Can't resist posting a pic we took in Tonga last year, humpbacks en route from Antarctica #ICJrulesonwhaling pic.twitter.com/z6zkoedGPK
Wednesday, 5 March 2014
The age of entitlement, welfare and Abbott Government spin
The Abbott Government has been drip feeding the mainstream media 'facts' about Disability Support Pension (DSP) recipients ever since it took office.
It is obviously insisting that people receiving this pension have now reached record levels, because News Corp journalist and former press secretary to Liberal Treasurer Peter Costello Nikki Savva reading from notes on ABC Insiders program on 2 March 2014 cited the record level as 823,000.
Elsewhere in media the figures most often quoted range between 825,000 and 832,000.
Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews cites the higher figure, 832,000, on 22 February 2014 - which would see an additional 10,262 person receiving a DSP pension between June 2013 and February 2014.
However, Minister Andrews has been careful not to publish on the Internet any link to this figure and he cited a different figure of 822,000 DSP pension recipients on 22 December 2013 - which would indicate that 10,000 people were granted this pension in the space of less than 9 weeks (including December-January Centrelink 6 closure days) up to 22 February 2014.
Given the Abbott Government's track record in spinning numbers, one would be foolish to rely on Minister Andrew's accounting without independent verification.
According, the only document that can be relied upon is an Australian Government Department of Social Services' June 2013 report, which indicates that the record level occurred in 2011-12 with 827,460 DSP recipients and due to reforms under the previous Labor Federal Government pensioner numbers had reached negative growth by mid-2013:
As at June 2013, the number of people receiving DSP was 821,738. The number of
DSP recipients decreased by 5,722 (-0.7 percent) between June 2012 and June 2013.
Dept. of Social Services June 2013
The overall grant rate for DSP pensions had fallen to 43.3 percent in 2012-13.
While 41.6 per cent of all DSP recipients are on this pension for less than 10 years.
Between June 2012 and June 2013 20,574 people ceased receiving a DSP pension and did not go onto any other form of welfare payment. This figure includes deceased recipients.
Another fact that the Abbott Government chooses to ignore is that the Disability Support Pension is a relatively small part of the overall welfare expenditure pie at $15 billion compared with $26 billion in Family Tax Benefit, $37 billion in Age Pensions and $62 billion for health services:
Grattan Institute, 29 January 2014
In fact growth across total welfare payment numbers (excluding persons on the age pension) has been trending down for some time now, as Greg Jericho points out.
Perhaps the next time readers are faced with media reports alleging healthy young adults are 'rorting' the system, as the Prime Minister suggests in interviews with certain radio shock jocks such as Ray Hadley, they might recall that in June 2013 the biggest age group receiving a disability support pension were those 60 to 65 years and over.
When it comes to other stereotypes found in the media it also does well to remember that most DSP pensioners are single, separated, divorced or widowed, 91.7 per cent have no additional income, 71.9 per cent don't own a home, 76.4 per cent of all DSP pensioners are Australian-born citizens and, in June 2013 approximately 89,889 of those on this pension either had acquired brain impairment, cancer/tumour, an endocrine & immune system condition, congenital abnormalities or were blind/deaf.
Tuesday, 4 March 2014
Timor Leste v Australia: International Court of Justice orders Australian Attorney-General George Brandis to seal seized documents and prohibits Australia from interfering in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers
Noting moreover the likelihood that much of the seized material contains sensitive and confidential information relevant to the pending arbitration and that it may also include elements that are pertinent to any future maritime negotiations which may take place between the Parties, the Court finds that it is essential to ensure that the content of the seized material is not in any way or at any time divulged to any person or persons who could use it, or cause it to be used, to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste in its relations with Australia over the Timor Sea. It is therefore necessary to keep the seized documents and electronic data and any copies thereof under seal until further decision of the Court.
The Court then notes that Timor-Leste has expressed concerns over the confidentiality of its ongoing communications with its legal advisers concerning, in particular, the conduct of the Timor Sea Treaty Arbitration, as well as the conduct of any future negotiations over the Timor Sea and its resources, a matter which is not covered by the written undertaking of the Attorney-General of 21 January 2014. The Court further finds it appropriate to require Australia not to interfere in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers, either in connection with the pending arbitral proceedings and with any future bilateral negotiations concerning maritime delimitation, or in connection with any other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court. [International Court of Justice, Summary 2014/2, 3 March 2014]
Excerpt from International Court Of Justice Press Release:
No. 2014/12
3 March 2014
Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)
The Court finds that Australia shall ensure that the content of the seized material is not used to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste
THE HAGUE, 3 March 2014. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today issued its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Timor-Leste on 17 December 2013 in the case concerning Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia). That Request followed the seizure on 3 December 2013 and subsequent detention, by “Agents of Australia of documents, data and other property which belongs to Timor-Leste and/or which Timor-Leste has the right to protect under international law”. According to Timor-Leste, the material seized includes documents, data and correspondence between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers relating to a pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of 20 May 2002 between Timor-Leste and Australia.
In its Order the Court indicates the following provisional measures:
- it decides, by twelve votes to four, that Australia shall ensure that the content of the seized material is not in any way or at any time used by any person or persons to the disadvantage of Timor-Leste until the present case has been concluded;
- it also decides, by twelve votes to four, that Australia shall keep under seal the seized documents and electronic data and any copies thereof until further decision of the Court;
- it further directs, by fifteen votes to one, that Australia shall not interfere in any way in communications between Timor-Leste and its legal advisers in connection with the pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of 20 May 2002, with any future bilateral negotiations concerning maritime delimitation, or with any other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court.
Reasoning of the Court
1. Prima facie jurisdiction (paras. 18-21)
The Court notes that Timor-Leste seeks to base the jurisdiction of the Court in the case on the declaration made by it on 21 September 2012 under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute and on the declaration made by Australia on 22 March 2002 under the same provision. Considering that these declarations appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which it might have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case, the Court finds that it may entertain the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted to it by Timor-Leste.
2. The rights whose protection is sought and the measures requested (paras. 22-30)
The Court recalls that its power to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties in a case, pending its decision on the merits thereof. Therefore, the Court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the requesting party are at least plausible. Moreover, a link must exist between the rights which form the subject of the proceedings before the Court on the merits of the case and the provisional measures being sought.
The Court begins by observing that the principal claim of Timor-Leste is that a violation has occurred of its right to communicate with its counsel and lawyers in a confidential manner with regard to issues forming the subject-matter of pending arbitral proceedings and possible future negotiations on maritime delimitation between Timor-Leste and Australia. The Court notes that this claimed right might be derived from the principle of the sovereign equality of States, which is one of the fundamental principles of the international order and is reflected in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Charter of the United Nations. More specifically, equality of the parties must be preserved when they are involved, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter, in the process of settling an international dispute by peaceful means. The Court accordingly considers that at least some of the rights for which Timor-Leste seeks protection namely, the right to conduct arbitration proceedings or negotiations without interference by Australia, including the right of confidentiality and of non-interference in its communications with its legal advisers are plausible.
The Court then turns to the issue of the link between the rights claimed and the provisional measures requested. It concludes that a link exists between Timor-Leste’s claimed rights and the provisional measures sought, since these, by their very nature, are intended to protect Timor-Leste’s claimed rights to conduct, without interference by Australia, arbitral proceedings and future negotiations, and to communicate freely with its legal advisers, counsel and lawyers to that end.
3. Risk of irreparable prejudice and urgency (paras. 31-48)
The Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings before it. That power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights in dispute before the Court gives its final decision.
The Court is of the view that the right of Timor-Leste to conduct arbitral proceedings and negotiations without interference could suffer irreparable harm if Australia failed to immediately safeguard the confidentiality of the material seized by its Agents on 3 December 2013. In particular, the Court considers that there could be a very serious detrimental effect on Timor-Leste’s position in the Timor Sea Treaty Arbitration, and in future maritime negotiations with Australia, should the seized material be divulged to any person or persons involved or likely to be involved in that arbitration or in negotiations on behalf of Australia.
The Court notes, however, that the Attorney-General of Australia gave an undertaking on 21 January 2014 which included commitments to the effect that the seized material will not be made available to any part of the Australian Government for any purpose in connection with the exploitation of resources in the Timor Sea or related negotiations, or in connection with the conduct of the current case before the Court, or of the proceedings of the Timor Sea Treaty Tribunal. The Court further notes that the Agent of Australia stated that “the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia [had] the actual and ostensible authority to bind Australia as a matter of both Australian law and international law”. The Court considers that, once a State has made such a commitment concerning its conduct, its good faith in complying with that commitment is to be presumed. The Court therefore has no reason to believe that the written undertaking of 21 January 2014 will not be implemented by Australia.
The Court nevertheless notes that, in certain circumstances involving national security, the Government of Australia envisages the possibility of making use of the seized material. The Court further observes that the commitment of Australia to keep the seized material sealed has only been given until the Court’s decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures. The Court accordingly concludes that, while the written undertaking of the Attorney-General of 21 January 2014 makes a significant contribution towards mitigating the imminent risk of irreparable prejudice created by the seizure of the above-mentioned material to Timor-Leste’s rights — particularly its right to the confidentiality of that material being duly safeguarded — it does not remove that risk entirely.
The Court concludes from the foregoing that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures have been met....
Full press release here.
Summary of Court Order here.
Excerpt from Summary showing vote of judge ad hoc Callinan nominated to sit in the matter of Timor Leste v Australia by Attorney-General George Brandis:
Excerpt from Summary showing vote of judge ad hoc Callinan nominated to sit in the matter of Timor Leste v Australia by Attorney-General George Brandis:
(1) By twelve votes to four,
Australia shall ensure that the content of the
seized material is not in any way or at any time
used by any person or persons to the
disadvantage of Timor-Leste until the present case has been concluded;
IN FAVOUR: President Tomka;
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,
Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade,
Yusuf, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Cot;
AGAINST: Judges Keith, Greenwood,
Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Callinan;
(2) By twelve votes to four,
Australia shall keep under seal the seized
documents and electronic data and any copies
thereof until further decision of the
Court;
IN FAVOUR: President Tomka;
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,
Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado Trindade,
Yusuf, Xue, Gaja, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Cot;
AGAINST: Judges Keith, Greenwood,
Donoghue; Judge ad hoc Callinan;
(3) By fifteen votes to one,
Australia shall not interfere in any way in
communications between Timor-Leste and its
legal advisers in connection with the
pending Arbitration under the Timor Sea Treaty of
20 May 2002 between Timor-Leste and
Australia, with any future bilateral negotiations concerningmaritime delimitation, or with any
other related procedure between the two States, including the present case before the Court.
IN FAVOUR: President Tomka;
Vice-President Sepúlveda-Amor; Judges Owada, Abraham,
Keith, Bennouna, Skotnikov, Cançado
Trindade, Yusuf, Greenwood, Xue, Donoghue,
Gaja, Bhandari; Judge ad hoc Cot;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Callinan.
UPDATE
Australian
Attorney-General George Brandis
releases his spin.........
SENATOR
THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
MINISTER
FOR THE ARTS
MEDIA
RELEASE
INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE DECISION TIMOR LESTE v AUSTRALIA
The Australian Government is pleased with the decision of the
International Court of Justice in Timor-Leste v Australia, delivered at The
Hague overnight, refusing Timor-Leste’s application for the delivery up of the
documents taken into possession by ASIO, in execution of a search warrant in
Canberra in December 2013.
The order of the Court extended, until the final hearing of
the case, undertakings which were offered by Australia during the course of the
hearing. These orders will, of course, be complied with. This is a good outcome
for Australia.
4 March 2014
Media
contact: Scott Bolitho 0477 722 189
Metgasco Limited, Trevor Close and the Githabul Nation
WrestlingNewsMedia.com Trevor Close seated on the right
The Northern Star 21 February 2014:
MEMBERS of the local Githabul tribe have distanced themself from calls by the chairman of their native title corporation to join forces with the gas industry.
The dispute follows years of infighting within the Githabul Nation Aboriginal Corporation (GNAC) which administers 1120 sq km of native title land along the Queensland border surrounding Woodenbong.
GNAC chairman Trevor Close this week identified Metgasco's planned well at Bentley as suitable for a joint venture with the native title corporation.
Mr Close declared in a statement that the "the potential of this new gas well will deliver millions back to the Githabul people".
Under a so-called "farm-in" agreement, GNAC would become a co-investor in the drilling project and take a percentage stake in any future profits.
Metgasco chief Peter Henderson said farm-in agreements were common in the oil and gas industry, with up to two, three, and even four parties taking stakes in some projects.
Mr Close said the Githabul people were "happy to share gas" with NSW in the "spirit of reconciliation", and to stop the state's interstate gas dependency.
But Githabul elder Gloria Williams said no one in her tribe supported the gas industry, and that Mr Close lived in Sydney and ran a mining consultancy.
She said GNAC had been hijacked by a group "intent on doing mining deals", which didn't have local support.
"We live in the heart of Githabul and have been trying to address this issue with GNAC, and they have been avoiding us for two years," she said.
"All these deals he [Mr Close] is talking about, we have never sat down as a tribe and spoken about."....
ABC North Coast NSW 20 February 2014:
Githabul Elder Aunty Gloria Williams told ABC North Coast that the Githabul Nation Aboriginal Corporation was under investigation by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (ORIC).
ORIC issued a statement to ABC North Coast: " ORIC's practice is not to confirm or deny whether a complaint has been received or if a corporation is under investigation. ORIC only comments on outcomes of regulatory action, which is available on our website at www.oric.gov.au."
A document posted on the ORIC website shows two auditors were appointed in December 2013 to investigate the finances of the corporation.
TNR Financial Services were to conduct the financial investigation in question.
In December 2013 the Delegate of the Registrar wrote; I note the corporation has not held its AGM for the year ended 30 June 2012. I further note previous advice was received from the corporation that it would be able to hold its 2012-13 AGM before 30 November 2013. In the circumstances, I am not in a position to grant an extension of time for holding the AGM.
GNAC chairman Trevor Close mentioned in the first article quoted has resided in South Australia, West Australia and in the Sydney metropolitan area of New South Wales.
In 2008 the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies described Trevor John Close as an Indigenous commercial lawyer currently working in the resources industry.
In 2010 the Office of the Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations listed him as having registered the United Githabul Tribal Nation Aboriginal Corporation in 1997. It was deregistered in 2010.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) lists another company Bonalbo Developments Pty Limited as being registered in 2007 and deregistered in in 2009.
In one of a number of Linkedin current entries Trevor Close is listed as a lawyer for Bonalbo Developments and as the chief executive officer of Yelgun Djaru Oil and Gas. Business.gov.au lists Yelgun Djaru Mining & Gas Services as a business name used by Trevor Close since 2010;
Mr. Close appears to have a troubled relationship with Githabul people.
On 22 March 2010 The Northern Star journalist Alex Easton reported on an incident which saw Mr. Close appear in court:
Trevor Close, 48, a Githabul man now living in Perth, appeared in Lismore Local Court where he pleaded not guilty to a charge of punching Robert Williams outside a Kyogle meeting on the local native title process on April 8 last year.
Close denies the charge, saying Mr Williams took the first swing....
Close said, once in the hall, he was knocked to the ground and set upon by '20 to 30 people' and feared for his life.
He later amended his account of the attackers to include only the Williams men.
"They nearly killed me," he told the court. "Blows started coming from everywhere. I was in fear of my life."
Close told the court he saw people breaking off chair legs to use in the attack on him, but his elderly aunts intervened by 'throwing their bodies over me'.
The aunts told a slightly different story.
They had been in various parts of the hall when Close, Mr Williams and two or three of Mr Williams' sons brawled into the hall.
The Williams men were throwing punches at Close, and he was throwing punches back.
None of them saw Close fall to the ground and they certainly didn't 'throw their bodies' over him - although they put themselves between Close and the Williams men.
None of them saw anyone breaking off chair legs to join the fray either - although one of the aunts later broke a broom handle and pointed it at Robert Williams as she told him it was time for the fighting to stop.
It was the vast difference in accounts that brought Close undone in court.
Magistrate Robyn Denes noted there were no witnesses able to say who threw the first punch outside, beyond Close and Mr Williams, meaning, for her, it came down to who gave the most reliable evidence in court.
Mr Williams' evidence and that of other witnesses had been delivered honestly, she said.
However, Ms Denes said Close continually exaggerated his own evidence.
Ms Denes accused Close of being arrogant and of taking 'every moment he could to place himself in a position of importance over and above the Williams family' and others in the Githabul community, 'even by throwing in that he was the only person in that community to receive a tertiary education'.
On that basis, Ms Denes said she could not accept Close's evidence over Mr Williams' and so found he had thrown the first punch and was guilty of assault.
Ms Denes convicted Close and released him on a section 9 bond.
However, Close later said he was lodging an appeal on all grounds 'including severity', saying he had been convicted because he was arrogant.
Murdoch's minions at play with their coloured pencils
What’s wrong with this graph?
Total business investment. Source: TheAustralian
In an effort to convince voters that the economy is going downhill fast, The Australian online on 28 February 2014 has decided that it knows the future beyond a shadow of a doubt all the way through to the end of the 2014-15 financial year.
Marrying past nominal expenditure percentage change with projected estimates without explanation in the graph legend.
Using a red pencil to mark in future bars is no substitute.
Using a red pencil to mark in future bars is no substitute.
As this graph will live on in Google searches, the newspaper gets zero marks for its efforts to add colour to Australian Bureau of Statistics new capital expenditure data.
Monday, 3 March 2014
'Superman' Abbott and his international affairs 'skills'
On 2 March 2012 leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission release a statement:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 02, 2014
We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation’s clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia’s obligations under the UN Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine. We call on Russia to address any ongoing security or human rights concerns that it has with Ukraine through direct negotiations, and/or via international observation or mediation under the auspices of the UN or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We stand ready to assist with these efforts.
We also call on all parties concerned to behave with the greatest extent of self-restraint and responsibility, and to decrease the tensions.
We note that Russia’s actions in Ukraine also contravene the principles and values on which the G-7 and the G-8 operate. As such, we have decided for the time being to suspend our participation in activities associated with the preparation of the scheduled G-8 Summit in Sochi in June, until the environment comes back where the G-8 is able to have meaningful discussion.
We are united in supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and its right to choose its own future. We commit ourselves to support Ukraine in its efforts to restore unity, stability, and political and economic health to the country. To that end, we will support Ukraine’s work with the International Monetary Fund to negotiate a new program and to implement needed reforms. IMF support will be critical in unlocking additional assistance from the World Bank, other international financial institutions, the EU, and bilateral sources.
Australian Prime Minister Abbott has still not issued a formal statement. Instead on 3 March 2014 the Russian Ambassador was summoned to a meeting with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary.
Background
Australian Politics 101: a plague on both their houses
The Liberal Party- National Party coalition is apparently very busy these days dismantling government transparency, equity and access.
Here is yet another example of how this is apparently being done.....
The Sydney Morning Herald 27 February 2014:
A senior NSW judge has warned there are ''worrying signs'' the Abbott government is winding back measures to promote greater gender diversity on the bench and called for vigilance to ensure hard-won advancements for female lawyers are not lost.
Ruth McColl, who has served on the Court of Appeal for more than a decade, said changes introduced by the former Labor government to improve the transparency of the appointment process for federal judges appeared to have been scrapped by the Coalition.
''The aim of the process was to ensure the evolution of the federal judiciary into one that better reflected the diversity of the Australian community,'' Justice McColl said in a speech in Sydney on Thursday night.
''That position has now changed. According to the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department website as at 22 February, 2014: 'There are no current judicial appointment processes' for any of the federal courts. Read what you like into that rather Delphic statement.'...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
