Another north coast voice on the wider stage

Letter to the Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald, 5 March 2014

Beware the glass house

I see the G8 is likely to be cut back to G7 in response to Russia's actions in the Crimea (''Australia may use G20 role to pressure Putin'', March 4). Will this necessarily lead to a further drop to a G5 as the West tries to evade accusations of hypocrisy by no longer ignoring the illegalities of the British and American invasion of Iraq?

Perhaps Putin's real offence was in ignoring correct protocol by not first alleging that Ukraine had weapons of mass destruction. Without this important first step others might think that its aim was just to try to maintain contact with its Black Sea naval fleet and naval base, or in the case of Blair and Bush, just to steal some oil. The world is much more forgiving if at least the courtesy of a plausible excuse is given beforehand.

Dermot Nunan 
Maclean NSW

Source: SMH Letters, 5 March 2014

The cost of Australia's offshore detention centres

According to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service at 28 February 2014 there were 1,325 asylum seekers in the Manus Island detention centre and another 1,107 asylum seekers at Nauru detention centre.

Under a contract negotiated by the Abbott Government with Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, over the next twenty months housing these 2,432 detainees in offshore centres will cost Australia $1.22 billion (medical and counselling services excluded).

That is over $25,000 per month paid to for each Manus Island detainee (living in tents behind a crude wire fence and serviced by a field kitchen) and Nauru detainee until sometime in November 2015.  

This of course does not include the cost of air transport contract/s.

Under the previous 2013 security services contracts Manus and Nauru detention centres combined management costs were estimated around $503 million over twelve months.

The entire cost of border protection policies laid out in the September 2013 Liberal Party-National Party Coalition document only budgeted for a total of $701 million in net spending up to 2016-17, which factored in a ‘saving’ of $1.08 billion over four years from “stopping the boats”.

Detention centre costs were not a specific line item in the document so one has to guess how the Abbott Government originally expected to pay for offshore detention over the forward estimates.

It is obvious that in 2014-15 any so-called savings will be eaten up by the blow-out in detention centre management costs.

It will be interesting to see how Prime Minister Abbott and Treasurer Hockey explain these increased detention centre expenses during May 2014 budget week, given there appears to have been no increase in actual service delivery and very little in the way of additional infrastructure.

NOTE: Nationally in Australia in 2011-12 the cost per prisoner/offender per day in state adult correctional facilities was $305 or an estimated $9,455 per month.

Tweet of the Week

Veronika Meduna ‏@VeronikaMeduna  9:08 PM - 31 Mar 2014

Can't resist posting a pic we took in Tonga last year, humpbacks en route from Antarctica #ICJrulesonwhaling pic.twitter.com/z6zkoedGPK

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.

So the age of entitlement (if there ever was one) ended a while back in Australia, and if you hear any politician utter such a line, be aware they are feeding you manure and calling it chocolate. [Greg Jericho, ABC The Drum, 5 February 2014]

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.

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:

(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.

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.