For everyone who followed the David & Goliath battle 'Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited' - the judgment

In Mach 2009 the Australian Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Stephen Conroy, was reported as having rather improperly commented on a matter which was sub judice:
"I saw iiNet's defence in court under oath ... they have no idea if their customers are downloading illegally music or movies," he said today at the Commsday summit in Sydney. "Stunning defence, stunning defence," he continued in what appeared to be a sarcastic comment.
I thought a defence in terms of 'we had no idea' ... belongs in a Yes Minister episode.

This court case has now concluded and the full Australian Federal Court judgment is available here against the thirty-four applicants who took iiNet Limited to court, including Twentieth Century Fox, Warner Bros, Universal Studios, Sony Pictures and Paramount Pictures.

Perhaps the Minister might like to withdraw his words?

Roadshow Films Pty Ltd v iiNet Limited (No. 3) [2010] FCA 24

SUMMARY

1. In accordance with the practice of the Federal Court in some cases of public interest, importance or complexity, the following summary has been prepared to accompany the orders made today. This summary is intended to assist in understanding the outcome of this proceeding and is not a complete statement of the conclusions reached by the Court. The only authoritative statement of the Court's reasons is that contained in the published reasons for judgment which will be available on the internet at www.fedcourt.gov.au.
2. The judgment in this proceeding is necessarily complicated both as to fact and law. It is also lengthy, running for 636 paragraphs and almost 200 pages. I have decided to provide short oral reasons for the judgment which I am presently to hand down. These reasons are not intended to be a substitute for reading the judgment itself which will be accessible online this morning.
3. This proceeding raises the question whether an internet service provider or ISP authorises the infringement of copyright of its users or subscribers when they download cinematograph films in a manner which infringes copyright. In Australian copyright law, a person who authorises the infringement of copyright is treated as if they themselves infringed copyright directly.
4. This proceeding has attracted widespread interest both here in Australia and abroad, and both within the legal community and the general public. So much so that I understand this is the first Australian trial to be twittered or tweeted. I granted approval for this to occur in view of the public interest in the proceeding, and it seems rather fitting for a copyright trial involving the internet.
5. That this trial should have attracted such attention is unsurprising, given the subject matter. As far as I am aware, this trial, involving suit against an ISP claiming copyright infringement on its part due to alleged authorisation of the copyright infringement of its users or subscribers, is the first trial of its kind in the world to proceed to hearing and judgment.
6. The 34 applicants who have instituted this claim represent the major motion picture studios both in Australia and the United States. They have brought this proceeding against iiNet which is the third largest ISP in Australia. An organisation known as the Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft or AFACT has, on behalf of the applicants, been prominent in the conduct of the claim.
7. AFACT employed a company known as DtecNet to investigate copyright infringement occurring by means of a peer to peer system known as the BitTorrent protocol by subscribers and users of iiNet's services. The information generated from these investigations was then sent to iiNet by AFACT, with a demand that iiNet take action to stop the infringements occurring. The measures which AFACT requested iiNet perform were never precisely elucidated. However, as the evidence at trial indicated, AFACT wanted iiNet to send a warning to the subscriber who was allegedly infringing. If a warning was not sufficient to stop the infringement, AFACT intended that iiNet suspend the internet service of that subscriber. If the subscriber remained unco-operative, termination of the internet service was sought as the ultimate sanction. In addition, or in the alternative, the applicants suggested that iiNet should block certain websites.
8. The evidence of infringement gathered by AFACT utilised the BitTorrent protocol, a blueprint for a highly efficient and effective mechanism to distribute large quantities of data. This protocol was created in 2001. It has been used, or more accurately, the constituent parts of the protocol (such as the client, tracker and .torrent files) have been used by those accessing the internet through iiNet's facilities (the 'iiNet users') to download the applicants' films and television shows in a manner which infringes copyright. I shall refer to the constituent parts of the BitTorrent protocol together as the BitTorrent system.
9. The critical issue in this proceeding was whether iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct, authorised the copyright infringement of certain iiNet users.
10. The first step in making a finding of authorisation was to determine whether certain iiNet users infringed copyright. I have found that they have. However, in reaching that finding, I have found that the number of infringements that have occurred are significantly fewer than the number alleged by the applicants. This follows from my finding that, on the evidence and on a proper interpretation of the law, a person makes each film available online only once through the BitTorrent system and electronically transmits each film only once through that system. This excludes the possible case of a person who might repeatedly download the same file, but no evidence was presented of such unusual and unlikely circumstance. Further, I have found, on the evidence before me, that the iiNet users have made one copy of each film and have not made further copies onto physical media such as DVDs.
11. The next question was whether iiNet authorised those infringements. While I find that iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring, and did not act to stop them, such findings do not necessitate a finding of authorisation. I find that iiNet did not authorise the infringements of copyright of the iiNet users. I have reached that conclusion for three primary reasons which I now refer to.
12. Firstly, in the law of authorisation, there is a distinction to be drawn between the provision of the 'means' of infringement compared to the provision of a precondition to infringement occurring. The decisions in Moorhouse, Jain, Metro, Cooper and Kazaa are each examples of cases in which the authorisers provided the 'means' of infringement. But, unlike those decisions, I find that the mere provision of access to the internet is not the 'means' of infringement. There does not appear to be any way to infringe the applicants' copyright from the mere use of the internet. Rather, the 'means' by which the applicants' copyright is infringed is an iiNet user's use of the constituent parts of the BitTorrent system. iiNet has no control over the BitTorrent system and is not responsible for the operation of the BitTorrent system.
13. Secondly, I find that a scheme for notification, suspension and termination of customer accounts is not, in this instance, a relevant power to prevent copyright infringement pursuant to s 101(1A)(a) of the Copyright Act, nor in the circumstances of this case is it a reasonable step pursuant to s 101(1A)(c) of the Copyright Act. The reason for this finding is complicated and lengthy, and is not suitable for reduction to a short summary for present purposes so I shall refrain from attempting to do so.
14. Thirdly, I find that iiNet simply cannot be seen as sanctioning, approving or countenancing copyright infringement. The requisite element of favouring infringement on the evidence simply does not exist. The evidence establishes that iiNet has done no more than to provide an internet service to its users. This can be clearly contrasted with the respondents in the Cooper and Kazaa proceedings, in which the respondents intended copyright infringements to occur, and in circumstances where the website and software respectively were deliberately structured to achieve this result.
15. Consequently, I find that the applicants' Amended Application before me must fail. However, for the sake of completeness, I have considered all the issues argued before me.
16. I find that the Telecommunications Act would not have operated to prohibit iiNet from acting on the AFACT Notices of infringement. However, as I have already found that iiNet did not authorise copyright infringement, such issue is irrelevant.
17. I find that s 112E of the Copyright Act would not have operated to prevent a finding of authorisation of copyright infringement against iiNet. However, as I found on conventional principles of authorisation that the respondent did not authorise copyright infringement, such issue is irrelevant.
18. Finally, I find that iiNet did have a repeat infringer policy which was reasonably implemented and that iiNet would therefore have been entitled to take advantage of the safe harbour provisions in Division 2AA of Part V of the Copyright Act if it needed to do so. I have drawn assistance from United States authority dealing with similar statutory instruments in making the finding. While iiNet did not have a policy of the kind that the applicants believed was required, it does not follow that iiNet did not have a policy which complied with the safe harbour provisions. However, as I have not found that iiNet authorised copyright infringement, there is no need for iiNet to take advantage of the protection provided by such provisions.
19. The result of this proceeding will disappoint the applicants. The evidence establishes that copyright infringement of the applicants' films is occurring on a large scale, and I infer that such infringements are occurring worldwide. However, such fact does not necessitate or compel, and can never necessitate or compel, a finding of authorisation, merely because it is felt that 'something must be done' to stop the infringements. An ISP such as iiNet provides a legitimate communication facility which is neither intended nor designed to infringe copyright. It is only by means of the application of the BitTorrent system that copyright infringements are enabled, although it must be recognised that the BitTorrent system can be used for legitimate purposes as well. iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user chooses to make use of that system to bring about copyright infringement.
20. The law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another. The law only recognises a prohibition on the doing of copyright acts without the licence of the copyright owner or exclusive licensee, or the authorisation of those acts. In the circumstances outlined above and discussed in greater detail in my judgment, it is impossible to conclude that iiNet has authorised copyright infringement.
21. In summary, in this proceeding, the key question is: Did iiNet authorise copyright infringement? The Court answers such question in the negative for three reasons: first because the copyright infringements occurred directly as a result of the use of the BitTorrent system, not the use of the internet, and the respondent did not create and does not control the BitTorrent system; second because the respondent did not have a relevant power to prevent those infringements occurring; and third because the respondent did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement.
22. I will now make my formal orders. For the reasons provided in the written judgment I make the following orders.
    1. The Amended Application be dismissed.
    2. Subject to Order 3 and 4, the Applicants pay the costs of the Respondent, including costs thrown away as a result of the Applicants' abandoning the primary infringement claim against the Respondent.
    3. Any party or person applying for an order for costs different to that provided by Order 2 is to notify the Court within 14 days in which event Order 2 will be vacated and in lieu costs will be reserved.
    4. If any application for costs is made as provided in Order 3 the parties and/or persons are to consult and prepare consent directions for the filing of submissions and, if required, for a hearing on costs.
23. I publish my reasons.
    

Cowdroy J
Sydney
4 February 2010

iiNet's reaction to the judgment
AFACT's reaction

Weekend Markets held on the NSW North Coast - where and when for 2010

Weekend Markets regularly held on the NSW North Coast

Assorted local market snapshots from Google Images

Saturday Markets

Brunswick Riverside Market

Memorial Park

Fawcett Street
1st Saturday of each month

Evans Head Community Market
Park Street Recreation Reserve
4th Saturday of each month

Kingscliff Beachside Market
Marine Parade
2nd & 4th Saturday of each month
Maclean Community Market
Main Street car park River Street
2nd Saturday of each month

Mullumbimby Museum Market
Stuart Street
3rd Saturday of each month

Murwillumbah Cottage Market
City Centre
3rd Saturday of each month

Sunday Markets

Alstonville Community Market
Alstonville Showgrounds
2nd Sunday of each month

Ballina Community Market
Canal Road
3rd Sunday of each month

Bangalow Village
Bangalow Showgrounds
4th Sunday of each month
Byron Bay Community Market
Butler Street Reserve

1st Sunday of each month

Grafton Old Schoolhouse Market
Lawrence Road
Last Sunday of each month

Iluka Community Market
Cnr Own & Spencer Streets
1st Sunday of each month

Kingscliff Town Market
Lions Park
5th Sunday of each month

Kyogle Community Market
Kyogle Showgrounds
2nd Sunday of each month

Lennox Lakeside Market
Lake Ainsworth
2nd & 5th Sunday of each month

Lismore Car Boot Market
Lismore Shopping Square
1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

Murwillumbah Community Market
Murwillumbah Showground
4th Sunday of each month

Nimbin Aquarius Market
Community Centre
3rd & 5th Sunday of each month

Pottsville Community Market
Phillip Street Reserve
1st & 3rd Sunday of each month

The Channon Craft Market
Coronation Park
2nd Sunday of each month

Uki Buttery Bazaar
The Old Buttery
3rd Sunday of each month

Yamba Community Market
Yamba Oval
4th Sunday of each month

Sawtell MarketsSawtell Market Ground
4th Saturday of each month

Woolgoolga Markets
Woolgoola Beach
2nd Saturday of each month

Bellingen Community Markets
Bellingen Park,
Church Street
3rd Saturday of each month

Ashby Markets
Community Centre
Lismore Street, Ashby
3rd Sunday of each month

Updated guide in PDF download of all 2010 NSW North Coast monthly & annual community markets and farmers-growers markets.

K-K-Keneally, what are you doing?

Now let me get this straight.
Kristina Kerscher Keneally becomes Premier of NSW and takes over the Twitter account of the abruptly ousted Nathan Rees.
In swift order she deletes all his tweets and begins what has to be a very desultory approach to digital communication using this account.
Two months later she decides to combine PremierofNSW with another languishing account under her own name, thereby completing the final act in extinguishing specific ownership by the premier and asserting personal control over the new KKeneally account so that the next NSW premier cannot do unto her what she did unto....
Go it right did I?
However, having abandoned the name PremierofNSW, K-K-Keneally put her foot in it and now a parody site is up and running under that title.
This parody site is probably more prolific than the artificial Keneally herself.

House of Representatives 4 February 2010: Turnbull rises to his feet today in latest CPRS debate

House of Representatives program for 4 Februrary 2010 here.

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being introduced for a third time is expected to take up part of the morning and all of the afternoon sitting.

Federal election campaign information 2010: Did Australia spend too much averting the worst of the Global Financial Crisis?

All through 2009 we had a preview of one charge that the Coalition parties are going to level at the Rudd Government during the 2010 federal election campaign - that it spent far too much on stimulus packages used to mitigate the worst effects of the Global Financial Crisis.

This great graphic comes via the very astute Peter Martin, who in his turn picked it up from the Harvard Business Review.

Click here to enlarge

As can be easily seen, Australia spent only an estimated 0.1% of its 2008 GDP on economic intervention with no financial 'bail-out' component, which indicates a low level of national economic stress.
Compared to many other OECD countries Australia did rather well and appears to have been the first to bounce back and be considered economically stable again.
Leading the World Bank managing director Juan Jose Daboub to say that Australia can be a model for developing nations struggling to recover from the global financial crisis.

If relatively speaking Australia did not really overspend on its stimulus packages, did it need to spend at all?

Reserve Bank data to date shows that although consumer sentiment is high consumption is still hovering around 1997 levels and, even if the unemployment rate is considerably lower than in the 1990s it still underwent an uncomfortable rise throughout the global financial crisis.

Australian banks may have enjoyed healthy combined-total profits which only decreased momentarily in historical terms, but investment overall took a sharp dip and is only now starting to slowly rise.

Household assets showed a more dramatic version of this dip-rise and household debt as a percentage of disposable income is also not within comfortable limits.

The graph below indicates that Australia was not in an enviable situation after the global financial crisis struck and even with state and federal government stimulus packages there was a falling away of investment spending in sectors which tend to drive economic prosperity.

Conclusion? On balance the Rudd Government (whether by good luck or good management) successfully steered the country through a global crisis.

A skewed look at the pissant battle between two dodgy climate change policies

"So what's it going to be? The Greatest Moral Challenge Of Our Generation (GMCOOG) or a Great Big New Tax On Everything (GBNTOE)? Gentlemen, start your acronyms."

Jonathan Green writing at The Drum

South Australia backs down on Internet censorship during state election campaigns

AdelaideNow... had great fun publishing this after the Internet went wild.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL Michael Atkinson has made a "humiliating" backdown and announced he will retrospectively repeal his law censoring internet comment on the state election.
After a furious reaction on AdelaideNow to The Advertiser's exclusive report on the new laws, Mr Atkinson at 10pm released this statement: "From the feedback we've received through AdelaideNow, the blogging generation believes that the law supported by all MPs and all political parties is unduly restrictive. I have listened.
"I will immediately after the election move to repeal the law retrospectively."
Mr Atkinson said the law would not be enforced for comments posted on AdelaideNow during the upcoming election campaign, even though it was technically applicable.

Anonymous and Proud
Northern Rivers

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents.
Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

Is this the view from your Northern Beaches unit? Mapping predicted seal level rise (6)

Is this the view from your brand new Northern Beaches unit?

This is your immediate neighbourhood

with a 1 metre sea level rise

Is your considerable financial investment safe?

This posts displays a current photograph and Google Earth mapping showing the effects of a 1 metre sea level rise on a residential area of the New South Wales coast, which would see the beach eroded and sea water possibly reaching some of the residential back boundaries during storm surges.The 2009 Federal Government report Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts contains a 'worst case' scenario involving a 1.1 metre sea level rise along the NSW coast sometime within the next 90 years.

Apology - due to a clumsy cut and past the wrong information initially appeared below the images. It has now been corrected.

Clarence Valley Woman of the Year 2010 - Julia Young

Clarence electorate Woman of the Year Julia Young at Monday's presentation.

Julia Young lives her life by the mantra 'it is better to give than to receive'. But last night the Lower Clarence mental health advocate's commitment to helping others received the recognition it deserves when she was named the Clarence electorate Woman of the Year. [The Daily Examiner, 2 February 2010]

Congratulations, Julia - you deserve this public recognition from the community.

Did a decade under Howard's thumb finally drive the Liberal Party insane?

"It's an important issue but even if dire predictions are right and average temperatures around the globe rise by four degrees over the century, it's still not the 'great moral challenge' of our time - as Mr Rudd has described it on 14 occasions - let alone the 'greatest' moral challenge of our time - as Mr Rudd has described it at least four times," Mr Abbott said.
"Adapting to changing rainfall patterns, for example, will be hard but it won't supplant the threat of war, injustice, disease and want as the biggest problems with which humanity must grapple."

Well, colour me astounded! Here I was thinking that an increase in global temperature of 4° Celsius would spell disaster for continuity of land tenure, food production and water supplies around the world over the next 100 years and beyond, leading to "war, injustice, disease and want".
Now Opposition Leader Tony Abbott informs me that adapting to climate change is not really one of the "biggest problems with which humanity must grapple".
The man is seriously alarming. I know it's been said before, but is the Liberal Party descending into an intractable psychosis from which it will never recover?
Or did John Howard's leadership up to 2007 merely paper over the madness?

Anon
Sawtell

Guest Speak is a North Coast Voices segment allowing serious or satirical comment from NSW Northern Rivers residents. Email ncvguestpeak at live dot com dot au to submit comment for consideration.

NSW North Coast 2010 federal election debate (Part 1)

From time to time I will attempt to produce a broad-brush outline of what voters on the NSW North Coast are discussing in the months preceding the 2010 federal election.
Here is the first post in this series.

The Daily Examiner letters to the editor, 28 & 30 January 2010

Fair work farce

ON January 1, the new Fair Work legislation came into effect. This brainchild of the Federal Labor Government can be best described as having as many holes as a Swiss cheese.

The simple question 'does an employee have a right of reply to their employer and how is it done?' has necessitated some eight hours plus of telephone calls in this week only and more than 12 hours prior to Christmas.

So, here's the summary: If you have been dismissed from employment you call Fair Work Australia and they help you fill out the forms. If you have lodged a complaint form, you contact the Fair Work Ombudsman by phone and an investigating officer from Coffs Harbour will deal with your matter.

By the way, there is an office in Coffs Harbour, but no contact phone number.

If you are unfortunate enough to be at the stage of asking questions about what you can or can't do, you are referred to a website (bad luck if you don't have a computer).

Not on the website? Never mind, get legal advice. Free legal advice is available from Legal Aid (Coffs Harbour) or, if that's not practical, how about you phone a Sydney legal firm (no 13 or 1800 numbers here) between the hours of 12.30 - 2.00pm and 4 -5pm Tuesdays and 4 -5pm Thursdays.

Then you get the engaged signal and wait in a queue while phone companies are charging you by the second.

This is not a reflection on the legal firm - they are excellent. It is a very poor reflection on the fools who engineered Fair Work Australia and have absolutely no work experience in the real world.

So, after a considerable amount of time wasting and contributing to fattening phone companies' profits, nobody is any the wiser except that legal advice is required.

Now isn't that wonderful system for those in their first jobs, those whose work hours don't allow them to make these calls or travel to seek legal aid - if they qualify - or better still, don't have/can't use the internet?

A call placed with the relevant federal minister's office today was met with a vague sounding person who made assurances a technical person would return calls. As if.

This farcical arrangement helps nobody. Those employed know very little, if anything, and can't/won't help. Stonewalling is a good description. However, very in-depth statistical analysis is extracted.

Good on you Julia Gillard and Team Rudd - one up for the workers of Australia that your party is supposed to help. Note to Rudd: you can't do a 30 second media grab on Sunrise with this crock.

For those who are wondering, your hard-earned taxes paid for this crock. You might want to remember that if you're on the receiving end of 'you will need to seek legal advice about that'.

ANNE HUNTER, Grafton

Number crunch

IN reply to Anne Hunter (DE 28/1/10). Anne, it's great to see that you don't let facts get in the way of a good rant and rave.

Firstly, you claim inconvenience in trying to reach some local offices for workplace relations.

Well try looking for the direct Grafton number for other government offices like the ATO, Centrelink or the RTA. Guess what? They don't exist, why? So that they don't have people like you ringing them up and wasting their time all in the name of whoever sits on the Opposition bench.

I wonder whether these numbers disappeared whilst Howard was in power?

No, they couldn't have, John wouldn't do that to his National Party buddies from out on the prairie.

You then claim that the phone companies are billing you by the second for calling 1800 and 1300 numbers, Anne guess what, 1800 is free and 1300 is 30c untimed.

Now I hope you aren't silly enough to call these numbers from a mobile Anne, actually, maybe you are.

But that wouldn't be your fault, no way, it would in some way be the fault of anyone other than the Liberals.

Maybe you should stand for the local seat again?

Surely an accountant would be a National Party star?

You would hold your head high in Parliament amongst your bulldozer driving, cotton picking, pig shooting National Party mates.

S. GORMAN, Grafton

Tweed Daily News letters to the editor, 26 & 28 January 2010

Euthanasia not a matter for politics

NATION-wide polls conducted over the past 20 years show an increasing proportion of adult Australians want choice in end-of-life decisions.

We want to be able to request physician-assisted dying should suffering become intolerable. Politicians refuse to listen to their constituents on this matter.

An ex-politician told me that correspondence to parliamentarians is dealt with by a secretary/underling and the politician often doesn't see the request for support. How dare an elected member of Parliament ignore the very people who put him/her there!

We are sometimes told that this request is against their (the politician's) religion and they would not support such a bill should it come before Parliament. We are not interested in their personal views: we want them to accept the wishes of their constituents and support a bill giving patients control over their own life/death.

Physician-assisted dying should be a matter between the patient and his/her medical team, not the personal beliefs of politicians, church or conservative medicos.

What must electors do to make our politicians listen to 80 per cent of adult Australians who want legislation changed?

Electors must let the politicians know that they are angry at this neglect of their wishes.

Other countries have had compassionate legislation for over a decade which works well and is not abused. Legislation will prevent some of the horrific suicides which now occur when desperate sufferers take matters into their own hands and leave behind ghastly memories for their loved ones.

June Henderson, DWDQ Secretary

Nobody's business but your own

JUNE Henderson is spot on (TDN 26/01).

What we adults do, or allow others to do, to our own bodies is our own business.

It is no business of politicians or priests or other fascists, who should learn to mind their own.

Personal autonomy or self- sovereignty is the name of the game they don't want us to play, because it is the prerequisite for true love, ie, living by God's golden rule, which scares them weeless when we do.

Doug Ogilvie, Bilambil

The Northern Star letters to the editor 13 & 29 January 2010

Bishop's climate message confused

THE Northern Star reported Bishop Jarrett's newsworthy Christmas homily on climate change (NS, 24/12: "Changing climate of Christmas sermons").

It said, in precis ... as stewards of creation we must act responsibly towards the Earth. Future generations will suffer unless we act, but we can't agree how. Actions driven by fear are suspect, and often more blind than reasonable. On climate change we can do nothing anyhow; God alone can rescue things. Natural laws are the common platform that can unite nations; by respecting those laws we enable God to act.

I may be missing some theological nuances, but this is a rather confusing message.

The only systematic, public account of natural laws able to attract global assent across cultures and religions is what science has progressively revealed since its beginnings and which it continues to supplement and refine.

Few scientific positions have ever been so comprehensively studied and agreed to as the consensus on climate change.

Since scientific knowledge reveals natural laws, surely we most fully obey God when we base our relationship with nature on that knowledge, not out of fear but through faith in reason and evidence.

Thus becoming 'good stewards' we enable the 'higher spiritual power' to intervene through us.

Whereas the 'faith and reason' that 'balance in harmony' in the 'Judaeo-Christian revelation' may assist personal salvation they self-evidentially do not operate in the planet's interests.

The Western world's devastating industrial exploitation of the planet has been driven and validated by the 'if we mess things up God will fix them' mentality of redemptionist beliefs.

So, since natural laws are central to global consensus and action, the bishop might tell us how he acted to help get a right outcome at Copenhagen.

Did he:

- Lobby our PM to make Australia's international position 100 per cent consistent with scientific knowledge and predictions?

- Urge the faithful to do their best to influence conference outcomes, e.g., by attending protests and rallies and petitioning Heads of Government to listen to what the science says?

- Entreat the Catholic Leader of the Opposition to embrace policies consistent with those the Holy Father advanced for the 2009 World Day of Peace, in declaring that climate change threatens the rights to life, food, health and peace for all, and that protecting the environment is 'the duty of every person'?

LEE ANDRESEN, Ballina.

Letter praised

I would just like to say that Lee Andresen's 'evolution' letter (NS 20/01) was the best letter, on any subject, that I have read for years.

Erudite, to the point, concise, and ultimately convincing. Ten points, Lee Andresen.

COLIN THORNTON, Coorabell

Climate scienceDR GARTH Paltridge has been one of our most eminent climate scientists for 40 years.He was chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research, and was involved with the World Meteorological Organisation that set up the World Climate Program in the 1970s. He was working with the National Climate Office in the US at the time the UN formed the IPCC in the late 1980s. For 12 years before his retirement in 2002, he directed the Institute for Antarctic Studies at the University of Tasmania and was CEO of the Antarctic Co-operative Research Centre, studying the role of the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean in climate change. So he is more qualified than most to write the book on climate change called The Climate Caper. Some of his quotes make interesting reading: 'Increasing CO{-2} will certainly lead to higher temperatures than would have occurred otherwise', 'other things happen that can feed back on surface temperatures. Some of them amplify and some of them reduce any change caused by an increase of CO{-2}'. He says one of the great myths about global warming is that the science is settled and explains how many scientists worldwide have been coerced into supporting the IPCC and their computer models, by research funding needs and their need to eat. Those supporting the global warming theory get more money, but critics are ostracised. The science is not settled.
KEN MACDONALD, Lennox Head

Streuth Ruth! Abbott's a cobber of the elderly and Rudd's a granny basher?

You've gotta love the boy. Here he is gamely battling for that extra spin by having a go at Rudders and Swanee over the latest Intergenerational Report released yesterday.
Apparently the PM and Treasurer are guilty of elder bashing by pointing out that growing numbers entering retirement are posing a bit of a problem for a national economy which was traditionally coming off on a strong base of taxpaying workers.
Leader of the Coalition Opposition Tony Abbott hopes that I'll accept that he's my true blue friend, working flat out protecting me from Labor's nasty age discrimination.
"It's not seniors' fault that the government is under cost pressure. This idea somehow seniors are to blame for our economic problems, it is wrong, it is demeaning to great people who have worked hard for our country."sez our Tones.

Here's how Labor's 2010 intergenerational report basically assesses the aging of the population;
"Australia faces significant intergenerational challenges.
Population ageing will mean that there will be fewer workers to support retirees and young dependants.
This will place pressure on the economic growth that drives rising living standards.
At the same time, the ageing population will result in substantial fiscal pressures from increased demand for government services and rising health costs.
Australia's population will continue to grow over time but at slower rates
than in the past. A growing population will help manage pressures of the ageing population but will put pressure on our infrastructure, services and environment. This will require continued planning and investment ahead of time."

Here's how the Coalition's 2007 intergenerational report viewed the same issue;
Demographic and other factors will continue to pose substantial challenges for economic growth and long-term fiscal sustainability.
The projections in IGR2 show that over the next 40 years:

• the population will continue to increase in size but with a higher proportion of older people;
• economic growth per person will slow as the proportion of the population of traditional working age falls; and
• substantial fiscal pressures will emerge due to projected increases in spending, particularly in the areas of health, age pensions and aged care."

And before that in 2003 the Libs and Nats looked at that same ageing population in the first intergenerational report;
Australia, like most industrialised countries, is experiencing an ageing of its population. This is already beginning to place some pressure on government spending. However, much larger pressures are expected to emerge when the 'baby-boomer' generation starts reaching old age in the middle of the next decade.
By careful planning now, we will be better prepared to meet the future challenges of an ageing population.

Can't tell the chooks apart can you! Because the long term demographic shift exists and it will affect the economy.
Tony Abbott is showing what a bl**dy nong he really is in trying to run with this thought bubble for the next 24 hours and this particular greybeard would like to take his 'caring' and shove it down his dishonest pollie throat.

Take a good look, Prime Minister Rudd - your numbers are not looking so rosy

Take a good look, Prime Minister Rudd.
This is the current state of play in relation to opinion change according to Possum Comitatus and it is not as healthy a situation as Labor might like or have expected:

Credibility in the areas Possum highligts are not your only problem.

Websites listed as participating in The Great Australian Internet Blackout (and the thousands of Twitter accounts blacking out atavars) on 26 January 2010 represent just a fraction of the votes which will probably not go to Labor candidates at the next federal election, if you go ahead with your flawed plan to impose mandatory ISP-level Internet filtering on the Australian people.

These sites form part of a demographic which is spread right across every seat you will have to contest in 2010. Can you really afford to keep riling voters in this way in the lead up to what may yet be a closely fought election in rural and regional Australia?

Just how expensive will the 2010 federal election campaign be?

Starting to wonder just how much money the major political parties will p*ss down the drain during the 2010 federal election campaign?
The 2007 election was a pretty expensive and wasteful affair and this one will have to equal it, if only because of the level of noisy desperation which is bound to consume Abbott and his mates.
An Australian Electoral Commission media release on 29 January reminded us of just how much the pollies spent trying to swing our votes last time round.
The actual 2008-09 disclosure documents for that between elections period will not be online until 1 February 2010, but here is part of what the AEC is saying:

As at 21 January 2010 the AEC had received 73 political party returns with total receipts of $93,699,223 disclosed by political parties for 2008-09, compared to 73 political party returns with total receipts of $216,523,873 currently reported for the 2007-08 financial year.

The same 73 political party returns show $93,880,386 as a total expenditure for the 2008-09 financial year, compared to $213,492,720 currently reported for the 2007-08 returns.

192 associated entities reported total receipts of $716,800,790 for 2008-09, compared to 245 returns disclosing $702,561,166 for 2007-08.

37 returns of political expenditure by third parties show a total of $6,493,558 was spent on political commentary, advertising, polling or other research for 2008-09 compared to 75 returns for 2007-08 showing total expenditure of $51,333,987.

229 donors completed returns for 2008-09 disclosing total donations of $10,294,507 compared to 409 returns for 2007-08 disclosing $26,425,088 donated to political parties.

Apart from associated entities, the amounts disclosed are significantly less than for 2007-08 because that year covered a federal election and the Gippsland by-election. The only electoral events in 2008-09 were the by-elections in Lyne and Mayo.

But who will arrest John Howard?

On 25 January 2010 Monbiot.com announced a new website called Arrest Blair: for crimes against peace.

The new site is dedicated to the concept that Blair must face justice for his part in the Coalition of the Willing's unlawful invasion of Iraq:

This site offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former British prime minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against peace. Anyone attempting an arrest which meets the rules laid down here will be entitled to one quarter of the money collected at the time of his or her application.
Money donated to this site will be used for no other purpose than to pay bounties for attempts to arrest Tony Blair. All administration and other costs, apart from any charges added to your donations by Paypal, will be paid by the site's founder.
The intention is to encourage repeated attempts to arrest the former prime minister.

The U.K. Brown Government is at the moment in the middle of its Iraq Inquiry.
Former Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared before the inquiry on 29 January (his video evidence here) and although any reference to his now infamous and classified July 2002 private letter to then U.S. President George W. Bush (sent after their earlier April private meeting) could not be explored, the 23 July 2002 Downing Street Memo is on the public record.

In Australia we apparently think it is acceptable that the man who played a similar role in dragging this nation into a breach of international law - former prime minister John Winston Howard - is allowed to enjoy retirement without one serious question being asked of him.
Why is that so?

Times Online publication of the Downing Street Memo, May 2005 (red emphasis is mine):

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

• The Iraq Inquiry: So what did the then Australian PM John Howard know and when did he know it?

Cane Toads the movie - who da thunk it!

After hearing about Cane Toads the movie wowing them at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival, I'm wondering if I should take an autograph book out into the backyard tonight and ask one of the not so little blighters if he (or she) would get one of their movie star cousins to give me a footprint signature.
To Pete with affection would do nicely.

Facts gleaned from the movie's website:

Cane Toads: The Conquest is a comic yet provocative account of Australia's most notorious environmental blunder from filmmaker Mark Lewis.
Shot against the harsh and beautiful landscape of northern Australia, Cane Toads: The Conquest tracks the unstoppable journey of the toad across the continent. Director Mark Lewis (Cane Toads: An Unnatural History, The Natural History of the Chicken) injects his trademark irreverence and humor into the story as he follows a trail of human conflict, bizarre culture and extraordinary close encounters.
Filmed with high-resolution 3D technology, Cane Toads is the first Australian digital 3D feature film. Custom designed equipment allows viewers to get up close and personal with these curious creatures like never before. The unique viewing experience is like being immersed in the world of the toad......

The storyline? 102 Cane Toads (Bufo marinus) were imported to Australia in 1935 in an attempt to rid the country of the Greyback Cane Beetle, which was decimating Queensland sugar cane crops. Unfortunately, the toads were disinclined to eat cane beetles.
Instead, they set about doing what cane toads do best - multiplying, migrating and thriving. 75 years later, an estimated 1.5 billion toads occupy over 1 million square kilometers of territory – and their conquest steadily continues......

Meet Kevin Ladynski, toad taxidermist, and his 2.5kg pet toad Melrose; Monica Kraus remembers her massive childhood friend Dairy Queen; Merinda Sharp explains why she sends toads on 'trips to Alaska'; Tip Byrne laments the day his father released the toads onto their Cane Farm.

The principal cast? Millions of cane toads Australia wide, mostly from the North.

Coming to a venue near you on the NSW North Coast if cinema owner-operators have any sense.

The truth revealed? Uncorrected transcript of former British Pm Tony Blair's evidence to the Iraq Inquiry

Evidence taken on 29 January 2010 by the U.K. Iraq Inquiry was a rather pointless exercise at times - for the most part questions carefully walked around a former leader rather than confronting issues head-on.

The Rt. Hon. Tony Blair was allowed to interrupt committee members and drag out his political soap-box at length almost unchallenged.

However, what clearly comes through is the fact that Blair:
(i) was probably heavily influenced on a personal level by George W. Bush;
(ii) was determined on regime change in Iraq;
(iii) held a desire for change which was never predicated on Iraq as a hive of international terrorism;
(iv) was aware U.N. sanctions had effectively 'contained' Saddam; and
(v) presented a supposedly intelligence-driven policy position to the British people in which any identified breaches of U.N. sanctions or allegations of weapons of mass destruction were only the smoke screen behind which the Coalition of the Willing had agreed to advance their invasion agenda.

Full uncorrected 249-page transcript here.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 January 2010, British press shocked at Blair's no regrets on Saddam

Australi, austra, austri....dammit - Oztria!

Travel World website on 23 January 2010
Click on image to enlarge

General info about Australia
Once the center of power for the large Austro-Hungarian Empire, Austria was reduced to a small republic after its defeat in World War I. Following annexation by Nazi Germany in 1938 and subsequent occupation by the victorious Allies in 1945, Austria's status remained unclear for a decade. A State Treaty signed in 1955 ended the occupation, recognized Austria's independence, and forbade unification with Germany. A constitutional law that same year declared the country's "perpetual neutrality" as a condition for Soviet military withdrawal. The Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 and Austria's entry into the European Union in 1995 have altered the meaning of this neutrality. A prosperous, democratic country, Austria entered the EU Economic and Monetary Union in 1999.

I don't know who should be more insulted at this sloppy confusion - Australia or Austria.

A Saturday walk on the arts side

Voyager
Tamasin Pepper



Arctic Meander 2009
Suvira McDonald








School of Fish
Mark Gibson
















These artists can be found at Visual Arts Network