Australian federal election date must be getting closer - Border Protection has been trotted out to spin indefinite, arbitrary offshore detention of asylum seekers

Given the level of public and parliamentary debate, it would be hard to be completely oblivious to human rights issues surrounding Australia's asylum seeker policies, however Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection Michael Pezzullo appears to have managed an Olympic-level feat of amnesia, denial and spin.

Dept. of Immigration and Border Protection, news release, 8 March 2016:

Immigration detention and children: separating fact from fiction

A message from Michael Pezzullo - Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection

08-03-2016

Consistent with the law of the land, and under direction of the government of the day, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection operates a policy of keeping children in detention only as a last resort, and releasing those children that might be in detention as soon as reasonably practicable.

This is a very contentious area of public policy and administration. Sometimes emotions rise and facts gets distorted. For the reputation of my Department and its officers, it is crucial that I set the record straight: the Department and its uniformed operational arm, the Australian Border Force, does not operate beyond the law, nor is it an immoral ‘rogue agency’.

Recent comparisons of immigration detention centres to ‘gulags’; suggestions that detention involves a “public numbing and indifference” similar to that allegedly experienced in Nazi Germany; and persistent suggestions that detention facilities are places of ‘torture’ are highly offensive, unwarranted and plainly wrong – and yet they continue to be made in some quarters.

In the same vein, any contention that prolonged immigration detention represents "reckless indifference and calculated cruelty," in order to deter future boat arrivals, do not pass even the most basic fact check. The number of children in detention would not be falling if that were the case.

The resources devoted to providing medical and support services, and the commitment of doctors, service providers and departmental staff to the welfare of those individuals, undercuts emotive and inflammatory claims to the contrary.

The Department’s operations are underpinned by the law of the land. In this regard, the High Court of Australia has upheld the legal foundations for both ‘turn back’ and ‘take back’ maritime operations (in a case brought down in January 2015) as well as regional processing arrangements (in the case known as M68, brought down in January 2016).

While policy can be debated, there should be no place for falsehood, rumour and unfounded speculation. People smugglers are constantly poised to jump on any relevant mistruth in order to convince prospective asylum seekers to pay them to get to Australia.

That is also why official statements on this issue have to be precise and unambiguous as to the essential objective of government policy. The maritime path to Australia is closed; and people subject to regional processing will not be allowed to settle in Australia.

What is often overlooked in so called commentary on this issue (and even, regrettably, in some media reporting) are the facts. Significant progress has been made over the past year to move children and their families from detention into the community. As I write, there are now 58 children who arrived by boat in held detention, down from a peak of almost 2000 back in 2013.

Much recent commentary has centred on a group of asylum seekers temporarily in Australia for medical treatment. A large number of this group are family members accompanying those in need of treatment. Consistent with policy and law, they will be returned to Nauru or Papua New Guinea at the conclusion of their treatment. The policy of the Government is that these persons will not be allowed to settle in Australia. No child will be returned to a place of harm, and we will exercise appropriate discretion and compassion in making decisions on a case-by-case basis, without fanfare.

Those returning to Nauru will return to a full open centre arrangement for all transferees and settled refugees. All are free to come and go from the accommodation centre 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Within the Department we have taken significant steps to enhance oversight, advice and scrutiny being applied to the care of those in detention, including children. The Department’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr John Brayley, provides me and the Commissioner of the ABF with impartial professional medical advice on health matters.

We have also increased our engagement with independent oversight bodies including the Minister’s Council on Asylum Seekers and Detention, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Consistent with advice provided to me by the Department’s Chief Medical Officer, all transferees and refugees in Nauru and Papua New Guinea receive appropriate mental health care. The Department’s service provider’s support these Governments to provide health services, including mental health care, broadly commensurate with Australian community standards.

Recognition of an individual's mental health needs is particularly pertinent because many individuals in detention arrive with pre-existing mental health issues and may have experienced traumatic events in their country of origin or on their attempted journey to Australia.

For this reason the Department and its service providers support individuals with a range of specialist care options including mental health assessments and individualised care plans. The Department provides access to mental health nurses, counsellors, psychologists and psychiatrists to individuals transferred to Australia for medical care. 

The Nauru and Manus RPCs both have mental health care staff onsite, including mental health nurses, counsellors, torture and trauma counsellors, psychologists and a psychiatrist. There are also additional mental health care staff based at the Nauru Settlement clinic.

Since December 2014 significant improvements have also been made to infrastructure, education and health and welfare services in Nauru.

Around $37 million has been spent upgrading medical facilities in Nauru, which has a population of about 10,000 people. This includes, at the Republic of Nauru Hospital, a new surgical inpatient ward and medical building as well as the installation of a CT scanner which is also available to transferees, refugees and local Nauruans.

This is supplemented by improved neonatal and obstetric services and the establishment of visiting specialist consultation and surgical services to transferees.

The Australian government has also provided additional settlement accommodation in hard-walled buildings, expanded the Nauru Primary School, built a new Community Resource Centre and upgraded the island’s water supply. To support education, we have provided expatriate professional development and teacher support services (a total of 11 teachers) in Nauru schools and five school counsellors.

I must also address ongoing and consistent claims that those expressing opinions on immigration detention are “risking jail by speaking out”. While often repeated, this claim is also wrong and unsupported by any facts.

The secrecy and disclosure provisions in Part 6 of the Australian Border Force (ABF) Act are not unique. These types of provisions are similar to those which apply to partner agencies and a wide range of other Commonwealth agencies with responsibilities for the management of confidential or protected information. They do not prevent, for example, medical professionals from seeking the best clinical outcomes for their patients.

In the midst of this debate, the Department will continue to focus on the fair, dignified and humane treatment of people in our care. We make decisions compassionately, consistent with Australian law. We will continue to reduce the number of children in detention as soon as practicable, within the law, as we have done in recent years.

Ultimately, the Department shares the same goal as its critics – to have no children at all in immigration detention, consistent with the law of the land.

Now I have to confess that I did not immediately spot the errant "allegedly" in this section of the Border Farce news release - suggestions that detention involves a “public numbing and indifference” similar to that allegedly experienced in Nazi Germany,  but I did enjoy the fallout which resulted in this statement later that same day: 

Statement on Department's opinion piece

08-03-2016

In response to recent media reporting and claims on social media relating to an opinion piece published by the Department regarding children and conditions in immigration detention:

Any insinuation the Department denies the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany are both ridiculous and baseless.

This has been wilfully taken out of context and reflects deliberate attempts to distort this opinion editorial to create controversy.

The term ‘allegedly’ was used to counter claims of 'public numbing and indifference' towards state abuses in Nazi Germany and the link to immigration detention in Australia. We reject the comparison to immigration detention as offensive and question this being made as a blanket statement - an allegation hence 'allegedly' - to describe the attitude of the German population at large during that terrible time.

Brief Background

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 September 2015:

Australian Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs has slammed as "extremely troubling" that the firm running offshore detention centres will likely have its contract renewed even though a Senate report revealed systemic abuse and human suffering under its watch.

Professor Triggs, a distinguished and respected lawyer, said the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's decision to name Transfield Services as its preferred tenderer to continue running the camps at Nauru and Manus Island, on a contract worth a speculated $2.7 billion, reflects the secrecy and lack of transparency pervading detention centres.

We are deeply concerned, it's extremely troubling," she told ABC radio, adding Transfield Services, who has been paid billion of dollars to run the camps, had been forced to dismiss scores of staff members for poor conduct.

She said the decision should be examined by "an objective independent reviewer".

"The idea that [Transfield Services] should be granted another five-year contract in these circumstances is something that clearly needs to be reconsidered in light of the findings of the select committee."

That committee, which delivered its report into Nauru on Monday, found conditions were "not adequate, appropriate or safe" for asylum seekers.

It concluded the Nauru centre is badly run and despite the Australian government spending billions of dollars on the camp, its knowledge of what goes on inside is inadequate......

Australian Psychiatry, February 2016 issue, Abstract:

Are we witnessing the beginning of the end for the global coal industry?

While the Australian Coalition Government keep its head deeply buried in the sand on climate change policy and the future of fossil fuels the world has quietly begun to by-pass coal, one of this country’s biggest exports.

Senate Bill 1547 (ELIMINATION OF COAL FROM ELECTRICITY SUPPLY) passed the Oregon House of Representatives on a 39-20 bipartisan vote on 16 February 2016 and re-passed the Senate on 2 March 2016:

BILL SUMMARY

“Requires each electric company providing electricity to retail electricity consumers located in this state to eliminate coal-fired resources from electric company's electricity supply. 

Clarifies that term "public utility" does not include people's utility district or electric cooperative for purpose of being regulated by Public Utility Commission. Allows Public Utility Commission to consider net gain or loss of sale of coal-fired resources for certain allocations to retail electricity consumers. Modifies qualifying electricity for purposes of renewable portfolio standards. Changes compliance requirements for renewable portfolio standards. Makes other changes to provisions setting forth renewable portfolio standards. Permits carry forward of certain renewable energy certificates for specified periods. Provides rules on application of renewable portfolio standards when electric utilities acquire service territory. Permits commission to approve cost recovery for costs related to renewable energy storage. Provides process to address conflicts between requirements for electric company to comply with renewable portfolio standards and reliability standards of North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Changes goal to acquire electricity from community-based renewable energy projects to requirement to acquire such electricity. Expands sources that qualify for community-based renewable energy projects to include facilities that generate electricity using biomass and that also generate thermal energy for secondary purpose. Directs commission to establish stranded cost obligation associated with condemnation of or transaction related to service territory or property of electric company. Requires public utilities to annually forecast projected state and federal production tax credits received due to variable renewable electricity production. Clarifies that term "public utility" does not include people's utility district or electric cooperative for purposes of being regulated by Public Utility Commission. Requires each electric company to file applications with commission for programs to accelerate transportation electrification. Allows return of and return on investment made by electric company for purposes of program. Directs commission to establish program for creation of community solar projects. Repeals minimum solar energy capacity standard for electric companies. Declares emergency, effective on passage.”

The Guardian, 4 March 2016:

Oregon has become the first US state to pass laws to rid itself of coal, committing to eliminate the use of coal-fired power by 2035 and to double the amount of renewable energy in the state by 2040.

Legislation passed by the state’s assembly, which will need to be signed into law by Governor Kate Brown, will transition Oregon away from coal, which currently provides around a third of the state’s electricity supply.

At the same time, the state will also require its two largest utilities to increase their share of clean energy, such as solar and wind, to 50% by 2040. Combined with Oregon’s current hydroelectric output, the state will be overwhelmingly powered by low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels.

Climate campaigners said the legislation was a landmark moment and showed that the US was moving rapidly towards renewables, despite the temporary block placed by the supreme court on the Obama administration’s clean power plan…..

In December 2015 the Ontario Ministry of Energy in Canada announced The End Of Coal:

Coal went from 25% of Ontario’s supply mix in 2003 to zero in 2014, all while grid reliability and domestic supply improved. The elimination of coal stands as the single largest GHG emissions reduction action on the continent and was primarily responsible for Ontario achieving its ambitious 2014 emissions reduction target of 6% below 1990 levels.

The elimination of coal-fired electricity was a shared effort between the Ontario Ministry of Energy and two of its agencies:

* Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the largest generator of electricity in the province, primarily through hydroelectric and nuclear sites.

* The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), whose duties include both procuring electricity supply and planning the electricity system over the long-term…..

Today….Ontario has more than 14,800 MW of wind, solar, bioenergy, and hydroelectric energy online, and almost 3,000 MW of renewable energy projects contracted and under development. 20,000 MW of renewable energy will be online by 2025, representing about half of Ontario’s installed capacity…..

Will the Turnbull Government finally move against Abbott's boy?

It has been over-long in coming and, probably wouldn’t be contemplated now by the political mates' club if this wasn’t a federal election year, but it finally looks as though another Tony Abbott appointee is about to leave the stage.

The Australian, 26 February 2016:

Fair Work Commission vice-president Michael Lawler could face unprecedented action to ­remove him from office within weeks after taking almost a year of sick leave on full pay of $435,000 a year.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said yesterday that she had received an independent report on February 15 into a complaint against Mr Lawler.

The report, written by barrister and former Federal Court judge Peter Heerey followed a four-month investigation.

The report deadline was ­extended by two months after Mr Lawler notified Mr Heerey in December that he needed more time to respond as he was ill.

Mr Lawler is on leave again from Fair Work.

Senator Cash said she had sent Mr Heerey’s report to Mr Lawler, with a deadline of next Friday for him to make any ­response to the final report.

The report includes recommendations on whether Mr Lawler should be removed from his position by a vote of both houses of parliament.

“I am carefully considering the report and its potential implications,” Senator Cash said.

“Before I provide further ­details to the parliament, I ­believe that, in the interests of procedural fairness, it is appropriate that I first afford vice-president Lawler an opportunity to consider the report and ­respond.”

The Heerey inquiry followed months of revelations by The Australian of Mr Lawler’s extensive sick leave and the overlap of his sick leave with his work on a legal case against his partner Kathy Jackson, the former ­national secretary of the Health Services Union.

Ms Jackson was found last year by the Federal Court to have rorted more than $1.4 million from members’ funds and ordered to repay this sum, along with another $1m in interest and court costs.

During the case against Ms Jackson, Mr Lawler on one ­occasion absented himself from work on sick leave to appear as her advocate in court. During the latter stages of the case, he moved to transfer Ms Jackson’s property into his own name before HSU attempts to freeze her assets.

The Australian Bar Association waded into the controversy last July, urging that the matter be resolved by parliament. This followed the then prime minister Tony Abbott’s claim that Mr Lawler’s large amount of sick leave was a matter for Fair Work president Iain Ross. Mr Lawler was originally appointed to the commission by Mr Abbott……

UPDATE

The Australian, 4 March 2016:

Besieged Fair Work vice-president Michael Lawler has resigned from his $435,000-a-year position in an unprecedented finale to more than a year of controversy over his extended paid sick leave.

One of Australia’s most senior members of the quasi-judicial ­industrial tribunal, with all the status and perks of a Federal Court judge, Mr Lawler has taken almost a year of sick leave while regularly assisting his partner, disgraced unionist Kathy Jackson, to fight allegations of theft.

Under the statute, Mr Lawler, 55, is not entitled to a pension ­because he has resigned before reaching the age of 60. Therefore the matter of any pension will fall under the remit of Finance Minister Mathias Cormann.

Should Mr Lawler be able to press the government into paying his statutory pension, he would be resigning with a windfall of 60 per cent of a Federal Court judge’s ­salary, close to $250,000 a year ­indexed for life.

Mr Lawler’s resignation comes at the end of a tumultuous week that has included him providing surety for a former soldier on charges of threatening a woman, and the death of another man at the home Mr Lawler shares with Ms Jackson, who last year was found to have rorted $1.4 million in union funds and still faces a criminal investigation…..

Commissioner For Chilled Martinis wants to enter federal politics

“The work we have done at the Commission is very important. The role of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner is to start these conversations. It is up to the Parliament to finish them. It’s also the role of the Parliament to deal with many other issues that I am passionate about.

That’s why I am announcing today my intention to resign the office of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner effective from Friday, 19 February to seek preselection to be the Liberal Party’s candidate for the Federal Electorate of Goldstein.

This is a tough decision for me, but the right one. The people of Goldstein deserve someone who will fight for them.

This is not a time to be timid. It’s a time to be bold. Our country faces big challenges: debt and deficits, high taxes and youth unemployment, to name a few.

We need people in Parliament who are prepared to take responsibility, make tough decisions and work to fix problems. I am ready to take that responsibility to protect this nation’s promise for future generations.

I’m a born and bred Melbournian. I’ve lived in Melbourne all my life; I’ve been an active Liberal Party member for nearly two decades. I’ve lived in Goldstein. I have served on the Board of the local hospital. Much of my family lives in Goldstein.

Under Liberal Party rules I can offer no further comment on seeking preselection.”  Tim Wilson

I suppose it had to happen. Finding the world was taking as much notice of him as Human Rights Commissioner as it did when he worked for the far-right Institute of Public Affairs, Tim Wilson has decided to remedy this situation by standing for Liberal Party pre-selection in the safe seat of Goldstein currently held by retiring former Minister for Trade and Investment Andrew Robb.

If he wins preselection then he will have all the free publicity he craves for the remainder of the year and, if the voters in Goldstein are silly enough to elect him then I confidently predict he will be constantly in all our faces.

Pushing his unfettered free markets-rich is what God meant conservative men to be-private property comes before all propaganda for all he's worth.

Twitter in a more optimistic mood has an alternative mapped out for Tim if he loses preselection: Then Freedom Boy can spin his way back into the IPA and endless textual analysis of "The Virtue of Selfishness"  [Mark Pesce]

While a senior Liberal was less than impressed with his shenannigans: The former Liberal leader also criticised the outgoing Human Rights Commissioner Tim Wilson, who did a round of media interviews yesterday, confirming his plan to resign at the end of the week to nominate for preselection in Goldstein.

Party rules do not allow candidates to promote themselves publicly.

Mr Wilson was careful to focus on the job he was leaving, although he did speak about why he wanted to enter Parliament.

He also spoke about his view that the Parliament, rather than a plebiscite, should decide on same-sex marriage — contrary to the Government's position.

Mr Kennett accused him of "playing on a technicality" for taking the opportunity to do interviews, before he rejoins the Liberal Party and lodges his nomination.

"I think that is probably unfair to the others and not in the spirit of the rules that govern the way members operate," Mr Kennett said.

Minister for Human Services & Minister for Veterans' Affairs showing his contempt for the Australian electorate

Liberal MP, Minister for Human Services & Minister for Veterans' Affairs, lobbyist and professional investor, Stuart Robert, elevates the non-answer to an art form in an effort to keep the Labor Opposition, mainstream media and voters in the dark – as evidenced by these examples of his answers to questions without notice in the House of Representatives.

Question Time, House of Representatives Hansard 9 February 2016:

Mr DREYFUS: My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's trip to China in August 2014 and the statement from the minister's office in The Courier Mail:

Mr Robert was on approved leave and attended in a private capacity.

Minister, is this accurate?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:42): I thank the member for his question regarding a visit I undertook overseas in a personal capacity in 2014. Can I say to the House: I am confident I have not acted inappropriately and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, this matter has been referred to the highest public servant in the land, Dr Martin Parkinson PSM, for review and I, of course, will fully assist the secretary in his review.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:46): My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's previous answer where he said he travelled to China in August 2014 in a personal capacity. Did the minister's declaration on his outgoing Australian passenger card reflect the statement he has just made to the House that he travelled in a personal capacity?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:47): I thank the member for his question and, with great respect, I refer the member to my previous answer.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:51): My question is again to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's previous answer where he said he had travelled to China in August 2014 in a personal capacity. Did the minister's declaration on his official Chinese visa application form reflect the statement he has just made to the House that he was travelling in a personal capacity?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:51): I thank the member for his question and I refer the member to my previous answer.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:55): My question is again to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's trip to China and his statement to the House: that he was in China in August 2014 in a personal capacity. But today, the Australian Financial Review reports that on the same trip the minister attended a Nimrod Resources signing ceremony. The minister also met with China's Vice Minister of Land and Resources. Did the minister meet with China's Vice Minister of Land and Resources as a private citizen?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:56): Let me thank the member for his question and I refer the member to my previous statement.

Question Time, House of Representatives Hansard 10 February 2016:

Mr DREYFUS: My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's trip to China and his answer yesterday that he would fully assist the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in his review. Has the minister informed the Parkinson inquiry that, as a private citizen, he not only met the Chinese vice minister for land and resources while in China, but was accompanied to that meeting by executives of Nimrod Resources? Will he also confirm this information to the parliament?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:29): I thank the member for his question and I refer the member to my previous answer yesterday.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:38): My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's previous answer. The minister has referred the parliament to his statement yesterday. Given that his statement was silent on what would be provided to the Parkinson inquiry, will he now answer the question: has the minister provided the Parkinson inquiry with evidence that proves that at the time he undertook his trip to China the minister paid for his own flights, accommodation, internal travel and incidentals?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:38): I thank the member for his question and I refer the member to my previous response yesterday.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs—Deputy Manager of Opposition Business) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Human Services. I refer to the minister's trip to China and his answer yesterday that he would fully assist with the Parkinson inquiry. Given that it is not clear from his answer yesterday what information he has provided to Dr Parkinson, has the minister provided the Parkinson inquiry with a copy of the letter of appointment he presented to an official of a Chinese state-owned company? Will the minister also provide this letter to the parliament?

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) (14:43): I thank the member for his question and I refer him to my response yesterday.

Meanwhile, despite the best efforts of the Minister for cartier & Rolex Watches, more home truths are coming to light......

Courier Mail, 10 February 2016:

EMBATTLED Liberal minister Stuart Robert organised a dinner in his Parliament House office with Tony Abbott and a Chinese business mogul at the request of his donor mate, Paul Marks.

Mr Robert hosted the dinner — three months out from the federal election in 2013 — so businessman Li Ruipeng could meet senior Liberals including shadow resources minister Ian Macfarlane.

The Herald Sun has obtained a photograph of the dinner, which shows Mr Marks, Mr Abbott and Mr Li among guests at the dinner in Mr Robert’s office…..

Mr Robert is being investigated after the Herald Sun revealed he secretly joined donor mate Mr Marks in Beijing to attend a signing ceremony between Mr Marks’s firm, Nimrod Resources, and Chinese government-owned Minmetals.

The Herald Sun then revealed Mr Robert also led a delegation, that included Nimrod representatives, to meet a Chinese government minister while he was claiming to be on holiday; and that Mr Li gave MPs who were at the 2013 dinner designer watches worth $250,000.

It has now emerged those MPs returned the watches to Mr Marks, not to Mr Li, because by the time they realised that the watches were not fake, Mr Li had disappeared.

Mr Macfarlane, who went on to become science and industry minister, yesterday told the Herald Sun: “I have a receipt showing I handed the watch back to Paul Marks.”

Also present at the gathering was the then president of the Liberal National Party, Bruce McIver, a party powerbroker recently appointed as a director of Australia Post.

A spokesman for Mr Abbott said last night Treasurer Scott Morrison also attended the dinner briefly.

Mr Abbott’s spokesman said that the then Opposition leader had originally declined to attend due to other commitments, but “agreed with a request from Mr Robert to drop in’’.

“He was not aware of any guests attending the dinner until he arrived. It is accurate that Mr McIver and Mr Macfarlane were present and earlier in the evening, Mr Morrison had joined the group,’’ the spokesman said.

“Mr Abbott was not responsible for the dinner, its purpose or guests.”

As for handing Mr Marks the watches, the spokesman said: “As it was not possible to return them to China, the office provided them to Liguancheng Global Investment Holdings Group’s (Pty Ltd) Australian business contact, Mr Paul Marks, with the request that they be returned to Mr Li Ruipeng.”

The Herald Sun can also reveal former Abbott staffer Simone Holtzapfel, whom Mr Robert praised in his inaugural speech, previously acted as a lobbyist for Nimrod Resources…..

Just three months later, Mr Abbott was prime minister, Mr Robert was assistant minister for defence and Mr Macfarlane was resources minister.

And Mr Li was nowhere to be seen.

He vanished shortly after Chinese President Xi Jinping launched a crackdown on corruption.

Herald Sun, 11 February 2016:

New Matilda, 11 February 2016:

In Estimates hearings this morning, it emerged that the Department of Foreign Affairs understood the Chinese government to be dealing with Robert in a “ministerial capacity.”

It beggars belief that Robert was able to access these high offices simply as a citizen of Australia. He was there because he was an Australian minister. 

Doogan Report recommends the Federal Coalition Government compensate nine Save the Children Australia workers for expulsion from its Nauru detention centre in 2014

On 26 June 2015 Adj. Prof. Christopher M. Doogan submitted a report, Review Of Recommendation Nine From The Moss Review, to the Abbott Government  which stated at pages 22 and 23:

Given the Moss Report was submitted to the Abbott Government on 6 February 2014, the subsequent Doogan Report was conducted and concluded in a relatively timely fashion.

However, public knowledge of the text this report did not surface until almost seven months later on Friday 17 January 2016 when it was released by government with no ministerial comment.

In effect, those nine Save the Children Australia workers were forced to wait the better part of fifteen months for final vindication.

Even then mainstream media reported that neither Save The Children Australia nor the nine expelled workers have received an apology from either the Abbott or Turnbull federal governments and, none presumably have received any form of compensation.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton and former immigration minister Treasurer Scott Morrison are acting churlishly by not following Recommendation 61 of the Doogan Report.

But what can one expect from a federal government heavily infested with right-wing ideologues, more intent on ensuring the continuation of their own lucrative parliamentary positions rather than in governing the nation effectively and fairly.

Best Meme of Budget Week 2015

@freeradicalone

Australian Prime Minister and Minister for Women Tony Abbott's double dipping lie is an insult to working women

On Mother’s Day 2015 the Abbott Government announced that it would be removing all or part of federal paid parental scheme payments to an estimated 79,000 working women who take maternity leave from 1 July 2016 onwards.

Under federal legislation these women had an expectation of receiving up to $11,500 for maternity leave of 18 weeks duration.

In the interview with Laurie Oakes the Treasurer Joe Hockey used the word double-dipping to describe the lawful right of working women to access both the federal paid parental leave scheme and that of their employer if there was one in place:

At the moment people can claim parental leave payments from both the government and their employers so they are effectively double dipping. We’re going to stop that. You can’t double dip, you can’t get both parental leave pay from your employer and from taxpayers.

The Double Dipping Lie Was Repeated In The 2015-16 Budget Papers Two Days Later

This is an extract from the consolidated Budget Measures Budget Paper No. 2 2015-16:

Removing Double-Dipping from Parental Leave Pay

The Government will achieve savings of $967.7 million over four years by removing the ability for individuals to double dip when applying for the existing Parental Leave Pay (PLP) scheme, from 1 July 2016. Currently individuals are able to access Government assistance in the form of PLP, in addition to any employer-provided parental leave entitlements. The Government will remove the ability for individuals to double dip, by taking payments from both their employer and the Government.

The Truth About The Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme

This is an extract from the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Act 2010:

Division 1A—Object of this Act

3A  Object of this Act

             (1)  The object of this Act is to provide financial support to primary carers (mainly birth mothers) of newborn and newly adopted children, in order to:

                     (a)  allow those carers to take time off work to care for the child after the child’s birth or adoption; and

                     (b)  enhance the health and development of birth mothers and children; and

                     (c)  encourage women to continue to participate in the workforce; and

                     (d)  promote equality between men and women, and the balance between work and family life.

             (2)  Generally, the financial support is provided only to primary carers who have a regular connection to the workforce.

             (3)  The financial support provided by this Act is intended to complement and supplement existing entitlements to paid or unpaid leave in connection with the birth or adoption of a child. [my red bolding]

It is noticeable that the main budget decision-makers in 2015, all six members of the federal Expenditure Review Committee, are privileged white males living off the public purse - with one receiving a salary higher than that of the U.S. president and another being a millionaire many times over.

It is also worth noting that this scaling back of the federal paid parental leave scheme was not put to voters at the last general election.

UPDATE

It would seem that despite their attempts to vilify working mothers, Coalition MPs not only voted with the then Labor Government to introduce paid parental leave - some of their wives/partners accessed both the government and their employer's leave schemes.

ABC News 14 May2015:

Assistant Treasurer Josh Frydenberg has revealed his wife claimed paid parental leave payments from her employer and the Government, as Labor steps up its attacks on the Coalition's plan to stop women benefiting from two schemes.

"We accessed both schemes as my wife was entitled to and there are many people I'm sure on both sides of the House who have done that," Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, who is also on cabinet's Expenditure Review Committee, has deflected questions about whether his wife claimed money from two schemes.

Earlier today Senator Cormann described the Coalition's push to stop women getting two payments as a "fairness measure" and defended the Government calling it "double dipping".

But this afternoon, under questioning from Labor senator Sam Dastyari, Senator Cormann did not deny his wife received benefits from her employer and the Government PPL scheme.

"Let me confirm for him that I have indeed had a little child in 2013 and that our family of course worked within a system that was available at the time like any other family and that my family will work within whatever system is in place in the future," Senator Cormann said.

The Australian 17 June 2010:

AUSTRALIA has its first universal paid parental leave scheme, catching up with the rest of the developed world, after the Coalition voted with the Rudd government to back the historic legislation.

University of Western Australia comes to its senses and boots Bjorn out the door

Bjorn Lomborg

Google Images

ABC News 8 May 2015:

The University of Western Australia has cancelled the contract for a policy centre that was to be headed up by controversial academic Bjorn Lomborg …..

In a statement, UWA Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson said the creation of the centre had attracted "mixed reactions" from staff, students and the general public.

"The scale of the strong and passionate emotional reaction was one that the university did not predict," he said…..

Mr Johnson said he had on Friday spoken to the Federal Government and Dr Lomborg, advising them of the university's decision to cancel the contract and return the money to the Government.

He last month said the Federal Government had approached the university to set up the centre.

The Federal Government funding had attracted strong criticism from the Opposition, who described it as politically motivated, something Mr Pyne strenuously denied.

UWA Academic Staff Association vice president Professor Stuart Bunt said the move was not censorship.

"This isn't about censorship at all ... Lomborg is not a climate [change] denier; he believes the scientific evidence which overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening, he just debates the economics of how we should deal with it," Mr Bunt said.

"The difficulty is he is neither a scientist or an economist, he's a political scientist.

"Once you become attached to a university, you're given a kind of credence by that university; people would expect an adjunct professor at UWA to be working in a professional manner and that their statements would be evidence-based.

"Lomborg would be using the name of the university, to put what are largely political opinions, rather than evidence-based statements, using the university's name."

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert said UWA made the right decision.

"It was very clearly the Government's design to get someone in place that was running a different argument on climate change, to try and suggest that climate change isn't as significant an issue as it is," Senator Siewert said.

"It was bad science, and I'm pleased that UWA has realised that.

"[The Federal Government] clearly had a political agenda, and it was a mistake for the University of Western Australia to go along with it."…..

Abbott Government's mindless obeisance to foreign-owned multinational commercial fishing corporations has had the inevitable result

The 100% Dutch-owned subsidiary of Parlevliet & Van der Plas Beheer B.V. the Australian registered Seafish Tasmania and its super trawler hired from the parent company, the now rebranded Geelong Star, have been found to have committed the inevitable environmental crime associated with large factory ships – killing prohibited species as part of their by-catch.

The Abbott Government would have been well aware that classifying commercial fishing trawlers on length of vessel and not freezer storage capacity would lead to adverse environmental impacts but, in its mindless rejection of any measure put in place by the former federal Labor government, Tony Abbott & Co have shown that far-right ideology is more important that preserving sustainable food resources and biodiversity of marine life for the benefit of present and future Australian citizens.

The Guardian, 3 May 2015:

The Australian environment minister, Greg Hunt, has condemned as “unacceptable and outrageous” the killing of a dozen dolphins and seals by a factory fishing trawler.

The Geelong Star, a ship that environmental groups and some MPs wanted banned from fishing Australian waters, voluntarily returned to its home port after catching four dolphins and two seals on its second local outing.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) had previously said the ship would face stricter controls after it also caught and killed four dolphins and two seals in its nets on its first trip.

Hunt released a statement on Sunday saying he was “absolutely appalled” by the news, ABC reported.

Hunt said he would write to the AFMA and to Tasmanian senator Richard Colbeck, the parliamentary secretary for fisheries and a strong defender of the trawler’s methods.

The Geelong Star has factory freezer capabilities but escapes a permanent ban on so-called super trawlers because at 95 metres it is under the 130-metre size limit.

Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson said the government should cancel the trawler’s fishing licence and management plan immediately.

“They’ve failed twice. The regulator has failed in its job to protect dolphins and seals and who knows whatever other marine life and the boat needs to go home,” he told ABC.

Colbeck released his own statement saying the further deaths of marine mammals was “very bad news and is not welcomed by anyone”.

He said the decision of operators Seafish Tasmania to “voluntarily return to port is appreciated”….