Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Sunday 18 June 2017

Considering a matter for prosecution


The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) prosecutes counter-terrorism matters through the Organised Crime and Counter Terrorism Practice Group.

The CDPP appeared for The Queen as head of the Commonwealth of Australia in the matter of an Australian-born 18 year-old charged with plotting a terrorist act in 2015.

The young man plead guilty, was convicted of the offence in September 2016 and sentenced to ten years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven and a half years.

In October 2016 the Commonwealth of Australia appealed the length of his sentence.

So by June 2017 the CDPP representing the Commonwealth of Australia was again in court presenting the argument for a longer sentence.

Enter two Commonwealth ministers, the Minister for Health Greg Hunt and Minister for Human Services Alan Tudge who, along with Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar, proceeded to criticize the judge/s hearing this appeal in an article published in The Australian on 13 June 2017.

Mr Hunt said "the state courts should not be places for ideological experiments in the face of global and local threats from Islamic extremism….".
Mr Tudge was quoted as saying “Some of these judges are ­divorced from reality….We have a crisis on our hands with people who want to kill ­indiscriminately and yet some judges seem more concerned about the terrorists than the safety of the community.”
Mr Sukkar opined “It’s the attitude of judges like these which has eroded any trust that remained in our legal system…Labor’s continued appointment of hard-left activist judges has come back to bite Victorians. Our judiciary should focus more on victims and the safety of our society, and less on the rights of terrorists who don’t respect our society, its laws or our people.”

All these statements were made while the Commonwealth’s appeal was still before the Court.

Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar very belatedly withdrew their remarks but arrogantly refused to apologise for these comments when lawyers for the three appeared in the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court in Melbourne on 16 June, to explain why they shouldn't be referred for prosecution for contempt.

In criminal matters before Victorian courts "penalties for contempt usually consist of fines, imprisonment or both".

In my humble opinion Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar deserve to be referred and have the matter heard summarily by a judge as the alleged contempt was of a serious nature, freely made and offered to a national newpaper for publication by unsolicited email, committed in the course of an appeal of a judgment in a trial for serious criminal offences and, to date there has been no apology or public expression of contrition and full acceptance of the Court's authority.

UPDATE 2:06AM 18 JUNE 2017

 Supreme Court of Victoria live stream of the matter of explanations as to why Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar should not be referred for prosecution for contempt:

 https://www.streaming.scvwebcast1.com/hearing-14-june-2017-10-30am/

 Many thanks to Josh Bornstein for posting this link on social media.

 UPDATE 4:10PM 22 June 2017

 Since their original defiance Messrs. Hunt, Tudge and Sukkar have had second thoughts.

 First the Prime Minister had committed the uncomfortable error of publicly defending their attack.

INTERVIEW WITH TOM ELLIOTT, Radio 3AW, transcript, 15 June 2017:

TOM ELLIOTT:
Is this unusual for three of your ministers to be hauled into court to explain themselves?

PRIME MINISTER:
Well it certainly is unusual but it is not unusual for Victorians to express real concern about public safety in their state.
Those three ministers, yes they are ministers in my government, they are Members of Parliament but they are also citizens of Victoria and residents of Victoria and you know, as your listeners do, that there is real concern about law and order and the failure of the state government and the system in Victoria to protect people.
Look, I think it is a matter of the justice system, the legal system in Victoria, the criminal justice system is a matter of real public interest and my ministers are focused on public safety, they are working with me and the rest of our team and our agencies to do everything we can to keep Australians safe and defeat Islamist terrorism.

TOM ELLIOTT:
Will the three ministers appear in court on Friday?

PRIME MINISTER:
I can’t answer that. I am sure they would be represented but whether they appear in person, that is a matter for them. I am not sure what arrangements they’ve made.

Then Senator Derryn Hinch added his inflammatory mite and debate on social media widened..

Finally, in the early hours of 22 June BuzzFeed posted images the three amigos had hoped would fade into oblivion when, along with offending tweets, they deleted these Facebook posts:

By late afternoon on 22 June 2017 The Sydney Morning Herald reported:

A trio of Turnbull government ministers will make an abject apology to Victoria's highest court on Friday, a week after they refused to apologise for comments critical of the judiciary.

Fairfax Media has learned that Health Minister Greg Hunt, Human Services Minister Alan Tudge and Assistant Minister to the Treasurer Michael Sukkar have now decided to reverse course and make the special apology.

The hearing on Friday is going ahead at the request of the ministers and is designed to bring the matter to an end.

I suggest we all rememebr these faces at the next federal election....
Left to Right: Human Services Minister Alan Tudge MP for Aston, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar MP for Deakin & 
Health Minister Greg Hunt MP for Flinders

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Friday 16 June 2017

Human Services Minister Alan Tudge says the public is "fed up". You bet we are!


The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 June 2017:

Judges and magistrates have lashed out at "grossly improper and unfair" conduct by several Turnbull government MPs, who accused Victorian courts of being too soft on terror offenders.

Federal Liberal MP Alan Tudge has taken a public swipe at Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews over the State's soft terror laws and the Premier has answered his critic.

The three ministers' criticisms of the courts have appalled the professional association of judges, which said the comments could be misconstrued as an attempt to interfere in a case before the courts.

Judicial Conference of Australia president Robert Beech-Jones said the "co-ordinated and direct attack" on the independence of the courts risked undermining public confidence in the judiciary.

"The statements attributed to the ministers are deeply troubling. They represent a threat to the rule of law. They should never have been made." Justice Beech-Jones said.

Victorian Attorney-General Martin Pakula also hit back at the federal frontbenchers, warning they have come "dangerously close" to contempt of court.

Following national agreement to toughen parole and bail laws to prevent violent extremists being released from prison, Health Minister Greg Hunt and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge claimed Victorian judges were failing the public.

Triggered by recent courtroom comments from Victorian Supreme Court Chief Justice Marilyn Warren and Justice Mark Weinberg, Mr Hunt said their apparent support for lighter sentences was "deeply concerning". Mr Tudge said the public was "fed up".

So Human Services Minister and Liberal MP for Aston Alan Tudge thinks the public is "fed up".

You bet we are!

However, I suspect that it is not the judiciary which has caused this reaction so much as it is the antics of Alan Tudge and his Coalition cronies.

This constant ideological assault on the nation’s legal, political and social institutions and, the continuing erosion of the citizen’s civil and human rights, has moved well beyond the pale.

This latest attack on the judiciary has provoked a response from the Supreme Court of Victoria that Mr. Tudge in his overweening sense political superiority probably did not even consider.

The Age, 14 June 2017:

Three senior Turnbull government ministers will be hauled before the Supreme Court of Victoria to explain why they should not be charged with contempt after accusing the judiciary of advocating softer sentences for terrorists.

In an explosive development, the Supreme Court has ordered Health Minister Greg Hunt, Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar and Human Services Minister Alan Tudge to appear on Friday "to make any submissions as to why they should not be referred for prosecution for contempt" .

A letter from Judicial Registrar Ian Irving obtained by Fairfax Media says comments by the three ministers published in the The Australian accusing the judiciary of going soft on terrorists would appear to bring the court into disrepute.

"The attributed statements were published whilst the judgements of the Court of Appeal were reserved," the letter says.

"The attributed statements appear to intend to bring the Court into disrepute, to assert the judges have and will apply an ideologically based predisposition in deciding the case or cases and that the judges will not apply the law."

The extraordinary order follows comments published in The Australian in which the senior ministers blasted the Victorian judiciary for handing down lighter sentences for terrorists as part of "ideological experiments".

The judicial registrar has also written to The Australian's editor and the journalist Simon Benson asking them or their legal representatives to attend the court, alongside legal representatives for News Limited.

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:16 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Lawyers, including the country's peak law body, have condemned Immigration Minister Peter Dutton


Australia would do well to remember that besides being a wealthy property developer, the far-right Australian Immigration Minister and Liberal MP for Dickson, Peter Craig Dutton (left), is a former Queensland police officer.

Neither occupation has a history of probity in that state* nor its members a reputation for an ability to look beyond their own narrow self-interests.


The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 June 2017:

Lawyers, including the country's peak law body, have condemned Immigration Minister Peter Dutton's latest citizenship crackdown as a power grab that threatens the independence of the judiciary.

Under changes to be put to Parliament this week, the minister will be empowered to overrule citizenship decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in a bid to put a stop to its "silly" rulings……

Law Council of Australia president Fiona McLeod said she would await the full details, but reports of the tribunal being hamstrung were worrying.

"That's a very grave concern," she said. "Any attempt to wind back review powers should be treated with concern."……

Australian National University law professor Kim Rubenstein, who consulted on the 2008 citizenship revamp, warned against granting individual government ministers more and more power.

"That becomes a slippery slope to very draconian environments," she said. "We as Australians take these things too much for granted."

Western Sydney University law lecturer Jason Donnelly said it "completely undermines the object and independence of the AAT" and "shows a growing imbalance" in the separation of powers.

"It opens the can of worms to the abrogation of other fundamental rights," he said. "The courts have a fundamental role in protecting rights - because the government certainly isn't doing it."

* See The Moonlight State and Property developer donated to LNP after controversial Stuart Robert speech

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday 4 June 2017

New Hope Group's open cut coal mine expansion sunk by Qld Land Court: a victory for the people of Acland, Oakey and the Darling Downs


The Guardian, 31 May 2017:

A court has recommended the Queensland government reject a controversial coalmine in what farmers and lawyers hailed as a historic victory in one of Australia’s largest environmental public interest cases.

The saga of the $900m New Acland mine proposal, which included a public slanging match between the broadcaster Alan Jones and Campbell Newman that led to a defamation suit by the former premier, drew to an extraordinary conclusion with a ruling by a land court member, Paul Smith, on Wednesday.

In what is believed to be the court’s first outright ruling against a major mine in its modern history, Smith recommended that the government refuse environmental and mining licences to its proponent, New Hope Coal.

It was a David and Goliath victory for landholders who put forward evidence of the miner’s faulty modelling of jobs and groundwater impacts, serious noise and dust impacts, and a history of local complaints.

Newman’s Liberal National party government was mired in controversy over its belated approval of the mine expansion, on Queensland’s Darling Downs, after New Hope’s parent company donations of about $900,000 to the federal Liberal party.

The LNP government had backflipped after vetoing the Acland proposal in 2012, with Newman saying it was “inappropriate” to expand the mine in the state’s southern food bowl.

Paul King, of Oakey Coal Action Alliance, a group of more than 60 farmers and objectors to the mine, said: “We suggested during the court proceedings that that donation was an attempt to influence the decision-making process.”

Guardian Australia also revealed that a Newman government minister involved in the government’s handling of the project had taken a $2,000 donation from a New Hope director and his daughter took a job at the company.

King said: “This decision, which clearly demonstrates no good reason for the mine to go ahead, is a vindication of a clean system.

“This shows that our system is robust.”

Jo-Anne Bragg, the chief executive of the environmental defenders office, which acted for the objectors, said it was “unprecedented in decades” for a Queensland court to recommend a flat rejection of a major mine.

“I think it is a watershed because it is so rare a group of landholders and locals can win against a big, well-resourced mining company,” she said.

The ruling comes four months after the federal environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, approved the mine with “28 strict conditions”.

Bragg said the EDO expected the state resources minister, Anthony Lynham, and the environment department to follow the court’s recommendation after a “very thorough” 96-day trial and 459-page decision.

The case saw New Hope cut its original job projections from an average of 2,953 a year to 680 net jobs nationally, when other industries displaced by the mine were taken into account.
The court also heard the company would claw back an estimated $500m in royalties from a legal loophole that would see taxpayers receive a cut of just 7%.

Landholders mustered evidence that unreliable groundwater modelling by the miner put farmers’ groundwater at risk. They also argued that more than 100 local complaints to New Hope and 30 to state environmental officials about coal dust and noise levels had effectively fallen on deaf ears for a decade.

This was the basis of evidence of a high risk of the new mine exceeding air-quality limits.

It was a long hard fight spread over 96 days commencing in March 2016 before this judgment was delivered on 31 May 2017, New Acland Coal Pty Ltd v Ashman & Ors and Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (No. 4) [2017] QLC 24:

ORDER/S:

1. I recommend to the Honourable the Minister responsible for the MRA that MLA 50232 be rejected.

2. In light of Order 1, I recommend to the Honourable the Minister responsible for the MRA that MLA 700002 be rejected.

3. I recommend to the administering authority responsible for the EPA that Draft EA Number EPML 00335713 be refused.

4. I direct the Registrar of the Land Court provide a copy of these reasons and access to the Land Court e- trial site to the Honourable the Minister administering the Mineral Resources Act 1989 and to the administering authority under the Environmental Protection Act 1994.

5. I will hear from the parties as to costs.

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:16 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday 28 May 2017

Australian case law has a Minties Moment


The applicant appeared in person, having declined the opportunity to be represented by a solicitor funded by a grant of legal aid. Her stated reason for having done so is that as “a Druid (Celtic Pagan Priest) … being represented by a solicitor in Court is not an option.” According to Strabo, druids were once held in such high regard that they could quell any private or public dispute, including a stand-off between opposing armies: Geographica at 4.4.4. Their jurisdiction was divine and limitless. By contrast, and fortunately for the applicant, the jurisdiction of Australian inferior courts is statutory and limited. [Morgan v District Court of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 105, 23 May 2017]

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: ,

Friday 26 May 2017

ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART, 26 May 20017


ULURU STATEMENT FROM THE HEART
We, gathered at the 2017 National Constitutional Convention, coming from all points of the southern sky, make this statement from the heart:
Our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander tribes were the first sovereign Nations of the Australian continent and its adjacent islands, and possessed it under our own laws and customs. This our ancestors did, according to the reckoning of our culture, from the Creation, according to the common law from ‘time immemorial’, and according to science more than 60,000 years ago.
This sovereignty is a spiritual notion: the ancestral tie between the land, or ‘mother nature’, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples who were born therefrom, remain attached thereto, and must one day return thither to be united with our ancestors. This link is the basis of the ownership of the soil, or better, of sovereignty. It has never been ceded or extinguished, and co-exists with the sovereignty of the Crown.
How could it be otherwise? That peoples possessed a land for sixty millennia and this sacred link disappears from world history in merely the last two hundred years?
With substantive constitutional change and structural reform, we believe this ancient sovereignty can shine through as a fuller expression of Australia’s nationhood.
Proportionally, we are the most incarcerated people on the planet. We are not an innately criminal people. Our children are aliened from their families at unprecedented rates. This cannot be because we have no love for them. And our youth languish in detention in obscene numbers. They should be our hope for the future.
These dimensions of our crisis tell plainly the structural nature of our problem. This is the torment of our powerlessness.
We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.
We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.
Makarrata is the culmination of our agenda: the coming together after a struggle. It captures our aspirations for a fair and truthful relationship with the people of Australia and a better future for our children based on justice and self-determination.
We seek a Makarrata Commission to supervise a process of agreement-making between governments and First Nations and truth-telling about our history.
In 1967 we were counted, in 2017 we seek to be heard. We leave base camp and start our trek across this vast country. We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future.
26 May 2017

Australia is the only Commonwealth country that does not have a treaty with its Indigenous peoples.

Posted by clarencegirl at 17:47 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday 24 May 2017

"This is a contemptible intervention from a pro-mining government to deny the legal rights of Indigenous people"


“Our traditional lands are an interconnected and living whole; a vital cultural landscape. It is central to us as a People, and to the maintenance of our identity, laws and consequent rights. If the Carmichael mine were to proceed it would tear the heart out of the land. The scale of this mine means it would have devastating impacts on our native title, ancestral lands and waters, our totemic plants and animals, and our environmental and cultural heritage. It would pollute and drain billions of litres of groundwater, and obliterate important springs systems. It would potentially wipe out threatened and endangered species. It would literally leave a huge black hole, monumental in proportions, where there were once our homelands. These effects are irreversible. Our land will be “disappeared”.”  [Wangan & Jagalingou People, Our Fight]

BuzzFeed News, 18 May 2017:


Human rights lawyer and adjunct professor of law at Macquarie University, George Newhouse, said Brandis' intervention was using native title law against Indigenous Australians rather than assisting them.

"This is a contemptible intervention from a pro-mining government to deny the legal rights of Indigenous people under the Native Title Act 1993," he told BuzzFeed News.

"[The government's] power is being used to obstruct Indigenous land claimants. This discriminatory law only affects Indigenous Australians. The rights of Indigenous people continue to be stripped away for the benefit of big coal miners."

Greens Deputy Leader and Senator for Queensland, Larissa Waters, slammed the intervention, saying the government had sided with Adani over traditional owners.

"Brandis’ attempt to push a bill through the Senate that was designed to ram through the Adani coal mine against the wishes of the local Wangan & Jagalingou people failed, so now he is interfering in their court case," she told BuzzFeed News.

"This isn’t about good reform to Native Title it’s about making things as easy as possible for Adani at the expense of the land rights of First Australians".

Shadow attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said Labor supports the government's proposed amendments to the Native Title act, but declined to comment on Brandis' intervention.

Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council, 18 May 2017:

Senator Brandis’ intervention follows his second failure to rush through changes to the Native Title Act. The Attorney General has asked the Court to not make a ruling, but wait for the political process around the Native Title Bill to conclude. The Bill has not passed the Senate because of a lack of consultation with Traditional Owners around the country, and concern about key provisions.

Senior spokesperson for the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) Traditional Owners Council, Adrian Burragubba, said, “The Attorney General has made an extraordinary and political intervention in matters before the court. Intervening in our case shows Brandis is working in billionaire Adani’s interests, not ensuring the proper administration of justice. Again, Brandis is making Native Title all about Adani’s mine instead of good law reform.

“Brandis should apply himself to good law reform, and let the court do its work. Instead he’s trying to influence the decisions of a judge in favour of a mining company.
“The Wangan and Jagalingou Council are seeking Federal Court orders to strike out the purported Indigenous Land Use Agreement [ILUA] filed by Adani Mining with the National Native Title Tribunal. The ILUA would authorise ‘extinguishment’ of our native title and allow the mine to proceed against our strong objections and our right to say ‘No’.

“The Federal Government has been attempting to push through amendments to the Native Title Act to overturn the ruling in McGlade and protect Adani’s interests. Along with other Traditional Owners, we  continue to demand proper consultations and the necessary time to achieve consent for Native Title amendments”, he said.

While on the other side of the country another opportunistic miner is using Native Title law for his own benefit

Thomson Reuters Foundation News, 17 May 2017:

SYDNEY, May 18 (Reuters) - Mining magnate Andrew Forrest has used laws designed to protect indigenous land rights to stop prospectors searching for minerals on his West Australian cattle farms, angering both traditional Aboriginal landowners and mining community members.

While tensions between the competing interests of indigenous landholders, pastoral leaseholders and miners on government-controlled land are common, Forrest's approach represents one of the first known examples of a non-Aboriginal successfully using rights afforded to indigenous people to their own advantage.

Native title is a legal doctrine in Australia that recognises indigenous rights to certain parcels of land.

Forrest's use of it is not illegal, but it adds to the fractious relationship he has with some indigenous groups. Different groups have raised concerns over Forrest's cattle interests and have battled over land rights with the company he founded and chairs - Fortescue Metals Group, the world's fourth biggest iron ore miner……

But Matthew Slack, the head of the Buurabalayji Thalanyji Aboriginal Corp which oversees native title for the indigenous landowners, said it was "pretty rich" for Forrest to use rights designed to protect indigenous interests.

Thalanyji were also concerned about cattle numbers and water use at Forrest's 2,400 square km (927 sq mile) Minderoo pastoral lease in Western Australia's Pilbara district, he said.

"We are disgusted with Forrest and have been for some time. Slack said. "Our dreamtime creatures can't survive because the river is so low."

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:16 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

EPA terminates private forestry property plan after native forest destroyed in Collombatti near Kempsey NSW


NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), media release, 9 May 2017:

EPA terminates private native forestry property plan in Collombatti

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has terminated a property owner’s authority to log a private native forest following the destruction of a forest at Collombatti near Kempsey.
The EPA investigated the land owner, the holder of a private native forestry property vegetation plan, and found that most of the native forest had been illegally cleared and replaced with a market garden. Sensitive areas, such as streams, were also cleared.
EPA Director of Forestry Michael Hood said EPA officers collected strong evidence against the property owner for land clearing offences.
“We confirmed the area of native forest on the private property had been deliberately cut down to make way for a lemongrass and chili market garden,” Mr Hood said.
“If a person’s authority to conduct a private native forestry operation is misused in this way, the first thing the EPA will do is cancel this legally binding agreement and then stronger regulatory actions should be expected to follow,” he added.
“The work done on this property had nothing to do with sustainable native forestry management.
“A private native forestry property vegetation plan requires that native forests, biodiversity and the environment are protected. As this native forest was not protected, further action is now being taken requiring the land owner to return the environment back to its natural state.
“The EPA is committed to proactively protecting native forest areas across NSW and we encourage ecologically sustainable harvesting practices. The EPA works with other government agencies when regulating the protection of native forests, waterways and the environment,” Mr Hood said.
The community can play an important role in helping the EPA. If you have a concern about illegal logging or knowledge of a particular incident, report it to the Environment Line on 131 555. Environment Line reports are confidential and can be made 24hours a day, 7 days a week.
For more information about the EPA’s role in regulating private native forestry in NSW click here.
Terminations of private native forestry property vegetation plans, penalty notices and fines are just some of the regulatory tools the EPA can use to achieve environmental compliance. For more information about other regulatory tools download a copy of the EPA’s Compliance Policy.

Contact: Public Affairs

 

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday 23 May 2017

Law Council of Australia hits back at Immigration Minister Peter Dutton's comments attacking independence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal



Medianet Logo
AAP Logo
 Medianet Release




17 May 2017 2:25 PM AEST - Minister's comments attacking independence of tribunal were unfortunate, should not be repeated





Comments made by the Immigration Minister on radio attacking the independence of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal were unfortunate and should not be repeated, according to the President of the Law Council of Australia

Speaking on Sydney radio station 2GB, Immigration Minster Peter Dutton said: "When you look at some of the judgements that are made, the sentences that are handed down it's always interesting to go back to have a look at the appointment of the particular Labor Government of the day. Anyway, it's a frustration we live with."

Law Council of Australia President Fiona McLeod SC said the comment was unfortunate and had the potential to undermine the standing and independence of the tribunal.

"The independence of the judiciary, and respect for the role of Courts and tribunals, is a fundamental to the rule of law in Australia," Ms McLeod said.

"The Administrative Appeals Tribunal plays a critical role in overseeing and reviewing decisions made by Federal Government ministers, departments, and agencies every day. For members to face personal criticism for fulfilling their duties is inappropriate. They are reviewing decisions made by government in accordance with law, not personal preference or ideology.

"Justice Duncan Kerr is a highly respected Federal Court judge who has provided excellent service to the Commonwealth during his time as AAT President.

"Members of the government may disagree with decisions made by the AAT, but the Courts and tribunals provide an important check upon the unlawful exercise of power.

"Any suggestion by government that Australian jurists are not acting with independence is dangerous and erosive to our justice system and lies outside Australia's democratic tradition. It undermines the public perception of the legitimate role of the judiciary and weakens the rule of law."

Distributed by AAP Medianet


   Contact Us
© Australian Associated Press, 2017  

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: ,

Thursday 4 May 2017

Is Pauline Hanson failing to fully comply with state and federal electoral laws - again?


It almost beggars belief. Is Pauline Hanson failing to fully comply with state and federal electoral laws – again?

ABC News PHOTO: Pauline Hanson stands in front of the plane that former One Nation members say Bill McNee funded. (Supplied: One Nation)

The Saturday Paper, 29 April-5 May 2017:
One Nation risks deregistration in Queensland following the failure of Pauline Hanson to advise the Electoral Commission of Queensland about a botched incorporation that has left it with a noncompliant constitution. The party secretly switched legal structures last November without telling members, using a draconian clause in its superseded governance rules that allowed One Nation state executive members to do whatever they chose without question. Former insiders have said a principal purpose for the incorporation was to put in place a corporate veil so the entity rather than members of the executive would be the subject of legal action.
The method of incorporation and the failure to consult is consistent with a trend of centralising all of One Nation’s power in Queensland, which has in the past been illustrated by attempts to close branches across the country through the use of proxies to forcibly remove “troublesome” state leaders, attempts to close bank accounts over which the One Nation national committee had no authority, and the initiation of complaints to police to intimidate a sub-branch in the Northern Territory.
At the same time, the party neglected to observe mandatory rules contained in Commonwealth and Queensland electoral laws, which must be included in its constitution for One Nation to be a political party with legal standing. Breaches of provisions that specify which clauses must appear for a constitution to be compliant under law are grounds for the cancellation of a party’s registration under Section 78 of Queensland’s Electoral Act.
Neither Senator Hanson nor the deputy registered officer – party treasurer and Hanson’s brother-in-law Greg Smith – informed the electoral commission of the changes in legal structure of the entity. There were two reporting deadlines missed by One Nation – notification of the changes should have been delivered seven days after December 31 and March 31. 
News of One Nation’s constitutional high jinks follows revelations over the past six months related to the party’s preselection and disendorsement processes during the West Australian election, questions about its compliance with goods and services tax legislation, and doubts about the donation and declaration of an aeroplane to Pauline Hanson for campaigning purposes.
It also follows a network-wide ban of the ABC, announced in a Facebook video posted by Hanson after the April 3 airing of a Four Corners report that highlighted a range of issues faced by One Nation. The program, criticised by Hanson and her colleagues as a media “stitch-up”, has resulted in a formal investigation by the Australian Electoral Commission, related to the donation of the two-seater plane.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is the business name of One Nation Queensland Division Incorporated, which was an unincorporated association since it registered on January 23, 2001. That changed last year when the entity was incorporated with the same ABN. 
The entity is regarded as the same for tax purposes and the name of the unincorporated body has transitioned into the incorporated form……

Crikey.com.au, 5 April 2017:

And that’s where the law comes in. The facts as we know them are that Ashby has a plane, in which he flies Hanson around the country on what is clearly One Nation business. Hanson herself has made numerous public statements, including on the party website, asserting that the plane belongs to One Nation. It is literally plastered with her name and face.

One Nation is a registered political party. The Commonwealth Electoral Act requires each party, and each of its state branches, to lodge an annual return with the Australian Electoral Commission, within 16 weeks after the end of each financial year. The annual return must include disclosure of all amounts received by, or on behalf of, the party from any single source totalling more than $13,000 (for the 2015-2016 year).

Donations are expressly defined as including the value of a gift. There is no room for doubt that, if a generous supporter gave an aeroplane to an official of the party, so that that official could fly the leader of the party around the countryside on party business, then the gift of the plane (or the cash to buy the plane, if that’s what happened) would be required to be disclosed in the party’s next annual return to the AEC.

Queensland has its own political donation disclosure laws, which are tougher than the federal regime. Returns are required to be lodged six-monthly, all gifts over $1000 must be disclosed, and any gift worth more than $100,000 has to be reported within seven business days.

One Nation’s Queensland Electoral Commission return for the relevant period in 2016 discloses nothing about the aircraft purchase or gift, but it does include an expenditure item of $1187.09 paid by the party to “Jabiru Aircraft Service”. There are numerous payments to Ashby’s companies for printing services, totalling some $17,000 in the same period. Who was paying for the running costs of the aircraft is a mystery.

But it’s pretty simple, really. Whoever paid for Hanson’s plane — however they paid for it and who legally or beneficially owns it — it was, in form and substance, a gift to the direct benefit of her eponymous political party, and she has treated it and talked about it as exactly that for the past two years…..

The Australian, 2 May 2017:

One Nation’s Senator Hanson shifted her story again on Monday night and said a $106,000 plane “came from” party donor Vicland’s Bill McNee to be used by her chief of staff James Ashby, but it was not a donation.

“So the plane came from Bill McNee, but it was not for the party it was to James for his business?” Sky News’ Andrew Bolt asked.
“Correct,” she answered……

Last night Senator Hanson said the Victorian businessman had allowed Mr Ashby to use the plane.

“He didn’t donate the plane to James Ashby. Having met James, they became friends,” Senator Hanson told Sky News.

“Bill’s a developer and he actually has a lot of business that he does in Queensland, and Bill was continually looking around for a plane.

“He found out James was a pilot (and) he thought: “Here’s a great opportunity to actually have a plane and to actually ¬use it as well.’ ”

The Australian, 3 May 2017:

Pauline Hanson’s controversial chief of staff says he has a “crossover” business relationship with the Melbourne property developer and political donor at the centre of a disclosure row over the purchase of the light plane used by the One Nation leader for election campaigning.

But James Ashby, whose iron-fisted control of Senator Hanson’s office has created ructions inside the party, insisted yesterday that he bought the $106,000 Jabiru 23-D aircraft in 2015 for recreational use and for his printing business in Queensland.

Senator Hanson raised further questions about the status of the plane on Monday when she confirmed on Sky News it had “come from” Bill McNee, but was for Mr Ashby’s firm, not her travel for One Nation.

This conflicts with the media-shy businessman’s assertion that he had no knowledge of the aircraft or how Mr Ashby acquired it. Mr McNee’s company, Vicland, is the Hanson party’s biggest donor, though in a rare interview last November he told The Australian he was stopping all political donations because “it’s something I don’t believe in any longer”.

Pressed on whether he had provided funds to Mr Ashby to buy the plane two years ago, Mr McNee said: “My God, if I am going to buy a plane, I would buy one for myself.” He hung up when contacted yesterday.

The Australian Electoral Commission is investigating whether the acquisition of the plane by Mr Ashby and its use to fly Senator Hanson to campaign events in Queensland before her re-election to federal parliament last July subverted financial disclosure laws.

BACKGROUND

The Guardian, 20 August 2003:

The fiery redhead, renowned for her garish wardrobe, had pleaded not guilty to fraudulently registering One Nation in the state of Queensland. She also denied dishonestly obtaining A$500,000 (£206,000) in electoral funds used for the campaigns of 11 politicians elected to the Queensland state parliament….
Prosecutors had accused Hanson and Ettridge of passing off a list of 500 supporters as genuine, paid-up members of One Nation in order to register the party and apply for electoral funding.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 August 2003:

Former One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and party co-founder David Ettridge have been jailed for three years each after being found guilty of fraud charges by a Brisbane District Court jury.

Judge Patsy Wolfe made no recommendation for parole.
           
Hanson, 49, and Ettridge, 58, had pleaded not guilty to fraudulently registering One Nation in Queensland on December 4, 1997.

Hanson had also pleaded not guilty to dishonestly obtaining almost $500,000 in electoral reimbursements after the 1998 state election.

But a Brisbane District Court jury found the pair guilty on all counts after more than nine hours of deliberations.

ABC Radio, PM, 6 November 2003:

MARK COLVIN: But first, the freeing of Pauline Hanson and David Ettridge. The One Nation co-founders have won their bid to get out of jail, after successfully overturning their convictions and their three-year sentences for electoral fraud.

Eleven weeks ago, Hanson and Ettridge were both sentenced to three years jail, after a jury found that they'd fraudulently registered the One Nation Party which they'd founded. Hanson was also found guilty of fraudulently obtaining nearly half a million dollars in electoral funding.

But they'll soon be released from jail, and family and friends were elated by the decision when it came down at Queensland's Court of Appeal this evening.

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:16 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

How soon will Adani go broke in the Galilee Basin?


Reading the information set out below leads me to wonder how the Federal Government and Queensland Government will cope, both politically and economically, if the Adani Group's Carmichael Mine and Rail Project leads to a massive derelict mine site with its twenty-six Australian subsidiaries under administration or in receivership.

INSTITUTE FOR ENERGY ECONOMICS AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS (IEEFA)*:

2013

Remote Prospects: A financial analysis of Adani's coal gamble in Australia's Galilee Basin

The Adani Group is highly geared:
 Against an external market capitalisation of US$5.17bn, The Adani Group has an estimated US$12bn of net debt, a significant portion of which is US$-denominated with limited hedging.
Adani Power is of particular concern, being loss-making with net debt over 300% of its current market capitalisation.

2015

19 May The Latest Prospects for Adani's Coal Project? More Remote Than Ever

The project would require a massive and improbable infusion of debt, but a growing number of global banks key to most major coal-mining investments have eschewed it, mostly because of the risk it would pose to the Great Barrier Reef. (The 11 banks that have taken a public pass on the project include Deutsche Bank; HSBC; Royal Bank of Scotland; Barclays; Morgan Stanley; Citigroup; Goldman Sachs; JP Morgan Chase and most recently Societe Generale, BNP Paribas and Credit Agricole. In May 2015 Bank of America announced it would move to exit coal lending entirely.

15 September The Latest Prospects for Adani's Coal Project? More Remote Than Ever

With the Carmichael coal proposal commercially unviable at current or forecast thermal coal prices, the project is increasingly unbankable. Fifteen of the world's largest financial houses have either ceased working on this proposal or ruled out involvement, including both CBA and Standard Chartered, where advisory mandates have expired.

Continued momentum in technological developments underpins the scaled up commercial rollout of renewable energy and energy efficiency globally. As such, the strategic 'moment' for large-scale export-focused greenfields coal mines has passed.

2017

25 April Adani: Remote Prospects - Carmichael Status Update

Shareholders and financiers of Adani Enterprises face substantial risks due to the company's continuing development of the controversy-plagued Carmichael coal project in the face of major adverse structural shifts in market conditions.

The proposed mine, in Australia's remote Galilee Basin, remains a high-cost, high-risk project that is reliant on substantial public subsidies for it to be remotely financially viable. Even with concessional loans, IEEFA analysis shows the project is likely to be cash flow negative for the majority of its operating life.

Shifts in Indian energy policy and pricing have materially increased the risk of Carmichael becoming a stranded asset. Legal challenges and community opposition to the project persist and are likely to escalate if the project moves to construction.

With a market capitalisation of just US$1.9bn and net debt of US$2.5bn, Adani Enterprises Ltd will struggle to contribute equity for this A$5bn project. The project risks over-extending the balance sheet of Adani Enterprises to an extreme degree, creating a high level of financial risk to both shareholders and potential financiers……

In the years since Adani purchased the lease for the Carmichael mine, Indian government energy policy has shifted radically. Energy Minister Piyush Goyal has stated repeatedly that it is government policy to cease thermal coal imports—a policy that brings into question the very point of the proposed mine…..

* The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) conducts research and analyses on financial and economic issues related to energy and the environment. The Institute's mission is to accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis receives its funding from philanthropic organizations.  We gratefully acknowledge our funders, including the Rockefeller Family Fund,  Energy Foundation, Mertz-Gilmore Foundation, Moxie Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Growald Family Fund, Flora Family Fund, Wallace Global Fund,  and V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Hindu, 5 May 2016:

"PSU banks are owed about Rs 5 lakh crore by corporate houses and of this roughly Rs 1.4 lakh crore are owed by just five companies, which include Lanco, GVK, Suzlon Energy, Hindustan Construction Company and a certain company called the Adani Group and Adani Power," he said.

The amount owed by this group "called the Adani Group" both in terms of its long term and short term debt on Thursday is around Rs 72,000 crore, he added quoting reports.
"Yesterday it was mentioned that the entire amount that the farmers need to pay as crop loans is Rs 72,000 crore. The Adani Group itself owes to the banks Rs 72,000 crore," he said.

The Hindu, 8 May 2016:

The billionaire Gautam Adani's Adani group, with Rs 96,031 crore debt [est. AUD $1.9 billion], is under pressure to sell its stake in the Abbott Point coal mines, port and rail project. The Adani Group's debt stands at Rs. 72,000 crore [est. AUD $1.4 billion]. Last year, Standard Chartered bank had recalled loans amounting to $2.5 billion as part of its global policy of reducing exposure in emerging markets. Global lenders have backed out from funding the $10-billion coal mine development project. State Bank of India has also declined to offer a loan despite signing an MoU to fund the group with $1 billion. An Adani spokesperson declined to offer any comments on the issue.

India Infoline News Service, 19 May 2016:

S&P Global Ratings revised its outlook on Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd. (APSEZ) to negative from stable. 

ABC News, 22 December 2016:

The business behind the planned Carmichael coal mine in North Queensland is facing multiple financial crime and corruption probes, with Indian authorities investigating Adani companies for siphoning money offshore and artificially inflating power prices

Companies under scrutiny for the alleged corrupt conduct include Adani Enterprises Limited — the ultimate parent company of the massive mine planned for the Galilee Basin.

Two separate investigations into allegations of trade-based money laundering by Adani companies are underway — one into the fraudulent invoicing of coal imports and the other into a scam involving false invoicing for capital equipment imports.

"They are very serious allegations and they are being conducted by the premier Indian government agency investigating financial crime," Australia's foremost expert on money laundering, Professor David Chaikin of the University of Sydney, told the ABC.

"The allegations involve substantial sums of money with major losses to the Indian taxpayer."

Adani denies wrongdoing.

Rediff, 10 January 2017:

For the past year, Adani Power has been undergoing an overhaul for its debt, including measures such as equity infusion and refinancing. These have helped the company survive the rough times since proceeds from the compensatory rates are yet to come by. 

The firm expects its recent equity infusion, debt refinancing and the compensatory rate to lead to a turnaround in its financial position….

On December 6, the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission granted a compensatory rate for Adani Power's Mundra unit on the grounds of changes in Indonesian coal policy and shortage of domestic coal. 

In the address to analysts, after the September quarter results, the management said: "Once we have clarity in the form of CERC orders, we would obviously have the reason to work with the rating agencies and then we will make our plans."

The CERC order, however, has not led to any change of credit ratings so far for the company as its implementation hinges on the required Supreme Court approval for the same. 

CatchNews, 14 February 2017:

Earlier this year, the State Bank of India reportedly approved a loan of around $1 billion (Rs 6,600 crore ) for the company's coal mine in Australia. However, after much hue and cry in the media due to the highly stressed balance sheet of the public sector bank, the approval was withdrawn.

Hindustan Times, 11 April 2017:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside an order by the Appellate Tribunal For Electricity allowing compensatory tariff to Tata Power Ltd and Adani Power Ltd, sending down shares of both companies.

Shares of Tata Power reversed early gains to fall as much as 6.78%, while Adani Power slumped up to 20% to its lowest since February 21.

The tribunal, in April last year, had said the two companies needed to be compensated as the change in Indonesian laws on coal export prices were outside the control of these companies.

Financial Review, 11 April 2017:

Indian billionaire Gautam Adani has told Malcolm Turnbull his company will seek a taxpayer-funded concessional loan of up to $1 billion to support his proposed $21.7 billion coal mine in Queensland......
Following a meeting with Mr Adani and his executives in New Delhi on Monday night, Mr Turnbull cautioned the loan – to help build a $2 billion railway line to link the mine to the coast – would have to be approved on its commercial merits by the independent board which administers the $5 billion Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund.

The Northern Star, 16 April 2017:

Shares for Adani Power Limited, the Adani Group subsidiary energy provider in India, were trading at 44.25 rupees (AU$0.9) on Monday, but dropped to 32.90 rupees by the end of trading on Friday.
Adani Enterprises, the subsidiary connected with the Carmichael Coal project, traded on Monday for 120.10 rupees ($AU2.46) a share, but has also dropped, reaching 116.85 by the end of Friday.

Westpac Bank, Climate Change Position Statement and 2020 Action Plan, April 2017:

….the International Energy Association’s (IEA) modelling indicates that under a two degree scenario thermal coal demand will peak in the current decade and decline thereafter…..

However, for new thermal coal proposals we will: Limit lending to any new thermal coal mines or projects (including those of existing customers) to only existing coal producing basins and where the calorific value for that mine ranks in at least the top 15% globally. We define the top 15% as having a specific energy content of at least 6,300 kCal/kg Gross As Received. This value is referred to as the Newcastle high energy coal benchmark.

Posted by clarencegirl at 00:15 0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)