensitive and confidential information relevant to the pending arbitration and that it may also include elements that are pertinent to any future maritime negotiations which may take place between the Parties, the Court finds that it is essential to ensure that the content of the seized material is not in any way or at any time divulged to any person or persons who could use it, or cause it to be used, to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste in its relations with Australia over the Timor Sea. It is therefore necessary to keep the seized documents and electronic data and any copies thereof under seal until further decision of the Court.

The Court then notes that Timor-Leste has expressed concerns over the confidentiality of its  ongoing communications with its legal advisers concerning, in particular, the conduct of the Timor Sea Treaty Arbitration, as well as the conduct of any future negotiations over the Timor Sea and its resources, a matter which is not covered by the written undertaking of the Attorney-General of 21 January 2014. The Court further finds it appropriate to require Australia not to interfere in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers, either in connection with the pending arbitral proceedings and with any future bilateral negotiations concerning maritime delimitation, or in connection with any other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court. [International Court of Justice, Summary 2014/2,  3 March 2014]

Excerpt from International Court Of Justice  Press Release:

No. 2014/12

3 March 2014

Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)

The Court finds that Australia shall ensure that the content of the seized material is not used to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste

THE HAGUE, 3 March 2014. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today issued its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Timor-Leste on 17 December 2013 in the case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia). That Request followed the seizure on 3 December 2013 and subsequent detention, by “Agents of Australia of documents, data and other property which belongs to Timor-Leste and/or which Timor-Leste has the right to protect under international law”. According to Timor-Leste, the material seized includes documents, data and correspondence between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers relating to a pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of 20 May 2002 between Timor-Leste and Australia.

In its Order the Court indicates the following provisional measures:

- it decides, by twelve votes to four, that Australia shall ensure that the content of the seized material is not in any way or at any time used by any person or persons to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste until the present case has been concluded;

- it also decides, by twelve votes to four, that Australia shall keep under seal the seized documents and electronic data and any copies thereof until further decision of the Court;

- it further directs, by fifteen votes to one, that Australia shall not interfere in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers in connection with the pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of 20 May 2002, with any future bilateral negotiations concerning maritime delimitation, or with any other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court.

Reasoning of the Court

1. Prima facie jurisdiction (paras. 18-21)

The Court notes that Timor-Leste seeks to base the jurisdiction of the Court in the case on the declaration made by it on 21 September 2012 under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute and on the declaration made by Australia on 22 March 2002 under the same provision. Considering that these declarations appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which it might have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case, the Court finds that it may entertain the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted to it by Timor-Leste.

2. The rights whose protection is sought and the measures requested (paras. 22-30)

The Court recalls that its power to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties in a case, pending its decision on the merits thereof. Therefore, the Court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the requesting party are at least plausible. Moreover, a link must exist between the rights which form the subject of the proceedings before the Court on the merits of the case and the provisional measures being sought.

The Court begins by observing that the principal claim of Timor-Leste is that a violation has occurred of its right to communicate with its counsel and lawyers in a confidential manner with regard to issues forming the subject-matter of pending arbitral proceedings and possible future negotiations on maritime delimitation between Timor-Leste and Australia. The Court notes that this claimed right might be derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, which is one of the fundamental principles of the international order and is reflected in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations. More specifically, equality of the parties must be preserved when they are involved, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter, in the process of settling an international dispute by peaceful means. The Court accordingly considers that at least some of the rights for which Timor-Leste seeks protection namely, the right to conduct arbitration proceedings or negotiations without interference by Australia, including the right of confidentiality and of non-interference in its communications with its legal advisers are plausible.

The Court then turns to the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It concludes that a link exists between Timor-Leste’s claimed rights and the provisional measures sought, since these, by their very nature, are intended to protect Timor-Leste’s claimed rights to conduct, without interference by Australia, arbitral proceedings and future negotiations, and to communicate freely with its legal advisers, counsel and lawyers to that end.

3. Risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency (paras. 31-48)

The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings before it. That power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court gives its final decision.

The Court is of the view that the right of Timor-Leste to conduct arbitral proceedings and negotiations without interference could suffer irreparable harm if Australia failed to immediately safeguard the confidentiality of the material seized by its Agents on 3 December 2013. In particular, the Court considers that there could be a very serious detrimental effect on Timor-Leste’s position in the Timor Sea Treaty Arbitration, and in future maritime negotiations with Australia, should the seized material be divulged to any person or persons involved or likely to be involved in that arbitration or in negotiations on behalf of Australia.

The Court notes, however, that the Attorney-General of Australia gave an undertaking on 21 January 2014 which included commitments to the effect that the seized material will not be made available to any part of the Australian Government for any purpose in connection with the exploitation of resources in the Timor Sea or related negotiations, or in connection with the conduct of the current case before the Court, or of the proceedings of the Timor Sea Treaty Tribunal. The Court further notes that the Agent of Australia stated that “the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [had] the actual and ostensible authority to bind Australia as a matter of both Australian law and international law”. The Court considers that, once a State has made such a commitment concerning its conduct, its good faith in complying with that commitment is to be presumed. The Court therefore has no reason to believe that the written undertaking of 21 January 2014 will not be implemented by Australia.

The Court nevertheless notes that, in certain circumstances involving national security, the Government of Australia envisages the possibility of making use of the seized material. The Court further observes that the commitment of Australia to keep the seized material sealed has only been given until the Court’s decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures. The Court accordingly concludes that, while the written undertaking of the Attorney-General of 21 January 2014 makes a significant contribution towards mitigating the imminent risk of irreparable prejudice created by the seizure of the above-mentioned material to Timor-Leste’s rights — particularly its right to the confidentiality of that material being duly safeguarded — it does not remove that risk entirely.

The Court concludes from the foregoing that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures have been met....

Full press release here.

Summary of Court Order here.

Excerpt from Summary showing vote of judge ad hoc Callinan nominated to sit in the matter of Timor Leste v Australia by Attorney-General George Brandis:

(1) By twelve votes to four,

 Australia shall ensure that the content of the seized material is not in any way or at any time

used by any person or persons to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste until the present case has been concluded;

IN FAVOUR: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,

Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Cot;

AGAINST: Judges Keith, Greenwood, Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Callinan;

(2) By twelve votes to four,

                                                        

 Australia shall keep under seal the seized documents and electronic data and any copies

thereof until further decision of the Court;

IN FAVOUR: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,

Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Cot;

AGAINST: Judges Keith, Greenwood, Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Callinan;

(3) By fifteen votes to one,

 Australia shall not interfere in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its

legal advisers in connection with the pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of

20 May 2002 between Timor-Leste and Australia, with any future bilateral negotiations concerningmaritime delimitation, or with any other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court.

IN FAVOUR: President Tomka; Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,

Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue,

Gaja, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Cot;

AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Callinan.

UPDATE

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis releases his spin.........

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

MINISTER FOR THE ARTS

MEDIA RELEASE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DECISION TIMOR LESTE v AUSTRALIA

The Australian Government is pleased with the decision of the International Court of Justice in Timor-Leste v Australia, delivered at The Hague overnight, refusing Timor-Leste’s application for the delivery up of the documents taken into possession by ASIO, in execution of a search warrant in Canberra in December 2013.

The order of the Court extended, until the final hearing of the case, undertakings which were offered by Australia during the course of the hearing. These orders will, of course, be complied with. This is a good outcome for Australia.

4 March 2014

Media contact: Scott Bolitho 0477 722 189

United Nations asks Abbott Government to explain

ABC News 11 January 2014:

The UN refugee agency says it is awaiting an explanation from the Australian Government over reports asylum seeker boats have been forcibly returned to Indonesia.

Earlier this week, Indonesian police told the ABC that a second boat carrying asylum seekers had been forced back to Indonesian waters by the Australian Navy.

The first boat was found shortly before Christmas on the island of Rote, in Indonesia's East Nusa Tenggara region.

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is warning such actions may place Australia in breach of its obligations under international law.

"UNHCR is seeking details from the Australian parties about these recent reports," said spokesman Babar Baloch.

The agency is also investigating reports of plans to provide lifeboats for asylum seekers for future push-backs.

"For the UNHCR it's a very concerning policy or practice if it involves pushing asylum seeker boats back out to sea without proper consideration of individuals who need international protection," said Mr Baloch.

"Any such approach would raise significant issues and potentially could place Australia in breach of its obligations under the Refugee Convention and international law.

"If people who are in need for international protection seek a country's safety, then they must be allowed to go through a process which helps to determine if these people are in need."

Media reports indicate that up to five asylum seeker boats were towed back/pushed back in recent months and, it is possible that as many as 361 asylum seekers may have been involved since 18 September 2013.

International Day of the Girl Child 2013

On December 19, 2011, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 66/170 to declare 11 October as the International Day of the Girl Child, to recognize girls’ rights and the unique challenges girls face around the world. For its second observance, this year’s Day will focus on “Innovating for Girls’ Education”.

The fulfilment of girls’ right to education is first and foremost an obligation and moral imperative. There is also overwhelming evidence that girls’ education, especially at the secondary level, is a powerful transformative force for societies and girls themselves: it is the one consistent positive determinant of practically every desired development outcome, from reductions in mortality and fertility, to poverty reduction and equitable growth, to social norm change and democratization.

While there has been significant progress in improving girls’ access to education over the last two decades, many girls, particularly the most marginalized, continue to be deprived of this basic right. Girls in many countries are still unable to attend school and complete their education due to safety-related, financial, institutional and cultural barriers. Even when girls are in school, perceived low returns from poor quality of education, low aspirations, or household chores and other responsibilities keep them from attending school or from achieving adequate learning outcomes. The transformative potential for girls and societies promised through girls’ education is yet to be realized. [United Nations 2013]

Abbott's immigration policies come under United Nations scrutiny this week

ABC News 17 September 2013:

The incoming Federal Government's immigration policies are being brought before a United Nations Human Rights council meeting in Geneva, possibly as soon as tonight.

The council is meeting this week and an item has been included in the general debate agenda which will openly condemn the new Government's plans.

A representative from Australia's Human Rights Law Centre (HRLC) will read a statement to the body, calling for it to hold Australia to account for what it calls violations of the Refugee Convention and other treaties.

The statement will accuse Australia of setting an "alarming global precedent" if it does use the Navy to return asylum seeker boats to their country of origin without proper assessment.

"Australia has also promised a strong military response," the statement reads.

"It has announced plans to issue orders to the Australian Navy to tow boats carrying asylum seekers back to their origin without proper assessment of the protection needs of those on board."

The HRLC's director of legal advocacy, Daniel Webb, says indefinite and offshore detention, plans to abolish appeal rights, and the withdrawal of legal assistance to some asylum seekers will also be highlighted as breaches of international law......

The Australian Wheat Board scandal continues to play out

After all the lies the Howard Government told, including Tony Abbott…….
BloombergBusinessweek 8th August 2012:
“MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A former managing director of an Australian wheat exporter has been fined 100,000 Australian dollars ($106,000) and banned from being a company director for two years for his role in paying $200 million in kickbacks to Iraq's former dictatorship under the discredited UN oil-for-food program. Andrew Lindberg, former head of the now defunct monopoly wheat exporter AWB Ltd., was sentenced Thursday for breaches of Australian corporate law. It was part of a plea deal with corporate regulator Australian Securities and Investments Commission that ends a case that began in 2007. Justice Ross Robson said Lindberg had failed to act "with the degree of care and diligence a reasonable person would exercise" in his role.”

Dorrigo Environment Watch calls on international agencies to come and see what mining will place at risk on Dorrigo Plateau

From A Clarence Valley Protest on 20 March 2012:

UNESCO & IUCN invited to see what mining would place at risk on the Dorrigo Plateau

Dorrigo Environment Watch Inc.

Our mission is "To raise community awareness of risks to human and environmental health"

Press Release

Invitation to UNESCO & IUCN to visit the Dorrigo Plateau

By copy of this Press Release Dorrigo Environment Watch have invited the UNESCO World Heritage Centre and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) monitoring team (who are currently visiting Australia to monitor impacts of mining on the Barrier Reef) to also schedule in a visit to the Dorrigo Plateau.

The Dorrigo Plateau has 4 different mining companies with current exploration licences and recent drilling has been undertaken for gold and antimony across the Plateau. There is concern that the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area values could be compromised if any mining developments were approved on the Plateau.

Dorrigo Environment Watch will ask the NSW and Australian Governments to zone the plateau a ‘no go zone’ for mining to ensure that the world heritage values and vital ecosystem services (which underpin our food, fisheries, fibre and drinking water) are protected for present and future generations. Australia has an obligation to abide by our world heritage agreements to protect the Gondwana Rainforests. A ‘no go zone’ would serve as an appropriate Government commitment and celebration for the 25 year anniversary of the World Heritage listing of our Gondwana rainforests.

For more information or comment please contact Trevor Deane on 02 6657 4005.

Sometimes the young make my heart sing - Part Five

http://youtu.be/Ko3e6G_7GY4

"Get It Done":

Urging Climate Justice,
Youth Delegate Anjali Appadurai

Mic-Checks UN COP 17 Summit

Durban Climate Change Conference
November/December 2011

The United Nations Climate Change Conference, Durban 2011, brings together representatives of the world's governments, international organizations and civil society. The discussions will seek to advance, in a balanced fashion, the implementation of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the Bali Action Plan, agreed at COP 13 in 2007, and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP 16 last December.

The Sydney Morning Herald 11 December 2011 - 7:14PM

A United Nations climate conference has reached a hard-fought agreement on a far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change.

The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

The deal doesn't explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted on Sunday - a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

The proposed Durban Platform offered answers to problems which for years have bedevilled negotiations on global warming.

Controversial issues include sharing the responsibility for controlling carbon emissions and helping the world's poorest and most climate-vulnerable nations cope with changing forces of nature.

The US was a reluctant supporter, concerned about agreeing to join an international climate system that was expected to be opposed in Congress....

Environmentalists criticised the package - as did many developing countries in the debate - for failing to address what they called the most urgent issue, to move faster and deeper in cutting carbon emissions.

"The good news is we avoided a train wreck," said Alden Meyer, recalling predictions a few days ago of a likely failure. "The bad news is that we did very little here to affect the emissions curve."

Scientists say that unless those emissions - chiefly carbon dioxide from power generation and industry - level out and reverse within a few years, the earth will be set on a possibly irreversible path of rising temperatures that lead to ever greater climate catastrophes.

Sunday's breakthrough capped 13 days of hectic negotiations that ran a day and a half over schedule.



This Japanese Minister just told Australia to Get Farked!

Japan Broadcasting Corporation:

“Fisheries minister Michihiko Kano says Japan will resume research whaling in the Antarctic Ocean this year with strengthened defenses against anti-whaling campaigners.
Speaking at a news conference after a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Kano said a patrol boat of the Fisheries Agency will this time join the whaling vessels. He said research whaling will be conducted with increased protection against obstructions.
In February, Japan suspended whaling in the Antarctic Ocean after repeated disruptions by the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd. 4 whalers had been operating in the Antarctic since December 2010 and were due to continue until April this year.
Kano said Japan aims to resume commercial whaling and that it needs to continue research whaling for that purpose.
He said Japan would appeal for a restart of commercial operations at the International Whaling Commission by continuing accurate monitoring of whale stocks through scientific whaling.”

Cancún conference participants insist on follows the same old route

Reading between the lines it would appear that the world learned nothing from the failed processes used in the past to negotiate an as yet unrealised global response to anthropomorphic global warming and Copenhagen COP15 2009 is being revisited at Cancún with draft documents having so much wriggle room that an unsatisfactory outcome is almost a given:

Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol

Fifteenth session Cancun, 29 November 2010. Agenda item 3

Consideration of further commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol

Revised proposal by the Chair

Statements made in connection with COP 16 / CMP 6

Cancún Climate Change Conference: yada, yada, yada

Right now in Cancún, Mexico, the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP16/CMP 6 is underway until 10 December 2010.

As national representatives get to their feet and (as they have done on so many occasions before) talk ineffectively of the need to address global warming, it is worthwhile looking at a visual representation of where Australia’s energy was being drawn from in November 2010.

These pie charts from The Climate Group's The Weekly Greenhouse Gas Indicator represent energy consumption in four of the eight states and territories over one 7 day period.

In descending order, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria:

Given that only South Australia has managed to consistently reduce greenhouse gas emissions below the 1990 baseline (10% below in this 7 day period), it is also the only state which could be said to be seriously addressing Kyoto commitments.

Victoria is 26% above the 1990 baseline, New South Wales 5.8% above and Queensland an almost unbelievable 109% above that same baseline.

Unfortunately, in Australia energy consumption is still predominately drawn from carbon-based resources and relies heavily on 'dirty' coal.

As the Gillard Government continues to drag its feet on an emissions trading scheme or carbon tax and the Coalition Opposition goes deeper into denial that global warming even exists, how is the average citizen going to respond?

I suggest that individual responsibility does not stop with reducing our personal carbon footprints, it extends to voting out of office every politician who blocks legitimate legislative response to global warming or seeks to water down bills addressing climate change so that carbon-reliant energy companies and industry can continue 'business as usual'.