Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs on the ignorance, guile and bully boy tactics of Australian politicians

Excepts from an interview with President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, in The Saturday Paper on 23 April 2016:

Ramona Koval Did you think it was going to be this hard when you started at the commission? 

Gillian Triggs [laughs] No! I had absolutely no idea. I rather naively thought if you’d been dean of a law faculty you could manage anything. I was unprepared for dealing with senior political figures with no education whatsoever about international law and about Australia’s remarkable historical record which they are now diminishing. We’ve got senior public servants who will roll their eyes at the idea of a human right. They say, “Look, Gillian, you’re beating a dead horse.” It’s not going to work, because they can’t talk to the minister in terms of human rights. We’ve had, in my view, very poor leadership on this issue for the past 10 to 15 years, from the “children overboard” lie. They’ve been prepared to misstate the facts and conflate asylum-seeker issues with global terrorism. What I’m saying applies equally to Labor and Liberal and National parties. They’ve used this in bad faith to promote their own political opportunistic positions…..

RK You’ve said, “When I was younger I thought one could build on the past. But I have learned that we need to be eternally vigilant in ensuring human rights in a modern democracy.” Is that a sense of an idea of conservatism, building on the past, not letting go of good things that have been achieved? And feeling that confidence in that idea has been shaken?

GT A shocking phenomenon is Australians don’t even understand their own democratic system. They are quite content to have parliament be complicit with passing legislation to strengthen the powers of the executive and to exclude the courts. They have no idea of the separation of powers and the excessive overreach of executive government. 

RK Sisyphus comes to mind.

GT Well, it’s quite true. One can be astonished at the very simplistic level at which I need to speak. Our parliamentarians are usually seriously ill-informed and uneducated. All they know is the world of Canberra and politics and they’ve lost any sense of a rule of law, and curiously enough for Canberra they don’t even understand what democracy is. Not an easy argument to make, as you can imagine: me telling a parliamentarian they need to be better educated. [laughs] But it’s true.

RK Have you done that?

GT Oh, I have. And I have to say that some parliamentarians, and surprising ones, a Nationals MP, says “Come and give us a seminar.” Another one asked me to come up and work in parliament with the members of a particular committee that she was on. Terrific! But they listened to me and do you know, the response of some of them was, “Well, we had no idea Australia had signed up to these treaties. We should withdraw from them!” So backward steps! You still hear people say we must withdraw from the Refugee Convention or we must withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights……

RK I was astonished listening to him – how could the chair of the committee say he hadn’t read the report with such pride? 

GT I know. So I could have reacted very angrily to that and I am quite articulate and I can be very strong if I need to be: I could have used those skills, but I determinedly did not. It’s an environment in which I must be respectful, so frankly I thought as a lawyer I’d lose my case if I did [react angrily]. There was a point when I thought, “I’ve had 50 years as a reasonably respectable and quite conservative lawyer, how on earth do I find myself in this situation?” [laughs] But in the end I just had to get through the moment. But there were some lovely little side things, like the public servants behind the scenes, coming around with bowls of Jelly Snakes and Jelly Babies and mini Mars bars. Because we’d had nothing to eat, and they wouldn’t get us any food. The senators and members of the committee were all going off and having lunch. We’d had no breakfast, no morning tea and no lunch and I thought I’d faint, but these wonderful people were coming in and we were grabbing the food and eating it and they were saying [sotto voce], “You do realise that we are not responsible for this, don’t you?”, because some might think the secretariat had fed them these questions. 

RK But it was all the senators’ own work? 

GT With the attorney-general sitting next to me and encouraging it. And he was writing the questions which would be taken by his staff up to one of the senators, so feeding them the questions – an extraordinary experience. People were hugely supportive afterwards. Flowers were coming in. Each one brought a cheer from the staff and eventually it was so full that I couldn’t get in the room anymore. It was almost as though I had died the week before, and I’m thinking I must have missed something because I’m still standing here…….

RK The extent of the hostility and the personal nature of the attacks must have shocked you. 

GT To use those terrible words that the prime minister and especially the attorney-general used: “We have no confidence in Gillian Triggs.” The words reverberated around my head for a very long time. It was a very cruel and unjustified comment and the attempt to get me to resign for another position was a disgraceful thing to do, but it was exposed by the questions in senate. I could have had other options, the possibility of criminal prosecutions of the attorney. 

RK I wondered why you decided against pursuing that avenue? 

GT The AFP did consider it. They dealt with it extremely professionally. They were courteous but I made the decision that the greatest recognition of this wrongdoing was in the senate itself, when the senate censured the attorney for the first time in about 80 years and I felt that this issue was much more political than it was legal. I also wanted to move on, and I think that this underlies a lot of cases that don’t proceed…… 

RK I see that you have not let the 2015 experience cower you. You have made many comments on matters that you have proper concerns in – from marriage equality and Safe Schools programs to calling for monitoring of conditions for asylum seekers and refugees in offshore detention centres to concerns about counterterrorism laws. It looks like, if the government thought they could bully you into submission, they made rather the wrong call.

GT I’ve just turned 70 and I’ve been doing this for a long time and I’m so confident about the law and about the evidence for the law not being respected that I feel very sure-footed in going forward on these other issues. My resilience and determination and experience for a long time in the law give me the determination to get through the remaining 15 months to continue to speak out. When you see that you are being bullied by people who you know are not coming from a good place, you know you don’t have to give in to them. They are cowards and the moment you stand up to them they crumble, and they did crumble. And several now have been seen off long before me. They’re not used to a woman aged 70 standing up to them. They can’t quite believe it. If I were 40 looking for a career opportunity, I probably wouldn’t do what I’ve done because it would have queered the pitch for me professionally. But why do I care now? I can do what I’m trained to do and they almost can’t touch me. And I’ll continue to do that work when I’ve finished with this position.

Read the full article here. 

Something you may have missed in this month's news cycle

Before he entered federal parliament in 2004 Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull was Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Australia from 1997 to 2001 and a Partner in Goldman Sachs and Co from 1998 to 2001.

In 2009 it was reported that Goldman Sachs made a confidential settlement on his behalf in the matter of the HIH collapse.

To this day he still invests with Goldman Sachs and, this month that investment bank paid US$5.06 billion in civil penalties for serious misconduct which contributed to the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008. 

Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Monday, April 11, 2016

Goldman Sachs Agrees to Pay More than $5 Billion in Connection with Its Sale of Residential Mortgage Backed Securities

The Justice Department, along with federal and state partners, announced today a $5.06 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs related to Goldman’s conduct in the packaging, securitization, marketing, sale and issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) between 2005 and 2007.  The resolution announced today requires Goldman to pay $2.385 billion in a civil penalty under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) and also requires the bank to provide $1.8 billion in other relief, including relief to underwater homeowners, distressed borrowers and affected communities, in the form of loan forgiveness and financing for affordable housing.  Goldman will also pay $875 million to resolve claims by other federal entities and state claims.  Investors, including federally-insured financial institutions, suffered billions of dollars in losses from investing in RMBS issued and underwritten by Goldman between 2005 and 2007. 

“This resolution holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full of mortgages that were likely to fail,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery.  “This $5 billion settlement includes a $1.8 billion commitment to help repair the damage to homeowners and communities that Goldman acknowledges resulted from its conduct, and it makes clear that no institution may inflict this type of harm on investors and the American public without serious consequences.” 

“Today’s settlement is another example of the department’s resolve to hold accountable those whose illegal conduct resulted in the financial crisis of 2008,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.  “Viewed in conjunction with the previous multibillion-dollar recoveries that the department has obtained for similar conduct, this settlement demonstrates the pervasiveness of the banking industry’s fraudulent practices in selling RMBS, and the power of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act as a tool for combatting this type of wrongdoing.”

“Today’s settlement is yet another acknowledgment by one of our leading financial institutions that it did not live up to the representations it made to investors about the products it was selling,” said U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner of the Eastern District of California.  “Goldman’s conduct in exploiting the RMBS market contributed to an international financial crisis that people across the country, including many in the Eastern District of California, continue to struggle to recover from.  I am gratified that this office has developed investigations, first against JPMorgan Chase and now against Goldman Sachs, that have led to significant civil settlements that hold bad actors in this market accountable.  The results obtained by this office and other members of the RMBS Working Group continue to send a message to Wall Street that we remain committed to pursuing those responsible for the financial crisis.”

The $2.385 billion civil monetary penalty resolves claims under FIRREA, which authorizes the federal government to impose civil penalties against financial institutions that violate various predicate offenses, including wire and mail fraud.  The settlement expressly preserves the government’s ability to bring criminal charges against Goldman, and does not release any individuals from potential criminal or civil liability.  In addition, as part of the settlement, Goldman agreed to fully cooperate with any ongoing investigations related to the conduct covered by the agreement.

Of the $875 million Goldman has agreed to pay to settle claims by various other federal and state entities: Goldman will pay $575 million to settle claims by the National Credit Union Administration, $37.5 million to settle claims by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines as successor to the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle, $37.5 million to settle claims by the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago, $190 million to settle claims by the state of New York, $25 million to settle claims by the state of Illinois and $10 million to settle claims by the state of California.

Goldman will pay out the remaining $1.8 billion in the form of relief to aid consumers harmed by its unlawful conduct.  $1.52 billion of that relief will be paid out pursuant to an agreement with the United States that Goldman will provide loan modifications, including loan forgiveness and forbearance, to distressed and underwater homeowners throughout the country, as well as financing for affordable rental and for-sale housing throughout the country.  This agreement represents the largest commitment in any RMBS agreement to provide financing for affordable housing—a crucial need following the turmoil of the financial crisis.  $280 million will be paid out by Goldman pursuant to an agreement separately negotiated with the state of New York.

The settlement includes a statement of facts to which Goldman has agreed.  That statement of facts describes how Goldman made false and misleading representations to prospective investors about the characteristics of the loans it securitized and the ways in which Goldman would protect investors in its RMBS from harm (the quotes in the following paragraphs are from that agreed-upon statement of facts, unless otherwise noted):

• Goldman told investors in offering documents that “[l]oans in the securitized pools were originated generally in accordance with the loan originator’s underwriting guidelines,” other than possible situations where “when the originator identified ‘compensating factors’ at the time of origination.”  But Goldman has today acknowledged that, “Goldman received information indicating that, for certain loan pools, significant percentages of the loans reviewed did not conform to the representations made to investors about the pools of loans to be securitized.”
• Specifically, Goldman has now acknowledged that, even when the results of its due diligence on samples of loans from those pools “indicated that the unsampled portions of the pools likely contained additional loans with credit exceptions, Goldman typically did not . . . identify and eliminate any additional loans with credit exceptions.”  Goldman has acknowledged that it “failed to do this even when the samples included significant numbers of loans with credit exceptions.” 
• Goldman’s Mortgage Capital Committee, which included senior mortgage department personnel and employees from Goldman’s credit and legal departments, was required to approve every RMBS issued by Goldman.  Goldman has now acknowledged that “[t]he Mortgage Capital Committee typically received . . . summaries of Goldman’s due diligence results for certain of the loan pools backing the securitization,” but that “[d]espite the high numbers of loans that Goldman had dropped from the loan pools, the Mortgage Capital Committee approved every RMBS that was presented to it between December 2005 and 2007.”  As one example, in early 2007, Goldman approved and issued a subprime RMBS backed by loans originated by New Century Mortgage Corporation, after Goldman’s due diligence process found that one of the loan pools to be securitized included loans originated with “[e]xtremely aggressive underwriting,” and where Goldman dropped 25 percent of the loans from the due diligence sample on that pool without reviewing the unsampled 70 percent of the pool to determine whether those loans had similar problems.
• Goldman has acknowledged that, for one August 2006 RMBS, the due diligence results for some of the loan pools resulted in an “unusually high” percentage of loans with credit and compliance defects.  The Mortgage Capital Committee was presented with a summary of these results and asked “How do we know that we caught everything?”  One transaction manager responded “we don’t.”  Another transaction manager responded, “Depends on what you mean by everything?  Because of the limited sampling . . . we don’t catch everything . . .”  Goldman has now acknowledged that the Mortgage Capital Committee approved this RMBS for securitization without requiring any further due diligence.   
• Goldman made detailed representations to investors about its “counterparty qualification process” for vetting loan originators, and told investors and one rating agency that Goldman would engage in ongoing monitoring of loan sellers.  Goldman has now acknowledged, however, that it “received certain negative information regarding the originators’ business practices” and that much of this information was not disclosed to investors. 
• For example, Goldman has now acknowledged that in late 2006 it conducted an internal analysis of the underwriting guidelines of Fremont Investment & Loan (an originator), which found many of Fremont’s guidelines to be “off market” or “at the aggressive end of market standards.”  Instead of disclosing its view of Fremont’s underwriting, Goldman has acknowledged that it “[u]ndertook a significant marketing effort” to tell investors about what Goldman called Fremont’s “commitment to loan quality over volume” and “significant enhancements to Fremont underwriting guidelines.”  Fremont was shut down by federal regulators within several months of these statements.
• In another example, Goldman was aware in early-mid 2006 of certain issues with Countrywide Financial Corporation’s origination process, including a pattern of non-responsiveness and inability to provide sufficient staff to handle the numerous loan pools Countrywide was selling.  In April 2006, while Goldman was preparing an RMBS backed by Countrywide loans for securitization, a Goldman mortgage department manager circulated a “very bullish” equity research report that recommended the purchase of Countrywide stock.  Goldman’s head of due diligence, who had just overseen the due diligence on six Countrywide pools, responded “If they only knew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”
• Meanwhile, as Goldman has acknowledged in this statement of facts, “[Around the end of 2006], Goldman employees observed signs of uncertainty in the residential mortgage market [and] by March 2007, Goldman had largely halted new purchases of subprime loan pools.”  

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Colleen Kennedy and Kelli Taylor of the Eastern District of California investigated Goldman’s conduct in connection with RMBS, with the support of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s Office of the Inspector General (FHFA-OIG) and the Office of the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP).

“Goldman Sachs had a fiduciary responsibility to investors, which they blatantly side stepped,” said Deputy Inspector General for Investigation Rene Febles of FHFA-OIG.  “They knowingly put investors at risk and in so doing contributed significantly to the financial crisis.  The losses caused by this irresponsible behavior deeply affected not only financial institutions but also taxpayers and one can only hope that Goldman Sachs has learned the difference between risk and deceit.  Two Federal Home Loan Banks suffered significant losses so we are pleased to see both entities receive a portion of this settlement.  We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to hold those accountable who have engaged in misconduct.”

“Goldman took $10 billion in TARP bailout funds knowing that it had fraudulently misrepresented to investors the quality of residential mortgages bundled into mortgage backed securities,” said Special Inspector General Christy Goldsmith Romero for TARP.  “Many of these toxic securities were traded in a taxpayer funded bailout program that was designed to unlock frozen credit markets during the crisis.  While crisis investigations take time, SIGTARP is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect taxpayers and bring accountability and justice.”

The settlement is part of the ongoing efforts of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force’s RMBS Working Group, which has recovered tens of billions of dollars on behalf of American consumers and investors for claims against large financial institutions arising from misconduct related to the financial crisis.  The RMBS Working Group brings together attorneys, investigators, analysts and staff from multiple state and federal agencies, including the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FBI, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), HUD’s Office of Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG, SIGTARP, the Federal Reserve Board’s OIG, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and multiple state Attorneys General offices around the country.  The RMBS Working Group is led by Director Joshua Wilkenfeld and five co-chairs: Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mizer, Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Director Andrew Ceresney of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement, U.S. Attorney John Walsh of the District of Colorado and New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.  This settlement is the fifth multibillion-dollar RMBS settlement announced by the working group.

Learn more about the RMBS Working Group and the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force at www.StopFraud.gov. 

Australian Federal Election 2016: is Nationals MP Kevin Hogan in trouble in Page?

Echo NetDaily, 22 April 2016:

A ReachTel survey conducted in Page on Tuesday night shows sitting Nationals MP Kevin Hogan in serious trouble, with ALP contender and former incumbent Janelle Saffin ahead by 56 to 44 per cent on a two-party preferred basis.

But the news gets worse for Mr Hogan, with as many as 33 per cent of Page voters saying they would be more likely to vote against the Coalition if the parties don’t re-endorse the Gonski education reforms……

Australian Federal Election 2016: can the Turnbull Government afford to aggravate aged pensioners in an election year budget?

Meme found on Twitter*

With less than a month to the release of the 2016-17 federal budget papers the Guvmin Gazette begins to use the tired old ploy of pointing a finger at the working poor, unemployed, single parents, aged and disability pensioners.

Using the journalist’s own calculation of the number of persons “wholly dependent” on Centrelink and Dept. of Veterans’ Affairs cash transfers reveals an unimpressive 27.8% of the 16,405,465 citizens the Australian Electoral Commission calculated were eligible to vote on 31 December 2015 and, even if one reworks the journalists numbers based on citizens who had actually registered to vote by the end of December, the percentage only rises to a still unimpressive 29.2%.

Because there is no clickbait story in those percentages, the final percentage figure is boosted by adding numbers allegedly representing both public sector employees and low paid private sector workers. This enabled the newspaper to erroneously headline the article as One in two voters is fully reliant on public welfare.

Excerpts from that article in The Australian on 16 April 2016:

Nearly half of voters in the looming federal election will rely ­entirely on government payments for their incomes, confront­ing Scott Morrison with a demographic and political powder keg as he frames a May 3 budget ­relying on spending restraint to rein in the deficit.

Analysis by The Weekend Australian has revealed that more than 44 per cent of voters, almost 6.4 million people, are ­either public sector employees (1.89 million) or wholly dependent on federal government pensions, allowances and parenting payments (4.48 million). The figure grows further when private sector workers who receive more in welfare than they pay in tax are added.

The Coalition holds seven of the 10 most welfare-dependent seats in the nation while Labor holds three……

The figures have emerged as Patrick McClure, whose review of the welfare system for the Abbott government called for drastic simplification of 75 federal payments and supplements, said about three quarters of his review had still not yet been taken up.

The extent of reliance on ­government payments for voters’ incomes has emerged as the ­Coalition and Labor are locked in a political battle over the Treasurer’s insistence that the government will rely on spending restraint and expanding the economy rather than lifting the overall tax burden to cut the deficit.

Ratings agency Moody’s raised the stakes ahead of the budget, ­declaring this week that the failure of the political system to ­deliver genuine spending restraint suggested the government had to consider tax increases to close the deficit gap. Mr Morrison stood firm yesterday, maintaining his position that “the government is not looking to increase the tax burden on the economy’’…..

The Nationals appear to be the most vulnerable to a crackdown on welfare and government spending.

The Weekend Australian’s analysis of social security by federal electorate shows the junior Coalition partner holds half of the 10 most welfare-dependent seats (which even excludes family tax benefit payments, which can be held concurrently with other payments). The 10 seats have between 40,000 and 50,000 wholly welfare dependent voters out of a total electorate of about 105,000 voters. Another three are held by Labor and two by the Liberals.

Those relying on government payments in Nationals seats tend to receive age and disability pensions while Labor seats are disproportionately home to family tax benefit recipients. Liberal seats tend to have a higher proportion of holders of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (a benefit for older Australians not eligible for the Age Pension). The unemployed (receiving Newstart or Youth Allowance (Other) recipients) are relatively evenly spread.....

What the article also doesn’t say is that average social assistance in cash transfers is much wider than the categories stated and government money received by individuals with their own incorporated business income comes in at est. $73 per week per person, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

On the NSW Far North Coast the largest single group of persons eligible to vote and receiving federal government cash transfers in June 2015 were aged pensioners.

Broken down by federal electorate** the numbers are:

Cowper (Nationals seat) – 23,261 persons

Page (Nationals seat) – 22,512 persons

Richmond (Labor seat) – 21,238 persons

TOTAL – 67,011 persons.

Australia-wide the total number of aged pensioners as of June 2015 was 2,486,195 individuals – of which an estimated 646,000 are currently receiving a part-pension.

All of these people have relatives and a significant number would be full or part-time carers of their older family member.

The Australian is right in one respect – that’s a demographic and political powder keg facing both the Prime Minister and Treasurer in an election year.

However, backgrounding the Murdoch media with ideology-based statistical spin is not going to impress voters after that particular strategy was worked to death during the Abbott leadership years.

Footnote

* It is possible (based on the American experience) that around 5% of Australian online users 65 years of age and over use Twitter.

** In the NSW Northern Rivers region aged pensioners (potentially eligible to vote in June 2015) by local government area (LGA):

Ballina LGA – 6,636 persons

Byron LGA  – 3,059 persons

Clarence Valley LGA – 9,341 persons (9,304 of these individuals living in Grafton City & region, Maclean, Yamba and Iluka)

Kyogle LGA  – 1,357 persons

Lismore LGA – 5,389 persons

Richmond Valley LGA – 3,778 persons

Tweed LGA – 16,229 persons

TOTAL – 40,400 persons.

Australian Federal Election 2016: Norfolk Island rebellion!

Unlike the rest of the Australian electorate, it appears that Norfolk Islanders may have found a way to permanently opt out of the far-right political madness that infects this nation……

 Norfolk Island image from The Sydney Morning Herald

AAP Medianet, 23 April 2016:

NORFOLK ISLAND FINDS ALLY IN FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY

Norfolk Island has become the first territory in the world to pin its hopes of self-government and a democratic future on crowdfunding.

The island in the south Pacific Ocean is seeking to raise $275,000 through fundrazr.com to part-fund a petition to the United Nations to be accorded protective rights as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, allowing the islanders to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Andre Nobbs, spokesperson for the Norfolk Island People for Democracy Limited (NIPD), said Norfolk was fighting back against a hostile, and illegal, takeover.

“Against the wishes of an overwhelming majority on-island, we are on the cusp of losing our culture, heritage and identity because the Australia government wants greater access to our Economic Exclusion Zone and natural resources,” Mr Nobbs said.

“Australian interests have already surveyed for oil and natural gas and we fear they’ll wreck our eco-system hunting for oil when it’s an outdated commodity. The world is moving on from fossil fuels. Australia should too.”

As a volunteer committee standing up to the 12th biggest economy in the world the NIPD values influential support and FundRazr was a perfect partner given its success with community-oriented causes.

Founded in 2010, FundRazr has helped raise more than $80 million from over 60,000 campaigns in dozens of countries around the world and CEO Daryl Hatton is determined to provide Norfolk Island with the support to meet its fundraising goals.

“We are excited to see Norfolk Island become the first territory in the world to use crowdfunding to help defend its sovereignty,” Mr Hatton said. “Crowdfunding is all about people working together to solve funding problems. In this case, it allows concerned citizens all around the world to support the people of Norfolk Island in their fight to defend their rights.”

Nobbs says the island has a message for the world: “Whether you’re a believer in democracy, a champion for the little guy, a crusader for justice or an advocate for a threatened environment, you have the chance to put your hand up for an issue that truly matters.

“Please go to fundrazr.com/HandsUpForNorfolk and put your hand up to save our home.”

The genesis for the Hands Up campaign theme was last year’s community-led development of the Field Of Hands in Burnt Pine, a patch of grass containing a trove of green hands, each signed by a Norfolk Islander threatened by the Australian government’s actions in taking over control of the island. The theme has resonated on Norfolk, most recently at a community meeting on Monday night attended by more than 400+ people, just under a quarter of the total population.

Nobbs is confident the funds raised will allow NIPD to strengthen a compelling case to the United Nations to regain their democratic rights.

“We’re sorry we’ve had to ask the world for a hand, but the Australian government won’t engage with us, so we have been left with very few options. The exploitation has to stop.”

Mr Nobbs said the crowdfunding campaign would be divided into two parts - firstly, funds to assist the development and delivery of Norfolk Island’s petition to the United Nations to become a Non-Self-Governing Territory and, secondly, the evaluation and implementation of compelling legal action, if necessary, to return the island’s democratic rights. If the latter was not needed, a second campaign would be cancelled and any leftover funds would be put in trust to assist other small islands to fight for their indigenous rights.

“It’s criminal that we have been forced to fight for rights that are inalienably ours anyway, but if we can achieve our goal of freedom and inspire others in the process, it will have been a battle worth undertaking.”

For further information please contact:

Andre Nobbs, tel +6723 50273, email handsupfornorfolk@gmail.com and Skype HandsUp4Norfolk

Websites - Please feel free to jump on our website for background information and archived material, including media releases and rights-free images:

Hands Up Website = www.handsupfornorfolkisland.realstew.com

Twitter = @HandsUp4Norfolk

Facebook = www.facebook.com/handsupfornorfolk

Norfolk Island People for Democracy Limited (NIPD) Website = www.norfolkschoice.com

Geoffrey Robertson QC of Doughty Street Chambers, London, writing in The Guardian on 23 April 2016:

Where in the world is “God Save the Queen” a revolutionary call to arms? In Norfolk Island, whose 2,200 citizens – half of them descended from Fletcher Christian’s HMS Bounty mutineers and their Tahitian partners – are resisting the forcible recolonisation of their homeland by Australia.

Their self-governance has been abolished, their parliament locked up, their freedom of speech curtailed and their membership of international sporting and political bodies cancelled. Their autonomy and their identity are being destroyed – they have even been told to stop singing God Save the Queen and learn the words of Australia’s doggerel national anthem.

Norfolk deserves several footnotes in British history. Discovered by Captain Cook, in 1788 it became the place for convicts from Sydney to receive especially harsh punishment. Norfolk became the most brutal of HMG’s prisons, and the convict buildings and graves still stand, as part of a world heritage site.

After the convicts left, the empty island was deployed in 1856 by Queen Victoria’s government to settle the Bounty mutineer progeny – part British tar, part Tahitian – whose existence on Pitcairn has become precarious. All of them (194 men, women and children) were shipped to Norfolk, given land and allowed to settle down with their own laws and customs. Their descendants now comprise 47% of the island’s population……

It is a tourist idyll, with its trademark Norfolk pine trees framing two of the Pacific’s most beautiful beaches. It has a local language, unique flora and fauna, an indigenous culture, and is pleasantly free of Australia’s person-eating crocodiles, lethal spiders, snakes and jellyfish. It has, for the past 36 years, been effectively an autonomous territory, receiving some (not much) help from Australia but otherwise governing itself.

Such idiosyncratic arrangements, however much they satisfy local aspirations, were not welcomed by a committee of backbench Australian MPs, who decided that the island should be assimilated to free-market Australia, and its ethos of self-help and community service should be ended by direct rule from Canberra, 1,800km away. They issued a 120-page report recommending the recolonisation of Norfolk, making no mention of the advantages of democracy or the principles of self-determination. The government acted quickly to abolish the parliament and the elected executive, and to replace it with administrators from Canberra. The law that will end Norfolk Island as an autonomous territory takes full effect on 1 July 2016.

From then on, the island will have no special identity. Its people will not be allowed to compete in the Commonwealth or Oceanic games, where they have won medals, unless they do so in an Australian team. They will lose their seat at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Union, and in some UN committees.

Already the heavy hand of the Australian public service has censored the local radio station, banning any mention of opposition to the takeover and removing a popular satirical programme. The islanders’ precious historical artefacts and records, of the Bounty and of their progress to self-government, have been seized from their parliament and locked away.

There is little the islanders can do against Australian annexation. The new secretary general of the Commonwealth has shown no interest in their plight. They cannot appeal to international courts (they are not a state). They have, however, decided to petition the UN special committee on decolonisation, which urges UN members to bring their non-self-governing territories towards democracy. In this case, it would be a matter of exhorting Australia to return to the islanders the powers that they are presently taking away. I will be presenting a petition of the Norfolk Islanders to the UN next week.

Recolonisation means Norfolk’s assimilation with New South Wales – the state whose laws will now govern the island, although its citizens will have no say in them. They can only vote in federal elections in Canberra, a large landlocked electorate 1,900km away where their concerns about fishing rights will not be an issue. They will, of course, be taxed, for the first time. The islanders have hitherto raised revenue by community levies, customs duties and tourist licences, and have refused to introduce any system of taxation. (They have not become a significant tax haven, because immigration has been strictly controlled and residents remain liable to tax in other countries where those earnings arise.) So the consequence of the new arrangement will be taxation without representation.

Abolishing Norfolk Island as an autonomous territory may not seem to matter much in the grand scheme of things, but for an international order that cherishes self-government and proclaims the right of self-determination of people it is a regressive and unimaginative action, an example of the inability to tolerate democracy and difference.

For the descendants of Fletcher Christian and his rebellion against the martinet Commander Bligh, it will be little consolation that their identity will be extinguished by a government commanded by one Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, named in honour of the controversial captain.

BACKGROUND

Department of Regional Development and Infrastructure:

In March 2015, the Australian Government announced comprehensive reforms for Norfolk Island. The action was taken to address issues of sustainability which have arisen from the model of self-government requiring Norfolk Island to deliver local, state and federal functions since 1979.

Subsequently, in May 2015, the Norfolk Island Legislation Amendment Act 2015 and related Acts came into effect. They provide for the Australian Government to assume responsibility for funding and delivering national and state level services and to establish an elected Norfolk Island Regional Council from 1 July 2016.

From 1 July 2016 mainland taxation, social security, immigration, biosecurity, customs and health arrangements, including Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, will extend to Norfolk Island.

On 18 March 2016, the Territories Legislation Amendment Act 2016 and the accompanying Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Norfolk Island) Act 2016 passed the Parliament. The Act continues the extension of Commonwealth laws to Norfolk Island.

Notably, the Act will make enrolling to vote in federal elections compulsory, and provide for the representation of Norfolk Island electors in a single electorate in the Australian Capital Territory. The Act also provides for the phased introduction of the Fair Work Act 2009 and associated workplace relations legislation to Norfolk Island.

Liberal MP for Bradfield and Australian Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government, Paul Fletcher, media release 24 February 2016   :

Most Commonwealth laws to extend to Norfolk Island

Legislation introduced into Parliament today will extend most Commonwealth laws to Norfolk Island, including the Fair Work Act 2009, and reform federal electoral arrangements for the territory.

“This Bill continues the Australian Government's commitment to reform Norfolk Island and provide its Australian citizens with the same rights and responsibilities as on the mainland,” Minister for Major Projects, Territories and Local Government, Paul Fletcher said.

From 1 July 2016, most Commonwealth laws will apply to Norfolk Island unless they have been specifically excluded.

“One of the key changes is that compulsory enrolment and voting in federal elections will apply to Australian citizens on Norfolk Island. Norfolk Islanders will vote in the division of Canberra and be represented by ACT Senators,” Mr Fletcher said.

“The Australian Government is committed to strengthening Norfolk Island's economy. Implementing the national workplace relations framework through the Fair Work Act 2009 is an important part of the reform process.

“Employers will be given time to adjust to the changes with the national minimum wage and Modern Award conditions being phased-in.”

The Australian Government will work closely with residents to inform them of the changes and assist with transitional arrangements.

The Bill will also correct inconsistencies in Commonwealth legislation by ensuring New Zealand citizens on Norfolk Island are able to access the social security system on the same terms as on the mainland, aligning the early claim period for child support and social security payments on Norfolk Island, and extending the child support framework to Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

The imporatnce of Indigenous Protected Areas as part of Australia's National Reserve System

Country Needs People:

Here at Country Needs People, we focus a lot of attention on Indigenous rangers. There’s a pretty good reason for that. It’s a phenomenally successful program that is having a positive effect on the lives of Indigenous people across the country. But there’s a second side to our campaign, which sometimes feels overlooked, but which is just as important.

Securing the future of Indigenous Protected Areas will mark another critically important milestone in recognising the value of Indigenous land and sea management to Australia.

Increasingly, Indigenous Protected Areas, or IPAs, are being appreciated as an expression of cultural and economic self-determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. IPAs are tangible demonstrations of connection to country, but also provide an important social and economic foundation for improving health, education, employment and cultural identity.

IPAs are recognised as part of the Australian Government’s National Reserve System. To date there are more than 70 IPAs, covering 65,000,000 hectares of Indigenous owned or controlled land and sea areas. IPAs are are voluntarily entered into by Indigenous land owners and as part of any agreement with the Australian Government to manage biodiversity; local Traditional Owners initiate the process, and develop a management plan according to criteria which address both local priorities and national biodiversity priorities.  

Typically these two aspects strongly overlap.  The program combines extremely well with the Indigenous Rangers initiatives to result in a strategic, locally led natural and cultural management approach combining highly valuable traditional and local knowledge and contemporary science.  

The IPA is 'declared' formally at a time the Traditional Owners determine, it then becomes part of Australia's national reserve system the NRS.

Read the rest of the post here.

Australian Dept. of the Environment, February 2013:

Stretching over 1,114 hectares of the Lower Richmond Valley on the northern coast of New South Wales, Ngunya Jargoon Indigenous Protected Area is a refuge for an extraordinary number of plants and animals.

Part of the traditional homelands of the Bundjalung people of Ballina and Cabbage Tree Island, Ngunya Jargoon itself is of particular significance to the Nyangbul clan group.

This natural oasis lies in a region suffering from fragmented habitat due to historic land clearing. It is the last remaining intact native area on the lower Richmond floodplain and contains heath and woodlands, rainforest and eucalyptus forest.

Bingil Creek, flowing along the eastern side of the protected area, is in near-pristine condition.

Next to the Blackwell range and Tuckean Swamp, Ngunya Jargoon creates a wildlife corridor between the region's protected areas and provides a home to 38 threatened animal species such as the long-nosed potoroos and other important species including swamp wallabies, koalas and red-bellied black snakes.

More than 400 native plant species are found here, many of which the Bundjalung people used for food, medicine and tools. Bundjalung used broad-leafed paperbark for wrapping food prior to cooking, as a bandage and as a coolamon.

Bush fruits such as geebungs, fiver corners and sour currents played a big part in people's diets. Resin from grass trees, a culturally important plant currently in decline, was used to make glue for firesticks.

Archaeological and historic records paint a rich picture of Indigenous occupation in the area which stretches back thousands of years.

Because large parts of Ngunya Jargoon Indigenous Protected Area have never been developed or damaged, a number of significant discoveries including artefacts which point to precontact economies during the Holocene period, have been made.

Cultural sites containing a large number of artefacts such as stone axes and flake tools and numerous middens and scar trees have also been recorded on the IPA.

The Bundjalung people are guided by the values of healthy country, intergenerational learning, sustainable business and enjoyment to shape their country's future. They plan to develop an outdoor learning space, build walking tracks and collecting native seeds for regeneration programs as part of their management plan for Ngunya Jargoon.

For more than 10 years, the Mibinj Green Team, made up of Bundjalung people, have been working on country. They've undertaken extensive rubbish collections, cultural surveys, revegetation and fencing activities.

Dedicated as an Indigenous Protected Area on 12 February 2013, Ngunya Jargoon has become part of Australia's National Reserve System, ensuring it will be maintained for future generations to enjoy.

Ngunya Jargoon Indigenous Protected Area will be managed under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category VI, as a protected area which is managed for conservation and the sustainable use of natural resources.

Unfortunately the Ngunya Jargoon IPA, which is home to a total of 38 threatened species, falls along the proposed Woolgoolga to Ballina Pacific Highway upgrade that was approved by the Abbott Government in August 2014.

Biggest sovereign wealth fund in the world excludes China Shenhua Energy & Whitehaven Coal

In 2015 Shenhua Energy Company announced a fall in net profit of 56.9 percent.

In 2016 another nail in its coal coffin was revealed.....

Bloomberg, 14 April 2016:

Norway’s $860 billion sovereign wealth fund unveiled the first list of miners and power producers to be excluded from its portfolio following a ban on coal investments.

The 52 companies being barred include American Electric Power Co. Inc., China Shenhua Energy Co. Ltd., Whitehaven Coal Ltd., Tata Power Co. and Peabody Energy Corp., according to a statement from Norges Bank Investment Management, the unit of Norway’s central bank that manages the world’s biggest wealth fund. The exclusions are based on new criteria introduced by the government in February impacting companies that base at least 30 percent of their activities or revenues on coal.

“We’re reviewing all relevant companies by the end of 2016, and there will be further exclusions,” NBIM spokeswoman Marthe Skaar said by phone.

The fund has already divested stocks and bonds from the 52 companies, Skaar said. Based on current valuations and allocations in line with the fund’s benchmark index, the securities would represent about 19 billion kroner ($2.3 billion), she said. Most of the companies were out of the portfolio by the end of 2015 because 28 of them overlap with a list of so-called risk-based divestments, which the fund initiated as early as 2013, before it was clear there would be a new exclusion criterion based on coal, she said.

Norges Bank has estimated that the ban on coal investments, which was agreed in Parliament last year against the initial reluctance of Norway’s minority, Conservative-led government, would force the fund to sell holdings valued at about 55 billion kroner in 120 companies. The central bank said in a letter to the Finance Ministry last year that most of the companies will have been evaluated by the end of 2016, and that some could remain in the investment portfolio while the fund continued a dialog on their future use of coal……

The world's biggest private coal miner Peabody Energy which is also on the sovereign wealth fund exclusion list, and also operates in the Gunnedah region, is currently seeking bankruptcy protection in the US. 

A brief look at how Australians view Shenhua:

https://youtu.be/s0ZsO_ef0pc

Has Dr Who arrived to rescue us all from a painful political future?

This is Australian Prime Minister Malcom Bligh Turnbull leaving what appears to be the Tardis and, from the ‘stunned mullet’ expression on his face, he has obviously just returned from a visit to his political future……

ABC News, 21 April 2016

When celebrities think that Australian law doesn't apply to them, there is a deep pit of humiliation awaiting

U.S. actor Johnny Depp has found out just how seriously Australia takes its own quarantine laws.

Before he and wife Amber Heard were forced to make an apology video, as part of a plea bargain for unlawfully smuggling two pet dogs into the country, he had obviously not given the matter even a passing thought.

Indeed, once out of the country he became quite defiant in the face of a possible heavy fine and/or gaol sentence for Amber.

The couple’s humbling by order of the court was probably all the more galling for their public relations team once it was realised that their apology video was to be used by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources as an educational tool (as well as being officially posted on Facebook) and that mainstream and social media were calling boss's performance cringeworthy.

This video is their real punishment. Every molecule of star quality has been violently yanked away from Depp and Heard here. They’re sullen and slumped. They’re badly lit and shot from an unflattering angle. Their delivery is ugly and monotone. In effect, the Australian government has done to the celebrity pair what it has already done to its cigarette packaging. It’s taken something seductive and dangerous, and made it look as awful as humanly possible. It’s going to be hard to bounce back from this one. [The Guardian, 18 April 2016]

Below is a fictitious behind-the-scenes take on the making of that video which openly laughs at the celebrity couple and the situation in which they found themselves.

https://youtu.be/Y4Xh2KBI4I0

Quote of the Week

If you believe the conservative line, Australia’s banks are not only too big to fail but too fragile to be openly investigated.

The argument goes like this: yes, the financial sector has behaved very badly, even criminally; but the establishment of a royal commission to examine the seemingly endless stream of scandals could lead to a devastating loss of confidence. [Mike Seccombe in The Saturday Paper, 16 April 2016]

Do We Need A Royal Commission Into The Banks?

The Fairfax Ipsos poll of April 17 found 65% of the public supported a banking Royal Commission.  Yet the Government (minus initially a few backbenchers) vigorously opposes it, slamming it as “populist”, “reckless”, a “distraction”, and a waste of money.  Furthermore the Government claims it would take too long and be likely to erode public confidence in the finance system.

These Government spokesmen – Turnbull, Morrison, Cormann and others – obviously cannot see that the community is sick of the recurring finance sector scandals and has no confidence in any current measures for making these powerful institutions behave ethically – and indeed within the law.

Another oft-cited reason for the Government’s rejection of a royal commission is that we already have “a tough cop on the beat” in the form of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).  ASIC, they reiterate, has both the power to investigate and to prosecute.  They point out that while a Royal Commission can investigate, it has no power to prosecute.

While the “tough cop’s” powers may exist, it has not had any success in stemming the flow of finance sector scandals.  Indeed many of the revelations of bad behaviour have not been as a result of ASIC investigations but the work of whistleblowers and financial journalists. And it would seem that the fines resulting from ASIC investigations have seemed more like “slaps on the wrist” for bad behaviour rather than effective deterrents.

In addition the “tough cop”, along with other government entities, has had its response capacity limited by the very Government which claims ASIC has all that is needed to keep the banks and other finance institutions in line.  In the 2014 budget ASIC lost $120 million over 5 years.  This has obviously affected its investigative capacity.

The increasing clamour for a Royal Commission has worried the Government because of the proximity of the election. Consequently Treasurer Morrison announced recently a series of measures which he claims will solve the bank problem.  These measures include at least $120 million in extra funding, tougher penalties for wrong-doing, greater powers for ASIC and an extra commissioner to focus on prosecuting crimes in the finance sector.  These changes will be financed by the banks who will be hit with a levy of $121 million. The costs to the banks are not, according to the Government, to be passed on to bank customers.

Morrison and the Government are obviously hoping this response will undermine the appeal of Labor’s Royal Commission commitment. Presumably the Government backbenchers  who were supporting the need for a Royal Commission are now satisfied but it’s doubtful that many in the broader community – and particularly those who have been ripped off by the banks – will be.

Those who want the kind of extensive open inquiry that a Royal Commission can provide, have no confidence in ASIC as a body to expose and deal with financial industry malpractice.  This view was highlighted by a Senate committee in 2014 which found ASIC to be “a timid, hesitant regulator, too ready and willing to accept uncritically the word of the bank”.  There is considerable doubt about whether these latest measures will change that. 

Furthermore, is ASIC to investigate its own responses to the plethora of financial scandals? This is a matter which certainly needs to be investigated to ensure that such inadequate responses do not happen again.  Conflict of interest issues mean ASIC cannot be given this important task.  There is, of course, a question about whether the Government wants a light shone on ASIC’s performance just as there is a question about what appears to be its cosy relationship with the banking/finance industry.

This close relationship has been seen as a major reason for the reluctance of the Abbott/Turnbull Government to take effective action to protect consumers.  A prime example of this was its desire to wind back the Future of Financial Advice reforms legislated by the previous Labor Government.   These reforms had been introduced to protect customers from unscrupulous behaviour by advisers and their employers.  The Government failed to wind them back only because of Senate opposition.  Another more recent example of this close relationship is the funding the National Australia Bank is providing as a co-sponsor for a political fundraising breakfast for Kelly O’Dwyer, member for Higgins and the Assistant Treasurer.

The sense of entitlement that banks have about being able to operate with as little government interference as possible – even when behaving badly – was clearly obvious early this month after Labor announced that, if elected, it would hold a banking Royal Commission.  The head of the banking industry lobby, the Australian Bankers Association, refused to rule out the possibility of a mining-style tax ad campaign against Labor.  Presumably the widespread community support for a Royal Commission revealed in a recent poll might make this lobby group realize that such a campaign could backfire.

What is very obvious is that there is a need to shine a very strong light on the banking/ finance industry in order to force the changes that are required to make it fairer and more responsive to customer needs.  Moreover there is an ongoing need to ensure proper compensation for consumers who have been hurt by unscrupulous behaviour over recent years.  And the “bad apples” in the sector need to be identified and removed.  This would lead to a marked improvement in public confidence in the banking/finance system.  The Government measures are clearly too little, too late and were merely rolled out because of fear of an electoral backlash rather than because of any conviction that action was needed.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has shown how powerful is the shining of a strong, very public light on institutions which have done the wrong thing.  We need a Royal Commission into the banking/finance industry to force a sweeping clean-up in this sector.

Hildegard

Northern Rivers

GuestSpeak is a feature of North Coast Voices allowing Northern Rivers residents to make satirical or serious comment on issues that concern them. Posts of 250-300 words or less can be submitted to ncvguestspeak AT gmail.com.au for consideration. Longer posts will be considered on topical subjects.