CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (HIGH RISK TERRORIST OFFENDERS) BILL 2016 expected to pass Parliament

And so the downward spiral continues.........

UNCLASSIFIED

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE

MEDIA RELEASE­
30 November 2016

Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016

The Turnbull Government has secured support from all states and territories for the High Risk Terrorist Offenders Bill.

The Australian Government, backed by all states and territories, has accepted all 24 recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS), including that the Bill be passed.

The Bill, including amendments, will return for debate in the Senate today and is expected to pass the Parliament this week.

This Bill further strengthens Australia's national security laws and counter-terrorism framework by enabling continued detention of terrorist offenders who present an unacceptable risk to the community at the end of their custodial sentences.

For this to happen, a Supreme Court would need to be satisfied to a high degree of probability, on the basis of admissible evidence, that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community.

Implementing the Committee's recommendations will enhance operational safeguards and ensure adequate and effective oversight.

As recommended by the Committee, the Government has developed an Implementation Plan. This includes further detail on, and timeframes for, the key operational elements of the scheme, such as developing risk assessment tools and detention arrangements for offenders. This is being done in close consultation with the states and territories.

Amendments made to the Bill include:

• when sentencing an offender convicted under any of the provisions of the Criminal Code to which the continuing detention scheme applies, the sentencing court must warn the offender that an application for continuing detention could be considered;
• the application for a continuing detention order, or review of a continuing detention order, must include a copy of any material in the possession of the Attorney-General or any statements of facts that the Attorney-General is aware of that would reasonably be regarded as supporting a finding that an order should not be made;
• the continuing detention scheme must be subject to a sunset period of 10 years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent;
• the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) must complete a review of the continuing detention scheme five years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent; and
• the PJCIS must review the continuing detention scheme six years after the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.

The Government thanks the Committee for its valuable bipartisan work.

The Government also thanks the states and territories for their ongoing partnership with the Commonwealth in protecting the community from terrorism.

The PJCIS Report is available on the Report PDF page of the Parliament of Australia website.

The Implementation Plan is available on the Implementation plan page of the Parliament of Australia website.

Recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and the Government's response

No.	Recommendation	Government Response
1	The Committee recommends that, following the consideration of the other recommendations listed in this Report, the Government obtains legal advice from the Solicitor-General, or equivalent, on the final form of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
2	The Committee recommends that proposed section 105A.3 in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to remove from the scope of offences section 80(B) of the Criminal Code, which refers to treason.	Accepted
3	The Committee recommends that proposed section 105A.3 in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to remove from the scope of offences subsections 119.7(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code, which refer to publishing recruitment advertisements.	Accepted
4	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to clarify the interaction between parole and bail provisions, and make explicit that: a person is not eligible for parole if that person is subject to a continuing detention order, a person detained for the purposes of giving effect to a continuing detention order is not entitled to seek bail, and a person subject to a continuing detention order and charged with a further offence is entitled to make an application for bail for that offence.	Accepted
5	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to provide that an application for a continuing detention order may be commenced up to 12 months (rather than six months) prior to the completion of an offender's sentence, in order to provide all parties additional time to prepare and for the offender to seek legal representation.	Accepted
6	The Committee recommends that, to avoid a potential ambiguity, proposed section 105A.8 of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make clear that the rules of evidence apply to the matters the Court is required to have regard to in its decision as to whether the terrorist offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if released into the community.	Accepted
7	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to provide greater clarity to the definition of ‘relevant expert' in proposed section 105A.2. This should include examples of persons who may potentially fall within the category ‘any other expert' at item (d) of the definition.	Accepted
8	The Committee recommends that proposed sub section 105A.6(7) of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to replace the word ‘must' with ‘may' so that the expert's report may include the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (h).	Accepted
9	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 and Explanatory Memorandum be amended to make explicit that each party is able to bring forward their preferred relevant expert, or experts, and that the Court will then determine the admissibility of each expert's evidence.	Accepted
10	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make explicit that a Court may appoint a relevant expert at any point during continuing detention order proceedings.	Accepted
11	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to make explicit that an offender is to be provided in a timely manner with information to be relied on in an application for a continuing detention order.	Accepted
12	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended so that if an offender, through no fault of his or her own, is unable to obtain legal representation: the Court has the explicit power to stay proceedings for a continuing detention order, and the Court is empowered to make an order for reasonable costs to be funded to enable the offender to obtain legal representation.	Accepted
13	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to require documents related to a continuing detention order to be given to the offender's legal representative. If the offender does not have a legal representative, the documents may be delivered to the chief executive officer of the offender's prison as currently provided for in the Bill.	Accepted
14	The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to clarify what is proposed by a ‘rehearing' as set out in proposed section 105A.17, namely what matters may be considered within a rehearing, and the types of circumstances that would constitute ‘special grounds' to allow new evidence to be introduced during a rehearing.	Accepted
15	The Committee recommends that the Government clarify the process for the initiation of a periodic review of a continuing detention order in the Explanatory Memorandum, and, if necessary, in the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
16	The Committee recommends that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Government should amend Division 104 of the Criminal Code to make explicit that a control order can be applied for and obtained while an individual is in prison, but that the controls imposed by that order would not apply until the person is released. The Committee further recommends that the Government consider whether the existing control order regime could be further improved to most effectively operate alongside the proposed continuing detention order regime. Any potential changes should be developed in time to be considered as part of the reviews of the control order legislation to be completed by the INSLM by 7 September 2017 and the PJCIS by 7 March 2018.	Accepted
17	The Committee recommends that the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be amended to require a Court, when sentencing an offender convicted under any of the provisions of the Criminal Code that apply to the continuing detention order regime, to warn the offender that an application for post-sentence detention could be considered.	Accepted
18	The Committee recommends that the continuing detention order regime be subject to an initial sunset period that expires 10 years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
19	The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to require the PJCIS to complete a review of the continuing detention order regime at Division 105A of the Criminal Code six years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
20	The Committee recommends that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 be amended to require the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to complete a review of the continuing detention order regime at Division 105A of the Criminal Code five years after passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016.	Accepted
21	The Committee recommends that the Government appoint a new Independent National Security Legislation Monitor as soon as possible.	Accepted
22	The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General provide the Committee with a clear development and implementation plan that includes timeframes to assist detailed consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016. This plan should be provided prior to the second reading debate in the Senate.	Accepted
23	The Committee recommends that the Attorney-General provide the Committee a timetable for implementation of any outstanding matters being considered by the Implementation Working Group by 30 June 2017. The Attorney-General's report should include information about: the general categorisation and qualifications of relevant experts, the development and validation of risk assessment tools, conditions of detention, including any agreements reached with States and Territories on housing arrangements, and progress in adapting the existing oversight mechanisms for use in the continuing detention order regime. The report should also include any other matters relevant to implementation of the regime.	Accepted
24	The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the Criminal Code Amendment (High Risk Terrorist Offenders) Bill 2016 be passed.	Accepted

This bill was read for the third time in the Senate on 1 December 2016 will now become law sometime in the first quarter of 2017.

How the Clarence Valley council rates and charges fight played out at the end of 2016

It would be foolish to think that the issue of Clarence Valley Council rates and charges has been permanently settled since the local government election in September this year.

The constant pressure of cost-shifting by state and federal governments means that regional councils in particular are prone to financial stress.

The fact that during previous elected terms Council in the Chamber appears to have agreed to expenditure which exacerbated this situation is regrettable but remains something that has to be faced. 

I await the beginning of the 2017 local government year with interest.

The current state of play……

The Daily Examiner, 19 October 2016:

NEW Clarence Valley Mayor Jim Simmons has used his casting vote twice to ensure his council applied for a special rate variation.

At Tuesday's council meeting a Mayoral Minute calling for an organisation review of the council and a general manager's report outlining a Fit for the Future Improvement Plan and Special Rate Variation were fiercely debated.

The Mayoral minute ostensibly called for the appointment of a consultant to review the council's organisation, but quickly moved to debate on the SRV.

In his minute the mayor said the council needed make an application for an SRV in case it becomes necessary once the review was completed.

In debate he repeatedly stressed this was not an application for an SRV. He said this could only happen at budget time in June next year.

But for some councillors the SRV was totally off limits.

Councillors Peter Ellem and Greg Clancy said they would not vote in favour of any motion in favour of an SRV.

And Cr Andrew Baker said an SRV was an admission the council was not prepared to do the hard work in balancing the budget.

The voting was Crs Jason Kingsley, Richie Williamson, Arthur Lysaught and Jim Simmons in favour.

Against: Crs Baker, Ellem, Clancy and Debrah Novak.

The Daily Examiner, 1 December 2016:

CLARENCE Valley Council has missed its State Government-imposed deadline to submit a plan to show it will become Fit for the Future.

At an extraordinary meeting in Maclean yesterday, councillors voted down a staff-prepared proposal which included an application for a 9% special rates variation.

The deadline for the council to submit its proposal to the Office of Local Government was midnight last night, which the council general manager Scott Greensill said could not be met.

The gallery was filled with council staff, who came to see the outcome, which according to information in the report to the meeting could result in the loss of 63 jobs at the council over the next nine years.

Mayor Jim Simmons, who spoke in favour of the plan, used his casting vote to defeat the proposal.

His reasoning was that a councillor missing from the meeting, Cr Greg Clancy, was a strong opponent of the SRV proposal.

"This proposal would only be voted down at the next meeting in December, so I will vote against it now," he said.

Cr Andrew Baker foreshadowed a lengthy nine-point motion during question time. An amendment from Cr Karen Toms reduced this to eight points when he agreed to remove a section relating to council's tourism services.

This became the motion on the defeat of the officer's recommendation……

Cr Peter Ellem supported Cr Baker's motion.

He said the opposition to it was coming from a rump of the former council and council staff who had failed to listen adequately to the new members of council and the public.

He said the job losses and figures in the report were designed to scare councillors into voting in favour of an SRV, which he said the community could not afford.

That final Council resolution set out below is one that was amended by Williamson/Lysaught during the preceding motion vote which occurred sometime between 3.10pm and 4.06pm.

The Mayor adjourned the meeting at 4.06 pm and resumed at 4.13 pm.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION – 13.063/16

Baker/Novak

That Council:

1. Adopt a Fit for the Future Continual Compliance Policy for immediate implementation and a Nil-Deficit General Fund Budget Policy for 2017/18 and subsequent years with each General Fund Budget to encompass at least:

a. Operating Performance Ratio at or better than breakeven to satisfy Benchmark 1.

b. Building and Infrastructure Renewal at or better than 100% to meet or exceed Benchmark 3.

c. Infrastructure Backlog Ratio of 2% or less to satisfy Benchmark 5, after an initial utilization of

$17.7 million of own Capital Reserves is applied to infrastructure backlog reduction by the

actions required at 3 and 4 below.

d. Asset Maintenance Ratio of 100% or more to meet or exceed Benchmark 5.

e. Already-adopted efficiency measures, revenue increases, expenditure reductions and other

measures adopted for financial sustainability purposes.

2. Commence Fit for the Future Continuing Compliance immediately by:

a. Adjusting the 2016/17 adopted budget deficit by any amounts realised from the adoption of

this resolution and,

b. Adjusting current budget projections to include the results of a Business Case review of the

Depot Rationalisation Project that is to include current known costs and projections together

with the items at 7a, 7b and 7c below and with this revised business case to be reported to

Council February 2017 and,

c. Implementing the actions required in following Sections 3 to 8 inclusive.

3. Adopt a Fleet Financing Policy that requires all fleet renewals and acquisitions to be financed by external commercial financing where item cost is prorated monthly over the planned economic life of the asset.

4. Create an Infrastructure Backlog Accelerated Reduction Reserve of $17.7 million by the transfer of all of the Fleet Reserve Fund of $10 million or such other final amount when calculated and by additional capital to emerge from the adoption of the Fleet Financing Policy and:

a. Apply Internal Fleet Hire funds emerging from this Fleet Financing Policy estimated: $3.53m

remaining 6 months 2016/17, $3.33m 2017/18, $1.1 million 2018/19, $0.41 million 2019/20,

$0.14 million 2020/21 for an estimated total $8.6 million over 54 months and subject to final

calculation amount to be inserted here to firstly reach the $17.7 million required for the

Infrastructure Backlog Accelerated Reduction Reserve amount and then to apply to other

Benchmark shortfalls and,

b. Apply fleet disposal income funds emerging at end of economic life disposal of fleet items

estimated at $8 million over 48 to 60 months and subject to final calculation amount to be

inserted here to firstly reach the $17.7 million required for the Infrastructure Backlog

Accelerated Reduction Reserve amount and then to apply to other Benchmark shortfalls.

5. After accounting for the adopted forecast reductions that will result from depot rationalisation  natural attrition and other adopted efficiency savings measures, develop a workforce model that results in no nett reduction of adjusted workforce numbers with such model to be developed by inclusion of selected reductions to consultant and contract engagements in favour of maintaining at least current Council FTE workforce numbers.

6. Receive a report to the February 2017 Ordinary meeting and to subsequent meetings as necessary with such report to include:

a. Options and variations available for delivery of this resolution and,

b. Effects of implementation on subsequent budget forecasts and,

c. The capability and constraints of this resolution being implemented by existing Council

management expertise alone and,

d. The likely cost and benefit of further resolving the implementation of this resolution by the

engagement of external administration services.

7. Adopt a Business Case Reporting to Council Policy for pre-acquisition reporting on all proposed capital acquisitions of $100,000 or above to show all financial costs and benefits and alternatives if any with each report to include:

a. The Cost of Funds using best commercial borrowing rates available to Council at the time

and,

b. The Cost of Funds using best commercial investment rates available to Council at the time

and

c. Any depreciation amounts attributable to the expected life of the acquisition.

8. Make a Fit for The Future Submission to the Office of Local Government showing the amended budget results and forecasts resulting from adoption of this resolution Sections 1 to 7 inclusive together with any other already-adopted future savings and revenue-increase measures to be implemented by Council to achieve financial sustainability.

Cr Williamson and Cr Lysaught left the meeting at 4.41 pm prior to the voting taking place. [my red bolding]

Voting recorded as follows

For: Simmons, Ellem, Novak, Toms, Baker

Against: Kingsley

Northern Rivers Knitting Nannas visit Queensland gas field

The Clarence Valley Conservation Coalition Inc. website published this post on 30 November 2016:

Nanna Lynette's Report

I found that although I’d seen many photos and movies of gasfields and had heard people talk about them, nothing prepared me for visiting a gasfield and walking around the infrastructure and hearing the massive amount of noise. The size of the Kenya gasfield and the amount of infrastructure was mind-blowing.  

The gas from the field is piped to the Kenya processing plant and after processing is piped to Gladstone. The processing plant, which covers an area of a couple of acres, consists of three massive metal structures about five storeys high.  The noise coming from this was horrendous. We were standing about a kilometre away and where we were the noise was deafening.

The next part of the tour was a visit to the State Forest where some of the actual Kenya gaswells are. Initially they were about a kilometre apart but when production slowed they drilled other wells in between the existing ones so that the wells were then 500 metres apart.  Each well sits in a cleared pad of at least a quarter of an acre.  This means you’ve a fractured environment because the ground is bare except for some gravel over it.  And each well makes a horrific noise as well.

The whole area is massively noisy and dusty because of all the clearing.  

The cleared pipeline corridors are about 100 metres wide and have been taken over by weeds like fireweed.  Along the main pipeline there are vents – high point vents and low point vents about 400 metres apart. 

The high point vents vent raw gas 24 hours a day. Of course this smells.  It just goes straight into the atmosphere. The low point vents expel moisture which is collected in troughs and presumably evaporates if it doesn’t overflow….

Read the full post here.

This is a timely reminder of what could still happen here as the Baird Government has not guaranteed the permanent gas-free status of the NSW Northern Rivers region, has reserved the right to once again issue petroleum exploration licenses [PELs] and, As part of a deal that extinguished previous applications for CSG leases, the government agreed to insert a clause in legislation giving priority to previous claimants. This was on behalf of the NSW Aboriginal Land Council, which had made four appli­cations for gas exploration leases.

As late as March 2016 the Baird Government has been telling overseas mining interests that "The Clarence-Morton basin has very good petroleum potential……Almost all wells drilled … have yielded gas and/or oil".

http://www.bioregionalassessments.gov.au/assessments/clarence-moreton-bioregion

United Nations requests Governments of Sweden and United Kingdom to allow Julian Assange "freedom of movement"

U.N. Human Rights Council, Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 30 November 2016:

The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has concluded its 77th regular session from 21 to 25 November in Geneva.

The Working Group has a mandate to investigate allegations of individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary way or inconsistently with international human rights standards, and to recommend remedies such as release from detention and compensation, when appropriate.

During the session, the Working Group adopted 18 opinions concerning 43 persons deprived of liberty. The adopted opinions will be transmitted to the Governments concerned and the sources. These opinions will also be published on the website of the Working Group.

The UN expert group also considered four requests for review* of previous opinions, submitted by the Arab Republic of Egypt, the State of Kuwait and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Working Group concluded that the requests did not meet the threshold of a review as enshrined in paragraph 21 of its methods of work,** and that they were thus not admissible.

Excerpt from Opinion No. 54/2015 concerning Julian Assange (Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)*:

Disposition

In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion: The deprivation of liberty of Julian Assange is arbitrary and in contravention of articles 9 and 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 7, 9 (1), (3) and (4), 10 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It falls within category III of the categories applicable to the consideration of the cases submitted to the Working Group.

Consequent upon the opinion rendered, the Working Group requests the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom to assess the situation of Mr. Assange, to ensure his safety and physical integrity, to facilitate the exercise of his right to freedom of movement in an expedient manner and to ensure the full enjoyment of his rights guaranteed by the international norms on detention.

The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the adequate remedy would be to ensure the right of free movement of Mr. Assange and accord him an enforceable right to compensation, in accordance with article 9 (5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [Adopted on 4 December 2015]

Dutch-owned 'super' trawler "Geelong Star" has left Australian waters and will not be returning

Save Our Marine Life is celebrating the fact that the Dutch-owned factory trawler Geelong Star has left Australian waters and will not be returning.

The trawler has removed its Australian flag of convenience and been reflagged as Dutch – in the process its old name KW 172 Dirk Dirk has been re-instated.

ABC News reported on 24 November 2016 that:

The ship's departure came just before Labor and Greens members on a Senate committee recommended all mid-water trawlers be banned from fishing in Australian waters.

The committee had been investigating the environmental, social and economic impacts of super trawlers.

In 2012, ships known as super trawlers were prohibited from fishing in Australian waters, but the ban only applied to vessels over 130 metres, and not the Geelong Star, which is 95 metres.

Labor and Greens committee members also urged the Federal Government to appoint a National Recreational Fishing Council.

The report said public confidence in the management of Australia's fisheries needed to be enhanced, and it suggested the Australian Fisheries Management Authority publish information about fishing activity in the Small Pelagic Fishery regularly, such as bycatch quantities.

Liberal Senators Jonathon Duniam and David Bushby dissented from the recommendations, and said the Government was "committed to maintaining a balanced and science-based approach to all decisions regarding access to Commonwealth fisheries".

The Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications report into the Environmental, social and economic impacts of large-capacity fishing vessels commonly known as 'Supertrawlers' operating in Australia's marine jurisdiction was published in November 2016.

The Committee report stated:

1.46 The FV Geelong Star commenced fishing in the SPF on 2 April 2015.⁴⁰ The Geelong Star is a 3181 tonne factory freezer vessel with a hold capacity of 1061 tonnes. At 95.18 metres, the Geelong Star is the longest fishing vessel in the AFZ.⁴¹

1.47 The operation of the Geelong Star in the SPF is a joint enterprise between Seafish Tasmania and Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV and its Australian subsidiary, Seafish Tasmania Pelagic Pty Ltd.⁴² The fish caught by the Geelong Star is shipped to export markets, usually in West Africa.⁴³

1.48 AFMA was notified that Seafish Tasmania had nominated the Geelong Star to fish its concessions in the SPF on 12 February 2015. Following registration of the Geelong Star as an Australian-flagged boat by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority,⁴⁴ AFMA confirmed that the vessel met its requirements. The Geelong Star commenced fishing in the SPF on 2 April 2015. As the Geelong Star is less than 130 metres in length, it is not affected by the ban introduced by the government in April 2015….

1.50 Since it commenced operating, AFMA has initiated various regulatory measures in response to mortalities of protected species caused by the operations of the Geelong Star. Various stakeholders are also concerned about the effect of the trawler's operations on other commercial fishing operations and recreational fishing activities. Both the fishing activities of the Geelong Star and the regulatory approach taken by AFMA have attracted controversy. 

1.51 Environmental non-government organisations expressed opposition to the activities of the Geelong Star and the approach taken to managing the SPF. Environment Tasmania and the Australian Marine Conservation Society both called on the government to 'enact a permanent ban on the operation of factory freezer trawlers in the Small Pelagic Fishery'.⁴⁵ The Conservation Council SA provided a list of recommendations regarding potential localised depletion, adverse environmental effects, how to minimise impacts on protected species and the presence of AFMA observers on the vessel. The Conservation Council SA called for vessels such as the Geelong Star to be banned from the fishery 'until management strategies', including the recommendations outlined in its submission, 'are in place to effectively minimise impacts on protected species'.⁴⁶

1.52 Recreational fishing interests are another key stakeholder group. Submitters in this group expressed concern about potential repercussions for the Australian recreational fishing sector from the operations of the Geelong Star. The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) called for a moratorium on 'industry scale' fishing in areas of the SPF that are of concern to the recreational fishing sector. The ARFF argued that this moratorium should remain in place 'until a comprehensive assessment has been conducted to determine whether industrial scale fishing of the SPF is the highest and best use of the SPF, in our nation's interest and whether the small pelagic fishery should be commercially fished at all'.⁴⁷

1.53 Seafish Tasmania, the operator of the Geelong Star, argued that the use of a factory freezer trawler such as the Geelong Star is the only way that operations in the SPF can be commercially viable. Seafish Tasmania also advised that, over 11 years, it has worked within the regulatory arrangements to assist in developing management plans and strategies 'that support the sustainable management of the SPF'.⁴⁸ Seafish Tasmania added: 

The current management regime in the SPF, and in particular the conditions applied to the Geelong Star, are extremely strict. Clearly, they are designed  

to provide a high degree of public confidence that the operations of the vessel are being closely monitored and managed.⁴⁹

1.54 Seafish Tasmania concluded: 

The company has made substantial investments in supporting scientific surveys and more recently in bringing freezer trawlers from Europe to catch our quota and to produce high quality fish for human consumption. It is time to let us get on with the job of catching our quota.⁵⁰

1.55 Seafish Tasmania and the Small Pelagic Fishery Industry Association (SPFIA) also argued that the science-based management of the fishery and the statutory fishing rights associated with the vessel should be respected. For example, the SPFIA submitted: 

The impact of the continued political interventions in the management of the Small Pelagic Fishery is being felt well beyond the confines of this Association. Although SPF quota holders are effectively the primary target of the political attacks, there is widespread erosion of industry confidence in the ability of AFMA to manage fisheries in an independent, non-political and science based manner. Consequently, industry confidence in the quality and security of their Statutory Fishing Rights is being steadily undermined. 

In these destabilising circumstances, it should not be surprising if industry were to take a shorter term view of their investments reflecting the increased political risk being faced. This is exactly the situation that Government sought to avoid by providing the fishing industry with well defined, long term secure fishing rights to inspire operators to take economically responsible decisions and to look after the marine resources on which their businesses depend.⁵¹

1.56 Other commercial fishing interests urged the committee and other interested stakeholders to separate concerns about factory freezer vessels operating in the SPF, where resource sharing issues involving recreational fishers are important, and the operation of factory freezer trawlers in other fisheries. Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing, which has operated a factory freezer vessel in the blue grenadier fishery since 1988, urged the committee to separate 'what we see are two dissimilar issues', namely concerns about 'super trawlers' in the SPF and the operation of factory freezer trawlers elsewhere. It explained: 

The current community concern which has led to this inquiry is not necessary driven by the size or freezing capacity of the vessel or the science of the fishery, as evidenced in the blue grenadier fishery, but centres around resource sharing and access to a fish species that recreational fishers consider is a significant driver in maintaining healthy populations of key recreational species.⁵²……..

1.62 The Geelong Star is 95 metres long and, therefore, is not covered by the 130-metre definition of super trawler used for the ban. Nevertheless, the Geelong Star has commonly been referred to as a super trawler, including by the media and state governments.⁵⁸ In addition, some of the concerns expressed by groups that opposed the Margiris have similarly been applied to the Geelong Star. Some submitters also argued that there is only a marginal difference in the quota allocated to the Abel Tasman, which was banned, and vessels such as the Geelong Star that are not.⁵⁹ Other submitters, however, maintain that 'there is no correlation between vessel size and fishing power'.⁶⁰

1.63 On this issue, Mr Allan Hansard, Managing Director, Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation, commented: 'It is not necessarily the size of the boat; it is that intensity that we need to really focus on in this case'.⁶¹

1.64 From the perspective of the Stop the Trawler Alliance, which is an alliance of environment, fishing and tourism organisations established in 2012 in response to the Margiris, the principal issue is that a factory freezer vessel is operating in the SPF, not that a vessel of a certain size is operating.⁶²......

The end result was this:

Recommendation 1 

6.22 The committee recommends that the Australian government ban all factory freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery.

The full report can be read here.

Because the recommendation is not yet reflected in legislation and because there is some uncertainty about the reasons the trawler vacated Australian waters as well as a fear it may eventually return, concerned people should write to Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Barnaby Joyce MP and Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Anne Ruston who have portfolio responsibility for fisheries management and to their federal MP calling on government to permanently ban all freezer mid-water trawlers from operating in Australian Small Pelagic Fisheries.

Save Our Marine Life has started a petition here. 

Gawd help us! This is a National Party federal MP?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/barnaby-joyce-vows-lnp-maverick-george-christensen-will-become-a-cabinet-minister-20161130-gt12kw.html

George Robert Christensen, Nationals MP for Dawson (Qld), 38 year old, unmarried former local government councillor who entered federal parliament in 2010. Nationals Party Whip since 17 October 2013.

Well-known for uttering homophobic, islamophobic, anti-environmental protection and climate change denial statements. Can confidently be filed by thinking voters under 'right wing nut job - possibly politically dangerous'.

Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) final decision on the proposed sale of APN News & Media regional newspapers to News Corp due on 8 December 2016

The proposed date for announcement of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) final decision on the proposed sale of APN News & Media regional newspapers to News Corp is 8 December 2016.

Consideration of the sale is occurring against this backdrop………

Financial Review, 8 November 2016:

News Corporation will rip $40 million in costs out of its Australian publishing arm in 2016-17, some of which will come from job cuts, as the Rupert Murdoch-controlled company deals with falling advertising revenue and a shift to digital.

Advertising revenue at News Corp Australia fell 11 per cent in local currency in the first quarter, which was relatively similar to the same period last year, News Corp chief financial officer Bedi Singh told investors on Tuesday morning during the company's financial results call.

Circulation revenue increased on a local and reported currency basis. News Corp reports in US dollars.

"While we continue to benefit from the cost-reduction program that News Australia announced in the second half of fiscal 2016, which totalled around 5 per cent of the cost base, we are now embarking on further cost initiatives," Mr Singh said.

"We expect an additional Australian dollar $40 million in cost savings this fiscal year while we continue to push digital initiatives more broadly."

It is understood that these costs will come across the local business and will include redundancies. News Corp's Australian publications include The Australian, The Daily Telegraph and The Herald Sun. News Corp shares finished Tuesday 1.3 per cent higher at $16.11 in local trade.

It comes as News Corp has begun offering redundancies at The Wall Street Journal and is planning for $US100 million ($130 million) in annual savings by the end of 2017-18.

Proprint, 24 November 2016:

Less than two weeks after it announced a company-wide cost slashing strategy, News Corp Australia has started canvassing the idea of voluntary redundancies to its staff, encouraging those interested to put their hands up before its redundancy programme begins.

Industry union Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) says it is aware News Corp management had begun gauging staff interest in redundancies.

The inevitable job cuts are a by-product of News Corp’s slowing advertising revenue, which forced the publishing giant to push its $40m cost saving strategy to staff.

In a response to News Corp’s redundancy agenda, the MEAA says it has rallied behind affected editorial staff, and had previously made an effort to ensure forced redundancies are not on the cards.

“MEAA has called on News Corp Australia to confirm that there will be no forced redundancies as part of its latest round of cost savings measures. It is particularly frustrating that the announcement of the redundancies came within hours of voting opening for a new enterprise bargaining agreement negotiated between News Corp and MEAA members over many months – with the company’s management never once indicating that further job losses and cost savings measures were imminent,” the MEAA states.

The Australian, 12 September 2016:

News Corp’s planned acquisition of APN News & Media’s Aust­ralian Regional Media newspaper business will result in up to 300 job losses as back office synergies are sought to secure the future of ­quality journalism in the affected ­regions.

The cuts are expected to be implemented over an initial phase, provided the deal is approved by shareholders and the competition watchdog, and a subsequent round of cost cuts once News Corp has had more time to assess the ARM operations across regional Queensland and northern NSW.

However, there are no plans to shut ARM titles, which ­include The Gympie Times, The Chronicle in Toowoomba and the Ballina Shire Advocate, provided they remain profitable…..

ARM recorded a 42 per cent drop in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation to $3.4m for the six months ended June 30, on revenues of $89m, which were down by 6 per cent.

APN announced its ARM sale plans in February as part of its ­efforts to focus its business on the more lucrative radio and outdoor advertising sectors.

News Corp should benefit from picking up extra printing plants. It distributes The Australian and The Courier-Mail throughout Queensland from presses in Brisbane and Townsville. The acquisition included presses in Yandina, Warwick and Rockhampton, which will cut the distribution costs, although APN closed a printing plant in Toowoomba last year.

The ARM newspapers were ­divested by News Corp as part of its acquisition of The Herald & Weekly Times group in 1987.

Prime Minister 'Truffles' Turnbull polls zero

Malcolm Turnbull faces a perilous final parliamentary week as voters turn against his leadership, key legislation teeters against Senate manoeuvring, and an emboldened Tony Abbott openly criticises the government while virtually demanding a ministry, according to The Canberra Times on 2 November 2016.

The article went on to say:

The poll showed the government lagging behind the Labor opposition at 49 per cent to 51.

Formerly the Coalition's greatest asset, Mr Turnbull's falling personal standing appears to be leading the broader decline, dropping 8 percentage points since June and a colossal 53 percentage points over the last year.

An equal percentage of voters now either approves or disapproves of the way Mr Turnbull is doing his job, giving him a net approval rating of zero.

Worse still, Mr Turnbull has slipped sharply on a range of important leadership characteristics while his opponent, Bill Shorten, has made some improvements.

The latest Fairfax-Ipsos survey appears to bear this gloom out:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/fairfaxipsos-poll-these-numbers-reveal-an-underwhelmed-and-disengaged-electorate-20161127-gsykz6.htm

One has to suspect that by now Malcolm Turnbull is experiencing a sensation akin to a sharp pain between his shoulder blades every time he turns his back on the right-wing hardliners in his ministry.

Most Australians don't believe that they live in a classless society

Essential Research, 29 November 2016: