Campbell Newman's unwise decisions when Queensland premier continue to haunt that state

Correspondence between former Queensland police officer and former chief magistrate Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the President of the Court Of Appeal Justice Margaret McMurdo, Justice Hugh Fraser and others clearly demonstrates that an unwise political decision on the part of then Liberal National Party Premier Campbell Newman in 2014 will not be easily rectified.

Scroll to the end for the first email in the chain, dated 17 April 2015.

Correspondence between Queensland Chief Justice Tim Carmody, the President of the Court Of Appeal and other...

BACKGROUND

ABC News 9 May 2015:

Timeline of controversies surrounding Chief Justice Tim Carmody:
Nov 2013	Angered the legal profession by issuing a directive that all disputed bail applications made by alleged bikies be dealt with in one court room. That meant he would, most likely, be presiding over the controversial cases.
June 2013	Selected as chief justice despite never having sat on the Supreme Court, and after only nine months in the chief magistrate's job. Chosen over long-serving judges.
Jan 2014	Told newly appointed magistrates not to "meddle" with the controversial bikie laws.
June 2014	Bar Association President Peter Davis quits over appointment.
June 2014	Former Supreme Court judge Richard Chesterman QC and corruption fighter Tony Fitzgerald criticise appointment. Mr Sofronoff claimed Justice Carmody was too close to former Liberal National Party government. "His impartiality as between citizen and government has been called into question".

July 2014	Sworn in as Chief Justice behind closed doors, as controversy raged about his suitability for the job.
April 15, 2015	Met child protection advocate Hetty Johnston while still deliberating on whether Daniel Morcombe's accused killer should have his conviction overturned.
April 17	Court of Appeal President Margaret McMurdo raises issues of bias because of the meeting.
April 22	Justice Carmody responds that any suggestion of bias is "unsupported by precedent and utterly preposterous". Says it is "alarming" Justice McMurdo's associate investigates Ms Johnstone's comments over Cowan.
April 23	Justice McMurdo says "I cannot sit with him again on any Court".
April 29	It is revealed Justice Carmody did not read Justice McMurdo or Justice Fraser's draft judgements on Cowan appeal, despite being circulated in February.
May 7	Justice Carmody withdraws from Cowan appeal

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Terry O'Gorman has also weighed in, calling on the Chief Justice to resolve the dispute.

"To have a Chief Justice make so many mistakes goes back to the fundamental issue of the botched appointment," he said. 

"The Chief Justice has the problem, the Chief Justice has to solve the problem. 

"The fact is the Chief Justice said a couple of months ago that if his occupying the position of Chief Justice made the position of the Supreme Court untenable ... he would resign, the position is becoming increasing untenable. 

"There are so many problems with the ongoing occupancy by Justice Carmody of the position of Chief Justice that this stalemate has to come to an end, this crisis has to be addressed. He is the only one who can address it."

Justice Carmody enjoyed a meteoric rise under the former Liberal National Party government and was promoted from Chief Magistrate, after a nine-month stint, despite never serving on the Supreme Court.

Leaders in the judiciary, including Justice Wilson, have publicly turned on him and questioned if he was ready for the top job or had enough peer support.

Community Housing Limited just won't take no for an answer so it's off to court again for Clarence Valley Council

Community Housing Limited is an international public benevolent institution which in 2014 had a surplus of over $11.1 million, total rental income of over $36.6 million and paid no income tax.

In Australia its combined grant and incentive income in that same year was over $17.7 million.

It has 5,600 properties under management in this country according to Managing Director Steve Bevington [Macleay Argus, 12 April 2015, Leonard's light bulb woes]

In the Coffs Harbour area the company appears to have taken possession of 180 Coffs Harbour public housing properties (a mix of one & two bedroom units) in 2011, with the state government contributing a one-off payment of around $1.5 million and the company making a contribution of around $1 million to required property upgrades.

In the Clarence Valley it has fourteen housing properties (a mix of units, townhouses and houses) in Grafton funded by federal, state and local government in the form of land contribution, discounted land sale, capital grants and National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) as well as a loan taken out by the housing company.

In December 2014 this comfortably cashed-up company lost a NSW Land & Environment Court bid for rates exemption on its 1,368 properties in this state.

Now it is back for a second round. This time in the NSW Supreme Court, where on 20 May 2015 it will have a directions hearing (notice of appeal) in Community Housing Limited v Clarence Valley Council 2015/00014853.

NSW Supreme Court rejected CSG miner Metgasco's contention that the NSW Government acted unreasonably in finding its community consultation process "inherently ineffective"

Excerpt from Metgasco Limited v Minister for Resources and Energy [2015] NSWSC 453 (24 April 2015):

74.          Fourthly, to the extent that Metgasco submitted that it was unreasonable for the Delegate to find that the consultation undertaken was inherently ineffective, in the sense of lacking attributes and qualities that would make it efficacious, I respectfully reject that submission. The Delegate was entitled, by way of more than one pathway leading to the guidelines, to consider whether Metgasco had engaged in consultation that could be characterised as being effective in its attributes but not its results. That includes whether the community consultation plan was sufficient. I do not propose to engage in an impermissible review of the merits of that decision; to my mind it was not so unreasonable to be amenable to judicial review. It follows that, if this were the only ground upon which Metgasco relied, I would not intervene on the basis of it.

NSW Coalition Government response to Supreme Court judgment in Metgasco Ltd v Minister for Resources & Energy

Public statement by NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption concerning the High Court decision of 15 April 2015

Found at @political_alert 

Metgasco misses out on NSW compensation offer

The Australian 10 April 2015:

At close of business on Friday10 April 2015 the Australian Stock Exchange listed Metgasco's ordinary share price at 0.023 cents.

Metgasco Limited v Minister for Resources and Energy is listed for judgment in the NSW Supreme Court at 10am on Friday, 24 April 2015.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt and News Corp get their comeuppance

Although News Corp tried to spin the outcome of this defamation case reported in The Age on 2 March 2015, the first judgment (set out below) delivered in this matter clearly shows why it had to settle.

Human rights lawyer George Newhouse has won his defamation case against controversial News Corp blogger Andrew Bolt. In the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Lucy McCallum ordered a verdict for Mr Newhouse and said News Corp was to pay his legal costs. The terms of the order - agreed to by both parties - requires the article to be taken down from News Corp's various online sites. Other terms of the settlement are confidential….In the final orders the defendants were listed as Nationwide News, Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times…. A spokesman for News Corp said: "The matter has settled and therefore did not proceed to trial so there was no judicial determination of the issues in dispute." [The Age 2 March 2015]

Newhouse v News Limited [2014] NSWSC 1939 (11 December 2014)

Last Updated: 11 March 2015

Before: McCallum, J

Parties: George Newhouse (Plaintiff)

              News Ltd (First Defendant)

              Andrew Bolt (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr  George Newhouse  against News Limited. Mr Newhouse sues that entity as the alleged publisher of articles published in various media forums held within the News corporate group.

2. The proceedings are governed by Practice Note SC CL 4 and this is the first listing. The Practice Note states that, at the first listing of an action for defamation, the defendant is expected to state whether publication is in dispute and, if it is, to state why.

3. In correspondence in response to the Statement of Claim, News Limited has disputed that it is liable as a publisher of the matters complained of. The letter states:

"Take notice that News Limited is not the publisher of either the print or on-line versions of the Herald Sun, the Daily Telegraph and news.com.au.”

4. Ms Chrysanthou, who appears for Mr Newhouse, submitted (correctly, in my view) that it was incumbent upon News Limited to state the reason it contends it is not properly named as a publisher of the matters complained of in circumstances where it is, as a matter of public record, the registrant of www.news.com.au and, further, where that website identifies News Limited as the holder of the copyright of material appearing on the site, with the necessary implication that it authorises whatever entity it says is the publisher to publish that material.

5. Prima facie, each of those contentions taken together would appear to bring News Limited within the scope of person liable for publication as that term is apprehended in the decision of High Court in Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50; 41 CLR 331. I think, however, that Mr Lewis, who appears for News Limited, adequately discharged the obligation identified in the practice note in the submissions he made today. What the plaintiff chooses to do with the information given is a matter for him.

6. Ms Chrysanthou foreshadowed an application for leave to interrogate on that issue, noting the attractive simplicity of there being a single defendant to the proceedings in the circumstance of multiple entities having responsibility as "the publisher" for multiple electronic places for publication. It may well be that a respectable case could be made for leave to interrogate in those circumstances.

7. The substantive argument heard today was a series of objections taken by the defendant to the imputations pleaded by Mr Newhouse. The parties agreed that those objections could be determined by reference to the first matter complained of, the second and third matters complained of being in substantially the same terms, save for the headline.

8. The article was written by Mr Bolt, a journalist employed by The Herald Sun. Broadly speaking, the article addresses Mr Bolt's views as to the position taken by a group, to whom he refers to as "the refugee lobby", concerning the Australian Government's treatment of asylum seekers.

9. The first matter complained of appeared under the headline, “Fearmonger's Hateful Fraud”. Ms Chrysanthou submitted that, under that headline and in light of what follows, the article may be seen to be focussed on the conduct of “the refugee lobby” of which Mr Newhouse is clearly identified in the article as a member.

10. The first imputation is (a):

“that the plaintiff, a lawyer, has fraudulently represented to the public that people whom he represents are refugees when they are not”.

11. Mr Lewis submitted that the imputation is incapable of arising from the matter complained of for a number of reasons. The first was the contention that the matter complained of is:

"An opinion piece highlighting that despite the refugee lobby arguing that the Abbott Government breached its human rights obligations, Australia properly returned 41 Sri Lankan boat people to Sri Lanka as they were economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers."

12. That may be Mr Bolt's opinion, and it may well be one that emerges from a reading of the article, but it does not follow logically, or at all, that that is the only thing the matter complained of says. I have previously observed that it is commonly objected in this List that a defamatory article does not say A because it says B. That argument rarely succeeds unless it is sustained by what can be characterised as a true dichotomy. The present article says a lot more than is contained in the submission put by Mr Lewis.

13. The submission comprehended the proposition that the term "fraudulently" usually denotes "intending to deceive." That much may be accepted. I am of the view that the matter complained of is plainly capable of conveying the meaning that Mr Newhouse intended to deceive by the representation that his clients were refugees. As submitted by Ms Chrysanthou, the whole thrust of the article is to expose the fraud of that representation. That emerges from a number of statements in the matter complained of, including the following:

"The outrage over the forced return of 41 Sri Lankan boat people has been exposed as a fraud by the asylum seekers themselves."

14. As submitted by Ms Chrysanthou, the article plainly focuses on the proposition that those like Mr Newhouse, who purport to stand on the high moral ground protecting asylum seekers, are in fact engaged in a fraud on the public. A similar theme emerges from a number of the statements in the balance of the article.

15. Mr Lewis also sought to seek comfort from the fact that the article focusses on the alleged fraud relating to the 41 people returned to Sri Lanka, whereas Mr Newhouse is identified in a different context as having appeared for the 153 people for whom he obtained an injunction in the High Court. I think the distinction is one that would not necessarily be drawn as distinguishing him from the criticisms levelled by Mr Bolt in the article. Certainly, on a capacity basis, I do not think that distinction precludes the imputation from being capable of arising. In my view, the imputation (a) is capable of arising.

16. The second objection is that the imputation is imprecise or bad in form. Specifically, it was complained that the imputation does not distil precisely what it is that the plaintiff is said to have done fraudulently and what representations he is said to have made to the public. I do not accept that submission. The imputation plainly specifies that the representation attributed to Mr Newhouse is that “boat people” whom he represents are refugees. The objections to imputation (a) are accordingly rejected.

17. Imputation (b) is:

"The plaintiff, as a lawyer, has lied to the High Court in order to obtain a temporary injunction of his clients.”

18. The specific part of the article dealing with Mr Newhouse's involvement in proceedings in the High Court states:

"Mr Newhouse and barrister Ron Merkel QC have persuaded the High Court to issue a temporary injunction against returning these 153 to Sri Lanka and the same superheated rhetoric is heard about torture, the ‘disappeared’ and Nazis.”

19. The article then asks, rhetorically, whether those boat people are any more likely to be true refugees than the 41 Mr Bolt describes as having been rightly returned to Sri Lanka, and answers unequivocally "no". Whilst the paragraph I have set out does not, in terms, accuse Mr Newhouse of lying to the High Court, in my view the overall tenor of the article, which is to expose the “fraud” of persons in the lobby in which Mr Newhouse is named to participate, does at least on a capacity basis give rise to an imputation of deliberate dishonesty in what was said to the High Court. The article is written in strident terms and concludes with a plain allegation of dishonesty, as follows:

“So if a crime against morality has been committed, it is surely this: that so many atrocity mongers and moral posers have inflicted upon us a gigantic fraud."

20. I accept, as submitted by Ms Chrysanthou, that in the context of the article as a whole, that paragraph plainly refers to Mr Newhouse. The lying imputation is in my view capable of arising.

21. Imputation (c) is:

“The plaintiff is despicable in that he has made fraudulent representations to the public about his clients being refugees.”

22. For the reasons stated in respect of imputation (a), I am satisfied that the imputation is capable of arising. A separate objection is that the imputation is bad in form because the word "despicable" does not distil precisely what it is said the plaintiff is said to have done fraudulently and what representations he is said to have made to the public.

23. I have already dealt with the imprecision objection to imputation (a). In my respectful opinion, the term ‘despicable’ neatly distils precisely what it is the article says of the character of a man who would make such a representation. The form objection must be rejected, in my view.

24. Finally, it was objected that imputation (c) does not differ in substance from imputation (a).

25. Mr Lewis relied on the decision of the Simpson J in Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 86, where her Honour suggested that the appropriate test is to consider what the matter complained of is really saying. Her Honour concluded in that case that an inspection of the matter complained of revealed:

"When they are read in the proper context of the matter complained of, it can be seen that the two imputations are no more than different ways of complaining of the same message."

26. I think, on balance, however, that Ms Chrysanthou is right in contending that, whereas imputation (a) identifies an act attributed to Mr Newhouse, imputation (c) identifies the condition one would attribute to a person who engages in that act. I am satisfied that the two imputations do differ in substance and each can properly stand.

27. Imputation (d) is:

"The plaintiff, a lawyer, is motivated by deceit in representing boat people from Sri Lanka."

28. In one passage of the matter complained of, Mr Bolt describes statements made by the asylum seekers themselves as "conclusive proof that our refugee lobby is motivated by deceit, self-pruning and self-hatred of the Abbott Government."

29. The basis for the defendants’ objection appears to be that, although named three times in the matter complained of, Mr Newhouse somehow escapes inclusion in the class of people referred to as belonging to the refugee lobby. In my view, imputation (d) is plainly capable of arising.

30. Separately, it was objected that the imputation is imprecise and bad in form. For my part, I do not have any difficulty understanding what condition is attributed to Mr Newhouse as captured in the imputation. The objections to imputation (d) must be rejected.

31. Imputation (e) is:

“that the plaintiff, a lawyer, has acted immorally in his representation of the Sri Lankan boat people.”

32. That imputation is plainly capable of arising, having regard to the concluding paragraph of the article, to which I have already referred.

33. I do not think it is bad in form. In my view, it plainly differs in substance from imputations (a) and (c). I do not accept Mr Lewis' submission that the notion of being fraudulent means the same thing as being despicable or immoral. It follows that the defendant's objections to the plaintiff's imputations are rejected.

34. A separate issue was raised in the correspondence as to the need for the plaintiff to provide particulars of the persons or any person who downloaded, viewed and comprehended the first matter complained of. I understood Mr Lewis to put a submission that no reader of The Daily Telegraph comprehended the article and that may be so. In any event, the parties propose to engage in correspondence as to what further steps should be taken by the plaintiff to address that issue.

35. The plaintiff, having been entirely successful in respect of the objections to his Amended Statement of Claim, seeks his costs of the argument.

36. Mr Lewis, who appears for News Limited, noted that the Practice Note contemplates an exchange of correspondence in which a plaintiff pressing an imputation in the face of an objection will, where appropriate, state brief reasons for doing so. The chronology of the exchange of correspondence in the present matter, coupled with my view as to the strength of the imputations and the merit of the objections, persuades me that although the plaintiff's response was brief, bordering on curt, he is nonetheless entitled to the costs of the argument today.

37. I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

How the Irish fought big tobacco and won

In December 2011 the Australian Parliament passed the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011.

Using Australia as a role model, the Irish Government introduced plain packaging for tobacco into law on 9 March 2015.

MerrionStreet Irish Government News Service:

Published on Thursday 19th March 2015

Speech: Dr James Reilly, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs was today the keynote speaker at the 16th World Conference on Tobacco or Health in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates

It’s an honour to address you here today as a Minister but I feel particularly privileged as a doctor.

Recently, Ireland became the second country in the world and the first in Europe to enact plain packaging legislation.

This has been a long journey.

We first considered this policy after it was introduced in Australia in December 2012 - and I’d like to pay particular tribute to them.

The road to passing the legislation had far more twists and turns than we anticipated – both in Ireland and in Europe.

It was clear from the outset that there would be additional hurdles to passing legislation for plain packaging in Ireland due to our obligations to comply with European Directives.

At the time, a 2001 Directive was in force which did not permit picture warnings on the front of the packet.

A draft Directive – that would make plain packaging far more effective and legally sound – was progressing slowly through the European bureaucracy.

By a happy coincidence, Ireland held the Presidency of the European Union at the beginning of 2013.

With the support of other countries, we succeeded in passing a new Directive through the Council of Ministers in just six months.

This Directive permitted warnings – including pictures – to occupy 65% of the front and back of the packet and explicitly permitted countries to introduce plain packaging.

It was only when the Directive made its way to the European Parliament that we saw the full power and influence of the tobacco industry at work.

Leaked tobacco industry documents show that 161 lobbyists were hired and millions of euro was spent by one tobacco company alone.

Members of the European Parliament complained that the scale of lobbying on this Directive was unprecedented.

Key parts of the Directive were under serious threat.

There was a very real danger that the European Parliament would vote in favour of reducing the size of warnings and even that the Directive wouldn’t get through the European Parliament.

In an unprecedented response, I and 15 other European Health Ministers co-signed a letter urging Members of the European Parliament to progress the Directive.

At the same time, the Irish Prime Minister and I wrote to every Member of the European Parliament in the largest grouping urging them to keep large warnings on the packets and to progress the Directive.

Thankfully, the tobacco industry’s lobbying was not successful in diluting picture warnings or the right of member states to introduce plain packaging. Ireland’s legislation was evolving in tandem with these events in Brussels.

After the Tobacco Products Directive was passed in Europe, the tobacco industry shifted their focus to Ireland.

Their response was unprecedented and global.

From Members of the European Parliament to US Congressmen. From Indonesian farmers to Irish retailers.

We were lobbied on a scale that Irish politics had never seen before but we had built a strong coalition that proved impenetrable to tobacco industry lobbying.

Politicians from all parties and none joined forces to support this measure. Committed NGOs - from both the public health sector and the protection of children sector - worked tirelessly to maintain public support.

We formed a coalition whose resolve was unshakeable.

When the tobacco industry realised this, they changed tactics.

Japan Tobacco International, Imperial Tobacco and Philip Morris all threatened the Government with legal action should our legislation proceed.

The legal letter from Japan Tobacco International was especially aggressive.

Not only did they attempt to tell a sovereign Government that we did not have the authority to enact plain packaging legislation, they attempted to tell us how far we could progress it through our Parliament and insisted that we provide them with a written undertaking – within a matter of days - not to progress it any further.

They did not receive any such undertaking.

Our plain packaging Bill was passed through our Upper House and Lower House without a single Member of Parliament or Senator voting against it.

There has been a battle to progress this legislation every step of the way.

But these were all battles worth fighting The Irish Philosopher, Edmund Burke said “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

If we do nothing, the tobacco industry will delay and thwart public health legislation.

If we stand up to them – if we meet them head on – we will defeat them.

Because their only aim is to protect their profits.

Our aim is to protect the health of our people, especially that of our children.

We have the truth on our side.

Truth - as an old lady once told me - is not fragile. It will not break - nor will we.

I’ve been asked repeatedly why don’t we wait to see how a larger country - one with a bigger legal arsenal – gets on with plain packaging before we proceed.

Ladies and Gentlemen, there is a time to follow and there is a time to lead.

When one addiction is responsible for almost one in five deaths in our country – it is time to lead.

We have taken the lead from Australia but we are now giving the lead to Europe.

The UK are following and France intends to move next.

If Europe follows, can the rest of the world be far behind?

I’ve worked as a doctor for almost three decades. I’ve seen first hand the consequences of smoking.

I’ve seen the painful deaths – watching patients gasp for air or waste away from cancer as their lungs fail. I’ve seen the devastation on the faces of their families.

All these deaths are entirely preventable. All these deaths for what? For nothing. This addiction gives nothing to smokers lives and robs us all of so much.

Robs us of 5,200 Irish people who die of smoking every year.

Robs us of 700,000 Europeans who die of smoking every year.

That’s almost the population of Amsterdam annihilated every single year.

That’s 700,000 families who must live their lives without their loved ones. Children without their parents; partners without their partners.

While the economic impact of this can be estimated, the human toll cannot.

But there is hope. Throughout the developed world, smoking rates are falling.

We now know the policies that work.

When we meet again in three years time, I hope cigarettes will be sold in plain packaging, not just in Australia and Ireland, but in the UK, France, Norway, Finland, New Zealand and many other countries.

I hope plain packaging will be driving down smoking rates throughout the world. Throughout the world we have committed NGOs and politicians who are showing the determination required to tackle this scourge head on.

That is why conferences like this are so important. We learn from each other. We learn what works. We learn to stand together. Despite their billions of euros and hidden connections, the tobacco industry can be defeated.

We must  rise to the challenge to protect our children from a killer addiction that ends the lives of half of those who become addicted to it.

Remember: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

We won’t stand idly by - our children can’t afford us to fail. Standing together - we can, we must, we will prevail.

Metadata Retention: in which the Prime Minister of Australia says any old thing which pops into his head

The Sydney Morning Herald on 19 February 2015 reported assertions made by Prime Minister Tony Abbott concerning his government's plan to introduce mass telecommunications and information technology surveillance of the Australian population:

The Abbott government's controversial data retention scheme will cost an estimated $300 million to set up, with telecommunications consumers expected to foot almost half the total cost through higher bills.

The government wants legislation passed by March requiring telecommunications companies to store customer metadata for at least two years.

Under the government's proposal, phone and internet firms would be forced to store details such as the time and place of phone calls, and the origin and destination of emails. It does not include the content of communications.

Responding to calls to release the cost of the scheme, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said on Wednesday that it would cost less than one per cent of the estimated $40 billion value of the telecommunications sector to establish.

Mr Abbott said that the price of not storing electronic communication records is "incalculable" and would lead to an "explosion in unsolved crime".

Fairfax Media understands the government's calculations for setting up the scheme are approximately $300 million, based on an industry analysis by professional services group PwC. [my red bolding]

There will be an explosion of unsolved come across the country if Abbott & Co are not allowed to introduce universal surveillance of Australian citizens? 

Surveillance that stores raw digital data about the daily lives of all citizens. Data which federal government security agencies, police and every revenue raising state or federal government agency or statutory authority can access without a warrant.

So if persons committing criminal offences have had the upper hand because there is no mass surveillance to date, why is it that crime has not spiralled out of control before now?

If police need these additional mass surveillance powers to do their job effectively, why do NSW Police currently solve a high percentage of homicides and why was the NSW prison population in 2014 rising without these powers?

If landlines, mobile phones and the Internet are so vital to the commission of major crimes, how is it that I live in an area with a relatively high rate of Internet connection in the home (58% with public access points also available) but stable to lower recorded major criminal offences trends and, New South Wales as a whole showed no significant recorded major offences upward trend in the September Quarter 2014.

If there was thought to be a direct correlation between no mass surveillance and unsolved crime, I suspect the fact that around 62 percent of individuals before NSW local courts already plead guilty in the absence of such surveillance might call that assumption into question.

As would the fact that the number and percentage of criminal convictions are increasing in NSW lower and higher courts without continuous two-year metadata retention being available to police without a warrant.

This may be a somewhat simplistic yardstick used to measure the veracity of the federal government position, but it does indicate the likelihood that Tony Abbott was spouting arrant nonsense for the benefit of the camera.

Prime Minister Abbott also made a National Security Statement on 23 February which included this sentence:

The government's Data Retention Bill – currently being reviewed by the Parliament – is the vital next step in giving our agencies the tools they need to keep Australia safe.

However, access to metadata without a warrant apparently would not have stopped the violent Martin Place siege or kept the seventeen hostages safe during their 16 hour ordeal.  

The Martin Place Siege: Joint Commonwealth and News South Wales Review report clearly outlines these facts:

the perpetrator of this fatal siege was known to national security and police agencies for most of the eighteen years he lived in Australia;

his Internet and social media presence was being monitored and assessed;

there were at least 18 calls from members of the public to the National Security Hotline between 9 -12 December 2014 concerning the offensive nature of the content on his public Facebook page; and

with the exception of the suspension of a website and certain criminal charges before the courts, relevant authorities did not act to contain the perpetrator based on the information in their possession before 15 December 2014 because he was not considered a threat to national security.

This example places into doubt this second reason Tony Abbott recently gave for the need to implement a mass surveillance scheme.

High Court of Australia: state of play in the matter of NSW Independent Commission against Corruption v. Cunneen & Ors

For those interested in how the appeal, Independent Commission against Corruption v. Cunneen & Ors is progressing, see document links below.

North Coast Voices’ regular readers might recall that it was Cunneen v Independent Commission Against Corruption which caused the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption to delay its final reports concerning Operations Credo and Spicer.

Documents

09/12/2014 Application for special leave to appeal

12/12/2014 Hearing (Single Justice, Sydney)

16/01/2015 Written submissions (Applicant)

16/01/2015 Chronology (Applicant)

02/02/2015 Written submissions (Respondents)

02/02/2015 Chronology (Respondents)

13/02/2015 Reply (Applicant)

04/03/2015 Hearing (Full Court, Canberra

*The due dates shown for documents on this page are indicative only

David Hicks' conviction vacated: Every member of the former Howard Government, including the current Australian Prime Minister, now have egg on their faces

Every Australian Senator and Member of Parliament should take note of this monumental error by the former Howard Government, its prime minister, ministers and backbenchers – which included Prime Minister Tony Abbott - and the failure of domestic national security agencies to offer advice based on law and fact.

What this clearly demonstrates is that an Australian Parliament when passing anti-terrorism/national security legislation and, a Federal Government when creating policy in relation to terrorism/national security or responding to citizens held by foreign powers, need to eschew any tendency to hysteria and block their ears to dog whistling in the media when considering legislation before the House of Representatives and/or the Senate or the circumstances of individual citizens.

Governments make mistakes and giving them the additional powers will not eliminate the potential for error. Instead it may perversely increase this risk.

ABC News 19 February 2015:

Australia's David Hicks, a former prisoner at the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, has won a legal challenge to his terrorism conviction before a military court in Cuba….

Last year, an appeals court ruled material support was not a legally viable war crime but prosecutors argued the conviction should stand because Mr Hicks agreed not to appeal as part of the plea deal, an argument that has now been rejected by the US Court of Military Commission Review….

Stephen Kenny, Mr Hick's lawyer in Australia, said the decision confirmed his client's innocence.

"Well it means David Hicks' conviction has been set aside and he's been declared an innocent man so it confirms what we knew all along," he said.

"David Hicks was innocent and that has formally been recorded by the military commission itself."….

BACKGROUND

Law Council of Australia:

David Hicks, an Australian citizen, was ‘captured' in Afghanistan in December 2001. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was detained by the US Military on the basis that he was an enemy combatant.

                         

After almost three years in isolated detention, Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy and was committed to face trial before a Military Commission established pursuant to Presidential Order. However, before the trial could proceed, the US Supreme Court found that the military commission system was unlawful.

David Hicks was once more left in detention without charge and with no prospect of release in the short or long term.

In late 2006, the military commission system was re-established by an Act of the United States Congress and in early 2007 David Hicks was again charged and committed to face trial before a newly constituted Commission.

In March 2007, over five years after his initial capture, David Hicks pleaded guilty, pursuant to a pre-trial agreement, to a single charge of "providing material support for terrorism".

In April 2007, Hicks was returned to Australia to serve the remaining nine months of his suspended seven-year sentence.

Hicks was released on 29 December 2007, but was placed under a 12 month control order.

The Law Council took a close interest in David Hicks' case and played a prominent role in bringing his plight to the attention of Australian public. Throughout his period of detention, the Law Council was highly critical of:

* The inability of Hicks to effectively challenge the legality of his detention;

*  Hicks' treatment in detention;

* The flawed and inherently unjust rules of procedure and evidence of the military commissions;

* The lack of any legal foundation for the charges initially pursued against Hicks;

* The retrospective nature of the charge eventually pursued against Hicks;

* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' detention without charge;

* The acquiescence of the Australian Government in Hicks' trial before a military commission;

* The terms of Hicks' plea agreement; and 

* The unnecessary imposition of a control order on Hicks upon his release.

Over this period the Law Council issued more than twenty press releases, public letters to Parliament and reports, including three reports from the Law Council's Independent Observer at Hicks' trial. These materials are available below.