Adani Group At Work: using backroom political deals & big money to make fools of us all

The Wangan and Jagalingou Peoples registered a Native Title application on 5 July 2004 and their interests are often presented to the media via the Wangan and Jagalingou Family Council. 

According to ORIC Kyburra Munda Yalga Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC was originally registered on 5 July 2011 as Kyburra Munda Yalga Aboriginal Corporation and its name changed on 6 March 2013 and, according to ASIC Juru Enterprises Limited was registered on 23 April 2012.  

On 11 July 2014 and 26 June 2015 the Juru People were granted Native Title by the Federal Court over land in north Queensland.

Then foreign multinational resources and energy corporation, the Adani Group, went to work...... 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 July 2015:

The Wangan and Jagalingou people gathered two weeks ago at a convention centre in Carseldine north of Brisbane.

They were there to vote on a proposal to make sure those responsible for their native title claim were truly representative of the Wangan and Jagalingou people. These are the traditional owners of the land in the Galilee Basin, precisely where Indian company Adani aims to build Australia's biggest coal mine, the controversial $16 billion Carmichael project.

Twice in three years, the Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) had rejected Adani's advances to sign a land deal for the mine, and twice Adani had dragged them off to the Native Title Tribunal and sought approval for the state to override their opposition to the mine.

It was just after 9am on Saturday, June 20, when two charter buses turned up at the Tavernetta Function Centre in Carseldine. Adani had bussed in 150 people in a sly bid to force consideration of a new memorandum of understanding they claimed to have with W&J, despite the previous 'no vote' from W&J. It was an Adani ambush, and it must have cost a fortune: three days of food, accommodation and transport for 150 people.

"We saw the buses turn up and we were wondering what was going on," says traditional owner and W&J lead spokesman Adrian Burragubba.

"They tried to organise their own meeting after ours in order to get the people to agree to their MoU - a kind of tricked ILUA [Indigenous Land Use Agreement] when they knew they didn't have one. Right now we're in the Federal Court precisely because we refused an ILUA and they have tried to override us."

But Adani's cunning stunt backfired. They hadn't counted on their 150 voters changing their minds after impassioned speeches from the likes of Burragubba. W&J tribal elders are deeply concerned about the effect of the mine on their cultural heritage and the risks it poses to water and wildlife.

By the end of the day, Adani's reps had been asked to leave the meeting. Of the W&J's 12 "new applicants", or claim representatives, at least seven were against Adani, despite all the money flying about to skew the vote, and three were in favour. The views of the other two appear in the balance….

Its latest public missive on the subject came three days before the W&J meeting: "Adani deepens partnership with Traditional Owners."

As far as W&J are concerned nothing could be further from the mark. While Adani has signed up ILUAs with other Indigenous groups – the Juru, Birriah and Jangga Aboriginal people – whose land lies either on the rail corridors from the Galilee or on the coast at Abbot Point where the coal is to be shipped to India, there is only a draft memorandum of understanding intended for the W&J, and one which is not representative of the majority of families at that.

It is getting messy. W&J now has a claim before the Federal Court alleging Adani misled the W&J people. The Native Title Tribunal and the state of Queensland are also listed as defendants for failing to properly follow process…..

NITV, 1 April 2016:

In a stunning video, traditional owners Aunty Carol Prior and Andrew Morrell call on the Queensland government to protect their cultural heritage from the Adani Carmichael coalmine in the Galilee Basin.

Juru country sits to the east of the proposed mine, but the existing Abbot Point coal port resides on the Juru coast. This means the proposed rail line linking the mine and Abbot Point will go right through Juru country.

Traditional owners say the rail line will block access to ancient rock art sites and ochre ground near Mount Roadback, and an expansion of Abbot Point will be built just five metres from sacred burial grounds.

They’ve created a petition calling on the Queensland government to register their cultural sites under the Queensland Cultural Heritage Act as ‘significant Aboriginal areas.’

Green Left Weekly, 16 February 2018:

The Wangan and Jagalingou (W&J) traditional owners of the land on which Adani has approval to build its Carmichael coalmine are concerned that the Queensland government will act to extinguish their native title rights prior to a Federal Court hearing scheduled for March 12–15.

This follows the decision by the Federal Court to not extend an interim injunction, which had been in place since December 18, restraining the Queensland government from extinguishing native title under the terms of the purported Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA).

The W&J traditional owners have never consented to the mine going ahead. They say the group has voted four times since 2012 to reject an ILUA with Adani, most recently on 2 December.

On December 8 the Native Title Tribunal registered Adani’s ILUA documents. The validity of the purported ILUA is being challenged by W&J Traditional Owners in a Federal Court hearing scheduled for March. It will consider evidence that the meeting that is claimed to have authorised the ILUA was stacked with people who had no authority to authorise a deal and sign away W&J country.

Adrian Burragubba, Murrawah Johnson and Linda Bobongie for the Wangan and Jagalingou Traditional Owners Family Council said: “A substantial injustice may be done if we are denied an appeal and the interim injunction is lifted before the trial.

“Nothing can hide the facts that Adani has worked to divide our community, overturn our decisions, buy off individuals, split our claim group and engineer a sham meeting to ‘authorise’ a sham ILUA. And the Queensland government has aided and abetted them. This deal is illegitimate and should never have gone through.

“The Queensland Labor government has the power to do something about this, and it’s time they did!

“If we cannot restrain Adani with an injunction, then the Queensland Government must hear loud and clear that our land rights and culture cannot be surrendered for Adani’s profit.

“For us, this campaign has never just been about Adani. It has always been about protecting and conserving our land and culture so we can determine our own path forward for our people. One based on strong respect for our law and culture, the health of our Country and a resilient community — and clean enterprises and jobs in the new growth industries like solar energy generation.”

In a 24 May 2018 the Federal Court of Australia ruled that the Juru People themselves had not agreed that Kyburra Munda Yalga Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC should replace Juru Enterprises Limited as the nominated body negotiating an agreement with Adani Australia Pty Ltd. At time of judgment Kyburra Munda Yalga Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC was under administration.

The Guardian, 22 June 2018:

A north Queensland Indigenous organisation kept secret more than $2m in payments by the Adani mining company, federal court documents show.

Guardian Australia has obtained court documents that show the Kyburra Munda Yalga Aboriginal Corporation did not account for payments by Adani, then paid its own directors up to $1,000 a day cash-in-hand to conduct now-invalidated cultural heritage assessments for the Indian mining company.

The federal court last month delivered a ruling that may void the assessments, which are required to protect sacred sites from development.

It ruled that another Indigenous business, Juru Enterprises Limited, was the proper “nominated body” to represent traditional owners on a land-use agreement with Adani.

The impact of the decision could be wide-ranging. Traditional owners from near Bowen say they are “hugely worried” Adani has conducted work at its Abbot Point port based on improper or conflicted advice from the cultural assessment surveys.

Juru Enterprises could now demand Adani “redesign or reconfigure” any plans or works near sacred sites.

The court case has also exposed how Adani funding was central to alleged rorts conducted by Kyburra board members. Guardian Australia has seen letters, minutes of meetings, police reports, auditors reports and sworn affidavits that detail how Kyburra kept money paid by Adani off the books and then funnelled it to directors through “fees” and “loans”.

Kyburra declared only $50,000 total income in consecutive years: 2014/2015 and 2015/16. About $2m was paid to the organisation by Adani in 2014 and 2015, including an estimated $800,000 for cultural assessments. But none of it showed up in Kyburra’s annual financial statements.

Traditional owners said in a 2016 complaint letter they were suspicious about “secret payments by Adani”.

The issue before the federal court was whether Kyburra validly appointed itself as the Juru nominated body to represent traditional owners on a land-use agreement with Adani. The Indian company filed a notice submitting to any order the court might make, except as to costs.

Adani has rejected suggestions it should have been aware of mismanagement at Kyburra and alleged rorts by directors, and there is no suggestion the payments themselves were improper. The company said it was only made aware of “financial matters” through the court proceedings.

Guardian Australia can reveal that both the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (Oric) and the Australian federal police were aware of concerns about Kyburra in 2015 and 2016….

In 2016, a lawyer representing disgruntled members of Kyburra wrote to Oric asking for an investigation into the organisation. The letter was also submitted to the court in the proceedings but not tendered at hearing.

It outlined what Oric later confirmed in an audit – that Kyburra failed to declare significant income each year from land-use agreements, including the lucrative deal with Adani. By declaring only $50,000 annual income, the organisation was exempted from having to provide audited financial statements. Money from Adani, notionally “for the benefit and use of the Juru people”, was not accounted for.

 “In our submission Kyburra actually received monies from Adani Mining Pty Ltd ... in the amount of $1,225,000. In addition ... Adani transferred $825,000 to Kyburra for cultural heritage survey activities,” the letter says.

“Further, our clients advise that the surveys are conducted by directors alone – about six directors would be present at any survey – with a daily rate of approximately $1,000 paid individually to them.

 “Our clients are suspicious of similar secret payments by Adani on behalf of Kyburra.”…..

Morrell[ traditional owner] told Guardian Australia on Monday he could not explain why Kyburra moved in 2015 to replace Juru Enterprises as the “nominated body” representing the Juru people on a land use agreement with Adani. He also questioned why Adani had simply accepted the switch.

 “I really could not tell you that one. That one really has me baffled.”

He said the court ruling meant any work carried out by Kyburra for Adani had “not been carried out under the agreements” and was voided.

“We’re happy to do the work again. Kyburra and Adani have never forwarded or allowed anyone to see any of the work being carried out, any of the reports on the work being carried out. That’s left all the Juru people wondering what was going on.

“We’ll work with them, but everything that has been done will need to be revised and reviewed and we haven’t had the opportunity to do that yet……

“We’re hugely worried. Throughout the state development area at Abbot Point alone there’s numerous places where we have burial sites, rock art, rock carvings, sacred sites. If any of those areas are being impacted they need to have that impact removed from that area.

IT'S TIME TO #standup4forests AND TELL THE NSW GOVERNMENT TO LEAVE OUR FORESTS ALONE, Community Meeting, 5pm Saturday 30 June 2018, Grafton District Service Club

Conservationists Alarmed at NSW Government Plans for our Forests

Conservationists are alarmed about the NSW Government’s proposals to increase logging intensity in our public forests.

And while the Government is proposing drastic changes weakening logging rules, it is avoiding holding meaningful public consultations about their plans. North Coast conservationists had wanted to the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) to visit local forests to see first hand the damage that has already resulted from the current logging practices. The EPA refused to participate.

This is probably not surprising given that the EPA, which is charged with monitoring and ensuring compliance of logging operations in the State Forests, has failed in ensuring that the current regulations have been adhered to.  And on those occasions when it has determined that there have been breaches, the penalties it imposed have been of the “slap on the wrist” nature. So it is no wonder that the current rules have frequently been ignored.

The North Coast Environment Council (NCEC) and the North East Forests Alliance (NEFA) are countering the Government’s current consultation failure by holding their own meetings to explain to the community exactly what the Government has in mind for the future of our public forests. Several meetings have already been held on the North Coast with more planned, including one for Grafton at the Grafton District Services Club (upstairs) on Saturday June 30.

In a recent statement NCEC Vice-President Susie Russell outlined the consequences of the Government’s proposed changes.

“If the proposed rules are implemented, every population centre on the north coast will see its water yields drop as intensive land clearfell logging dries out the catchments. There will be increased erosion and sedimentation of streams from decreased stream buffers.

“The extinction cliff for many of our native animals and plants will be reached faster as there will no longer be a requirement to look for them prior to logging.

“The carbon storage capacity of our forest estate will be greatly diminished as logging intensity increases and the dense, young regrowth is more flammable than the mature forests it replaces.

“All this at a time when climate change is accelerating and the planet's temperature is rising. We need now to be protecting our future by maximising the shade, natural water and carbon storage, while connecting habitats to enable animals to move to more suitable areas,” she said.

The NCEC is concerned that areas that have been off-limits to logging for 20 years - old growth forest, stream protection buffers, and high quality koala habitat – will be sacrificed to meet wood contracts.

Our state Government needs to be reminded that State Forests belong to the people of this state – not to the timber industry or to a Government that seems hell-bent on damaging as much of the natural environment as it can while it is in office.

            - Leonie Blain

So that champion of silvertails Malcolm Bligh Turnbull thinks mentioning his wealth in public is a form of class warfare?

“They want to attack me having a quid…They want to attack me and Lucy for working hard, investing, having a go, making money, paying plenty of tax, giving back to the community." [Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, The Guardian, 25 June 2018]

“The honourable member has asked about my investments, which are set out in the members' interests disclosure….. If honourable members opposite want to start a politics-of-envy campaign about it, I don't think they'll be telling people anything they don't know.”  
[Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, Hansard, 25 June 2018]

“It has embraced the politics of envy and class war”;
[Malcolm Bligh Turnbull speaking about the parliamentary Labor Party, Hansard, 25 June 2018]

“He says I'm a snob." [Malcolm Bligh Turnbull speaking about Labor leader Bill Shorten, Hansard, 19 June 2018]

I can’t speak for anybody else. However I would gladly “attack” the vainglorious Malcolm Bligh Turnbull - not for being wealthy but on the basis that:

(i) during his time practising law he was allegedly not above abusing the legal process, a judge stating in 1984 that he “managed effectively to poison the fountain of justice”;

(ii) he reportedly made millions from the logging industry in the Solomon Islands in the early 1990s – when Hong Kong-listed Axiom Forest Resources of which he was chair virtually clear-felled its holdings and, whose logging practises were considered "amongst the worst in the world";

(iii) he was at the centre of Australia’s biggest corporate failure to date in 2001, as chairman of investment bank Goldman Sachs Australia, and many ordinary working class people lost everything while he walked away virtually unscathed;

(iv) as Water Minister in the Howard Government in 2007 he wanted to wreck water sustainability in the Clarence River catchment area on the NSW Far North Coast in order to satisfy Liberal-Nationals supporters in the Murray-Darling Basin;

(v) as an independently wealthy federal minister in 2007 Malcolm Turnbull was submitting claims to the Dept. of Finance for $175 accommodation costs per night while in Canberra even though he was staying at an ACT residence owned by his wife and, until he was caught out in 2014 also submitted claims of $10 per night if his wife came to stay at his ACT penthouse;

(vi) as chair and managing director of Goldman Sachs Australia and partner in New York-based Gold Sachs and Co. from 1998 to 2001, he helped lay some of the early building blocks for the Global Financial Crisis;

(vii) his political judgement was so poor that, after meeting then public servant and Liberal Party supporter Godwin Grech in private on or about 12 June 2009, he asserted to parliament on 22 June that a forged email was a true document in an effort to bring down the government of the day; 

(viii) he and his government opposed any real wage increase for workers on the minimum wage in a submission to the Fair Work Commission and went on to actively support a cut to penalty rates – safe in the knowledge that their own parliamentary salaries would increase at fairly regular intervals;

(ix) he resisted the creation of the Banking and Finance Royal Commission and set up terms of reference which sought to nobble that commission;

(x) as Communication’s Minister and then Prime Minister he deliberately wrecked Australia’s hope of having world-class Internet connections;

(xi) he continues to move forward with imposing a punitive cashless welfare payment system on the majority of welfare recipients while also continuing the reduction of funding to vital social services; and

(xii) his first response to any challenge to his world view is to sneer at both the questioner and the content of the question.

An more authentic telling of Malcolm Turnbull’s own ‘poor boy made good’ story

Malcolm Bligh Turnbull went to a public primary school at Vaucluse in Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs for about three years. During this period the family income was in the vicinity of £8,700 to £9,700 a year – with his mother earning four times the average female wage as a successful screenwriter.

Then from the age of eight he went to Sydney Grammar School as a border during and after his parent’s divorce proceedings. He received a scholarship for at least part of that time.

When Malcolm was in Year 10, his father bought a luxurious three-bedroom apartment in Point Piper. The apartment had extensive water views and cost Bruce Turnbull est. $36,000. Before that both he and his father had lived in a flat belonging to his mother.

He graduated from university during the years when undergraduate and post-graduate tertiary education was free of course fees in Australia. All this is on the public record.

Malcom Turnbull purchased his first house while still a university undergraduate.

At age 23 he bought a semi-detached house in inner-Sydney Newtown for almost $50,000 and at age 25 he bought a Redfern terrace for $40,000. He bought his own first home as a married man, for an undisclosed sum in Potts Point, after returning from his stint as a Rhodes schlor at Oxford University.

Malcolm Turnbull inherited assets worth an est. $2 million from his hotel-broker father before he turned 29 years of age according to one of his biographers, Paddy Manning.

He went into  a cleaning business with former NSW premier Neville Wran. After the sale of his co-founding interest in IT company Oze Email Ltd for a reported $60 million, he also founded a merchant bank with Nicholas Whitlam, son of the former prime minister (both Packer and Larry Adler gave their financial backing for a short time). 

In 2008 BRW reportedly estimated Malcolm and Lucy's joint wealth as $133 million and, in 2010 he was included in the BRW Rich 200 list for the second year running for having a personal fortune of $186 million. He and his wife Lucy went on to greater wealth which was last jointly estimated to be in the vicinity of $200 million.

His last Statement of Registrable Interests lists a veritable slew of financial investments and an expensive property portfolio shared between he and his wife. 

Malcolm Turnbull’s annual salary as Australia Prime Minister places him in the Top 10 for world leaders and even the most conservative estimation of his total annual income places him in the top 5 per cent in this country.

In the second half of 2016 Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull made a political donation towards the Liberal Party federal election campaign of $1.75 million.

It has been reported that Malcolm Turnbull and his wife give $550,000 annually to charity via the Turnbull Foundation - their "private ancillary fund" which apparently has a family corporation/s as trustee/s and appears to act as a tax minimisation scheme as the entire $550,000 is potentially 100 per cent tax deductible.

The personal income tax ‘cuts’ recently pass by the Australian Parliament will potentially benefit the Prime Minister, as will the proposed company tax cuts as he owns or co-owns a number of active corporations.

I say potentially, because during the Panama Papers exposé it was revealed that Malcolm Turnbull is not adverse to availing himself of the advantages of international tax havens and likely already pays little tax on much of his financial interests.

Council for Civil Liberties condemns regulations allowing for bans on public gatherings on public land

Excerpt from New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties post, 20 June 2018:

NSW Civil Liberties Council (CCL) is appalled to learn that in 12 days, the NSW State Government will have incredibly wide powers to disperse or ban protests, rallies, and virtually any public gathering across about half of all land across the state.

On 16 March this year, the NSW State Government published the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018(NSW). Included was a provision which provided that public officials would have broad power to “direct a person” to stop “Taking part in any gathering, meeting or assembly”. The only exception provided for is “in the case of a cemetery, for the purpose of a religious or other ceremony of burial or commemoration”. Alternatively, public officials have broad discretion to affix a conspicuous sign prohibiting any gathering, meeting or assembly – again, unless the public gathering was a funeral.

Police, Local Council officials, and even so-far unspecified categories of people or government employees could soon have the power to ban people from holding public gatherings on public land. The territory where these incredibly broad powers would apply are called Crown Land - land owned by the State Government. This includes town squares, parks, roads, beaches, community halls and more.

These powers will come into effect from 1 July. If these regulations are allowed to stand, the effect will not just be that protests, rallies and demonstrations can only occur at the sufferance of police and other officials. It will be that virtually all public events will only occur with the tolerance of public officials. Our right to assemble on public land will become something less than a license. That right may temporarily be granted by public officials, but it may just as easily be withdrawn, at any time, for any reason. The penalty for defying such a ban or order to stop meeting in public could be up to $11 000……

The time to speak out against these regulations is now. CCL objects to these regulations in the strongest possible terms, and urges their immediate and unconditional repeal……

Excerpts from Crown Land Management Regulation 2018 under the Crown Land Management Act 2016:

9 Conduct prohibited in dedicated or reserved Crown land

(1) A person must not do any of the following on dedicated or reserved Crown land:

(e) remain in or on the land or any part of the land or any structure or enclosure in or on the land when reasonably requested to leave by an authorised person,  

Maximum penalty: 50 penalty units.

13 Activities that can be prohibited on Crown land by direction or notice under Part 9 of Act (1) Each of the activities specified in the following Table is prescribed for the purposes of sections 9.4 (1) (b), 9.5 (1) (b) and 9.5 (2) of the Act:

3 Holding a meeting or performance or conducting entertainment for money or consideration of any kind, or in a manner likely to cause a nuisance to any person

4 Taking part in any gathering, meeting or assembly (except, in the case of a cemetery, for the purpose of a religious or other ceremony of burial or commemoration)

6 Displaying or causing any sign or notice to be displayed

7 Distributing any circular,

Excerpt from Crown Land Management Act 2016 No 58:

1.7   Definition of “Crown land”

Subject to this Division, each of the following is Crown land for the purposes of this Act:

(a)  land that was Crown land as defined in the Crown Lands Act 1989 immediately before the Act’s repeal,

(b)  land that becomes Crown land because of the operation of a provision of this Act or a declaration made under section 4.4,

(c)  land vested, on and from the repeal of the Crown Lands Act 1989, in the Crown (including when it is vested in the name of the State).

Note.

 Clause 6 of Schedule 7 provides for certain land under Acts repealed by Schedule 8 to become Crown land under this Act. Section 1.10 then provides for this land to be vested in the Crown.

Land that will become Crown land under this Act includes land vested in the Crown that is dedicated for a public purpose. This land was previously excluded from the definition of Crown land in the Crown Lands Act 1989. See also section 1.8 (2).

Investigation into the conduct of Public Service Commissioner & IPA member could be cut short and closed without findings once he leaves the public service in August

John Lloyd. Image: The Guardian, 4 June 2018

This close to a federal election will Turnbull & Co organise a whitewashing of any Australian Public Service Commission Code of Conduct finding relating to John Richard Lloyd?

The Guardian, 21 June 2018:

The outgoing public service commissioner John Lloyd is being investigated for an alleged breach of the public service code of conduct, in what Labor has called an “unprecedented” move.

Labor has targeted Lloyd in Senate estimates sessions over allegations of favouritism to the right-wing thinktank the Institute of Public Affairs, of which he is a longtime member and former director.

At a supplementary session on Thursday, the finance and public administration committee chair, James Paterson, tabled letters showing that the acting merit protection commissioner, Mark Davidson, had announced he intended to conduct an inquiry into Lloyd’s conduct.

The 14 June letter from Davidson said he would investigate an “allegation of a breach of the Australian public service code of conduct”.

Asked why he is being investigated, Lloyd told the committee he would take the question on notice and said he did not want to prejudice the investigation but did not claim public interest immunity.

In June Lloyd announced his retirement effective 8 August but said the decision was not influenced by “recent events”.

He told the committee he resigned after consulting his family after a long working life and denied any government member had sought or canvassed his resignation.

Davidson told the committee there was “no power to continue the inquiry” after Lloyd ceases to be commissioner on 8 August….

At an October estimates session Lloyd was asked about his contact with the IPA, including an email in which he attached a document that he said “highlights some of the more generous agreement provisions applying to APS employees”.

The IPA is a fierce public critic of public service conditions and in December called for 27,000 jobs to be slashed.

At that hearing Lloyd defended his link to the group, rejecting the allegation that giving the information amounted to special access because the information was publicly available in public service enterprise agreements.

In May it was revealed Lloyd had complained about scrutiny of his links to the IPA, writing to the IPA’s executive director, John Roskam, referring to “more publicity for the IPA including page 1 of the Canberra Times thanks to ALP questioning”.

The Canberra Times, 23 June 2018:

Mr Lloyd was a controversial appointee from the moment Tony Abbott gave him the job. Although he is a career bureaucrat, he has long been associated with conservative politics; many of his senior promotions were the result of Coalition governments appointing him directly. As John Howard's building industry watchdog, he took an unashamedly hard line against unions. In his current role, he questioned long-held public service tenets, particularly security of employment, and openly opposed freedom of information law.

The head of the public servants' union, Nadine Flood, is hardly an objective observer. Nonetheless, the tone of her extraordinary farewell to Mr Lloyd, who will resign in August, is a sign of his impact on public administration. Ms Flood said Mr Lloyd had debased his office, misled a Senate inquiry, repeatedly attacked the public service, "used his position to promote his ideological preoccupations" and was unfit for the job.....

...it is deeply worrying that acting merit protection commissioner Mark Davidson took so long to deal with the complaint. The possibility now exists that the ensuing investigation might not conclude before Mr Lloyd leaves his job, by when the investigation, if it is still ongoing, would need to be cancelled.

Lloyd spent almost two hours of last month’s [Senate] hearing refusing to answer whether he was under investigation for his contact with the IPA, at one stage attempting to see if he could claim public interest immunity over the queries.

He later took the question on notice and said he was not the subject of any current inquiries.

The department of the prime minister and cabinet had rejected freedom-of-information requests asking for emails between Lloyd and the IPA, on the grounds that releasing the emails “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law”.

The Guardian, 4 June 2018:

John Lloyd, the public service commissioner, has announced his resignation just days after a Senate estimates grilling that questioned his independence…

Lloyd spent almost two hours of last month’s [Senate] hearing refusing to answer whether he was under investigation for his contact with the IPA, at one stage attempting to see if he could claim public interest immunity over the queries.

He later took the question on notice and said he was not the subject of any current inquiries.

The department of the prime minister and cabinet had rejected freedom-of-information requests asking for emails between Lloyd and the IPA, on the grounds that releasing the emails “could reasonably be expected to prejudice the conduct of an investigation of a breach, or possible breach, of the law”.

Australia’s Border Farce lives down to its nickname

Minister for Home Affairs and Liberal MP for Dickson Peter Dutton’s poor oversight and lack of managerial skills is on display for all to see…….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 6 June 2018:

The benefits of the merger of the Immigration and Customs departments and creation of Australian Border Force  haven't been proven and promised increased revenue hasn't materialised, a damning audit report has found.

While the Department of Immigration and Border Protection did achieve the merger effectively, it "is not in a position to provide the government with assurance that the claimed benefits of integration have been achieved," the report said.

The merger of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service took place in 2015, with its functions now covered under the Department of Home Affairs. Controversial at the time, it heralded a move to focus more on guarding the country's borders over resettlement and migration.

In the business case for the merger, the department committed to a "Benefits Realisation Plan," but because the plan was not implemented, the claimed benefits have not been measured and can't be demonstrated, the report said.

While the business case for the integration of the departments promised an increase in revenue from customs duty, less than half of the promised revenue increase has materialised. At the end of 2017, just 42.2 per cent of the extra revenue committed to had been achieved, and the report predicted that at the current rate just 31.6 per cent of the additional revenue promised would be delivered.

When the merger was announced, then immigration minister Scott Morrison promised "hundreds of millions in savings" would be reinvested back into the agency.

Auditor-general Grant Herir slammed the department's record keeping, which the department admitted was in a "critically poor state," and said there was no evidence that the Minister Peter Dutton was given written briefings on the progress of the integration of the departments.

In its response, the Department of Home Affairs acknowledged it had issues with record keeping and committed to making improvements a priority. The report didn't look on this commitment favourably though, pointing to more than 10 years of audits and reviews that have made similar findings.

The problems and their solutions are known to the department, and it has an action plan to address them, although numerous previous attempts to do so have not been successful," it said.

The report also found that the department experienced a loss of corporate memory through the merger.

"Almost half of SES officers present in July 2015 [were] no longer in the department at July 2017," it said.

The report also found that out of 33 consultancy contracts with values of more than $1 million, just 2 were evaluated for value for money, meaning that it was unclear if the other 31 contracts had been value for money.

Spending on consultancy in the department more than doubled in the years after the merger, topping more than $50 million in each of the 2014-15 and 2015-16 financial years…..

The Age, 19 June 2018:

The multimillion-dollar college that trains Australia’s border security personnel has “overpromised and underdelivered” and immigration and customs officials have repeatedly abused their powers, a scathing report has found.

The government-commissioned findings also said many department staff lack the training needed to perform their jobs and “jaws of death” have gripped officials struggling to complete more work with fewer resources.

In May 2014 the Coalition Abbott government controversially announced the creation of the Australian Border Force (ABF), as part of a merger of customs and immigration border operations. Crucial to the new super-charged agency was the establishment of the ABF College, with multiple campuses, to ensure recruits and existing staff “have the right skills to do their jobs”.

Under the former department of immigration and border protection, consultants RAND Australia were asked to evaluate the progress of the merger, ahead of the creation of the Home Affairs portfolio in December last year which combined immigration, border protection, law enforcement and intelligence.

The findings concluded that “clear and unequivocal” progress has been made towards building a “modern border management capability”.

However, success had been “uneven” and in particular, the ABF College “largely remains a disappointment to senior leaders across the department”.

The report involved interviews with senior department officials, who cited concern that the college’s curriculum was “not adequate for actual training needs”.

The college’s use of technology was poor and, in many cases, was used to “automate bad learning environments” rather than improve training.

The college was supposed to train staff across the department, however many officials were not given time to attend courses.

Overall, the college and other training opportunities in the department “overpromised and underdelivered to the detriment of the workforce and the morale”.

One senior official was so frustrated at the problems that he suspended a board examining the issues “until new terms of reference and fresh ideas were developed”.

The report is dated 2018 but it is not clear exactly when it was finalised. The Department of Home Affairs did not answer questions from Fairfax Media on how much had been spent on the college and where its campuses were located. Officials have previously said the 2014-15 budget included $54 million to establish the college and other training measures, and that several campuses would be established including in Sydney and Canberra.

Across the department’s broader workforce, senior officials said staff in many cases lacked “the capability to do the work required of their assigned positions”.

This included customs and immigration investigators “not understanding the law, use of force protocols, and rules of engagement” which in some cases led to “abuse of power,” the report said.

One official said field compliance officers “were doing dangerous jobs without proper training” and another described a junior officer who was “unable to manage shipboard operations due to a lack of proper training and experience”.

Department staff described being held in the “jaws of death” as they juggled an increased workload and declining resources. Senior officials repeatedly raised concern that the ABF received more resources than other divisions but “has not been subjected to the same level of scrutiny”….

As a local member it appears that Dutton is also having ‘workforce’ issues ahead of the forthcoming federal election…..

www.peterdutton.com.au as of 20 June 2018:

Peter is working hard but could use your help.
If you can spare an hour or two to help Peter in Dickson, please join the team.

The most shameful evidence of Peter Dutton's management style is found when one condiders that as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection since 23 December 2014, he currently has ultimate responsibility for the welfare of asylum seekers held in custody. 

As of 26 June 2018 there have been 15 deaths in custody of persons being held in onshore and offshore immigration detention facilities since Dutton became the responsible minister. 

Bringing the total number of deaths in onshore or offshore detention and in the community to est. 64 people since January 2000. 

That is the equivilant of almost four deaths each year on Peter Dutton's watch and around three deaths per year overall.

According to MSN on 21 June 2018; There are nearly 700 men currently in detention on Papua New Guinea, and more than 900 men, women and children on Nauru.