Yamba Port & Rail Scheme: was the NSW Upper House Inquiry into Crown Land misled?

“We service the property developers and property investors by unlocking access to the best available lands at the best available price.” [United Land Councils Ltd, website page retrieved 20 August 2016]

On 15 August 2016 four representatives of United Land Councils Ltd & United First Peoples Syndications Pty Ltd gave evidence before the NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 6 INQUIRY INTO CROWN LAND.

These are excerpts of evidence given by MICHAEL ANDERSON, Deputy Chair, United Land Councils and United First Peoples Syndications:

We advocate the idea of forming a working party with key government stakeholders through which we will secure the support of Aboriginal New South Wales. We are confident that, if we cannot achieve greater unity of Aboriginal people, we will certainly be able to deliver a large number of the most important strategic areas of New South Wales, particularly the coast and some regional locations west of the Blue Mountains. We have brought to the Committee a sample of works we are doing. We present to the Committee our introductory brochure with which we introduce ourselves to Aboriginal organisations across Australia. The brochure sets out our objectives and the benefits we bring to them as members uniting with us. In that brochure, we identify major projects such as damming the Great Katherine dam and building pipelines inland to irrigate the arid central Australia, converting it to Australia's food bowl to the world. We also discuss the project of a super port in Yamba to cater for the international trade for the next two centuries and, through that port, opening up the vast network of disused rail networks to provide a safe and efficient transportation mode. We attach a separate summary of the Yamba super port proposal because that is directly relevant to this Committee and how, working with Indigenous communities, major infrastructure can be created combining port and rail to become the leading means for distribution throughout Australia. We also attach a profile of our leading joint venture partners such Grossman, which a leading German solar, civil engineering and construction company, and the MHR Group, which is a leading Dubai pipeline and infrastructure group. One thing Arabs know is deserts and how to irrigate them. We provide a Lever arch folder that contains some of the template agreements used to effect an amicable settlement on the current Aboriginal land claims that are outstanding. We have drafted a master settlement agreement and we provide for every conceivable use of the land. We provide draft agreements for parks and conservation management, licences for Aboriginal farming and fishing use and access, Indigenous social housing models, trust funds for the provision of the next generations of Aboriginal peoples, and a series of land use agreements to promote business and industry….

Large high-tech warehousing is ideally suited to land under claim. The promise of employment and lasting careers for the younger generation on their own land is meaningful to the Aboriginal community. This same thinking applies to the Yamba super port and rail development. New regional hubs will be created around train intersections. Almost all of these potential growth areas involve Aboriginal lands or land claims.…..

As we hope to present to you, we have the backers, both in international investors and venture partners. We have the capacity and funds to change our destiny. All we ask is that we get on with it. We need no charity. We need no patronising. We ask that we plan for the future together and get the red tape out of our way…..

I sit on another national committee on water planning. New South Wales is yet to put its water plans in to the Commonwealth Government under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. I sit on those committees and I am one of the assessors on whether New South Wales is doing the right thing with their water resources plan. So we are looking at those rivers and factors that are important to us in terms of looking after them. When you talk about planning, Aboriginal people already know what can be used and what cannot be used. I can tell you that a lot of that land will not be used……

The Hon. SCOTT FARLOW: Could you come back to us on notice as to which land councils in New South Wales are part of your organisation?

Mr PETERSON: Sure.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: I would ask on notice what is your relationship like with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council? Is it a positive relationship, have you sat down and spoken with them about this particular proposal, are you on the same page? Secondly, what do you mean by "progressive" land councils, if you could provide that on notice?

Mr PETERSON: Those that have been keen to show interest in development.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: Development-focused land councils?

Mr PETERSON: Yes, taking it from bush to something.

Mr ANDERSON: I know a lot of the land councils really want to progress and develop economic strategies, housing estates and start doing that, but unfortunately they are really tied down with a noose around their neck.

Mr DAVID SHOEBRIDGE: If you could answer Mr Farlow's question and mine about the land council on notice that would good.

The CHAIR: We are also looking for the cemetery and the ports attachments, if you can table them.

Mr PETERSON: Yes. [my red bolding]

This development group was thought to have been in discussion with Des Euen and Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd (A.I.D.) for some time and, although it is possible that United Land Councils & United First Peoples Syndications may have adopted this infrastructure scheme as its own when the original Yamba Port & Rail (Y.P.R Australia Ltd) unsolicited proposal was rejected by the NSW Government in April 2014, all may not be as it first appears.

A.I.D. and United First Peoples Syndications are sharing the same graphics and presenting the port proposal in the same terms.

Clarence Valley residents who attended the 2 June 2016  A.I.D.'summit' in Casino will probably recall this graphic prepared by David C Jones, Inverell, for Yamba Port and Rail aka Y.P.R Australia Ltd sister company to Australian Infrastructure Developments Pty Ltd (A.I.D.):

[See: http://www.aid-australia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/A.I.D.-CASINO-SUMMIT-v20a.pdf]

This is a similar graphic also prepared by David C Jones, Inverell, for Yamba Port and Rail, being used by United First Peoples Syndications:

[See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWRePyoHjI, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KzCURkafsI & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sgGg8QU_Uc, Sydney, 17 May 2016]

If any sort of business relationship exists between A.I.D. and either or both of the two companies which gave evidence, then a reasonable person might expect that this would have been disclosed to the Inquiry - given formal rejection of the Yamba Port & Rail development proposal by the Baird Government.

Just as this inconvenient fact was sidestepped, so too the companies avoided telling these same committee members that both United Land Councils Limited (registered in New Zealand in July 2016) and United First Peoples Syndications Pty Ltd (registered in Australia in April 2016) share Richard John Green as sole director of both companies and, when one delves into the official corporate history, he is the only reliably identified shareholder as well.

Nor did any of those representatives who appeared before the Inquiry explain why United Land Councils appears to believe that it has a right to use Clarence Valley estuary land to; service the property developers and property investors by unlocking access to the best available lands at the best available price. Outright sales are available, but often it will be the interests of the developers or investors to enter into collaborative arrangements…..

When it came to the actual Yamba ‘mega port’ it was more than misleading to avoid mentioning to this parliamentary standing committee the fact that the Yaegl people (holding native title on Clarence River waters from just above Brushgrove right down to the river mouth at the breakwater walls) are concerned about this scheme to industrialise 27.2 per cent of the total estuary area and had refused to meet with A.I.D. in August.

That some measure of local indigenous concerns would have been known to the United Land Councils and United First Peoples Syndications can be inferred by the following statement in the Clarence Valley Independent on 24 August 2016:

Chair of the Yaegl Traditional Owners Corporation (YTOAC), Billy Walker, told the Independent that his board has not yet discussed the matters raised at the inquiry; however, he said it had met with Messrs Green and Anderson earlier this year. Mr Walker said: “From my point of view, I’d have to see what they have to say to the board before making any comment.” He said that a future meeting had not been organised.

When questioned on the subject of the peak state land council the companies avoided disclosing the obvious antipathy towards the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, evidenced by the director's opening remarks at a company event:

“We’ve got the state land council which is not helping our people in any way. You know we’ve got all the councilors sitting up in there in those big offices earning all this money and what have we got for over the last forty years….”
[See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loWRePyoHjI]

There was also a marked failure to mention that, along with the existing port infrastructure ie. “Goodwood Island wharf, a large shed that can accommodate vessels up to 120 metres in length, a small tug wharf and pontoon” [Port Authority of New South Wales Annual Report 2014/15], the estimated land area required to build the proposed "super port" terminals is land on which native title has been officially extinguished. 

Additionally, the vast majority of this land is privately-held regionally significant farmland. In other words, not Crown land (including land under claim) which is the focus of the inquiry.

Full details of the extent of the legitimate Native Title proudly and responsibly held by the Yaegl people can be found here.

When United Land Councils Ltd & United First Peoples Syndications Pty Ltd spoke of having backers who were international investors and venture partners, like A.I.D.,  they weren't telling untruths. One only has to look at what correspondence is publicly available and, the photos and videos turning up on social media of various "super port" proponents with individuals representing foreign capital, multinationals, professional company directors, corporate strategists and legal shills.

It is hard to escape the suspicion that Chinese investors and foreign/domestic infrastructure and development companies have been using both these companies (just as they use Australian Infrastructure Developments) as a way of bypassing the values of Clarence Valley communities and other vulnerable communities across Australia in order to sate their own financial avarice.

One has to wonder what the Committee Chair The Hon. Paul Green (CDP, LC Member), Deputy Chair The Hon. Lou Amato (Lib, LC Member) and members The Hon. Catherine Cusack (Lib, LC Member), The Hon. Scott Farlow (Lib, LC Member), The Hon. Daniel Mookhey (ALP, LC Member), Mr David Shoebridge (The Greens, LC Member) and The Hon. Ernest Wong (ALP, LC Member) would think of being given less than the full picture when it came to the proposed Port of Yamba overdevelopment.

The Inquiry into Crown Land reports to the NSW Parliament on 13 October 2016 and, as there is no way for local communities to correct the record, Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee No. 6  will make recommendations regarding Crown lands on the NSW North Coast with an imperfect understanding of the situation in the Clarence Valley.

Brief background

A full list of registered New Zealand companies in which Richard Green was/is a director and/or shareholder can be found here.

Further information on a number of these companies can be found here.

Australian Securities & Investment Commission (ASIC), United First Peoples Syndications Pty Ltd organisation details:

It is noted that no company named First Peoples Advancement Charitable Trust of 89 Kiteroa Street, Rd 2, Cambridge appears on the New Zealand online company register as of 20 August 2016. However, on 22 April 2016 First Peoples Advancement Charity Pty Ltd was registered in NSW, with Richard John Green as sole director & company secretary and all shareholdings held by First Peoples Advancement Charitable Trust (NZ) on behalf of unidentified individuals and/or corporations.

Google Earth image of the New Zealand address of the First Peoples Advancement Charitable Trust:

Northern Rivers councils reject Baird Government's new land clearing legislation

It sometimes seems that every time we turn around in the Northern Rivers there is some politician or commercial interest wanting to diminish or destroy the land we live on and our enviable way of life.

This time it is a state government that has lost sight of what really matters……….

Echo NetDaily, 17 August 2016:

Northern Rivers Regional Organisation of Councils (NOROC), the peak body for the region’s local government organisations, has made a damning appraisal of the Baird government’s proposed new biodiversity and land-clearing laws.

The body has warned in its submission to the government review of land-clearing and threatened species laws the reforms would be bad for biodiversity and sustainability, and add administrative burdens and costs for local councils.

Key concerns raised in the NOROC submission

*The proposed legislation will lead to poorer biodiversity and sustainability outcomes on the far north coast as well as adding significant complexity, administrative burdens and costs for local government.

*The reforms will ‘interfere with the legitimate strategic planning functions of councils including their ability to implement development control policies that properly reflect the desires of their local communities.’

*The new regime will ‘lead to a very uneven distribution of biodiversity loss across the landscape.’

*The proposed reforms ‘represent a significant cost shift to local government. This is acknowledged in the Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel report but not in any of the legislation reform public exhibition materials.’

Nature Conservation Council CEO Kate Smolski said, ‘Nobody supports Mike Baird’s deeply flawed package – not the scientists, not the conservationists, and not NOROC, who have a clear understanding that these laws threaten soils and water supplies and wildlife in the Northern Rivers region.

She called on the Premier to ‘scrap this flawed package of laws and either fund Local Land Services to make the Native Vegetation Act works as it was intended, or go back to the drawing board and come up with another way to provide workable, strong protections for nature in NSW.’….

The message is being sent that the Clarence Valley does not want the Clarence River estuary industrialised and says "No" to a mega port - Part 2

NSW Greens Spokesperson for Maritime and Ports letter to NSW Minister for Roads Maritime and Freight, 7 July 2016.

Letter in reply from NSW Minister for Roads, Maritime and Freight, 10 August 2016.

Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment, Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash, is learning the hard way that Australians expect the boss to act fairly

As a recognised bargaining representative of the Turnbull Government, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment, Liberal Senator Michaelia Cash is once more before the Australian Fair Work Commission.

Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU), media release, 17 August 2016:

CPSU TAKES ON MINISTER MICHAELIA CASH IN FAIR WORK COMMISSION

The CPSU has taken Employment Minister Michaelia Cash to the Fair Work Commission over her failure to engage in good faith around enterprise agreements for Commonwealth public sector workers.

The case is based on Minister Cash’s refusal to deal constructively with the CPSU, including refusing to discuss or properly consider the union’s fair and reasonable proposals to settle bargaining across multiple Commonwealth agencies.

Action in Fair Work is part of the union’s multi-pronged plan to make the Turnbull Government fix its public sector bargaining mess; the strategy also includes industrial action at international airports and elsewhere, community campaigning targeted in marginal electorates and repeated efforts to engage directly with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Minister Cash.

CPSU National President Alistair Waters said: “Minister Michaelia Cash is responsible for setting and implementing the Turnbull Government’s harsh and unworkable approach to public sector bargaining. We’re taking her to Fair Work to hold her and the Turnbull Government accountable for this debacle that’s unfairly attacked workers for nearly three years.”

“Minister Cash hasn’t just refused to meet with the CPSU, she has also publicly misrepresented our position on numerous occasions and otherwise tried to undermine our attempts to help her fix the Turnbull Government’s bargaining mess. Our members have shown a willingness to compromise but Minister Cash’s responses have been consistently toxic and unfair.”

“There’s a bitter irony that we’ve had to take Minister Cash to the Fair Work Commission to get her to fulfil even her most basic obligations. This is the person who as Employment Minister is responsible for the Fair Work Act she’s flouting by actively undermining bargaining.”

“Public sector workers have fought for nearly three years to protect their existing rights against this Government’s bargaining attacks and they are determined to secure a fair and reasonable outcome. The only way for this protracted dispute to end is for the Turnbull Government to realise that its attempts to force workers to give up family friendly rights and other conditions have failed, and instead engage with us on a sensible alternative.”

“Our action in the Fair Work Commission is just one part of a much broader strategy to pressure Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Cash to fix their bargaining debacle. We’re also planning further industrial action in the wake of last week’s Immigration and Border Force strike at international airports and elsewhere and continuing with our community campaigning in marginal electorates.”

Clancy says Clarence a winner under Greens plan - fairer funding for regional councils

NSW Greens candidate in Clarence Valley local government election Greg Clancy, media release, 15 August 2016:

Fairer Funding for Regional Councils: Clarence a winner under Greens plan to ensure a fairer distribution of crucial Commonwealth roads funding.

Greens Senator and Local Government Spokesperson Lee Rhiannon said, "NSW regional councils are the winners under the Greens plan for a fairer federal funding based on local needs rather than on a per capita basis.

"When parliament resumes on 30 August I will move to set up an inquiry into Commonwealth Financial Assistance Grants to gather evidence to show that regional areas are losing out under the current system."

Under the current system, the federal grants are awarded according to population numbers with little consideration of the size of the region and transport networks that must be maintained.

Greens candidate for Clarence Valley Council, Greg Clancy said, "Getting equitable road finding, based on financial need and the size of a council's road network, would see the Clarence Valley Council with extra funding to build local infrastructure.

"The roads need fixing and Council needs better support to do that. People also want cycleways, parks, playgrounds and pools. The federal grants program can make that happen.

"The current system of awarding road grants to Councils based on their population and not of their needs is inequitable and short changes regional areas.

"You only have to look at the results from last year's funding. Fairfield Council, which covers just 104 square kilometres and has 677 km of roads, received $5.1 million in Federal road funding. Clarence Valley, which has 2445 km of roads across 10,441 square kilometres, also got $5 million. From these figures, it is clear that something is seriously wrong.

"We're talking about a significant amount of funding. This is crucial funding for roads that needs to be distributed fairly, with those Regional Councils in most need getting priority funding in order to deal with their extensive road network.

"It's not just the Greens saying this. The NRMA has said the same, so has a recent NSW Parliamentary report. A new federal funding model would provide a 'win-win' for Council and the community," Dr Clancy said.

"I believe we need more Greens on regional councils to get behind our senators and state MPs so we get the support for a national senate inquiry to fix the broken federal funding model for local councils," he said.

Further information on the General Purpose and Local Road Financial Assistance Grant available at: http://regional.gov.au/local/assistance/fags-state-summaries-nsw.aspx

The Turnbull Government is just not listening to those who have experienced the immigration detention camps first-hand

The Guardian, 18 August 2016:

The Guardian can reveal that the offices of senior members of the Australian government – including prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, attorney general George Brandis and Dutton – all received an extensive dossier in May 2016 that outlined the ongoing harm to children held on Nauru and the “numerous child rights violations” that had occurred.

Save the Children correspondence Peter Dutton by paulfarrell on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/321431649/Save-the-Children-correspondence-Peter-Dutton

Australian Society: you can't make things like this up.....

Having worked with people who are homeless I can just imagine how this incident will be remembered on the streets of Melbourne.

Daily Mail UK, 17 August 2016:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been spotted giving a $5 note to a homeless man while holding a wad of cash in his other hand.

Mr Turnbull was on his way to make a speech about economics in Melbourne on Wednesday when he stopped to drop a folded-up, purple note in a homeless man's coffee cup.

In his other hand, the 61-year-old, who had an investments portfolio worth at least $200 million last year, clutched a money clip that was holding a stack of $5, $20 and $50 notes…..

Five hours of alleged neglect in a Maitland Police cell and a woman lay dead

Maitland Police Station. Image: The Sydney Morning Herald

There is absolutely no excuse for any intoxicated person dying whilst in police custody.

The mother of four, a Wiradjuri woman, was placed in a cell alone at about 1am and checked on at 6am. [The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 August 2016]

If true, the reported five hour gap between security checks by a detention officer should be called for what it is – neglect of the safety and physical wellbeing of a vulnerable person.

Aboriginal Legal Service, excerpt from media release, 17 August 2016:

NSW legislation may need to be reviewed

Aboriginal Legal Service NSW/ACT (ALS) is concerned about the care of intoxicated persons in police holding cells following the tragic death of an Aboriginal woman in police cell custody on 19 July 2016.

Rebecca Maher, 36, died in police cell custody in Maitland Police Station following her detainment by police for apparent intoxification.

Although earlier reports suggested Rebecca Maher was arrested, police media reports state Rebecca Maher was detained for intoxification.

A police media statement says Ms Maher had ‘appeared intoxicated’ and was placed in a holding cell, and ‘about 6am the woman was found deceased.’

Gary Oliver, CEO of ALS says the legislation relating to the detention of intoxicated persons may need review.

“We understand Rebecca Maher had been held in a holding cell for some hours before she was found to be deceased.

“We have many questions about what happened that night, and that includes what continuing avenues the police took to find a responsible person as guided by the legislation, and during that time, what level of care was provided to Rebecca Maher during those 5-6 hours while held by police.

“Putting an intoxicated person into a cell places enormous responsibility on the police to carefully manage the health and welfare of that person until which time they do not appear to be intoxicated and can be released.

“Police notification using the ALS Custody Notification Service (CNS) applies if police have arrested a person for an alleged offence.

“Police are currently not required to call the CNS when they have detained someone who appears to be intoxicated for the sole purpose of their own welfare.

“Police however are required to do a number of other things, including giving the person an opportunity to contact a responsible person, or continually seeking to put the person into the care of a responsible person willing to undertake the care of the intoxicated person, such as a family member, a friend, a member of staff of a government or non-government organisation, or a facility providing welfare or alcohol or other drug rehabilitation services.

“If a responsible person cannot be found, or if the person is not willing to go into the care of the responsible person, or if it is impracticable to transport the person to a responsible person or to their home, police may hold the person at the Station as a temporary measure until that person is seen not to be intoxicated.

“Under the legislation, if the intoxicated person is kept at the station, they have to be kept in a separate part of the station, they are not to be detained in a cell unless it is necessary or impracticable to lock up the person elsewhere, and they have to be given food, drink, bedding and blankets, appropriate to their needs.

“The person must be released as soon as they stop being intoxicated, or appear to not be seriously affected.

“If an intoxicated person is held but not charged, under existing legislation, there is no requirement to call the CNS.

“This may well be a law reform issue. A vulnerable person in custody needs protection.

“A notification system such as the CNS can help trigger protective processes, such as health and welfare checks.

“However, the legislation already requires police to enact certain pathways to ensure the care of the intoxicated person.

“Did police enact those pathways?

“Does the legislation relating to the detention and notification of intoxicated persons need to be reviewed?

“These are some of our questions.

“It is the 25th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody this year, and so many recommendations have still not been implemented, yet they remain astutely relevant.

“The lessons for the care of Aboriginal people in custody are already written. Let’s use them.”

 NSW Police Force, media release, 19 July 2016:

Critical incident - Maitland

A critical incident has been launched after a woman died while in custody at Maitland Police Station.

About 12.45am (Tuesday 19 July 2016), police located and detained a 36-year-old woman who appeared intoxicated, walking along Wollumbi Road, Cessnock.

The woman was transported by police to Maitland Police Station and placed in a holding cell.

About 6am the woman was found deceased.

A Critical Incident Team from Newcastle will now investigate all circumstances surrounding the incident.

That investigation will be subject to independent review.

All information will be provided to the Coroner who will determine the cause of death and make any findings about the events leading to the woman’s death.

The welfare of the police officers has been addressed and they are being supported.

The woman's family has been notified and our thoughts and condolences go out to the family.

Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW David Leyonhjelm appears intent on publicly making a fool of himself

This is what Sydney Morning Herald journalist Mark Kenny had to say about Liberal Democratic Party Senator for NSW David Leyonhjelm on 8 August 2016:

David Leyonhjelm is a boorish, supercilious know-all with the empathy of a besser block. And that new Hansonite conspiracy theorist from Queensland? He's an absurdist fringe-dweller and fellow hate-speech apologist. It's a case of wacky and wackier.

Neither of these self-promoting misanthropes would have the first idea about entrenched discrimination. Yet both are experts.

You may disagree with this harsh critique and probably think it unbecoming of a serious media outlet. But offensive to them, it is not. And that's the point.

You see, this gormless duo has declared, with all their angry-white-male certitude, that a verbal abuser cannot cause offence or humiliation. It is all in the mind of the recipient.

In their peerless assessment of the lived experience of all minorities, they have decreed that the fault of hate-speech does not lie with the utterer of a given slur or insult, no matter how cruel, baseless, or humiliating. Rather, the "offence" lies with the recipient - the subject who simply "decides" to be affronted.

Infantile reasoning, but there it is……..

Leyonhjelm, who has been sitting in the Australia senate since July 2014, has reported taken the matter of being described as having angry-white-male certitude to the Human Rights Commission allegedly lodging a complaint under section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 – the very section of the act he is keen to see abolished.

This is an excerpt from Section 18C of this act:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C

Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin

             (1)  It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

                     (a)  the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

                     (b)  the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note:          Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence…..

The senator’s behaviour is suspect because he would be well aware that airing his supposedly offended feelings will probably go nowhere because of Section 18D of that same act:

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D

Exemptions

                   Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith:

                     (a)  in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

                     (b)  in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine academic, artistic or scientific purpose or any other genuine purpose in the public interest; or

                     (c)  in making or publishing:

                              (i)  a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest; or

                             (ii)  a fair comment on any event or matter of public interest if the comment is an expression of a genuine belief held by the person making the comment.

New Matilda was less than impressed by both Leyonhjelm and Roberts on 16 August 2016:

Liberal Democrats Senator David Leyonhjelm, during an August 2016 

appearance on ABC's Insider's program.

News broke yesterday that Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm has lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission, alleging he was racially vilified by Fairfax journalist Mark Kenny, who called him an ‘angry white man’. Chris Graham explains why Leyonhjelm will lose, why the current debate around 18c is a ridiculous furphy, and why free speech has never really been under threat……

One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts tried to claim on ABC Insiders recently that 18c was introduced by “Julia Gillard to nobble Andrew Bolt”.

One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, 

appearing on ABC’s Insiders program in August 2016.

In fact, 18c was introduced by Keating government Attorney General Michael Lavarch in 1995. That’s three years before Julia Gillard was even elected to parliament, 15 years before she became Prime Minister, and 16 years before Bolt was successfully sued under the 18c provisions. It also happens to be about three or four years before Bolt started writing his rants for the Herald Sun (in the late 1990s).

George Brandis made headlines in 2014 while railing against 18c when he remarked in parliament that ‘everyone has the right to be a bigot’. Which is strictly true, but under Australian law, our Attorney General seemed not to understand that there are so sanctions for being ‘said bigot’.

Since Bolt lost, all the usual suspects have railed against 18c. They need to let it go. Really. So does the media. There is literally nothing to see here. Free speech is not under attack.

You cannot have a rational discussion about 18c without acknowledging the existence of 18d. But that is what conservative whingers keep doing, and the media keep letting them get away with it. It has to stop.

Of all those whingers, David Leyonhjelm is perhaps one of the least interesting, but that brings us neatly back to his boy’s own adventure in the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the other major reason why Leyonhjelm will lose his case.

Ego.

Shortly after news broke of his complaint, Leyonhjelm took to the airwaves to boast that he wasn’t really insulted, offended, humiliated and/or intimidated. He was just trying it on to expose how bad section 18c really was.

The work of the AHRC is extremely important. It has labored under funding cuts by the Coalition, and yet despite this, has still delivered crucial work, such as its inquiry into abuse in immigration detention.

And yet, despite the pressure on the Commission, an elected parliamentary representative appears to have tried to spark a government inquiry purely for sh*ts and giggles…..

Energy Resource Information Centre sternly taken to task by Doctors for the Environment Australia

On 21 April 2016 the Energy Resource Information Centre wrote a letter to the editor of the Border Watch newspaper.

Doctors for the Environment Australia took exception in a letter to the editor of Border Watch in May 2016:

It is disappointing to again find myself misrepresented in letters to the Editor of your good paper as an ‘activist presenter’ and to witness the Doctors for the Environment Australia be identified as a ‘protest group’ by the Director of the Energy Resource Information Centre. This Centre describes itself as a ‘research and advocacy group for the natural gas industry’ aiming to provide a ‘fact-based evidence-led source of information about natural gas and development’. 

I hope that Border Watch readers felt fact-check bells ringing in their heads while reading this letter. For readers unaware, DEA is a voluntary organisation of doctors and medical students across Australia. DEA is guided by a Research Committee that proudly includes a Nobel Prize Winner, the 2003 Australian of the Year, Deans of Medicine at many of our leading medical schools and world class researchers. Clearly the DEA is not well described as a ‘protest group’.

Furthermore, motives need to be checked. DEA members are motivated by their deep concern for the protection of human health in the face of damage to the environment. In contrast the Energy Resource Information Centre emphasizes its ‘deep interest in ensuring the development of natural gas resources’ (http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/151%20-%20Energy%20Resource%20Information%20Centre.pdf). 

Which group would you turn to for reliable information on current knowledge on health risks and impacts of gas developments?

The director appears to suggest he is perhaps more knowledgeable about health research than myself? I have over 30 years experience and 70 peer-reviewed publications addressing leading public health challenges. I have educated hundreds of students to understand how essential a healthy environment is to human health. I wonder what the director’s health research credentials are? 

An analogy to the issues raised by the director would be, if I can’t prove that my child will be hit if she runs across the street in moving traffic, and I can't be sure if a Holden or a Subaru will hit her, I may as well let her run into the traffic and see what happens. Environmental health studies don’t seek proof, they seek evidence of the presence or absence of harm and this evidence builds over time. The source of harm, be it air, water or distressing experiences matters less than the fact that harm may be happening.

"The key question for ‘proving’ is – is this industry safe to people and the environment? Presently the evidence that it is not safe far outweighs the evidence that it is safe"

Another serious concern of the director’s letter is the nuance to readers that ‘fracking’ is the only part of unconventional gas mining that matters. In fact, there are a range of risks to human health possible at each step of the process which have not been adequately assessed - but for which there is accumulating evidence. 

I understand the challenges researchers face in measuring the health risks and impacts of this complex industry. I have watched the rapid growth of studies and peer reviewed publications on the topic – now emerging almost daily, shedding new light on potential harms across the United States. 

The key question for ‘proving’ is – is this industry safe to people and the environment? Presently the evidence that it is not safe far outweighs the evidence that it is safe. A publication in the highly regarded journal PLOS One examined peer-reviewed publications reporting new research on water pollution (58 studies), air pollution (46 studies) and health impacts (31 studies). Evidence of contamination were identified in 69% of studies on water and 87% of those on air pollution, while 84% reported negative health risks and impacts. 

Australia in general, and South Australia in particular, has enormous potential to develop its wind and solar energy potential, creating opportunities with minimal risks to both health and the environment. 

Most disappointing in this letter is evidence of a continued lack of real dialogue and transparency regarding the risks and unknowns involved in unconventional gas mining. This raises serious questions about the priority the industry places on the health and wellbeing of our communities and our livestock, and the productivity of our lands.

Associate Professor Melissa Haswell, 

Doctors for the Environment Australia, 
University of New South Wales