Then Australian Attorney-General George Brandis in March 2015: "Media organisations are not the target of this law. The targets of this law are criminals and paedophiles and terrorists"*

The Australian federal police have admitted they sought access to a Guardian reporter’s metadata without a warrant in an attempt to hunt down his sources.

It is the first time the AFP has confirmed seeking access to a journalist’s metadata in a particular case.

The admission came to light when the AFP told the privacy commissioner it had sought “subscriber checks” and email records relating to the Guardian Australia journalist Paul Farrell, and the correspondence was sent to Farrell by the office of the Australian information commissioner……

The AFP’s submission said: “You will see that exemptions have been claimed under s47E(d) and s37(2)(b) on some folios. These exemptions primarily relate to e-mail and other subscriber checks relating to Mr Farrell, and examination of meta data associated with some electronic files.”  [The Guardian, 14 April 2016]

At 11.35am AEST on 17 April 2014 The Guardian published journalist Paul Farrell’s article Australian ship went far deeper into Indonesian waters than disclosed with this map:

And this observation:

The redacted version of the classified report, obtained by the Australian Associated Press under freedom of information laws, said: “Entry to Indonesian waters was inadvertent, arising from miscalculation of the maritime boundaries, in that the calculation did not take into account archipelagic baselines.”

Crucially, the report adds: “Territorial seas declared by foreign nations are generally not depicted on Australian hydrographic charts.”

But the digital map from the vessel casts doubt on these findings, and clearly shows the Australian ship crossing the red line that marks the point of Indonesia’s baselines and entering its waters past the headlands near Pelabuhan Ratu bay. Indonesia’s territorial seas are 12 nautical miles further out from where the baselines are marked in red. It is not known whether the digital mapping device was operational at the time the Ocean Protector entered Indonesian waters.

If he wasn’t a blip on the Australian Federal Police radar before the publication date of that article, Paul Farrell was from then on.

However, it is unclear if the initial request to investigate this journalist came from the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morrison, his department or some other individual or agency.

Although what appears to be Folio 3 of an est. 200 pages in Case No.5610147 seems to suggest that Customs (now called Border Force) may have been the complainant of record by May 2014 and the media finger points to the head of Australian Customs and Border Protection Services, Michael Pezzullo.

On 12 Febraury2016 Farrell stated of this investigation:

The files are made up of operational centre meeting minutes, file notes, interview records and a plan for an investigation the AFP undertook into one of my stories. Most concerning is what appears to be a list of suspects the AFP drew up, along with possible offences they believe they may have committed.

The documents show that during the course of an investigation into my sources for a story I had written, an AFP officer logged more than 800 electronic updates on the investigation file.

Farrell is not the only journalist whose metadata has been accessed in search of sources, but the Australian Federal Police insists that it has not accessed any journalist’s metadata for the last six months – the last time being in 13 October 2015.

Footnote

* See http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/probes-of-journalists-communications-records-rare-police-say-20150317-1m1g9d.html

Political Cartoon of the Week

Cathy Wilcox

Australian Federal Election 2016; debt, credit and GDP

So how is Australia’s economy faring under the Abbott-Turnbull Government in the lead-up to the 3 May 2016 federal budget and the following general election?

Australian Dept of Finance, 24 March 2016:

The underlying cash balance for the 2015-16 financial year to 29 February 2016 was a deficit of $38,719 million.¹

The fiscal balance for the 2015-16 financial year to 29 February 2016 was a deficit of $35,292 million…..

Total revenue was $1,223 million lower than the MYEFO profile, primarily due to lower than expected taxation revenue and dividend income.

Total expenses were $2,831 million lower than the MYEFO profile, primarily due to lower than expected supply of goods and services, wages and salaries and grants expenses…..

Net worth is negative $352,423 million;

Net debt is $287,920 million; and

Net financial liabilities are $516,561 million.

Financial Review, 28 March 2016:

Australia is one of seven countries that Forbes magazine says is the "most likely to suffer a debt crisis" within the next three years. 

China, whose economy has faltered in the past two years, comes No. 1 on the list of seven, but Australia is No. 2. Sweden, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada and Norway complete the list of infamy.

Using data for both private and public debt compiled by Switzerland-based Bank of International Settlements, the magazine looks at the rate of growth of credit compared with gross domestic product, paying particular attention to when credit growth begins to fall……

"The bottom line is that private sector expenditure in an economy can be measured as the sum of GDP plus the change in credit, and crises occur when (a) the ratio of private debt to GDP is large; (b) growing quickly compared to GDP," the magazine says.

When credit growth slips as servicing debt exhausts funds available to finance it, "new borrowers baulk at entry costs to house purchases, and numerous euphoric and Ponzi-based debt-financed schemes fail" leading to a change in available credit.

Australia, like the other six countries on the list, fill the two key prerequisites, a high level of private debt to GDP, and a rapid growth of that ratio in the last few years, the report says.

Economic crises often coincide with private debt exceeding 1.5 times GDP and the level of private debt grows by about 20 per cent over a five-year period.

The Guardian, 15 January 2016:

The results are in: Australian households have more debt compared to the size of the country’s economy than any other in the world.

Research by the Federal Reserve has shown the consolidated household debt to GDP ratio increased the most for Australia between 1960 and 2010 out of a select group of OECD nations. Australia’s household sector has accumulated massive unconsolidated debt compared with other countries. As of the third quarter of 2015, it now has the world’s most indebted household sector relative to GDP, according to LF Economics’ analysis of national statistics……

Australia has around $2 trillion in unconsolidated household debt relative to $1.6 trillion in GDP. Australia’s ratio is 123.08%.....

Australian property investors and homeowners are burdened with massive mortgages, especially new and marginal entrants. Unlike winning a gold medal at the Olympics, having the world’s most indebted household sector is not an achievement the nation should be proud of. This is where Australia’s real debt and deficit problem lies, not in the public sector.

Footnotes

1. Compare with the 2013-14 financial year to 30 September 2013 which covers the last eight months of the former federal Labor government:

The underlying cash balance for the 2013-14 financial year to 30 September 2013 was a deficit of $22,929 million.

The fiscal balance for the 2013-14 financial year to 30 September 2013 was a deficit of $19,659 million…..

Total revenue was $4,580 million lower than the Budget profile primarily due to lower than expected taxation revenue. This reflects lower than expected individuals and other withholding taxation, company tax, superannuation fund tax and resource rent taxes.

Total expenses were $4,636 million lower than the Budget profile primarily due to lower than expected grants and subsidies, suppliers and personal benefits expenditure.  This is in part consistent with reduced expenditure during the election caretaker period and reflecting timing differences, particularly for grants and subsidies…...

The net worth of the General Government sector is a negative net asset position of $220,670 million at 30 September 2013.

The net debt of the General Government sector is $174,557 million at 30 September 2013.

Australian Federal Election 2016: John Stone points out that Malcolm Turnbull is the same as Tony Abbott

Turnbull & Abbott morph courtesy of 
Robbo

Former Shadow Minister for Finance and Leader of the National Party in the Senate (1987-1990) and former secretary to the Treasury (1979-1984), John Stone, is not a happy man.

He has joined a growing number in Liberal-Nationals ranks who are publicly pointing out the disappointing co-joined nature of those political bedfellows, Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and former prime minister Anthony John Abbott MP.

This excerpt is from an article he wrote in the Australian Financial Review on 7 March 2016:

Before the successful conspiracy against him, Abbott had made four decisions. One, under no circumstances would the Coalition raise the GST. Two, it would not meddle with the basic taxation principle that investment income qualifies for deductibility of costs incurred (so-called "negative gearing"). Three, established superannuation arrangements would remain. And four, he would take income tax cuts to 2016's election.

Neither Abbott nor his lazy Treasurer Hockey mentioned that the fourth undertaking could be achieved only through significant spending cuts. On those, Hockey's 2015-16 budget was virtually silent…..

in September 2015, Turnbull spoke eloquently about our needing "a new economic narrative", were there grounds for hoping for a government that would now mend its ways?

Well, no, apparently. After five months of dithering, Turnbull has emulated Abbott's first decision. He will arrive soon at Abbott's second decision. He and Treasurer Scott Morrison are still havering over Abbott's third decision. Both agree with his fourth decision. But as for the spending cuts without which that can't happen responsibly, they are silent.

On usurping the prime ministership Turnbull was endowed, justifiably or not, with plenty of political capital. Rather than expend that capital by taking an axe to what was now his government's wasteful spending he has chosen instead, in John Howard's recent words, to "dissipate it by sitting around and doing nothing".

Let's see, come July, what the electorate thinks of that.

In which Australian Attorney-General George Brandis pushes the point that Macolm Turnbull is just like Tony Abbott and Mungo agrees

Image of Tony Abbott (left) & Malcolm Turnbull  (right) found at ABC The Drum

Federal Attorney-General George Brandis being interviewed on Australian Agenda, 6 March 2016:  

Well I wouldn’t adopt that metaphor and I must confess I haven’t read Mr Abbott’s Quadrant article but the point I want to emphasise to you and to your viewers Peter is that Mr Abbott speaks from within the heartland of the Liberal Party, as does Mr Turnbull. They both want the same thing. They both have fundamentally the same approach to public policy.

Mungo MacCallum at The Drum, 29 February 2016:

And so it has come to pass. Malcolm Turnbull as we knew him has all but vanished; in a political sense, it could be said that he has been destroyed. Instead, we have a sort of Abbott avatar - smoother, more articulate, even more plausible, but still undeniably the essence of the previous prime minister. Not only have just about all the old Abbott policies been retained, but new ones - the sort that might have sprung, fully formed, from the head of the precursor - have emerged.

Liberal MP Stuart Robert's resignation as Australian Minister for Human Services raises more questions than it answers

The following is a rough timeline covering the the not-so-illustrious political career of Stuart Rowland Robert, Liberal MP for Fadden (QLD) since 2007.

On 10 September 2010 Stuart Robert changed his Statement of Registrable Interests to reflect that he and his wife were no longer trustees for the Robert Family Trust and Robert Investments Family Trust, as well as ceasing to be directors and shareholders in Robert International Pty Ltd.

It is understood that new trustees are close family members of Robert.

For most of his parliamentary career to date Stuart Robert has not ventured overseas that often.

His first official overseas trip did not occur until 5 August 2009 as part of a parliamentary delegation to Timor Leste. His second was also as part of a parliamentary delegation – this time to the United Arab Emirates between 13-20 May 2011.

Robert’s third and fourth overseas trips covered six days in June and five days in October 2011. First as a representative of Australia during commemorative events in France and then on a study tour of South Africa. The two and a quarter page study report cost taxpayers $16,161.58.

Between 13 Feb to 17 Feb 2012 Stuart Robert was again overseas representing Australia in Singapore on behalf of Senator Michael Ronaldson. From 17 Oct to 21 Oct 2012 Robert was in Egypt for the 70th anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein, before travelling on to Uganda for seven days on another study tour. This second three-page study report cost $3,811.92.

In June 2013  then Shadow Minister for Defence, Science, Technology and Personnel  Stuart Robert hosted a small private dinner at Parliament House for a representative of a Chinese mining company, reportedly at the request of another guest, millionaire businessman Paul Marks. 

Besides Marks, guests at this dinner included Chinese billionaire Li Ruipeng, then Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources Ian Macfarlane and then Liberal National Party president Bruce McIver. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and then Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Shadow Minister for Productivity and Population Scott Morrison attended the dinner towards the end.

The 2013 dinner

All the Australian politicians at this dinner reportedly received gifts of designer watches worth est. $250,000 in total.

Marks is frequently described as a close personal friend of Robert.

On 31 January 2014 mining exploration company Nimrod Resources Limited donated $500,000 to the federal Liberal Party of Australia.

In mid-August 2014 Stuart Robert accompanied Paul Marks to China allegedly to lobby the Chinese Government on his behalf in relation to the business interests of Nimrod Resources.

Robert did not bill the taxpayer for his flight to China. However, his return journey was via Singapore for the Singapore-Australia Joint Ministerial meeting and the Defence Ministers' Dialogue on 21 to 23 August. Therefore taxpayers funded the last leg of his journey home.

Nimrod Resources currently has three directors, Paul Marks (Executive Chairman), James Macaulay (Managing Director) and Robert Kingdon (Non-executive Director). Bruce McIver reportedly holds a 22 per cent shareholding in this company.

In early April 2014 Stuart Robert as Assistant Minister for Defence led a 7-day trade mission to Israel organized by the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, of which Marks' brother Sam Miszkowski is understood to be a Queensland office bearer/member.

There were two other ministerial visits overseas in 2014 - one to Afghanistan and another to New Zealand & the United States.

On 30 June 2014 P. Marks Investment Pty Ltd  donated $431,631 to the federal Liberal Party.

Between April and June 2015 Paul Marks personally donated $340,000 to the federal Liberal Party.

To date the Marks family appear to have donated at least $1.47 million directly to the Liberal Party.

In late April to early May 2015 as Assistant Minister for Defence, Stuart Robert made ministerial visits to the United Arab Emirates, Iraq and the USA as part of a trade delegation.

By 2016 Chinese businessman Li Ruipeng is no longer a high-flying billionaire but is wanted by police in China for illegal fundraising and unpaid debts of est. $30 million and Robert may yet have to appear as a witness in a court case concerning the outcome of a Dubai land deal which went wrong.

On 12 February 2016 Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull released a press statement regarding Robert’s resignation as Minister for Human Services which said in part that: Mr Robert advised Dr Parkinson that at the time he travelled to Beijing in August 2014 he did not believe that he had any interest in or connection to Mr Paul Marks’ company, Nimrod Resources. In the course of assisting the investigation, Mr Robert advised Dr Parkinson that on checking his records he had become aware that shares in Metallum Holdings Pty Ltd, a company in which Mr Marks was also a shareholder, had been allocated to his trustee some time before the visit to Beijing. He told Dr Parkinson that this had been done without his knowledge. He further advised Dr Parkinson that he believed Metallum Holdings Pty Ltd had an interest in Nimrod Resources.

Metallum Holdings has an interesting history:

METALLUM HOLDINGS PTY LTD  ACN 160 273 763

Formerly Resource House Holdings Pty Ltd

Registered: 10 September 2012

Address: Office F1 Level 1, 47-59 Ashmore Road, Bundall QLD 4217

Sole Director: Paul Marks

Company Secretary: Robert Arthur Kingdon of Kingdon Lawyers

Number of Ordinary Shares: 10,000

Shareholders:

MIST CONSULTING PTY. LTD. – a Marks family company, trading as Friends of Israel (QLD), which donated $200,000 to the Liberal Party of Australia on 13 March 2014

[See: http://periodicdisclosures.aec.gov.au/Returns/55/SWIK4.pdf]

ROMELL PTY. LTD.

P. MARKS INVESTMENT PTY LTD

Louise Edwards

Previous Shareholders:

INTERIMCO PTY LIMITED – company believed to be owned or part-owned by former Liberal National Party president Bruce McIver

JJ HOLDINGS (VIC) PTY. LTD.

OZEAN INVESTMENTS PTY. LIMITED

Tom Kotsimbos.

All this leaves two questions hanging after Stuart Robert’s resignation – exactly how often did Robert assist Marks family business interests in the last nine years and, how many other Turnbull Government ministers have helped Paul Marks in a similar fashion?

UPDATE

Herald Sun, 10 April 2016:

DUMPED minister Stuart Robert took his official Defence-issued mobile phone on his controversial private trip to China, potentially exposing the device to a breach of national security.

Phone records obtained using Freedom of Information laws reveal the then-assistant defence minister had the device in Beijing while there to witness mate and Liberal donor Paul Marks sign a deal with the ­Chinese government.

The phone records show Mr Robert’s phone was switched on and connected to Chinese and Hong Kong networks eight times on August 15, 2014, and a further four times on August 16.

In which then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott gives the nod for then Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert to help smooth the way for a big Liberal Party donor and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull inherits a problem

These are the antics of then Australian prime minister Tony Abbott and his not-so-faithful side kick LNP MP for Fadden & then Assistant Defence Minister Stuart Robert, as reported in the Herald Sun on 7 February 2016:

A FEDERAL minister is under pressure after admitting he made a secret trip to Beijing where a Liberal donor and mate finalised a mining deal.

Human Services Minister Stuart Robert told the Herald Sun he was acting in a “private capacity” when he attended a signing ceremony with Nimrod Resources’s Paul Marks and high-ranking Communist Party ­officials who run Chinese Government-owned company Minmetals.

Mr Robert has previously said Mr Marks was a “close personal friend” and he’d bought shares in two of the Melbourne millionaire’s companies.

Mr Marks has also donated $2 million to the Liberals in the past two ­financial years. Last year, then prime minister Tony Abbott flew on a taxpayer-funded jet to Mr Marks’s birthday party at Huntingdale Golf Club.

Minmetals’s website says that at the August 18, 2014, event in Beijing, Mr Robert, then assistant defence minister, spoke “on behalf of the Australian Department of Defence”.

It says he presented to a senior Communist Party official “a medal” bestowed by the prime minister.

In 1999 Stuart Robert registered Robert International Pty Ltd and in 2007, the same year he entered Parliament, he created his own private investment company Robert Investment House Pty Ltd, with himself and his wife as directors.

His time in politics apparently always hast its "slip-ups" as this intriguing entry in Griffith University Vice-Chancellor's 2012 report hints:

One political misstep in 2012 was speeches he made under parliamentary privilege which saw The Australian reporting this on 19 February 2015:

In a comparatively rare development, parliament’s privileges committee — chaired by Victorian Liberal MP Russell Broadbent — granted Mr Lee leave to make a statement to the House of Representatives detailing his acquittal.

Mr Lee thanked the committee and Speaker Bronwyn Bishop and accused Mr Robert of denying him the presumption of innocence while his case was before the courts.

“It was very distressing for us and our families, seeing the member for Fadden, Stuart Robert, on not one but two occasions in 2012, rise in the house and accuse me of a crime, on behalf of his wealthy constituents Sunland,’’ he told The Australian. “In doing so, and under the safety of parliamentary privilege, Stuart Robert never considered the ordeal we had been through or continued to endure, that of being imprisoned and detained in the Middle East, nor did he try to contact us to get a balanced view of the situation before he spoke.”

Mr Robert said he would not apologise for defending the interests of his constituents, including the Sunland Group.

“I will always stand up for Gold Coast companies,’’ he said. “It was a difficult time for all those involved and my job is to stand up for my … community.”

On 19 and 21 August 2014 this is how China Minmetals Corporation and the Chinese Ministry of Land Website described Robert's allegedly private stay in Beijing:

#On August 18, a ceremony was held in Beijing to sign the agreement between 

Minmetals Exploration & Development Co., Ltd. and Australia Nimrod Resources 

Limited (hereinafter “Nimrod”) for the joint establishment of an exploration 
technical committee. 

Chairman Zhou Zhongshu and Stuart Robert, Assistant Minister of Australian Department of Defence, attended the ceremony and delivered speeches. 

Vice President Li Fuli attended the signing ceremony. 

Wang Jionghui, Assistant President of Minmetals and General Manager of Minmetals Exploration & Development Co., Ltd., and Paul Marks, Executive Chairman of 

Nimrod and Director Robert Kingdon signed the agreement on behalf of the two 

sides.

The ceremony was hosted by Huang Dongmei, Deputy General Manager of MinmetalsExploration & Development Co., Ltd.

#August 19 morning, Vice Minister of Land and Resources Wang Min meets Australia Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Stuart and his party. The two sides will jointly create a favorable external investment environment and promote mining agency cooperation and further strengthen Sino-Australian mining industry cooperation talks and exchanges.

According to the Herald Sun on 28 March 2015:

Mr Marks was a director of Conquest Mining Pty Ltd from December 2009 to April 2012. On May 13, 2011, Mr Robert declared Conquest shares.

Mr Marks was a director of Evolution Mining Ltd from October 2011 to November 2013. In August 2013, Mr Robert declared owning shares in his and one of his sons’ names.

Mr Marks said: “Conquest merged with Catalpa and subsumed a number of Newcrest Assets to create Evolution Mining. Consequently I went on the board of Evolution Mining. I resigned from the Evolution board because I took the chairman role of Nimrod.’’

On 8 February 2016 the Australian House of Representatives Hansard records this exchange:

Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, on one final point of order: the clause that I am referring to, which leads to why the parliament must be able to pursue this, says: A Minister shall not act as a consultant or adviser to any company, business, or other interests, whether paid or unpaid, or provide assistance to any such body, except as may be appropriate in their official capacity as Minister … 

Ms Henderson interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Corangamite will cease interjecting. 

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

The SPEAKER: The member for Isaacs will cease interjecting. I have obviously given this careful consideration and I have examined the practice carefully. For anyone who examines the practice carefully, on page 555—and I just happen to have it with me—they will see that it says, 'A minister may not be asked a question about his or her actions in a former ministerial role.' However, in a case when a minister has issued a statement referring to earlier responsibilities a question relating to the statement was permitted. There has been one case of that, in 2006. Beyond that, questions have not been allowed. That is certainly the practice and the history, I can assure the House, from the best of my research. Whilst I want to see questions asked and answered, if this question had been asked some time ago, when the minister had different responsibilities, it would, clearly, be in order. But the minister responsible for the code of conduct is the Prime Minister, and it is the Prime Minister that makes the determination on whether ministers have complied with it. Having heard that patiently, and I apologise for detaining the House for so long, I am not going to allow that question and will move to the next question. 

While on 9 February 2016 The Australian stated of the now Minister for Veterans Affairs & Human Services Minister:

His register of interests shows his investments are held in a company called Robert Investment House. This in turn is owned by Robert International, which lists his parents — 78-year-old Alan and 75-year-old Dorothy — as directors and shareholders.

The investment company was previously held by Mr Robert, but was transferred to his parents three weeks after the 2010 election.

At this time Robert and his wife also ceased to be trustees of the Robert Family Trust and the Robert Investments Family Trust according to his statement of registrable interests in 2010, although they both still appear to derive income from one or both of these discretionary trusts.

The first year in government must have been a busy housekeeping year for the Member for Fanning as he decided to return two Cartier watches given to him by a Chinese investment company known as the Liguancheng Group.

Rather coyly on 15 July 2013 he had listed these very expensive items simply as "watches":

His last lodged statement of registrable interests shows Robert's self-managed super fund (which sometimes buys/sells shares) is still active and he still carries a "portfolio investment loan" with the National Australia Bank as well as a home loan.

Stuart Robert is being characterized by the Murdoch press as being somewhat naive in his dealings with the Chinese.

Somehow I think the Gold Coast Bulletin's 28 December 2015 assessment of this LNP politician is probably closer to the mark:

Minister Robert appears to see himself as a businessman and investor as well as an elected parliamentarian. It will be interesting to see what else surfaces concerning his past and current business interests.

The weirdness that was the Abbott Government continues in the Turnbull Government

New Zealand offers to take 150 asylum seekers off Australia’s hands each year from 2014-15. 

The Abbott & Turnbull Governments could have saved anywhere between $35M and $60M a year on the back of this offer, but what did these two coalition federal governments do?

They said “No!”.

The Guardian, 11 January 2016:

In a deal brokered between prime ministers Key and Julia Gillard in 2013, New Zealand agreed to accept 150 refugees from Australia’s offshore processing centres each year from 2014-15.

The quota remains in New Zealand’s forward planning for humanitarian resettlement.

But when the former Australian prime minister, Tony Abbott, was elected he effectively scrapped the deal at the Australian end, saying it would be called upon only “if and when it becomes necessary”.

“Our determination is to stop the boats and one of the ways that we stop the boats is by making it absolutely crystal clear that if you come to Australia illegally by boat you go not to New Zealand but to Nauru or Manus and you never ever come to Australia,” he said.

The Coalition government is loath to have refugees resettled in New Zealand as it is seen as undermining a fundamental tenet of the policy: that boat-borne asylum seekers will never be settled in Australia.

Refugees resettled in New Zealand can apply to become citizens after five years. New Zealand citizenship would give those people the right to travel and work in Australia.

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said he believed resettlement in New Zealand would be an incentive for asylum seekers to board boats.

Canberra Times, 12 January 2016:

The time asylum seekers spend in Australian detention centres has blown out to a record high under the Turnbull government, leaving men, women and children languishing behind wire, facing an uncertain future.

The latest statistics from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection show that in December, people in onshore immigration detention had been there for an average 445 days. In November, the figure was 446 days.

The average detention period has increased steadily since May last year and is now the longest since the government took power. It is more than double the 200-day wait four years ago under the Labor government.

Australian Government DIBP Immigration Detention and Community Statistics Summary 30 December 2015:

At 30 December 2015, there were 1,792 people in immigration detention facilities, including 1,647 in immigration detention on the mainland and 145 in immigration detention on Christmas Island.

On that date there were also 537 asylum seekers (including 68 children) in detention in the Republic of Nauru and 922 adult asylum seekers in detention on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.

Refugee Action Coalition Sydney (RAC):

Detaining a single asylum seeker on Manus or Nauru costs $400,000 per year. Detention in Australia costs $239,000 per year.

Sharp rise in Green Power bills the fault of Federal Coalition Government

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 January 2016:

Consumers want answers after energy providers have announced a price increase of up to 41 per cent for their green energy contribution to coincide with the new year.

In the days leading up to Christmas, Origin Energy customers were notified that "a rise in the market price of renewable energy" meant GreenPower electricity charges would increase from 3.61¢ per kilowatt hour (excluding GST) to 5.10¢ per kilowatt hour from January 1, 2016.

The increase was so steep, northern NSW resident Russell Mills was sure there had been a mistake.

"I did the maths very quickly and it came up as a 41 per cent increase. I thought that's substantial, am I missing something?" he said. 

"There was nothing in the letter explaining the rationale for it, so I rang them and I spoke to three different people who could tell me no more, just that it was due to changes in renewable energy prices."

In Mr Mills' case, the 41 per cent increase would equate to an extra $77 each year…..

Mr Mills lives with his wife and two children in a three-bedroom home in Clunes, where they spend between $450 and $550 per quarter on electricity.

For the past year, he has contributed to renewable energy through the 100 per cent GreenPower product. However, after being hit with the 41 per cent increase, he has made a "hip-pocket decision" to reduce his 100 per cent contribution to 50 per cent. 

"There's a huge disincentive here for average consumers to actually choose renewable energy. I'm not laying blame totally on Origin, I'm still with them, I just feel it's a bit depressing really," he said.

"We need more renewable energy and there's not really any incentive for us to choose it."

Significant price jumps in GreenPower charges can be linked to the large-scale generation certificates used for the product, which have experienced a steady increase of about $40 to upwards of $75 in the past six months.

All GreenPower providers have changed their prices to reflect the underlying cost increase.

So who is the real culprit in all this?

The fault apparently lies with the Coalition Federal Government and its attempt to dismantle the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme.

Energetics on 9 December 2015:

The protracted negotiations surrounding the review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme and the reduced energy target has had a significant effect on the price movement and volatility of Large-scale Generation Certificates (LGCs) throughout the third quarter of 2015. 

The negotiated changes to the RET can be summarised as follows:

* Reduction of the Large scale Renewable Energy Target from 41,000GWh to 33,000GWh

*Eligibility of the burning of native wood waste as a certificate generator

* Creation of a ‘wind commissioner’ to hear complaints surrounding wind developments.

Following the passing of the RET legislation by the Senate on 23 June 2015, LGC prices have increased to seven year highs, maintaining prices above $70 per certificate….

This unprecedented price movement has come on the back of significant trades in the spot market, as the market is concerned about the number of committed projects over the next 12 months. The protracted negotiations surrounding the revised RET target did effectively put any investment in large-scale renewable projects on hold, leading now to a short to medium term shortage of LGC certificates. 

Future price movements will depend on the quantity of approved large-scale renewable projects in the coming years. Policy certainty, combined with the high LGC price should serve to encourage increased levels investment in new projects and ultimately put downward pressure on the current high certificate prices.

Best Meme of Budget Week 2015

@freeradicalone

The day after the 2015-16 Budget was delivered......

ReachTEL conducted an opinion poll the day after the Abbott Government delivered its second budget on 13 May 2014.

Due to a number of media releases and ministerial interviews in the weeks before Budget Night these respondents would have possibly been aware of some of what was in the 2015-16 Budget aside from the actual contents of the Treasurer's budget night speech.

There appears to have been no immediate positive bounce for the Coalition in voting intention numbers and Tony Abbott is not seen as the preferred prime minister.

The majority of respondents did not see the budget as making themselves and their families financially better off, while less than half of those respondents identifying themselves as small business owners were inclined to see this budget as one that benefits them directly.

Comparing the two genders, women seem slightly less impressed by this budget than men. 

Question 1:

If a Federal election were to be held today, which of the following would receive your first preference vote? If you are undecided to which do you even have a slight leaning?

Two party preferred result based on 2013 election distribution

Vote intention by employment status:

Question 2:

Who of the following do you think would make the better Prime Minister?

Question 6:

Thinking about the federal budget announced last night; do you think you and your family will be financially better or worse off as a result?

NOTE: This survey was conducted using an automated telephone based survey system among 3,180 voters. Telephone numbers and the person within the household were selected at random. The results have been weighted by gender and age to reflect the population according to ABS figures. Please note that due to rounding, not all tables necessarily total 100% and subtotals may also vary.