Friday, 27 June 2014
While right-wing Coalition governments around Australia dismantle environmental protections the U.S. Obama Administration promises to create world's largest marine sanctuary
National Geographic 17 June 2014:
U.S. President Barack Obama announced a plan for creating the world's largest marine sanctuary on Tuesday, covering hundreds of thousands of miles of Pacific Ocean, along with new pledges to fight illegal fishing and seafood fraud.
Obama's proposal would expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument in the central Pacific from around 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles (225,000 to 2 million square kilometers).
It would make the monument the largest protected area on the planet—either on land or in the sea—and two times larger than the currently largest protected area, which is in Greenland. (See: "U.S. Invites Public to Submit Nominations for Marine Sanctuaries.") The sanctuary would cover the full 200-mile (322-kilometer) U.S. exclusive economic zone around seven uninhabited islands and atolls.
"I'm using my authority as president to protect some of our nation's most pristine marine monuments, just like we do on land," Obama said in a taped message to the State Department's Our Ocean conference in Washington on Tuesday.
"We know how fragile our blue planet can be," the president said, pointing to threats like ocean acidification, overfishing, and pollution. "If we ignore these problems, we won't just be squandering one of humanity's greatest treasures, we'll be cutting off one of our major sources of food and economic growth."….
Labels:
marine protected areas
Thursday, 26 June 2014
In June 2014 Richmond Valley Council voices opposition to fracking anywhere within its local government boundaries - Metgasco now virtually friendless in the Northern Rivers region
Richmond Valley Council has reportedly stepped back from its ‘netural’ position on the coal seam gas industry and, at its 24 June 2014 monthly meeting unanimously passed a motion voicing its opposition to fracking occurring anywhere with its local government area.
As Metgasco Limited’s Bentley tight sand drilling site (on which it has pinned so much hope) is highly likely to require hydraulic fracturing to release gas flows, this leaves this coal seam and tight gas exploration/mining company virtually friendless on the NSW North Coast.
Motion put to Richmond Valley Council:
Snapshot from Richmond Valley Council Ordinary Monthly Meeting Business Paper, 24 June 2014
Richmond Valley's motion now completes the local government circle in the NSW Northern Rivers region, with all seven councils having put their concerns and/or outright opposition on the public record.
Links to reasons given by the six other councils: Clarence Valley, Kyogle, Ballina, Byron Bay, Lismore. and Tweed.
Links to reasons given by the six other councils: Clarence Valley, Kyogle, Ballina, Byron Bay, Lismore. and Tweed.
UPDATE
The
Australian 26 June 2014:
A DRILLING
licence for a controversial coal seam gas mine in the NSW Northern Rivers
region will remain suspended.
ON Thursday
the Office of Coal Seam Gas (OCSG) upheld the NSW government decision to stop
Metgasco from drilling in Bentley.
Energy
Minister Anthony Roberts suspended the licence in May after an audit found the
company had failed to properly consult the community about the Rosella well
operation....
Labels:
gas industry,
local government,
Metgasco,
mining
Traits of the Abbott Government are beginning to sound distressingly familiar
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism, Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, in Rense.Com:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
Wednesday, 25 June 2014
Coal Seam Gas: is your local council locked?
From Lock The Gate:
Lock Your Local Council
Over the last 2 years councils right across Australia have passed motions opposing coal seam gas and other unconventional gas development and calling for a moratorium. Local councils have led the charge to support the community and prevent reckless and unsafe unconventional gas mining.
Is your council on the list below? If not, why not approach your council and ask them to oppose the renewal of unconventional gas licences, and to support a moratorium on unconventional gas mining? Ask them to also seek increased powers for local councils to reject coal and unconventional gas mining.
List of Local Councils Who Have Passed Motions:
South Australia
The following South Australian councils have passed motions noting concern or opposition to unconventional gas mining and exploration:
South East Local Government Association, 13 June 2014
Robe Council, 14 January 2014
Wattle Range Council, March 2014
Mt Gambier, 22 May 2014
Victoria
The following Victorian councils have passed motions noting concern or opposition to unconventional gas mining and exploration:
State Council of the Municipality Association of Victoria, 16 May 2014
Surf Coast, 26 November 2013
Moorabool, May 2013
Moyne, March 2014
Moreland City Council, 2012
South Gippsland Council, 2012
Yarra Council, June 2012
Port Phillip Council, May 23 2012
Bass Coast Council, May 2012
Colac Otway, April 2012
New South Wales
The following NSW councils have passed motions noting concern or opposition to unconventional gas mining:
Riverina
Wagga Wagga, March 2014
Griffith, May 2014
Orange, April 2014
Northern Rivers
Richmond Valley, 15 May 2012
Clarence Valley, 21 February 2012
Kyogle, 19 December 2011
Ballina, May 2011
Byron Bay, 12 May 2011
Tweed, 19 April 2011
Lismore, 13 December 10
Hunter / Newcastle
Newcastle, 5 June 2012
Lake Macquarie, 25 June 2012
Gloucester, 21 December 2011
Port Stephens, December 2011
Singleton, February 2013
Cessnock, 7 August 2013
Central Coast
Wyong, 01 September 2011
Gosford, 02 October 2012
Mid North Coast
Coffs Harbour, 25 July 2012
Great Lakes, 10 April 2012
Greater Taree, 14 December 2011
North-west NSW
Moree Plains, 01 July 2011
Warrumbungles, 01 November 2011
Mid-Western Regional Council, April 2012 (called on government to provide more protection for landowners)
Coonamble, 2011
Walgett, July 2011
Sydney
Hawkesbury, March 2014
Woollahra, 2013
Liverpool, 2013
Blue Mountains City Council, 27th November 2012
Sutherland, 28 August 2012
Burwood, 24 July 2012
Randwick, 24 July 2012
Campbelltown, 29 May 2012
Canada Bay, 15 May 2012
Ashfield, 27 March 2012
Waverley, 20 March 2012
Camden, March 2012 (Council asked government for report on issues relating to CSG)
Wingecarribee Shire, November 2011
Marrickville, 02 July 2011
Leichhardt, 23 June 2011
City of Sydney, 06 December 2010
Illawarra
Kiama, 13 December 2011
Wollongong, 7 April 2014
Australian Attorney-General Brandis gets a Dorothy-Dixer on the subject of the recent High Court ruling concerning national school chaplaincy program
Blissfully ignoring the fact that the High Court of Australia found that the Commonwealth funding the National School Chaplaincy and Welfare Program was of no material benefit to public school students, the Abbott Government looks for the best angle going forward in the coming public debate:
Attorney-General George Brandis Media Release 19 June 2014
TRANSCRIPT – QUESTION TIME, SENATE
Subjects: High Court Decision – Williams v The Commonwealth (No 2)
E&OE
SENATOR SESELJA: Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate on the decision of the High Court in the Williams (No 2) matter.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This morning the High Court gave judgement in the Williams and The Commonwealth (No 2). The effect of the Court’s decision is that the Commonwealth’s National School Chaplaincy and Welfare Program is invalid. The basis of the decision is that the School Chaplaincy is invalid because the Court found it is not supported by any legislative head of power in the Constitution. In particular, the Court decided that the program was not a benefit to students within the meaning of section 51 (xxiiiA) of the Constitution and was therefore not supported either by that or by any other constitutional head of power. It is important to note that in arriving at that conclusion, the Court did not deal with the merits of the program, merely that the question of whether it fell within a particularly constitutional definition.
SENATOR SESELJA: Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate what implications the decision may have for any other Commonwealth Government programs?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Court did not deal with any other Commonwealth programs. It did not consider the broader question of whether Division 3B of the Financial Management and Accountability Act was a valid law. It merely decided that insofar as that Act purported to validate the School Chaplaincy Program, it was ineffective because the School Chaplaincy Program was not supported by any constitutional head of power. The Court did not decide that any other Commonwealth program was invalid. I noticed a statement by the Shadow Minister for Finance, Mr Bourke, issued a short while ago in which he suggests a range of Commonwealth programs are put at risk as a result of the Court’s decision this morning. That statement by Mr Bourke is erroneous and ignorant.
SENATOR SESELJA: Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate what assurances the Government can provide to recipients who have already received funds under the School Chaplaincy Program?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes, Senator Seselja, I can. It follows from the Court’s judgement that Commonwealth payments to persons under the School Chaplaincy Program were invalidly made. The effect of the decision is that these program payments, totalling over $150 million, are now debts owed to the Commonwealth under the Financial Management and Accountability Act. However, under that Act, the Minister for Finance has the power to approve a waiver of debt of an amount owing to the Commonwealth which totally extinguishes that debt. I’m advised by my Friend, Senator Cormann, that he has today agreed to waive the program payments made to date. That decision will provide certainty to funding recipients that these debts will not be recovered in consequence of that decision.
BACKGROUND
First High Court judgement in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2012] HCA 23 (20 June 2012) and second judgement in Williams v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] HCA 23 (19 June 2014).
Labels:
Abbott Government,
federal government,
law
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
Almost 40 days later and Australian voters still not convinced that the Abbott-Hockey-Cormann federal budget is fair
Nielsen Poll of 1,400 voters on 19-20 June 2014 in the Australian Financial Review on 23 June 2014
On 11 June 2014 Treasurer Joe Hockey told guests at a Sydney Institute function that; The average working Australian, be they a cleaner, a plumber or a teacher, is working over one month full time each year just to pay for the welfare of another Australian.
He also admitted to basing his welfare ‘bill’ per average worker on an average monthly income of $4,800 to $6,500 per person and the projected $140.6 billion welfare spend for the 2014-15 financial year.
So let’s look at the welfare spend and income taxes paid in the last financial year to place this alleged $6,000 cost to workers in perspective.
So let’s look at the welfare spend and income taxes paid in the last financial year to place this alleged $6,000 cost to workers in perspective.
The 2014-15 Budget Papers show that the Federal
Government spent $140 billion on social security and welfare and expects to
collect a total of $354.8 billion in tax in the 2013-14 financial year [Statement 5 – Revenue (continued)].
Personal income tax accounted for 63.23 per cent of
total taxes collected.
However, as the government estimates it will be paying
out $26,800 million in personal income tax refunds, the real total amount of personal
income tax retained in treasury coffers will be 55.68 per cent of all taxes collected.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there
were an estimated 11.4 million people in paid employment during the 2013-14
financial year and, of these it is likely that around 10.2 million would
receive a tax refund.
Approximately 1.1 million of those paying income tax
would receive refunds in excess of $6,000. With an est. 477,970 of these
taxpayers receiving refunds of $9,999 or over. While the remaining 9.1 million
would receive refunds of somewhere between $1 to $5,999. [based on Budget
Papers 2011-12 & 2012-13]
These figures indicate that in doing his calculations Mr. Hockey: (i) also assigned incomes to people not in the workforce; (ii) did not take into account the fact that the federal government collects taxes other than income tax; (iii) did not factor in that many workers are/will be receiving tax refunds which cancel out their supposed $6,000 cost in days worked to assist other individuals he classifies as ‘leaners’; and (iv) failed to recognise that some of the “average working" Australians he mentions would also be receiving welfare payments in the form of Family Tax Benefit.
With rubbery figures such as these, created by the old ‘back of an envelope’ method, Hockey seeks to convince voters that his first budget is fair.
Labels:
Abbott Government,
budget,
Hockeynomics
What the Abbott Government has been keeping secret from Australian voters
Quotes from an IT News article dated 20 June 2014:
* Negotiations started under Labor in 2013 and are continuing under the Coalition, with trade minister Andrew Robb strongly supportive of TISA.
Robb told The Age that the proposed deal opens up new opportunities for Australia and that he wants to achieve a level playing field for the country's busineses so that they can compete on the same terms as overseas entities.
The leaked text of the Financial Services Annex shows the deal would remove much of the current right the Australian government has to block foreign takeovers of Australian banks.
Foreign banks would also be allowed to set up shop in Australia without setting up local subsidiaries, and be allowed to import workers and IT and communications equipment on a temporary basis.
The Kelsey analysis notes that TISA goes beyond provisions in the controversial Trans Pacific Trade Agreement which has currently stalled after opposition from Japan on market access.
TISA could be close to being concluded. Yesterday, US Trade Representative Michael Froman said a basic outline of the deal is in place ahead of negotiations next week.
* Law professor Jane Kelsey of Auckland University analysed the leaked Financial Services Annex on Wikileaks, and said service industry lobbyists, mostly US based firms that dominate IT and communications technology, are campaigning to stop governments from being able to demand that data be stored and processed locally.
In article X.11, the EU and Panama proposed that a TISA party should not be able to prevent data transfers by financial institutions to overseas. This, Kelsey said, means signatories would not be able to adopt privacy and confidentiality measures that breach TISA provisions.
The US wants a more direct, full ban on countries' abilities to prevent transfer of financial data to services suppliers' usual places of business.
Holding data overseas means it's almost impossible for states to control how it is used, or to impose legal liability on financial services providers, Kelsey said. It also opens up the possibility of abuse by governments.
Wikileaks Press Release - Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) - Financial Services Annex 2014-06-19
Today, WikiLeaks released the secret draft text for the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) Financial Services Annex, which covers 50 countries and 68.2%1 of world trade in services. The US and the EU are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes, which also covers cross-border data flow. In a significant anti-transparency manoeuvre by the parties, the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force.
Despite the failures in financial regulation evident during the 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis and calls for improvement of relevant regulatory structures2, proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt – into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers. The leaked draft also shows that the US is particularly keen on boosting cross-border data flow, which would allow uninhibited exchange of personal and financial data.
TISA negotiations are currently taking place outside of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework. However, the Agreement is being crafted to be compatible with GATS so that a critical mass of participants will be able to pressure remaining WTO members to sign on in the future. Conspicuously absent from the 50 countries covered by the negotiations are the BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China. The exclusive nature of TISA will weaken their position in future services negotiations.
The draft text comes from the April 2014 negotiation round - the sixth round since the first held in April 2013. The next round of negotiations will take place on 23-27 June in Geneva, Switzerland.
Current WTO parties negotiating TISA are: Australia, Canada, Chile, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan), Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States, and the European Union, which includes its 28 member states Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
China and Uruguay have expressed interest in joining the negotiations but so far are not included.
[1] Swiss National Center for Competence in Research: A Plurilateral Agenda for Services?: Assessing the Case for a Trade in Services Agreement, Working Paper No. 2013/29, May 2013, p. 10.
[2] For example, in June 2012 Ecuador tabled a discussion on re-thinking regulation and GATS rules; in September 2009 the Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, convened by the President of the United Nations and chaired by Joseph Stiglitz, released its final report, stating that "All trade agreements need to be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the need for an inclusive and comprehensive international regulatory framework which is conducive to crisis prevention and management, counter-cyclical and prudential safeguards, development, and inclusive finance."
Labels:
Abbott Government,
data,
privacy,
right wing politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)