Congratulations, commiserations and condolences

The lads at the table of knowledge at the local watering hole were in all sorts of moods this afternoon. Some were over the moon that galloper Protectionist won the big event while others were terribly upset about the tragic demise of the race favourite.

To lighten the mood, Eric produced a copy of today's Examiner.

Eric, who's just a little bit longer in the tooth than other table members, had a real decent cackle about the typo in the Backward Glances column in today's DEX (see below). Eric  recalls his wife attending the 'elite" deportment school course but is adamant there was never any mention of young, or for that matter, any wine being part of the show.

Eric is now asking a lot of questions.

.

Learn about Timebanking for Volunteers - Grafton Community Centre, Thursday 6 November 2014

Mayor: Richie Williamson LOCKED BAG 23 GRAFTON NSW 2460

General Manager: Scott Greensill Telephone: (02) 6643 0200

Fax: (02) 6642 7647

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 4, 2014

Opportunity to learn about Timebanking

CLARENCE Valley community groups and organisations who utilise volunteers have the

opportunity to learn more about Timebanking - a growing movement for the voluntary exchange of services between members – at a community engagement session in Grafton on Thursday.

Timebanking is based on a system that allows volunteers to exchange ‘time credits’ for the time they volunteer. When a member gives an hour of their time they are able to redeem a reciprocal hour in return or donate it to an organisation or individual.

It is a NSW Government initiative and the local session is being hosted by the Clarence Valley Council with a visiting presentation from NSW Volunteering.

Mayor, Richie Williamson, said members could help each other and organisations with all sorts of personal services such as gardening, computer tutoring, cooking or a host of other activities.

“It can also help non government organisations recruit volunteers and help coordinate the services they provide,” he said.

For more information, visit www.timebanking.com.au

Details

What: Timebanking community engagement session

Where: Grafton Community Centre, 51 Duke St, Grafton

When: Thursday (November 6), 1-2.30pm

Cost: Free

RSVP: Tomorrow (Wed) 10am

NSW National Party invites coal seam/tight gas miner Metgasco Limited's managing director to its Tweed 2014 Christmas Party

Tweed Daily News 1 November 2014:

METGASCO is coming to the Tweed – but only for one night.

Peter Henderson, the controversial managing director of the CSG company that wants to mine near Lismore, will be the guest speaker at the Murwillumbah branch of the National Party’s Christmas dinner on November 26.

Mr Henderson will speak about why the Tweed’s topography made CSG mining in the region unviable, according to National Party member and Tweed Shire councillor Phil Youngblutt.

Cr Youngblutt said he extended the invitation to Mr Henderson after he got in touch with him to endorse his reported comments made in the council that CSG was not a threat to the Tweed.

The dinner at Greenhills Reception Lounge is open to the public. Inquiries to Maureen Coleman on 0427 465 519.

While it has long been obvious that the National Party supports coal seam/tight/unconventional gas mining, one has to wonder why it is that Metgasco's managing director has decided to speak on this particular subject when it was the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council not Metgasco which had made an application for a special prospecting authority (which it later withdrew) and, it is Dart Energy which has an exploration licence which takes in a small part of the Tweed local government area.

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis' data retention spin ignores a Court of Justice of the European Union judgment

At a press conference on 30 October 2014 Federal Attorney-General George Brandis stated:

Data retention regimes currently operate in some 29 countries including most European countries and the United States. I want to stress, as Mr Turnbull stressed in his second reading speech, that this bill confers no new powers on ASIO, the AFP or on law enforcement agencies. They can already access metadata under the existing law; the purpose of the bill is to establish a common, industry wide standard for metadata retention and to ensure that metadata continues to be retained so that the investigative capabilities of the intelligence agencies and the police are not degraded.

In making such a statement Brandis ignores four subjects – the right to privacy of the ordinary individual, the level of concern existing in Europe in relation to data retention, the issue of proportional response and, the fact the European Court of Justice had addressed the first three subjects when rejecting the validity of European Union Directive 2006/24/EC & amending Directive 2002/58/EC which sought to force telecommunication corporations to retain metadata for six months.

The history behind C-293/12 - Digital Rights Ireland and Seitlinger and Others (English court transcript)  according to Practical Law:

In 2010, the Irish High Court granted a motion by campaign group Digital Rights Ireland to refer to the ECJ a number of questions concerning the compatibility of the Data Retention Directive with Article 5(4) of the TEU, and with certain fundamental rights protected by the Charter.

In 2012, a number of different applicants, including the state government of Carinthia and over 11,000 individual applicants, brought an action before the Austrian Constitutional Court claiming that the Austrian law transposing the Directive infringed their rights under Article 8 of the Charter. Both courts referred questions regarding the validity of the Directive to the ECJ, which joined them in 2013.

The Irish High Court referred the following questions to the ECJ:

Is the restriction on the rights of the plaintiff arising from the requirements in Articles 3, 4 and 6 of the Directive incompatible with Article 5(4) of the TEU in that it is disproportionate or unnecessary or inappropriate to achieve the legitimate aims of:

ensuring that certain data are available for the purposes of investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime; and/or

ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market of the EU?

In particular, the High Court enquired whether the Directive was compatible with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter and Article 8 of the Convention.

To what extent do the Treaties, and specifically the principle of loyal co-operation, require a national court to enquire into, and assess, the compatibility of the national implementing measures for the Directive with the protections afforded by the Charter, including Article 7 of the Charter (as informed by Article 8 of the Convention)?

The Austrian Constitutional Court referred the following question to the ECJ:

Are Articles 3 to 7 of the Directive compatible with Articles 7, 8 and 11 of the Charter?

In addition, the court referred a number of questions concerning the interpretation of the EU Treaties, which are not relevant for the purpose of this development.

In December 2013, Advocate General Cruz Villalón gave an opinion in which he concluded that the Data Retention Directive is, as a whole, incompatible with Article 52(1) of the Charter, since the limitations on the exercise of fundamental rights it contains are not accompanied by the necessary principles for governing the guarantees needed to regulate access to the data and their use (see Legal update, Advocate General finds Data Retention Directive incompatible with right to privacy). He recommended that the ECJ find that the Directive is invalid, but that the effects of that finding should be suspended pending adoption by the EU of the measures necessary to remedy the invalidity.

Excerpt from the Court of Justice of the European Union media release of 8 April 2014 with regard to the judgment declaring the data retention directives to be invalid without suspending effect of its findings:

The Court observes first of all that the data to be retained make it possible, in particular, (1) to know the identity of the person with whom a subscriber or registered user has communicated and by what means, (2) to identify the time of the communication as well as the place from which that communication took place and (3) to know the frequency of the communications of the subscriber or registered user with certain persons during a given period. Those data, taken as a whole, may provide very precise information on the private lives of the persons whose data are retained, such as the habits of everyday life, permanent or temporary places of residence, daily or other movements, activities carried out, social relationships and the social environments frequented.

The Court takes the view that, by requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data. Furthermore, the fact that data are retained and subsequently used without the subscriber or registered user being informed is likely to generate in the persons concerned a feeling that their private lives are the subject of constant surveillance…

Court of Justice of the European Union declares the Data Retention Directive to be invalid (April 2014) by clarencegirl

In Abbott's Australia the Hansard record can no longer be relied upon

The original question and answer which revealed that the Abbott Government was improperly altering the Hansard record:

The alterations to what is supposed to be an accurate historical record of what was said in the Australian Parliament:

BEFORE - ORIGINAL TEXT 

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:32): I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He would be happy to know that over 4,000 applications have been approved for the farm household allowance. This is a substantial amount of money. This means that they are receiving between $900 and $1,000 a fortnight. We have actually changed conditions so that we can bring dignity back into these people's lives. We have actually made it happen. You would be happy to know, Madam Speaker, that we approved $280 million in our drought package and concessional rates of four per cent. We have put money on the table—over $22 million for other water infrastructure. These are the sorts of real outcomes that we are providing…..

Mr JOYCE: I am happy to announce that when we arrived in government they had not signed up all of the states and territories, so we actually got the conditions in place for the concessional farm finance package, which they might have started but could never actually finish. We actually got those conditions in place so that we could start getting that money out. We actually approved $280 million to add to that, so we got $700 million of available finance. We actually changed the conditions of the farm household allowance so that we could have a higher net asset test so more people could actually get access to the money. We are happy with the fact that over 4,000 applications have been through and that you actually get the money until the department decides that you are not allowed to get the money. So you keep on getting the money until such time as, on the application being assessed, they decide you are not eligible for it. But it is not the case that you apply for the money and then you have to wait for your application to be approved. You actually get the money straight away. So this is part of a process that is helping us look after the farmers that you left behind.

AFTER - ALTERED TEXT 

Mr. JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:32):

I thank the member for Hunter for his question. He would be happy to know that nearly 4,000 applications have been approved for the farm household allowance. This is a substantial amount of money. This means that they are receiving between $900 and $1,000 a fortnight. We have actually changed conditions so that we can bring dignity back into these people's lives. We have actually made it happen. You would be happy to know, Madam Speaker, that we approved $280 million in our drought package and concessional rates of four per cent. We have put money on the table—over $22 million for other water infrastructure. These are the sorts of real outcomes that we are providing….

Mr. JOYCE:  I am happy to announce that when we arrived in government they had not signed up all of the states and territories, so we actually got the conditions in place for the concessional farm finance package, which they might have started but could never actually finish. We actually got those conditions in place so that we could start getting that money out. We actually approved $280 million to add to that, so we got $700 million of available finance. We actually changed the conditions of the farm household allowance so that we could have a higher net asset test so more people could actually get access to the money. We are happy with the fact that nearly 4,000 applications have been through and if you were also a recipient of the Interim Farm Household Allowance you actually get the money until the department decides that you are not allowed to get the money. So you keep on getting the money until such time as, on the application being assessed, they decide you are not eligible for it. But it is not the case that you apply for the money and then you have to wait for your application to be approved unless it is a new application. You actually get the money straight away. So this is part of a process that is helping us look after the farmers that you left behind.

House of Representatives Hansard for 22 October 2014 in which Barnaby Joyce gave an additional answer to the original 20 October question:

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (18:39): On indulgence—I have the following additional information for the House: 4,957 applications have been received for farm household allowance, with 4,551 fully processed; 4,098 applications have been approved for farm household allowance to date, with 4,011 recipients currently receiving payment. According to estimates—which is the best we can do—3,500 recipients have transitioned from interim farm household allowance payments. Payments to farmers who had been in receipt of interim farm household allowance and had applied for farm household allowance continued without interruption until their applications had been assessed by Centrelink. Further specific inquiries on this should be directed to the department that actually administers this, which is the Department of Human Services.

House of Representatives Hansard for 27 October 2014 in which he sidesteps the issue and muddies the waters by limiting his answer to figures in his later statement to the House on 22 October:

Mr FITZGIBBON (Hunter) (14:49): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer him to the drought related answer he gave on Monday and corrected in the House late on Wednesday. I also refer him to Hansard, in which the final paragraph of his answer carries the qualifying statements: 'if you were also a recipient of the Interim Farm Household Allowance' and 'unless it was a new application'. Does the minister acknowledge he never used these words, and what role did he or his office play in doctoring the Hansard record?

The SPEAKER: I will ask the member to rephrase that question, because at the moment it is a serious allegation and other forms of the House are used for that purpose. He may rephrase his question, otherwise he can use other forms of the House.

Mr FITZGIBBON: Can the minister explain the inconsistencies between what he said in the House and the Hansard record?

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (14:49): I thank the honourable member for his question and reiterate the answer that was given. At present 4,957 applications have been made; 4,098 have been granted. Four hundred and fifty-three have been rejected and 411 customers are receiving payment. This is exactly the same as what I said when I came into the chamber and proceeded to give exactly the numbers that were given to us at 3.30 pm that day.

House of Representatives Hansard for 27 October 2014 in which a little over one hour later Barnaby Joyce seeks to blame his staff:

Mr JOYCE (New England—Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:56): Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Hon. BC Scott ): Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr JOYCE: Yes.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed.

Mr JOYCE: I answered a question on Monday, 20 October 2014 from the member for Hunter in relation to drought assistance. Further to my answer to the House on Monday, 20 October 2014, I provided additional information to the House on Wednesday, 22 October 2014.

On 20 October 2014 I understand a request for minor edits was made to Hansard by my staff without my knowledge. My staff have been counselled. Consistent with standing orders, I have asked that the changes requested by my office be removed from the Hansard before the Hansard is finalised.

House of Representatives Hansard for 28 October 2014 in which Liberal MP for Mackellar and The Speaker Bronwyn Bishop refuses to review the record:

The SPEAKER (15:18): Yesterday, the Manager of Opposition Business raised with me, as a potential matter of privilege, whether the Hansard record of an answer provided by the Minister for Agriculture, last week on 20 October, had been changed in a way that amounted to 'misconduct'. The Manager of Opposition Business asked whether such changes might relate to 'deliberately misleading the House, conspiracy to deceive, falsifying documents or disobedience to the rule or orders of the House'. For this to be considered it is necessary for there to be evidence of a prime facie case that the alleged misconduct is conduct which, and I quote section 4 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, 'amounts, or is intended or likely to amount, to an improper interference with the free exercise by a House or committee of its authority or functions, or with the free performance by a member or the member's duties as a member'.

I note that the Minister for Agriculture attended in the House shortly after the matter was raised with me, and explained to the House the circumstances around the changes made to the Hansard record of his answer in the House, including that he had counselled his staff about their actions and requested the Hansard record to be corrected. Given the minister's explanation I have not reviewed the tapes. In light of the minister's explanation, it does not appear that a prime facie case as intimated above has been made out and I consider that the matter is now closed.

A few facts you may not know about coal seam/tight gas exploration company Metgasco Limited in 2014

Metgasco Limited’s profile in the financial year 2013-14:

* there were only 6,331 shareholders as at 30 June 2014
* had 1,202,222 ordinary shares on offer on 30 June 2014 according to the company's 2013-14 annual report;

* its largest shareholders were ERM Power (majority owned by the St Baker family) and the St Baker family of Queensland who held a total of 13.41% of the company’s fully paid ordinary shares;

* held a 100% interest in three exploration licences on the NSW North Coast covering approximately 4,556km², PELs 13, 16 and 426;

* had three listed subsidiaries, Clarence Morton (No.1) Pty Ltd, Richmond Valley Power Pty Ltd and Loins Way Pipeline Pty Ltd;

* although operating at a loss it paid 5 directors and 1 executive officer over $1.3 million in remuneration;

* paid no tax or royalties;

* had less than 10 employees in total according to statements made to the media in March 2013;

* had no female directors or women in senior executive positions;

* for the convenience of its board and employees maintains one city and one regional office, with the city head office costing somewhere in the vicinity of $112,000 per annum in rental costs;

* a shareholder group tried to unseat the board of directors in September 2013;

* the ordinary share price continues the downward trend which began in 2008;

* appears to have sunk no new wells from 1 July 2013 to date and, according to NSW Resources & Energy mapping has drilled less than 40 gas exploration wells since the company was formed in 1999;
* had no beneficial interest in any farm-in or farm-out agreements;

* in July 2013 there was an explosion during the decommissioning of PEL 16 well Kingfisher E01;

* permission to drill well site Rosella E01 on PEL 16 was suspended by the NSW Government in May 2014;

* had  PPLA 9 and PELA 130 in the Casino district still unapproved as at 30 June 2014; and

* the PEL 426 exploration licence due for renewal in February 2014 has not received renewal approval to date, according to NSW Resources & Energy list of .Petroleum Titles and Applications current as at 1 July 2014.

NOTE: From 29 October 2014 every New South Wales tenement that the company currently holds is covered by the NSW Labor Party policy banning coal seam/tight/unconventional gas exploration and production in the Northern Rivers region.
No judgment has been handed down yet in Metgasco Limited v Minister for Resources and Energy (Case # 201400165970) before the NSW Supreme. 

Tony Abbott's strange view of Australian history strikes again

The Abbott Government is now turning its ideologically blinkered eye towards ‘reforming’ the federation of states which underpins the Commonwealth of Australia.

Then we had no national government. Then, as we’ve been reminded earlier this evening, we had six colonies, each of them with a prime minister.....

A hundred years ago the states were clearly responsible for funding and operating public schools, public hospitals, public transport, roads, police, housing and planning. Under our constitution, the states are still legally responsible for them...

[Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Sir Henry Parkes Commemorative Dinner speech, 25 October 2014]

Oh dear, Australia had six prime ministers prior to Federation? Under the Australian Constitution the states are clearly responsible for funding public hospitals?

No, Mr. Abbott. The six colonies had six premiers, which headed governments with more limited power than a post-1901 federal government headed by a prime minister, because they were legally obliged to take direction from the British government of the day and a federal government is not so obliged.

As for who is responsible for providing public hospital services, the constitution clearly states that Commonwealth has the power to make laws for the provision of pharmaceutical, 

sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services and it was under Part V – Powers of the Parliament that the federal parliament created universal health care including inpatient/outpatient free care in public hospitals. So the federal government has accepted that it is responsible in large measure for funding public hospitals and clearly in broad control of health service delivery.

Thankfully it will take a majority of people in a majority of states and a majority of people across the nation as a whole vote 'yes' to whatever question our historically illiterate prime minister decides to put to the electorate in any national referendum seeking to dismantle the federation model in the Australian Constitution.

With his tin ear, I cannot see him convincing the average voter that 'reforming' the constitution to further cost-shift towards the states is a good idea.