Showing posts with label Commonwealth Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commonwealth Law. Show all posts

Tuesday 25 October 2016

Commonwealth Solicitor-General Gleeson decides he has had enough of Attorney-General Brandis' unedifying antics and resigns


One for the history books.

A forceful letter of resignation from the second law office of the Commonwealth of Australia tendered at the end of an unedifying power grab by Attorney-General and Liberal Senator for Queensland George Brandis, who is considered by many to be one of the less illustrious members of the legal profession. 

This letter was delivered on the same day that the legal profession is:

Venue: Banco Court, Level 13, Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney
Organisation: Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law and the Australian Association of Constitutional Law
Time: 6.00 pm - 7.30 pm

Date: Mon, 2016-10-24

This event celebrates 100 years since the passage of the 1916 Act.
Opening remarks will be given by Sir Anthony Mason AC KBE QC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia and Commonwealth Solicitor-General, 1964-1969. A panel of the former Commonwealth Solicitors-General will discuss and debate the history, legal position and practice of the office.
The panel will be chaired by Dr Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor UNSW Law, Co-Director of the Judiciary Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law.

Justin Gleeson SC's resignation takes effect on 7 November 2016.

Resignation letter sent to Australian Attorney-General George Brandis by Solicitor-General of the Commonwea... by clarencegirl on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/328676245/Resignation-letter-sent-to-Australian-Attorney-General-George-Brandis-by-Solicitor-General-of-the-Commonwealth-Justin-Gleeson-SC

Wednesday 21 September 2016

Law Council of Australia: further parliamentary scrutiny necessary of new counter-terrorism laws


Medianet Logo
AAP Logo
 Medianet Release



15 Sep 2016 4:37 PM AEST - Special advocate regime a vital inclusion in new counter-terrorism bill, but further parliamentary scrutiny necessary




The Law Council of Australia has commended the Government for including a special advocate regime in new counter-terrorism laws introduced to the Senate today.
The Law Council formally recommended the system of 'special advocates' to participate in control order proceedings before the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor last year.
The system would allow each State and Territory to have a panel of security-cleared barristers and solicitors who could participate in closed material procedures where the subject of a control order has sensitive information withheld from them and their legal representative.
Law Council President, Stuart Clark AM, said the special advocate regime was a welcome inclusion to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016, but the Government needed to commit to an immediate review of the scheme by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS).
"A special advocate regime provides a significant safeguard. The special advocate will be able to see the sensitive information that has been withheld from the subject of a control order and make representations on behalf of that person. This is essential, given that a person's legal representative will also be excluded from accessing certain information," Mr Clark said.
"For full accountability, however, the scheme must be immediately reviewed by the PJCIS. The exact relationship and level of interaction between the special advocate, the subject of the control order, and their legal representative requires careful consideration."
Mr Clark also noted it is essential that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016, which was also introduced into the Senate today, be reviewed by the PJCIS.
"Parliamentary Committee review is necessary to ensure the right balance is struck between protecting Australians while ensuring fundamental legal rights are not jettisoned.
"Retaining individuals in prison past the time of their custodial sentence is a serious matter and the highest order of scrutiny should apply," Mr Clark said.
The PJCIS should give particular attention to certain elements of the bill including:
·     A minor, who is convicted of a relevant offence, can be subjected to the scheme provided they are 18 when the sentence ends;
·   It will apply to persons convicted of terrorism offences prior to the enactment of the scheme; and
·   A person who has been convicted for a 'treason' offence may be subjected to the scheme.


-ENDS-


See:

Wednesday 6 March 2013

Dutch super trawler finally leaving Australian waters

 
 
In the space of twenty-one days Seafish Tasmania and Parlevliet En Van Der Plas Beheer B.V blinked........

THEN

AAP 13 February 2013
 
Super-trawler operator Seafish Tasmania has begun court action to sue the federal government and two ministers over the ban on the controversial fishing behemoth Abel Tasman.
Seafish managing director Joe Pirrello says documents have been sent to the Federal Court instigating action against the government, Environment Minister Tony Burke and Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig.
Mr Burke used new powers to ban the 142-metre vessel last year after a public backlash and on Tuesday announced he would knock back a plan for it to be used as a "mother ship".
Under the proposal, smaller boats would fish for Seafish's 18,000-tonne quota of jack mackerel and redbait, with the Abel Tasman to be used as a giant offshore freezer.
The ship, formerly known as the Margiris, has been berthed at Port Lincoln in South Australia since its arrival from The Netherlands in August, costing Seafish more than $10,000 a day.
"About eight days ago we presented the Federal Court (in) Queensland with documents to sue the federal government, Tony Burke and Joe Ludwig in order to overturn his original declaration," Mr Pirrello told AAP.
In a statement, the company added: "The Australian government, through AFMA (the Australian Fisheries Management Authority), encouraged Seafish Tasmania to spend millions of dollars to bring the Abel Tasman to Australia.
"Now the Australian government wants us to go away. We won't be going away."

NOW
 
FV Able Tasman from Google Images
  
The Hon. Tony Burke MP
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
 
Wednesday, 6 March 2013
 
 
Seafish Tasmania today put out a statement saying the Abel Tasman is leaving Australian waters.
The Gillard Government last year acted to stop the Super Trawler – formally named the FV Margiris - from fishing in Australian waters until the sufficient scientific checks have been completed.
At the core of this issue was one principle - there was significant uncertainty about the environmental impacts of this new form of fishing.
When faced with this sort of uncertainty you can either be cautious and wait for the scientific work to be done or roll the dice and run the risks.
Australia chose to be cautious when it came to protecting the ocean. It was the right thing to do.
The Gillard Government makes no apology for not taking risks when it comes to protecting our precious oceans.
 
Background here.

Saturday 15 September 2012

So the Kingdom of the Netherlands objects to how the Commonwealth of Australia protects its sovereignty ...


..as well as its environmental, social, cultural and economic interests within its own marine territorial waters and economic zones? Tough.

The media reports that the Dutch Government has raised concerns about Australia’s proposed new legislation strengthening the precautionary principle in relation to fishing activities of super trawlers, in light of the planned fish take of Parleviet & Van der Plas B.V. and its freezer trawler RV Able Tasman.

I also read that the Canberra-based Dutch Deputy Head of Mission, Nico Schermers, has expressed these concerns at a recent meeting of senior diplomats at the delegation of the European Union to Australia.

It would be interesting to know just how he couched his complaints at this meeting, when sudden changes in the structure and function of marine ecosystems and fish stock collapse due to overfishing are a feature of certain marine areas where Parleviet & Van der Plas (among others) has traditionally fished since the 1960s and, the European Union is well aware of this problem as seen by the first link below.

European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, POLICY DEPARTMENT B, STRUCTURAL AND COHESION POLICIES: Fisheries, November 2011:

Overfishing has been shown to seriously affect the ecosystems of the world oceans. In addition to direct fishing effects on target stocks, ecosystem effects are increasingly reported as a result of unsustainable exploitation levels. There is now compelling evidence that fishing-induced changes at the top of the food web can have profound indirect effects on all trophic levels and hence change the structure and functioning of the whole food web. Such trophic cascades involve a top-down (i.e. consumer) control view on ecosystem functioning, which opposes the traditional bottom-up (resource) control view that existed
for marine ecosystems……

prominent examples of ecosystem regime shifts in the North Pacific and
the Eastern Scotian Shelf off the East coast of Canada, as well as the North Sea, the Baltic and the Black Sea...

The world is also aware of the dangers of regional overfishing.


In the late 1980s, global catches ceased to increase and peaked at 90 million t when account is taken of systematic over reporting of catches by China [9]. The slow decrease of about half million t per year which then ensued has not been reversed since [7], and is not likely to ever be [10].
This decrease occurred, essentially, because the rate at which new fish stocks (for example of deep sea fish; [11]) were accessed, from the late 1980s on, failed to compensate for the rate at which ‘traditional’ stocks were depleted. Moreover, the number of new stocks has been decreasing linearly over time [12].

European Parliament, Committee on Fisheries Meeting 6 September 2012  - video in which Northern Hemisphere fisheries management and overfishing is discussed.

UPDATE:

September 15 2012
The Independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, has been advised by the Commonwealth Ombudsman that AFMA did in fact fail to comply with the Fisheries Administration Act when it set the quota relevant to the super trawler.
Over the last two months Mr Wilkie has lodged a number of complaints with the Ombudsman regarding AFMA’s conduct when setting the quota. She agreed to investigate and this became central to Environment Minister Tony Burke’s condemnation of AFMA and Independent Rob Oakeshott’s decision to support banning the vessel.
“This is a dramatic development and a thumping win for proper process and the rule of law,” Mr Wilkie said.
“No less than the Commonwealth Ombudsman has agreed AFMA has acted unlawfully, and this should rule a line under the whole sorry super trawler saga and compel the Senate to kill the project forever next Monday.
‘‘Moreover the Ombudsman has informed me she is investigating ‘other matters’ which adds to the case that AFMA is in serious need of reform, that the Government’s decision to stop the boat is entirely warranted and that the House of Representative’s passing of legislation was the right thing to do. It’s up to the Senate now to finish the job.
“Super trawlers stink, but even worse is government agencies thinking they’re above the law. Hopefully this will lead to changes which might give us much more confidence in future that our environment as well as recreational and sensible commercial fishing is protected.’‘

Thursday 8 March 2012

STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1959






Click on images to enlarge

Sources:
http://www.ag.gov.au/Documents/StatutoryDeclaration200602.pdf
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sda1959280/s11.html