Sunday 14 October 2018

Scott Morrison and climate change policy


On 8 October 2018 the UN International Panel On Climate Change issued this media release:


Incheon, Republic of Korea, October 8 – Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society, the IPCC said in a new assessment. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said on Monday.

The Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C was approved by the IPCC on Saturday in Incheon, Republic of Korea. It will be a key scientific input into the Katowice Climate Change Conference in Poland in December, when governments review the Paris Agreement to tackle climate change.

"With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC," said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.

Ninety-one authors and review editors from 40 countries prepared the IPCC report in response to an invitation from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) when it adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015.

The report's full name is Global Warming of 1.5°C, an IPCC special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

"One of the key messages that comes out very strongly from this report is that we are already seeing the consequences of 1°C of global warming through more extreme weather, rising sea levels and diminishing Arctic sea ice, among other changes," said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.

The report highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2°C.

"Every extra bit of warming matters, especially since warming of 1.5°C or higher increases the risk associated with long-lasting or irreversible changes, such as the loss of some ecosystems," said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.

Limiting global warming would also give people and ecosystems more room to adapt and remain below relevant risk thresholds, added Pörtner. The report also examines pathways available to limit warming to 1.5°C, what it would take to achieve them and what the consequences could be. "The good news is that some of the kinds of actions that would be needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C are already underway around the world, but they would need to accelerate," said Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of Working Group I.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require "rapid and far-reaching" transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

"Limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics but doing so would require unprecedented changes," said Jim Skea, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.

Allowing the global temperature to temporarily exceed or 'overshoot' 1.5°C would mean a greater reliance on techniques that remove CO2 from the air to return global temperature to below 1.5°C by 2100. The effectiveness of such techniques are unproven at large scale and some may carry significant risks for sustainable development, the report notes.

"Limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared with 2°C would reduce challenging impacts on ecosystems, human health and well-being, making it easier to achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals," said Priyardarshi Shukla, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group III.

The decisions we make today are critical in ensuring a safe and sustainable world for everyone, both now and in the future, said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.

"This report gives policymakers and practitioners the information they need to make decisions that tackle climate change while considering local context and people's needs. The next few years are probably the most important in our history," she said.

The IPCC is the leading world body for assessing the science related to climate change, its impacts and potential future risks, and possible response options.

The report was prepared under the scientific leadership of all three IPCC working groups. Working Group I assesses the physical science basis of climate change; Working Group II addresses impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; and Working Group III deals with the mitigation of climate change.

The Paris Agreement adopted by 195 nations at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in December 2015 included the aim of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change by "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels."

As part of the decision to adopt the Paris Agreement, the IPCC was invited to produce, in 2018, a Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways. The IPCC accepted the invitation, adding that the Special Report would look at these issues in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty.

Global Warming of 1.5°C is the first in a series of Special Reports to be produced in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Cycle. Next year the IPCC will release the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, and Climate Change and Land, which looks at how climate change affects land use.

The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents the key findings of the Special Report, based on the assessment of the available scientific, technical and socio-economic literature relevant to global warming of 1.5°C.

The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) is available at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15 or www.ipcc.ch

The aforementioned summary forms part of the scientific findings informing the IPCC 6th Assessment Report currently being prepared by the working groups.

Australian Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison sought to downplay its significance because it made no specific recommendations on a country by country basis.
He stated that last year the “same report” said that “Australia was right on the money when it came to the mix of climate change policies.

As far as I can tell last year’s special report did not give Australia a glowing endorsement.

If one wants an IPCC opinion on Australia's climate change policy one has to go documents such as this......

This is an excerpt from the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group II Report "Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability") on the subject of Australia:

Adaptation is already occurring and adaptation planning is becoming embedded in some planning processes, albeit mostly at the conceptual rather than implementation level (high confidence). Many solutions for reducing energy and water consumption in urban areas with co-benefits for climate change adaptation (e.g., greening cities and recycling water) are already being implemented. Planning for 1375 25 Australasia Chapter 25 reduced water availability in southern Australia and for sea level rise in both countries is becoming adopted widely, although implementation of specific policies remains piecemeal, subject to political changes, and open to legal challenges. {25.4; Boxes 25-1, 25-2, 25-9} Adaptive capacity is generally high in many human systems, but implementation faces major constraints, especially for transformational responses at local and community levels (high confidence). Efforts to understand and enhance adaptive capacity and adaptation processes have increased since the AR4, particularly in Australia. Constraints on implementation arise from: absence of a consistent information base and uncertainty about projected impacts; limited financial and human resources to assess local risks and to develop and implement effective policies and rules; limited integration of different levels of governance; lack of binding guidance on principles and priorities; different attitudes towards the risks associated with climate change; and different values placed on objects and places at risk. {25.4, 25.10.3; Table 25-2; Box a5-1} [my yellow highlighting]

Successive Coalition federal governments (with Scott Morrison as a cabinet minister) typified this half-hearted approach to climate change mitigation. After four years the largely ineffective Emissions Reduction Fund is almost empty, the Renewable Energy Target has been all but abandoned and the National Energy Agreement is defunct, with the government's attention turned towards growing fossil fuel energy.

As prime minister Morrison has recently announced he will not be honouring Australia's $200 million pledge to the UNFCCC sponsored global Green Climate Fund (GCF).

It is no secret that Scott Morrison admires US President Donald Trump and right wing American politics generally.

As Morrison argues an inability for Australian action on climate change to make a real difference to ongoing global warming, given we only produce est. one percent of all annual global greenhouse gas emissions, one suspects that he would also agree with this reasoning behind the latest Trump administration refusal to act on climate change.

The Washington Post,  28 September 2018:

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.....

Saturday 13 October 2018

Tweet of the Week



Quotes of the Week


“I fear that the danger of plastic bags is much exaggerated”  [Former sacked prime minister & Liberal MP for Warringah Tony Abbott quoted in The Guardian on the subject of plastics polluting the environment, 6 October 2018]

 “A key architect of the landmark Paris climate deal has lambasted the Coalition government’s inaction on greenhouse gas emissions, saying it “goes against the science”, squanders economic opportunity and risks Australia’s international standing. Laurence Tubiana, a respected French diplomat and economist, also says Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s claim that Australia will meet its Paris targets “at a canter” is contradicted by international scientific opinion.”  [Journalist Nicole Hasham in The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 October 2018]


“To me this particular event seems to show the Liberal party has been taken over frankly by extremists on the hard right who aren’t particularly motivated to win elections and aren’t particularly motivated to serve the public. They’re just motivated by a crazy agenda.”  [Alexander Turnbull, son of deposed Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull in The Guardian, 11 October 2018]

Friday 12 October 2018

The past two months have not been great for NSW Police public relations


The Daily Examiner, 8 October 2018, p.3:

Two police officers have been served with future court attendance notices for alleged offences related to the use and access of a NSW Police Force computer system.

Police said the 43-year-old male senior constable and the 40-year-old female leading senior constable, both attached to Northern Region, are alleged to have modified data in October, last year.

The woman has been charged with unauthorised access of restricted data and the man has been charged with unauthorised modification of restricted data.

They are both due to appear at Coffs Harbour Local Court on Tuesday, November 23.

The West Australian, 6 October 2018:

A Sydney police officer has been stood down after allegedly making sickening threats towards a Greens Senator’s young daughter.

Sarah Hanson-Young was targeted by what she calls vile, cowardly and intolerable threats at the height of her public stoush with Senator David Lleyonhjelm.

But Ms Hanson-Young says the threats went further, targeting her 11-year-old daughter in a call made five days after her joust with Mr Lleyonhjelm.

“I have spoken to her about it,” she said.

“Of course it’s a difficult thing to explain.

“I was very shocked to know that it was a police officer.

“It's disgusting and no child deserves this, no young woman deserves this and to do it is not just cowardly, it's vile.”....

Federal police charged the 56-year-old cop with using a carriage service to menace, harass, offend after raiding his south-western Sydney home.

The senior constable has since been stood down and his employment is under review….


The officer will face court next month and faces up to seven years’ in prison if convicted.

NSW Law Enforcement Conduct CommissionMedia Release20 September 2018:

RELEASE OF REPORT ON LECC OPERATION BALTRA

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has found that a Leading Senior Constable engaged in serious misconduct after he punched an intoxicated woman (Ms Z) in police custody on 15 September 2017.*

The Commission’s Operation Baltra held private hearings to determine whether the officer involved (Officer A): 
1. Used excessive force when he punched Ms Z to the head with a closed fist whilst her hands were handcuffed behind her back.
2. [blank]
3. Breached NSWPF policies and guidelines when he recorded the CCTV footage of the incident on his mobile phone and subsequently shared that footage with a Snapchat group, which comprised other police officers from Police Station X.

The Commission has found that the punch with a closed fist by Officer A to the side of Ms Z’s head was an unreasonable use of force and that Officer A engaged in serious  misconduct as defined in section 10 of the LECC Act. 

The Commission is satisfied that Officer A was in breach of the NSWPF policies and guidelines with respect to his filming of the CCTV footage and that the dissemination of it to other police officers via Snapchat was unauthorised.  Notwithstanding this finding, the Commission is satisfied that Officer A genuinely believed that he was not breaching any policies or guidelines by sharing the information with other police officers in his team. 

The Commission’s recommendation, outlined in its Operation Baltra report presented to Parliament today, is that consideration should be given to the taking of action against Officer A with a view to dismissing the officer pursuant to section 181D of the Police Act 1990. 

The Operation Baltra report and associated footage can be found on the Commission website. 

Background

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission is an independent statutory body. The principal functions of the Commission are to detect, investigate and expose serious misconduct and serious maladministration within the NSW Police Force and the NSW Crime Commission. 

The Commission is separate from and completely independent of the NSW Police Force and NSW Crime Commission. The Commission will treat all information confidentially and has powers to protect persons who provide information to it. 

* Codenames have been used in the report to protect the identities of the involved persons. 

The Northern Star, 21 September 2018, p.1:

The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission has found a police officer who inflicted multiple baton strikes on a naked 16-year-old boy in Byron Bay used excessive force and should be considered for prosecution.

The commission’s Operation Tambora arose out of events involving the arrest of the teenager by four police officers in Lateen Lane on January 11 this year.

On February 6, Channel 9’s A Current Affair aired mobile phone footage showing police apprehending the boy in the early hours of the morning. The footage showed at least one officer using a baton repeatedly to subdue him.

The teenager, referred to as “AO” in the commission’s report, had been holidaying with his family in Byron Bay at the time of the incident.

The investigation was primarily concerned with the conduct of the police officers when attempting to take AO into custody. This involved consideration of whether the decisions by the police officers to use OC spray and a taser were justified in the circumstances. There was also a significant issue as to the need for the use of a baton on AO and, in particular, the number and force of baton strikes that were administered to AO, particularly those administered by “Officer E” at a time when AO appeared to be restrained.....

Thursday 11 October 2018

Religious Freedom Review Report: a curate's egg in the hands of an Australian prime minister who doesn't understand the definition of secular or why there is a separation between Church and State


"Australia is not a secular country — it is a free country. This is a nation where you have the freedom to follow any belief system you choose.”  [Scott Morrison, 2007]

“Secular [adj] of or pertaining to the world or things not religious, sacred or spiritual; temporal, worldly.” [Patrick Hanks & Simeon Potter, Encyclopedic World Dictionary, 1971]

On 22 November 2017 then Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the appointment of an Expert Panel to examine whether Australian law adequately protects the human right to freedom of religion.

The Panel’s Religious Freedom Review Report was delivered on 18 May 2018, accompanied by a statement that the report was now in the hands of the Prime Minister any government response was a matter for him.

The prime minister of the day is now the Liberal MP for Cook - a nakedly ambitious man who uses his public profession of Christian Pentecostal faith as a political tool.

Until this week the national electorate had no idea what the report might contain. It remained a closely guarded secret.

Which leads one to wonder if the leak which came Fairfax Media’s way is in fact Morrison preparing voters for what at best is highly likely to be proposed legislation which attempts to extend the exemptions religious institutions enjoy when it come to obeying human rights and anti-discrimination law and at worst an attempt to insert church into the heart of state.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 9 October 2018:

Religious schools would be guaranteed the right to turn away gay students and teachers under changes to federal anti-discrimination laws recommended by the government’s long-awaited review into religious freedom.

However the report, which is still being debated by cabinet despite being handed to the Coalition four months ago, dismisses the notion religious freedom in Australia is in “imminent peril”, and warns against any radical push to let businesses refuse goods and services such as a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The review was commissioned in the wake of last year’s same-sex marriage victory to appease conservative MPs who feared the change would restrict people’s ability to practise their religion freely.

The contents of the report - seen by Fairfax Media - are unlikely to placate conservatives and religious leaders, and will trigger concern within the LGBTI community about the treatment of gay students and teachers.

The report calls for the federal Sex Discrimination Act to be amended to allow religious schools to discriminate against students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status - something some but not all states already allow.
“There is a wide variety of religious schools in Australia and ... to some school communities, cultivating an environment and ethos which conforms to their religious beliefs is of paramount importance,” the report noted.

“To the extent that this can be done in the context of appropriate safeguards for the rights and mental health of the child, the panel accepts their right to select, or preference, students who uphold the religious convictions of that school community.”

Any change to the law should only apply to new enrolments, the report said. The school would have to have a publicly available policy outlining its position, and should regard the best interests of the child as the “primary consideration of its conduct”.

The panel also agreed that faith-based schools should have some discretion to discriminate in the hiring of teachers on the basis of religious belief, sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status…..

The panel did not accept that businesses should be allowed to refuse services on religious grounds, warning this would “unnecessarily encroach on other human rights” and “may cause significant harm to vulnerable groups”.

The review also found civil celebrants should not be entitled to refuse to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies if they became celebrants after it was was legalised.
The review does not recommend any changes to the Marriage Act. Nor does it recommend a dedicated Religious Freedom Act - championed by several major Christian churches - which would have enshrined religious organisations’ exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

“Specifically protecting freedom of religion would be out of step with the treatment of other rights,” the report found.

However it did recommend the government amend the Racial Discrimination Act or create a new Religious Discrimination Act, which would make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of a person’s religious belief or lack thereof.

The panel said it had heard a broad range of concerns about people’s ability to “manifest their faith publicly without suffering discrimination”.

This included wearing religious symbols and dress at school or work, communicating views based on religious understandings, obtaining goods and services and engaging in public life without fear of discrimination.

The report also recommends federal legislation “to make it clear” that religious schools cannot be forced to lease their facilities for a same-sex marriage, as long as the refusal is made in the name of religious doctrine.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison last month told Fairfax Media new religious freedom laws were needed to safeguard personal liberty in a changing society.

“Just because things haven’t been a problem in the past doesn’t mean they won’t be a problem in the future,” he said.

While the panel accepted the right of religious school to discriminate against students on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, it could see no justification for a school to discriminate on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status.

“Schools should be places of learning, not breeding grounds of prejudice. This looks and feels like a vindictive attempt to punish LGBTI people for achieving marriage equality."  [just.equal spokesperson Rodney Croome, 2018]

As is usual for this prime minister, Morrison fronted the media with half-truths and misdirection about the Religious Freedom Review Reportimplying that the contentious matters within the report were already uniformly codified in law across all the states.

This is far from the truth.

INVITATION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Proposed 19.4ha subdivision at Hickey Street, Iluka. curently being assessed as a controlled action


This proposed development of 19.41ha of forested land adjacent to World Heritage Gondwana coastal rainforest in Iluka, NSW, was first sent for public consultation in December 2015.

This is probably the last chance that community members have to offer their opinion on the plan for a 141 lot subdivision on the lot.

The Stevens Group has issued an Invitation for Public Comment which reads in part:

The preliminary documentation for the proposed action is on display and will be publicly available, to be viewed or obtained by download from the online facility without charge, from the 24 September 2018 until 4:30pm (AEST) on the 2 November 2018, at the following locations:

 § Clarence Valley Council Administrative Centre – 2 Prince Street, Grafton, NSW;
 § Clarence Valley Council Administrative Centre – 50 River Street, Maclean, NSW;
 § Iluka Library – Corner Duke Street & Micalo Street, Iluka, NSW;
§ NSW Office of Environment and Heritage – NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Level 4, 49-51 Victoria Street, Grafton, NSW;

§ Online at /www.stevensgroup.com.au%20– a link to the preliminary documentation will be available by selecting the ‘Residential’ page, then by choosing the “Iluka Subdivision – Invitation For Public Comment” tab.

Interested persons and organisations are invited to view the preliminary documentation. Written comments can be directed to Stevens Holdings Pty Limited, C/- Ocean Park Consulting Pty Limited, PO Box 99, Miami, QLD 4220, or email (rangi@oceanparkqld.com.au). 

Deadline for submissions is 2 November 2018.

Wednesday 10 October 2018

Community unhappy about Tweed Shire Council water mining consent at Rowland Creek


Image: Onthehouse

Echo NetDaily
, 6 October 2018:

Around 100 protestors made their point before council ignored them by voting 4–3, to reject Mayor Katie Milne’s rescission motion in regards to the September vote, where the majority of Tweed Shire councillors gave the thumbs up to a water mining operation at Rowlands Creek.

Councillor Katie Milne moved that a DA for a bulk loading/delivery of extracted water and roadworks at Rowlands Creek Road be deferred for several reasons including that NSW Water’s response to the pumping study was a brief email, not a formal review.

She asked that council seek additional consideration and hydrological testing from the applicant as outlined in a report by Professor Peter Cook (Potential Impact of Groundwater Pumping on Rowlands Creek) and that a suitably qualified university review the applicant’s report and subsequent response as well as NSW Water’s response and Professor Cook’s reports.

The motion also argued that the costings of road damage (referred to in the report but not provided) be publicly released; that the Rowlands Creek / Kyogle Roads intersection problem (which has been acknowledged and considered by the applicant’s traffic engineers but remains unresolved) should be referred to an independent expert for an opinion on the best practice approach; that council refer the problem of the Rowlands Creek Road / Mitchell Street intersection to the same independent expert for opinion on a best practice solution; and, that Council staff report whether they have investigated previously claimed discrepancies in the road width on the straight close to Uki – if not, to do so and if the Bitzios report is incorrect propose appropriate corrective measures.

The motion also asked that council seek independent legal advice on whether its public interest assessment meets Council and other legal obligations.

The 4–3 vote went Crs Cherry, Cooper and Milne for the rescission, and Cs Byrne, Polglase, Allsop and Owen against.

Cr Milne told Echonetdaily that this is not the end of the issue as far as she and council are concerned. ‘The developer has to gain final sign-off from councillors that the roadworks required are properly completed before he can commence operations,’ said Ms Milne.

‘There is another application in the system for Dungay, the court judgement for the Urliup expansion, and numerous applications for amendments required to rectify non-compliances of other existing operators as well as whatever else comes in.’
The mayor added that some of her greatest concerns include the safety of local residents, the impact on Rowlands Creek, the viability of the State Significant Farmlands adjacent, and the viability of locals’ stock and domestic water bores as well as the enormous costs expected for residents for these ongoing road repairs.
The Tweed Water Alliance submitted a hydrology report which suggested the water mining should not go ahead yet council still voted to go ahead. Ms Milne says the report was unequivocal and absolutely convincing. ‘It was done by one of the world’s leading groundwater scientists. There are always councillors who put development before the community. Unfortunately the Labor councillor joined them this time.
‘This is an issue that affects the whole community across the Shire. Apart from the water security issues, I’m sure our residents and pensioners would not be keen on subsidising ongoing road damage from these heavy trucks.’

Tweed Water Alliance’s Facebook page suggests that direct community action is now being contemplated.

Tuesday 9 October 2018

"North Coast Voices" Turns 11 Today!



On Tuesday 9 October 2007 North Coast Voices published its first blog post titled "A genuine Howard hugger".

Eleven years and over 10,102 posts later it is another Tuesday and this blog is still publishing.

For that, heartfelt thanks are due to all our readers.

Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert follows unofficial Liberal Party guideline: Don't get caught but if you do pay it back


Image: The Sydney Morning Herald 2017
Assistant Treasurer and Liberal MP for Fadden Stuart Rowland Robert (right) is in the news once more.

This time over the excessive costs associated with his taxpayer-funded 4G home Internet connection.

He has been charging taxpayers more than a $1,000 a month for Internet access since 2016 and by 2018 the cost had risen to over $2,000 a month.


The reasons being given by Robert for why he didn’t avail himself of cheaper alternatives don’t really stand close scrutiny.

Given this Liberal MP’s history (see below) one immediately wonders if a third party individual/ corporation signed his contact with the Internet Service Provider (ISP) and this increased the cost to taxpayers or whether Robert has a pecuniary interest in that particular ISP.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has requested that these expense claims be investigated by Special Minister for State Alex Hawke who himself is under a cloud when it comes to parliamentary expense claims.

Once his parliamentary expenses drew media attention Robert was quick to commit to paying back Internet charges reimbursed by the Dept. of Finance. At a quick estimate that would be somewhere in the vicinity of $25,000, although reportedly he puts the estimate as a little over $20,000.

Parliamentary expense claims are not the only issue for the Member for Fadden.

On 6 October 2018 The West Australian reported that:
A company run by a Federal minister who charged taxpayers $2000 a month for internet access lodged documents removing him as its director only after the matter was queried by The Weekend West.

Until late yesterday ASIC records showed Assistant Treasurer Stuart Robert was a director of an alternative health franchise business, despite Mr Robert telling Parliament a month ago he quit the board of Cryo Australia when he returned to the ministry.

In February 2016 Stuart Robert was sent to the backbench in disgrace after just three years as a federal government minister. 

It is barely six weeks since he returned to the ministry on the back of Scott Morrison’s politically bloody ascendancy and it appears that there has been no lesson learned.

A Brief History







Monday 8 October 2018

Whitehaven Coal’s Vickery mine extension community consultation has farmers up in arms

Whitehaven Coal Vickery Forest coal mining operation, 2018


Maules Creek section of coal mining operation, 2018

Whitehaven Coal Limited is seeking planning permission to extend its existing mining infrastructure footprint approx. 22kms north of Gunnedah in north-west NSW, by adding a coal processing hub with an on site coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP), train load-out facility and rail spur line to service its open cut mines at Tarrawonga, Rocglen and Werris Creek.

Quite naturally local rural communities are concerned…….

The Northern Daily Leader, 5 October 2018:

The Greens have condemned NSW Planning Minister Anthony Roberts and called his decision to ignore the plea of drought-stricken farmers “the height of arrogance”.

The spraying follows comments Mr Roberts made to The Leader yesterday, where he referred to the 4000-page Vickery coal mine extension report as a “relatively short document”, as he knocked back the request of farmers for more time to read the submission.

Farmers say they are struggling to find time to read and understand the massive document, let alone write a response to it, when they are hand feeding cattle.
Greens resource spokesman Jeremy Buckingham wrote to Mr Roberts in September, seeking to extend the public consultation time from 42 days to 90 days, however is yet to receive a response.

“Minister Anthony Roberts has displayed the height of arrogance in ignoring local farmers and communities and failing to give them a fair chance of responding to a 4000-page document on Vickery coal mine,” Mr Buckingham said.

“Minister Roberts has failed to acknowledge that many local folks are flat out keeping their livestock and farms alive in drought conditions.

“Local farmers and community members have asked for an reasonable extension of time to read thousands of pages of documents and make a considered response, but the Minister won’t listen.

“What does the NSW Government have to hide on this Vickery coal mine proposal?”...