Twenty-four years on and three Aboriginal children still have no justice

Between September 1990 and January 1991, Colleen Walker-Craig, aged 16, Evelyn Greenup, aged 4, and Clinton Speedy-Duroux, aged 16, went missing from the same street in the small township of Bowraville. In early 1991, the bodies of Evelyn Greenup and Clinton Speedy-Duroux were found in bushland along the Congarinni Road on the outskirts of the town. Clothing belonging to Colleen Walker-Craig was also found in the Nambucca River running through the same area of bushland, however Colleen’s body has never been found. [NSWLC Standing Committee on Law and Justice, November 2014, The family response to the murders in Bowraville report]

No-one has ever been convicted of these crimes. In 2013 the media reported that the person the indigenous community has long suspected of the murders was now employed by an agency dealing with disadvantaged and troubled youth.

In 2014 the NSW Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice conducted an inquiry into the handling of the murders of these three NSW Mid-North Coast Aboriginal children and handed down its first report on 6 November, The family response to the murders in Bowraville, with a second report detailing the Government response due by 6 May 2015.

The report (together with transcripts of evidence, tabled documents, submissions, correspondence and answers to questions taken on notice) was tabled in the Legislative Council at 9.43am on 6 November 2014. Members and officers stood as a mark of respect.

Relatives of the murdered children were present in the parliament.

This first report can be found here.

There are fifteen recommendations it contains:

NSW PARLIAMENT STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE, Report: The family response to the murders in Bowravi...

The lack of transparency in local government governance in the Clarence Valley has come to the attention of mainstream media

The Clarence Valley Review didn’t mince matters on  October 2014:

Clarence Valley Council will not be sharing the details of its legal proceedings with the valley’s ratepayers, if the council maintains the decision taken at last week’s council meeting.
When it came to a vote, all of the councillors (Cr Sue Hughes was absent) accepted general manager Scott Greensill’s and mayor Richie Williamson’s position – and adopted the council officer’s recommendation to receive and note the quarterly legal proceedings report.
Both men told councillors that, according to advice provided by the council’s insurance company, that the public should not be privy to those details as it could put the council’s insurance policy in jeopardy.
At the July council meeting, councillors unanimously supported Cr Karen Toms’ notice of motion (after amendments were made, including the non disclosure of names in certain cases when security and privacy issues were involved): “That Council be provided with an update report on at least a quarterly basis in relation to legal proceedings taken by or against the Council.”
When the July meeting’s minutes were published, they were done so with the following links to the council’s 10-year community plan: “Theme – Our Leadership; Objective – We will have a strong, accountable and representative Government; and, Strategy – Provide open, accountable and transparent decision making for the community.”
However, when the council’s October Corporate, Governance & Works committee papers were published, the linkage principals were changed to: “Theme – Our Leadership; Objective – We will have an effective and efficient organisation; and Strategy – Ensure Council operations are supported by the most effective internal service provision and governance structures.”
The report attached to the business item was confidential (for councillors’ eyes only), despite the business paper making no mention of this fact – this was not amended in the week between the committee meeting and the ordinary council meeting.

Meanwhile, Ballina Shire Council (BSC) regularly publishes details of its legal proceedings.
“As a public authority Council is regularly involved in legal matters,” the minutes for the April Ballina council meeting states. “This report provides an update on matters that have been subject to court action or may result in court action…”…..

At last week’s council meeting, Cr Toms questioned why two names of people involved in legal action with the council were not disclosed to councillors.
“They can be found on the Lawlink website,” she said.
Councillor Toms later told the Review that the councillors “have never been told about those cases [before receiving the report] … and we get a confidential report with the names not disclosed”.
“Why are they being withheld in a confidential document when it’s on the public record? It’s absurd that we can’t be told,” she said.
The Clarence Valley Review put a series of questions to the general manager, Scott Greensill, through the council’s media officer – a request to interview Mr Greensill was not forthcoming.
He responded indirectly with the following statement: “Clarence Valley Council general manager, Scott Greensill, said he had acted on advice from the council’s insurers that council, and therefore ratepayers, would be exposed to unnecessary risk of litigation if the information was published.

A wise man once observed that legal advice received depends on exactly what questions were asked of a legal team or of insurers and how these questions were worded – noting at the time that it is local government administration which gets to frame these questions not elected councillors.

Perhaps the difference in levels of local government transparency between Clarence Valley and Ballina Shire councils is that Ballina has an administration not mired in a culture of secrecy and antagonistic to the idea of representative democracy in local government.

As the court cases in question are a matter of public record and their hearing dates able to be accessed on the Internet, I would venture to guess that the names allegedly withheld from councillors are those cited at the October 2014 Corporate, Governance & Works Committee meeting - Gillian Bourke and Melissa Ryan, who in two separate matters have taken Clarence Valley to court.

One of the names which was probably also listed in the confidential report is that of Dr. Anne Collins who is appealing the judgment in Collins v Clarence Valley Council (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1682 and by rights Kerry Susanne McErlean v Clarence Valley Council and Lorraine Carroll v Clarence Valley Council trading as Clarence Valley Council should also be on the that confidential list.

It seems to be the second time that Ms. Carroll has taken council to court.

Background

Transparent Local Government: Ballina Shire Council regularly does what Clarence Valley Council will not do, 20 October 2014

Unemployment on the NSW North Coast June Quarter 2013 to June Quarter 2014

Australian Bureau of Statistics Small Area Labour Markets data covering June Quarter 2013 to June Quarter 2014 across the nation give an indication of how the regions are faring when it comes to employment levels.

For those interested, the document below also gives figures for specific Level 2 Statistical Areas.

On the NSW North Coast these figures cover areas such as Casino, Evans Head, Mullumbimby, Grafton, Maclean-Yamba-Iluka, Lennox Head, Kingscliff etc.

Unemployment by North Coast Local Government Area

Ballina

June Quarter 2013 - 5.7%

June Quarter 2014 - 5.5% Labour Force 19,013 people

Byron Bay

June Quarter 2013 - 9.3%

June Quarter 2014 - 8.8% Labour Force 15,503 people

Clarence Valley

June Quarter 2013 - 7.6%

June Quarter 2014 - 7.5% Labour Force 21,888 people

Kyogle

June Quarter 2013 - 7.9%

June Quarter 2014 - 8.2% Labour Force 4,109 people

Lismore

June Quarter 2013 - 7.5%

June Quarter 2014 - 7.3% Labour Force 21,480

Richmond Valley

June 2013 - 8.6%

June 2014 - 8.3% Labour Force 9,310

Tweed

June Quarter 2013 - 6.7%

June Quarter 2014 - 6.6% Labour Force 38,942 people

Coffs Harbour

June Quarter 2013 - 6.1%

June Quarter 2014 - 5.8% Labour Force 35,035 people

Australian Bureau of Statistics Small Area Labour Markets - June Quarter 2014

"NO Confidence" in Prime Minister Abbott: 774 citizens petition the Australian Parliament

Since 2008 anyone can prepare a petition, gather signatures, and have it presented to the House of Representatives by the Chair of the Standing Committee on Petitions or by another member of parliament. 

Once a petition has been presented to Parliament the Committee refers it on to the responsible minister who then has 90 days to respond.

A ministerial response to the petition below would be due by 18 January 2015.

House of Representatives Hansard 20 October 2014:

Dr JENSEN (Tangney) (10:01): On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions:.........

  Prime Minister 

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives

we, the undersigned, believe we represent a widely enough held opinion within the Australian people to warrant a motion of NO CONFIDENCE in the current Prime Minister, The Honourable Tony Abbott, being tabled in Parliament, and being put to a vote in the House of Representatives.

The reason we are petitioning the House is that, so far (as at the 15 August 2014's version of this petition), and despite requests made directly to various Members, both in Government and in Opposition, to table such a motion, there has been abject failure - by any of the many Members who publicly proclaim TO have "No Confidence" in the Prime Minister - to take that first step which is necessary to initiate a remedy via the Reserve Powers of the Governor General; which include being able to dismiss a prime minister.

Examples of reasons for having "NO Confidence" in Prime Minister Abbott are too numerous - and well known to not only Members of the House but also to the public, in Australia and in many places overseas - to mention.

We therefore ask the House to ensure that such a motion be tabled as a matter of urgency, and — if possible under the Rules of the House — to not require a Division, in order that Members may vote freely and completely in accordance with their conscience, instead of so as to abide with party constraints. Thank you.

from 744 citizens

Petition received.

A small puzzle within the history of Christopher Pearson and Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott

I mourn the passing of Christopher Pearson.
Christopher was one of our country's finest conservative intellects. He was also a steadfast friend.
I valued Christopher's counsel and his wisdom.
I suspect he never fully appreciated the impact he had on others and the sense of gratitude we have for him.
Australia will miss him.

[Tony Abbott, 9 June 2013]

Sometimes trawling though the Internet archives one comes across intriguing puzzles.

This one concerns Christopher James Pearson, writer, newspaper columnist, speech writer for former Australian Prime Minister John Howard and current Prime Minister Tony Abbott, as well as editor of three of Mr. Abbott’s books The Minimal ­Monarchy, How to Win the ­Constitutional War and Battlelines - who died on 7 June 2013 and whose probate details appear in CHRISTOPHER JAMES PEARSON [2014] SASC 77 (19 June 2014).

In his first will dated 1 May 1996 he made a specific disposition of his shares in The Adelaide Review Pty Ltd and his units in The Adelaide Review Unit Trust to his friend, Anthony John Abbott. The residue of the estate is to be divided in equal parts between the deceased’s mother and Mr Jones and, if either of those persons predecease the deceased, their share is to pass to the survivor. If both predecease the deceased, the residue is to pass to Mr Abbott.

The value of the estate was estimated to be $300,000 and included a small but impressive antiques collection comprising quality Georgian mahogany furniture, Artworks including a rare Cressida Campbell woodblock painting, a good selection of Hester Bateman sterling silver, important colonial cedar furniture, and many fine and rare books of Australian interest.

On 13 May 2008 Mr. Pearson made another will. His mother had died and the aforementioned shares/units had been previously sold, so could not be included. However, Mr. Pearson went one step further than removing a specific bequest – he removed Anthony John Abbott from the will entirely.

The beneficiaries of the will were changed to Jack Snelling and Aaron Russell.

One has to wonder what Mr. Abbott thought of this rather novel way of losing out to his political opposition.

I do wish journalists would look at methodology before quoting surveys

The Sydney Morning Herald on 29 October 2014 published an article containing this statement:

The level of trust in the Abbott government has soared in three months as public attention shifts from the budget to a heightened sense of nationalism in the context of national security, a new survey indicates. 

In the middle of the year only 26 per cent of people thought the federal government could be trusted to do the right thing for the Australian people.

At the end of October the figure had climbed to 36 per cent - the highest level of trust in the federal government recorded since 2009 by the Mapping Social Cohesion survey. 

What the journalist failed to note about this survey was that:

The target for the project was to achieve n=1000 completed questionnaire with respondents aged 18 and over, who were born in Australia and whose parents were both born in Australia.

Now the 2011 national census revealed that almost a quarter (24.6 per cent) of Australia's estimated population of 21.5 million people were born overseas, 43.1 per cent of the population (or 9.2 million people) had at least one overseas-born parent and 15 per cent did not have citizenship. Approximately 84.5 per cent of the population at that time would have been 18 years of age and over.

What this indicates is that the Mapping Social Cohesion survey did not include the possibility of canvassing the opinions of large section of the Australian community.

Even living in regional New South Wales as I do, it would exclude a good many voters in the town in which I live.

All of which changes the weight readers might have given to this newspaper article if they had realized the demographic limitations it contained.

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott forgot that science is evidence-based

With science removed from its ministerial portfolio list, the dismantling of a number of science-based advisory bodies, savage cuts to science funding and climate change denialism rampant in its ranks – surely the Abbott Government must have expected this when it had the gall to hand out the Prime Minister’s Prizes For Science as though science mattered to this federal government.

http://youtu.be/N_EoFJwjEXk

The Guardian 30 October 2014:

Tony Abbott received a frosty response from scientists after he called on them to lobby Labor and Greens MPs to support the government’s plan for a medical research fund.

Abbott, speaking at the prime minister’s science awards in Canberra on Wednesday night, reiterated a message from his speech at last year’s awards when he said the government should be judged “not by its titles but by its performance”.

“I hope our performance has at least passed muster over the past 12 months,” the prime minister said, to a smattering of applause at the Parliament House awards ceremony.

“That was desultory applause, but at least it was some,” Abbott said, in response to the tepid response from the assembled scientists….

This exchange has been carefully omitted from the official transcript of Abbott’s speech which can be found here.

This is not the first time scientists attending these awards have signalled their dissatisfaction by failing to bring their hands together in unison en masse.

After last year’s prize giving The Guardian noted on 31 October 2013:

“It’s been remarked upon that we don’t have a minister for science as such in the new government and I know that there are people in the room who may have been momentarily dismayed by that,” Abbott said.

“But let me tell you that the United States does not have a secretary for science and no nation on Earth has been as successful and innovative as the United States. I’d say to all of you please, judge us by our performance, not by our titles.”

Abbott’s speech, which drew a smattering of applause from the audience, provoked a mixed reaction.