Australian Politics 2018: Liberal and Nationals hard right agenda revealed

It appears the rigid hard-right core of the Liberal and National parties, whose face for public consumption is Prime Minister Scott Morrison, thought that Australian voters would find it acceptable that the only people that religious institutions of any denomination would not be able to discriminate against will be heterosexual individuals and those born with absent or ambiguous secondary sexual characteristics.

Everyone else would apparently be fair game for every rabid bigot across the land.

Gay, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgender citizens and their children are not to be afforded the full protection of human rights and anti-discrimination law in this New World Order.

It doesn't get any clearer than the main thrust of the twenty recommendations set out  below.

However, now the cat is out of the bag Morrison is backtracking slightly. Just hours after arguing schools should be run consistent with their religious principles and that no existing exemption should be repealed, Scott Morrison told Sky News that he was "not comfortable" with private schools expelling gay students on the basis of their sexuality. 

Rejecting new enrolment applications by gay students was something he was careful not to directly address.

It should be noted that "not comfortable' leaves a lot of wiggle room to look the other way as state and federal legislation is either amended or new Commonwealth legislation created which would allow this blatant discrimination to lawfully occur.

Recommendations found in the Religious Freedom Review: Report of the Expert Panel:

Recommendation 1

Those jurisdictions that retain exceptions or exemptions in their anti-discrimination laws for religious bodies with respect to race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status should review them, having regard to community expectations.

Recommendation 2

Commonwealth, state and territory governments should have regard to the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when drafting laws that would limit the right to freedom of religion.

Recommendation 3

Commonwealth, state and territory governments should consider the use of objects, purposes or other interpretive clauses in anti-discrimination legislation to reflect the equal status in international law of all human rights, including freedom of religion.

Recommendation 4

The Commonwealth should amend section 11 of the Charities Act 2013 to clarify that advocacy of a ‘traditional’ view of marriage would not, of itself, amount to a ‘disqualifying purpose’.

Recommendation 5

The Commonwealth should amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to provide that religious schools can discriminate in relation to the employment of staff, and the engagement of contractors, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status provided that:

The discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion.

The school has a publicly available policy outlining its position in relation to the matter and explaining how the policy will be enforced.

The school provides a copy of the policy in writing to employees and contractors and prospective employees and contractors.

Recommendation 6

Jurisdictions should abolish any exceptions to anti-discrimination laws that provide for discrimination by religious schools in employment on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status. Further, jurisdictions should ensure that any exceptions for religious schools do not permit discrimination against an existing employee solely on the basis that the employee has entered into a marriage.

Recommendation 7

The Commonwealth should amend the Sex Discrimination Act to provide that religious schools may discriminate in relation to students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or relationship status provided that:

The discrimination is founded in the precepts of the religion.

The school has a publicly available policy outlining its position in relation to the matter.

The school provides a copy of the policy in writing to prospective students and their parents at the time of enrolment and to existing students and their parents at any time the policy is updated.

The school has regard to the best interests of the child as the primary consideration in its conduct.

Recommendation 8

Jurisdictions should abolish any exceptions to anti-discrimination laws that provide for discrimination by religious schools with respect to students on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status.

Recommendation 9

State and territory education departments should maintain clear policies as to when and how a parent or guardian may request that a child be removed from a class that contains instruction on religious or moral matters and ensure that these policies are applied consistently. These policies should:

Include a requirement to provide sufficient, relevant information about such classes to enable parents or guardians to consider whether their content may be inconsistent with the parents’ or guardians’ religious beliefs

Give due consideration to the rights of the child, including to receive information about sexual health, and their progressive capacity to make decisions for themselves.

Recommendation 10

The Commonwealth Attorney-General should consider the guidance material on the Attorney-General’s Department’s website relating to authorised celebrants to ensure that it uses plain English to explain clearly and precisely the operation of the Marriage Act 1961. The updated guidance should include:

A clear description of the religious protections available to different classes of authorised celebrants, and

Advice that the term ‘minister of religion’ is used to cover authorised celebrants from religious bodies which would not ordinarily use the term ‘minister’, including non-Christian religions.

Recommendation 11

The Commonwealth Attorney-General should consider whether the Code of Practice set out in Schedule 2 of the Marriage Regulations 2017 is appropriately adapted to the needs of smaller and emerging religious bodies.

Recommendation 12

The Commonwealth should progress legislative amendments to make it clear that religious schools are not required to make available their facilities, or to provide goods or services, for any marriage, provided that the refusal:

Conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body

Is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

Recommendation 13

Those jurisdictions that have not abolished statutory or common law offences of blasphemy should do so.

Recommendation 14

References to blasphemy in the Shipping Registration Regulations 1981, and in state and territory primary and secondary legislation, should be repealed or replaced with terms applicable not only to religion.

Recommendation 15

The Commonwealth should amend the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, or enact a Religious Discrimination Act, to render it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s ‘religious belief or activity’, including on the basis that a person does not hold any religious belief. In doing so, consideration should be given to providing for appropriate exceptions and exemptions, including for religious bodies, religious schools and charities.

Recommendation 16

New South Wales and South Australia should amend their anti-discrimination laws to render it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of a person’s ‘religious belief or activity’ including on the basis that a person does not hold any religious belief. In doing so, consideration should be given to providing for the appropriate exceptions and exemptions, including for religious bodies, religious schools and charities.

Recommendation 17

The Commonwealth should commission the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative information on the experience of freedom of religion in Australia at the community level, including:

Incidents of physical violence, including threats of violence, linked to a person’s faith

Harassment, intimidation or verbal abuse directed at those of faith

Forms of discrimination based on religion and suffered by those of faith

Unreasonable restrictions on the ability of people to express, manifest or change their faith

Restrictions on the ability of people to educate their children in a manner consistent with their faith

The experience of freedom of religion impacting on other human rights

The extent to which religious diversity (as distinct from cultural diversity)
is accepted and promoted in Australian society

Recommendation 18

The Commonwealth should support the development of a religious engagement and public education program about human rights and religion in Australia, the importance of the right to freedom of religion and belief, and the current protections for religious freedom in Australian and international law. As a first step, the panel recommends that the Attorney-General should ask the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to inquire into and report on how best to enhance engagement, education and awareness about these issues.

Recommendation 19

The Australian Human Rights Commission should take a leading role in the protection of freedom of religion, including through enhancing engagement, understanding and dialogue. This should occur within the existing commissioner model and not necessarily through the creation of a new position.

Recommendation 20

The Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Attorney-General should take leadership of the issues identified in this report with respect to the Commonwealth, and work with the states and territories to ensure its implementation. While the panel hopes it would not be necessary, consideration should be given to further Commonwealth legislative solutions if required.

Because Scott Morrison made no secret of his dislike of same-sex marriage and his intention to make new laws protecting so-called religious 'freedoms'. he is now going to have a fight on his hands every single day until the next federal election - these recommendations have made that a certainty.

Scientists, traditional owners & community call on NSW Premier Berejiklian to withdraw the Water NSW Amendment (Warragamba Dam) Bill 2018 from the NSW Parliament, and that plans to raise Warragamba Dam be taken off the table immediately

Water NSW Amendment Bill 2018 - Proposed Inundation of the Blue Mountains National Park by clarencegirl on Scribd

When a prime minster fails to grasp the basics of climate change policy.....

The Australian Prime Minister for Fossil Fuels and Liberal MP for Cook, Scott Morrison, has been repeatedly insisting since he came to office on 24 August 2018 that Australia is on target to meet its Paris Agreement greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Apparently he is telling journalists that “the business-as-usual model gets us there in a canter”.

Business-as-usual of course includes those cuts to climate change mitigation programs Morrison made as federal treasurer - including no further funding for the Abbott Government's Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) which has so far failed to purchase enough abatement to outpace Australia's emissions growth.

Those agencies outside of Morrison's ‘magic circle’ are quite frankly contradicting his prediction of success.......

The COAG Energy Security Council’s Energy Security Board expects that Morrison’s refusal to revive National Energy Guarantee legislation will see the electricity sector “fall short of the emissions reduction target of 26% below 2005 levels”.

According to Dept. of Environment and Energy  total annual emissions for the year to December 2013 fell by 0.8%. No report was issued for the year ending December 2014, however annual emissions rose by 0.4% for the year ending December 2015 and annual emissions for the year to December 2016 rose by 1.4%.

While the Dept. of Environment and Energy's, Quarterly Update of Australia’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory: December 2017 stated:

Annual emissions for the year to December 2017 are estimated to be 533.7 Mt CO2 -e. This represents a 1.5% increase in emissions when compared with the previous year. Over the year to December 2017, there were increases in emissions from the stationary energy (excluding electricity), transport, fugitive emissions, industrial processes and product use, waste and agriculture sectors. These increases were partially offset by a decline in emissions from the electricity sector. The annual increases in stationary energy (excluding electricity) and fugitive emissions were largely driven by an increase in LNG exports. [my yellow highlighting]

The independent Climate Works Australia reported on 6 September 2018:

Australia is not yet on track to meet its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement but there are many opportunities to still get there, according to new research released today.

The ClimateWorks Australia report, Tracking Progress to net zero emissions, found Australia needed to double its emissions reduction progress to achieve the federal government’s target of 26-28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and triple progress to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

The report found Australia’s emissions were 11 per cent below 2005 levels in 2017 but have been steadily increasing since 2013. If Australia sustained the rate of improvement in emissions intensity it had achieved between 2005 and 2013, it could meet the government's 2030 target. But progress has stalled in most sectors and reversed overall. [my yellow highlighting]

Climate Works’ latest report, Tracking progress to net zero emissions: National progress on reducing emissions across the Australian economy and outlook to 2030, was released in September 2018 and although cautiously optimistic it doesn’t suggest that a Morrison Government would be able to just canter towards the commitments given in Paris:

This report uses findings from the Deep Decarbonisation Pathways Project (DDPP) and compares these with the Australian Government's emissions data and projections to examine whether Australia is on track for a net zero pathway and for its first commitments under the Paris Agreement on climate change to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. It assesses recent progress since 2005 and the outlook to 2030.

In common with 179 other countries who ratified the Paris Agreement, Australia has committed to keeping global warming well below 2 degrees, aiming to limit warming to 1.5 degrees and to reach net zero emissions. For developed countries like Australia, a 2 degree limit is generally accepted to mean reaching net zero emissions by 2050 – the majority of states and territories have agreed to this goal. Limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees or 1.5 degrees would require an earlier date.

Australia’s current emissions reduction target is 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. This is less ambitious than the Climate Change Authority’s recommended target range of 45 to 65 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 for Australia’s contribution to a 2 degree goal (CCA 2015). To make sure the world is on track, all countries in the Paris Agreement have been asked to consider whether their current target is ambitious enough.

We already know Australia can reach net zero emissions by 2050. The Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation in 2050 (DDPP) report (ClimateWorks et al 2014) identified the emissions reductions potential to put Australia on a pathway to net zero in 2050 while the economy continues to grow…

In 2017 Australia’s emissions were around 11 per cent below 2005 levels. This is an increase from their lowest point in 2013. Overall progress was due to strong reductions in the land sector, while emissions rose in most other sectors. Although there were improvements at the whole of economy level and in some sectors, improvements on average were not equivalent to the pathway to net zero emissions by 2050.

Emissions are higher in buildings, industry and transport than they were in 2005. Emissions are lower in the land sector, with the reduction being larger than increases in other sectors. Electricity emissions fell slightly…

There were times of reasonable emissions intensity improvements in industry and buildings but, as with the electricity sector, these improvements then slowed or reversed. This occurred alongside the repeal of the carbon price and related policies. Energy intensity improved in these sectors, suggesting better energy efficiency, but not at the rate needed for net zero. And in industry, some of this improvement was driven by declines in energy-intensive manufacturing….

Without further policies, Australia will not be on track for the net zero pathway or the Government's 2030 target. ClimateWorks’ research previously identified potential emissions reductions on the net zero pathway and this report shows where this potential is not yet being unlocked. The national process of developing Australia’s long term emissions reduction strategy provides an opportunity to unlock this remaining potential and get on track to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, as do similar processes in many state and territory governments. [my yellow highlighting]

Kevin Hogan's political backflip

On Thursday 23 August 2018 Kevin Hogan MP for Page announced that; “This constant rotation of Prime Ministers by both the Labor Party and the Liberal party, I cannot condone. I am announcing today, that if there is another leadership spill for the position of Prime Minister prior to the next Federal election, I will remove myself from the government benches and sit on the cross benches.”

A second leadership spill occurred on Friday 24 August 2018 and parliament went into recess.

Kevin Hogan was nowhere near the cross benches when the Australian Parliament resumed on Monday 10 September 2018.

He is still a fully-fledged member of the Parliamentary National Party.

Still a National Party Whip.

Still Deputy Speaker in the House of Representatives.

This was Kevin Hogan on the morning of 10 September firmly ensconced in the Speaker’s Chair.

At 12:15 on the same day Hansard shows that Kevin Hogan voted as a Nationals MP against a motion by the Labor Opposition.

Hogan's official statement included an undertaking that  he was going to be an independent in a similar style to former MP for O'Connor Tony Crook*.

However Tony Crook's parliamentary entry looks like this....

and Hogan's looks like this.....

Not even a pretence of the announced independence on Hogan's part.

NOTE

* Tony Crook was elected as a WA National Party candidate in August 2010 but sat as an Independent MP for less than three years before retiring prior to the September 2013 federal election. He never sat in the Coalition party room and apparently only attended the Nationals party room for a brief period towards the end of his parliamentary career.
Crook voted with the Gillard minority government on numerous occasions.

New Holland Publishers picked a lemon in the MP for New England Barnaby Joyce

The Sydney Morning Herald, 8 September 2018:

Back in the day, estimates of book sales were just that – estimates. These days, courtesy of the Bookscan system, which measures sales from nearly every book store across our brown and pleasant land, you can be very accurate – at least if you have a 'Deepthroat' high up in the publishing world like I do. I can report thus, that after being on sale for four weeks, Barnaby Joyce’s memoir, Weatherboard and Iron, has sold 1570 copies.

Yes, notwithstanding the general publishing rule that – with the notable exception of John Howard’s Lazarus Rising – right-wing memoirs don’t sell well, those numbers are proof positive that whatever hunger there has been for details of Joyce’s personal life has been sated. 

Having gone from being priced at source for $32.99 a copy, it had been reduced to $24.99 by QBD books after only 3 days.

It should be in the $10 bin at local book stores by the beginning of October 2018.

So much for a story of Politics, the bush and me being an additional income source for the egotistical, greedy and 'entitled' Nationals Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce.

The world is running out of patience with Australia: Europe warns Morrison Government

Europe has strongly signalled that the Morrison Coalition Government needs to stop pretending it has a national climate change policy and keep the pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions made under the November 2016 U.N. Paris Agreement which the Australian Government ratified and, on the government's part contained such a pitifully weak commitment to a 2030 abatement target i.e. emissions reduced by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 August 2018:

The Coalition's internal climate war risks damaging the economy after Europe declared it would reject a $15 billion trade deal with Australia unless the Morrison government keeps its pledge to cut pollution under the Paris accord.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week reset his government’s course on energy policy, declaring a focus on lowering electricity bills and increasing reliability, while relegating efforts to cut dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

He has reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the Paris accord despite persistent calls by conservative Coalition MPs, led by Tony Abbott, to quit the agreement.

However there is deep uncertainty over how Australia will meet the Paris goal of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 given the government does not have a national strategy to meet the target.

The policy ructions did not go unnoticed at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade in Brussels, where the EU’s chief negotiator on the deal, Helena König, faced angry questions from the floor over Australia’s commitment to climate action.

Australia and the EU will in November enter a second round of negotiations over the deal that would end restrictions on Australian exports and collectively add $15 billion to both economies.

In a video of this week's proceedings, Ms König told the committee that “it’s the [European] Commission’s position ... that we are talking about respect and full implementation of the Paris agreement [as part of the trade deal]”.

“No doubt we will see what comes out in the text [of the deal agreement] but that I expect to be the minimum in the text, for sure.”

Her assertion is a clear signal that any failure by Australia to meet its international climate obligations would have serious economic consequences.

Ms König fired off the warning after a question by Klaus Buchner, a German Greens member of the Parliament who said “the intention of the new Australian regime to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unsettles not only Australians”.

“Australia is by far the biggest exporter of coal in the world ... what will the commission do when Australia does indeed withdraw from the Paris agreement? Is this a red line for us in these discussions or do we just accept it?

“I believe as the largest trading block in the world we have a responsibility to go beyond pure profits.”

Luke Hartsuyker? Luke Hartsuyker? Think I recall that name

Luke Hartsuyker Image: Greater Springfield Daily Record

NSW National Party MP for Cowper Luke Hartsuyker is retiring at the next federal election.

He has been a member of the federal parliament since 2001 and is a clear example of a man rising to the level of his own political incompetence.

Hartsuyker has briefly held one ministerial and three assistant ministerial positions since entering parliament – the last ending in March this year:

Assistant Minister for Employment from 18.9.13 to 21.9.15 (2 years).

Minister for Vocational Education and Skills from 21.9.15 to 18.2.16 (less than 5 months).

Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister from 19.7.16 to 20.12.17 (17 months).

Assistant Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment from 20.12.17 to 5.3.18 (less than 3 months).

Hartsuyker was Deputy Leader of the Nationals in the House of Representatives from 18.9.13 to 18.2.16 (approximately 2 years & 4 months).

By  the time the next federal election rolls around Luke Hartsuyker will have been in the Australian Parliament for 17 years, yet the best his party could say of him when he announced his intention to resign was to list as his achievements work largely done by other politicians.

Never once to date has Hartsuyker crossed the floor to vote against a Howard, Abbott or Turnbull Government policy and vote directly for the interests of his NSW North Coast electorate.

I am sure there are parts of the Cowper electorate where his name barely registers with local residents and one has to suspect it won't take too many years before the only way he is remembered is as an obscure name on weathered building dedication plaques.

Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan tries to straddle the Coalition fence by becoming a Faux Independent after the new Morrison Government is sworn-in

The political situation in Australia thus far this week..............

You can't get any more blunt than @murpharoo's assessment of #libspill -

"The Government is killing itself in plain view ... It doesn't matter who wins because they're stuffed" pic.twitter.com/1HazIUyd06

— News Breakfast (@BreakfastNews) August 22, 2018

Thinking to hedge his bets in a toxic political environment and remain in the federal parliament beyond the forthcoming federal election, Kevin Hogan sent out this media release on 23 August 2018: 

STATEMENT FROM KEVIN HOGAN

This constant rotation of Prime Ministers by both the Labor Party and the Liberal party, I cannot condone.

 I am announcing today, that if there is another leadership spill for the position of Prime Minister prior to the next federal election, I will remove myself from the government benches and sit on the cross benches.

 I have made this decision because my community is fed up. What we have been seeing in Canberra with leadership changes over the last 10 years, is letting our great country down.

This is not about Peter Dutton, Malcolm Turnbull or Kevin Hogan, it is about the Office of Prime Minister.

I remain 100 per cent committed to delivering for my community. I remain committed to the National Party.

If this occurs, I will still attend National Party meetings if invited. I will not attend Coalition Party Room meetings.

 I will support the Government in No Confidence Motions and Supply.  Any other legislation I will take on a case by case basis.

The model I intend to follow is similar to what the Western Australian National, Tony Crook did.

I will continue to focus on what my community has sent me here to do. I thank them for their overwhelming support. [my yellow hightlighting]

Hogan has been in the federal parliament and a member of the Abbott & Turnbull Coalition governments for almost five years and in that time has never voted against Liberal-Nationals party policy.

What Hogan is doing with this media release is taking a hollow stance.

He fully intends to support the new Liberal Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Nationals Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack.

An arrogant new prime minister with a history since 2013 of human rights abuses as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, of welfare recipient bashing as Minister for Social Services, of relentless cost cutting as Treasurer and as a strong supporter of propping up the rich at the expense of low income families.

“Sneaky laws which declare you as guilty in the eyes of the law the minute the police say you are guilty” - Turnbull Government legislative overreach continues in 2018?

Sydney Criminal Lawyers, 16 August 2018:

A Senate committee has just given the Turnbull government the green light to nationalise a scheme that allows government to seize citizens’ assets unless their legitimate origins can be explained, even if the owner of the wealth hasn’t been charged with let alone convicted of an offence.

On 6 August, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee recommended that the federal government pass the Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 without any changes.

Unexplained wealth laws currently exist in every Australian jurisdiction, but the new scheme provides a broader model allowing for federal and state authorities to work in collaboration across jurisdictional borders to target serious and organised crime.

“The scale and complexity of this criminal threat has necessitated an enhanced focus on cooperative, cross-jurisdictional responses by Australian governments,” home affairs minister Peter Dutton said in the second reading speech of the bill.

However, critics of the scheme warn that existing unexplained wealth laws undermine the rule of law and broadening their scope will lead to a further erosion of civil liberties. And while these laws are meant to target untouchable crime bosses, they’re actually being used against petty criminals.

Presumption of guilt

“These beefed-up laws bring down all the secret surveillance and the swapping of scuttlebutt masquerading as intelligence on everyone in Australia,” Civil Liberties Australia CEO Bill Rowlings told Sydney Criminal Lawyers.

“The unexplained wealth laws completely overturn the presumption of innocence, which is part of our rule of law in Australia,” he continued. “They are sneaky laws which declare you as guilty in the eyes of the law the minute the police say you are guilty.”

Unexplained wealth laws are a recent development in Australia. But, unlike other proceeds of crime laws that allow for the confiscation of assets derived from prosecuted criminal acts, unexplained wealth places the onus upon the individual to prove their wealth was legally acquired.

“People don’t understand, under these laws the government can confiscate your assets even if you haven’t been found guilty of anything,” Mr Rowlings stressed.

Broadening the reach

The current Commonwealth unexplained wealth laws were introduced in 2010 via amendments made to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act).

These laws apply where there are “reasonable grounds to suspect” an individual’s assets have been derived from a committed federal offence, “a foreign indictable offence or a state offence that has a federal aspect.”

There are three sorts of orders that can be sought in relation to unexplained wealth. Section 20A of the Act provides that a court can issue an unexplained wealth restraining order, which is an interim order that restricts an individual’s ability to dispose of property.

Section 179B of the Act allows for the issuance of a preliminary order, which requires a person to appear in court to prove their wealth is legitimate. And under section 179E, an order can be issued requiring that the payment of an amount of wealth deemed unlawful be made to the government.

The new legislation amends sections 20A and 179E, so that these orders can be issued in respect to relevant offences of participating states, as well as in relation to territory offences. Relevant state offences will be outlined in state legislation that enables participation in the national scheme.

Sharing it around

The legislation broadens the access authorities have to an individual’s banking information in relation to an unexplained wealth investigation.

Section 213 of the Act allows certain authorised Commonwealth officers to issue access notices to financial institutions. This provision will now be extended to states and territory law enforcement agencies.

Proposed section 297C of the Act outlines how federal, state and territory governments will divvy up the seized wealth. A subcommittee will be established to distribute the money. And while any state that opts out of the scheme will be eligible for a share, it will be a less favourable amount.

The legislation also makes amendments to the sharing of information provisions contained in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.…..

Backdoor revenue raising

The NSW government has already introduced legislation into parliament, which enables that state to participate in the national scheme. The legislation sets out that the relevant offences the laws apply to are set out in section 6(2) of the Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990.

NSW police minister Troy Grant told parliament that the legislation allows the state to refer matters to the Commonwealth, which then authorises the Australian federal police to use certain NSW offences as a basis for the confiscation of unexplained wealth.

But, Mr Rowlings states that the nationalising of the scheme will actually streamline a process that sees the unwarranted confiscation of wealth to prop up government coffers.

“The cash seized is paying for extra government lawyers to help seize more cash,” Mr Rowlings made clear, “so it’s a devious upward spiral where more and more unconvicted people will have their assets taken, and then have to prove their innocence or the government gets their assets.”

Read the full article here.

Gloucester community's landmark climate change case began in NSW Land & Environment Court, August 2018

Environmental Defenders Office NSW, 14 August 2018:

CASE SUMMARY

Gloucester Resources Ltd and Stratford Pty Ltd
v Groundswell Gloucester and Dept of Planning & Environment 

The Client: Groundswell Gloucester, a residents’ community group concerned with the environmental, social and economic future of the Stroud Gloucester Valley near Barrington Tops in the upper Hunter.

The Case: Represented by EDO NSW, Groundswell Gloucester was joined to proceedings that will determine the fate of the Rocky Hill Coal project, a greenfield open-cut coal mine less than 5km from Gloucester township.

Representation: Matt Floro, solicitor for EDO NSW, has carriage of this matter for Groundswell Gloucester and our Principal Solicitor, Elaine Johnson, is the solicitor on record. We are grateful to barrister Robert White for his assistance in this matter.

Experts: Emeritus Professor Will Steffen will for the first time give evidence in an Australian court that no new fossil fuel developments can be approved if we are to avoid overspending our carbon budget. Professor Steffen is a Climate Councillor on the Climate Council of Australia, Member of the ACT Government’s Climate Change Council, and was previously a Climate Commissioner on the Australian Government’s Climate Commission.

Energy analyst Tim Buckley will explain the financial mechanisms and market changes that are driving investments away from coal and creating a risk that Rocky Hill will become a stranded asset. Tim Buckley is Director of Energy Finance Studies, Australasia, Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

60 community objectors include farmers, doctors, Traditional Owners and young people. This is also the first time in an Australian court that young people will talk about the impact of climate change and the impact of the mine on their communities, and future generations.

Timeline:

2016 - Community celebrations after AGL withdraws its application to drill 330 coal seam gas extraction wells in the area.

December 2017 - celebrations continue when the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) refuses consent to the Rocky Hill Coal Project proposed by Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL). The PAC found that the mine was not in the public interest because of its proximity to the town of Gloucester, significant visual impact and direct contravention of the area’s zoning plans.

The PAC also refuses consent to a Modification of the consent for the nearby Stratford mine - operated by a related company of Yancoal Australia Limited - that proposed the receipt, processing and railing of coal from the Project.  The PAC found that the Modification would have no critical purpose or utility outside the Project.

Planning Minister grants both mining companies the right to appeal the refusal of consent to the Land and Environment Court.

February 2018 - Our client, Groundswell Gloucester, seeks to be joined to the proceedings.

April 2018 - following a full-day hearing, the Land and Environment Court orders that Groundswell Gloucester be joined to the proceedings brought by GRL.
In relation to the climate change ground, on joining Groundswell Gloucester, the Court noted that:
“GRL submits that the raising of the climate issue as proposed in a domestic Court if the Intervener were joined would not serve the purpose of improving this particular planning decision; and, instead, would be a “side show and a distraction”. I do not agree.”

Our client has been permitted by the Court to present expert evidence on climate change and the social impacts of this new mine. The Court will hear anthropological evidence about the social impact of mining on the community.

This is the first time an Australian court will hear expert evidence about the urgent need to stay within the global carbon budget in the context of a proposed new coal mine.

Key dates: 
13-14 August 2018
Opening submissions at the Land and Environment Court, Macquarie Street, Sydney
15 August 2018
Site visit (parties only) Gloucester
16-17 August 2018
Hearings in Gloucester (community objectors)
20-24 & 27-31 August 2018
Submissions and expert witnesses at the Land and Environment Court, Macquarie Street, Sydney

Background

This is the first hearing of its kind since the historic Paris Agreement in which a superior jurisdiction Australian court will hear expert testimony about climate change, the carbon budget and the impacts of the burning of fossil fuels.

For years EDO NSW has supported the Gloucester community, providing legal and scientific advice. This contributed to a recommendation from the Department of Planning and Environment (DPE) in 2016 to the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) to refuse GRL’s greenfield mine application, known as the Rocky Hill Coal Project (the Project) and the associated Stratford modification.

In December 2017, the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC) refused consent to the Project and the modification, finding they were not in the public interest because of proximity to the town of Gloucester, significant visual impact and the area’s zoning under planning laws.

In deciding how the Project and modification would be assessed, the NSW Minister for Planning granted unusual merit appeal rights to GRL and Yancoal who are now joined together in aggressively challenging the refusal in the Land and Environment Court.

Both coal companies have recruited their own legal and scientific teams. However Groundswell Gloucester was not told about the merit appeal until February, two months after GRL filed the case.

EDO NSW case page: www.edonsw.org.au/groundswell 

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

Concerned citizens can donate to the Environmental Defence Fund here.