The government's attack on Australian Human Rights Commission president continues unabated

On 28 May 2013 a small group of students sought to use facilities at the dedicated Oodgeroo Unit within the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and were asked to leave.   

The subsequent comments of one or more QUT students on Facebook resulted in a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission by a university administrative employee under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

Conciliation between the parties under the auspices of the Commission failed by August 2015 and, the employee then made application to the Federal Circuit Court Of Australia in Prior V Queensland University Of Technology & Ors to seek what she obviously thought was justifiable legal remedy.

The judgment dismissed that part of the application brought against three students under s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. However the remainder of the matter involving a fourth student and the university and its named employees is next before the court on 21 November 2016 in what appears to be a directions hearing.

The Turnbull Government leaped on this summary judgment to continue its public attack on Human Rights Commission President Gillian Triggs – which had commenced in earnest in February last year - culminating this month in Malcolm Bligh Turnbull raising the possibility of sections of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975  being reviewed and possibly amended and suggesting that the Commission had damaged its credibility.

A swift response came from the Australian Human Rights Commission in the form of a media release on Monday 7 November 2016:

There has been considerable public interest in the Commission’s complaint handling processes under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.  There has been particular interest In the Commission’s handling of complaints under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. 

In relation to the recent QUT case, it is a matter of public record that the Commission terminated this matter in August 2015. The Commission has had no role in the subsequent law suit in the Federal Circuit Court.

At no stage does the Commission initiate or prosecute a complaint. If the Commission receives a complaint in writing alleging a discriminatory act, the Act provides that the Commission must investigate the facts and attempt to conciliate the matter.

The Commission’s focus is on resolving disputes so parties can avoid court proceedings. Of complaints where conciliation was attempted, 76% were successfully resolved in 2015-16.

Only 3% of complaints finalised by the Commission were lodged in court. For example, of the over 80 complaints finalised under the racial hatred provisions of the Racial Discrimination Act last year, only one proceeded to court at the initiation of the complainant.

In the 2015-16 reporting year the average time it took the Commission to finalise a complaint was 3.8 months. In that same reporting year, 94% of surveyed parties were satisfied with the Commission’s service.

The Commission has no judicial powers, and it makes no legally binding determinations as to whether unlawful acts have occurred. The Commission has no statutory power to prevent a complainant proceeding to court once the Commission terminates the complaint. 

The Commission has provided advice to successive governments and Attorneys-General on amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act.  In particular, the Commission has asked for amendments to streamline the process by raising the threshold for accepting complaints.

Refutation of the Turnbull Government's position is also found elsewhere.

Excerpts from Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Official Blog, 7 November 2016:

This is all the Australian Human Rights Commission and/or Professor Gillian Triggs’ fault

No it isn’t. The AHRC is not a party in the Prior litigation. Professor Triggs is not acting for Ms Prior (Ms Prior has engaged her own solicitors and counsel). And the student respondents were not in the case because the AHRC put them in there; they were in there because the applicant, Ms Prior, sued them when proceedings were commenced in the Federal Circuit Court in October 2015.

Applicants bring proceedings for discrimination (including under section 18C), not the AHRC. There is one applicant in the proceedings and it is Ms Prior.

If the claims were lacking in substance, the AHRC should have thrown them out – they should never have got to the Court

In order to bring a claim for unlawful discrimination under Federal legislation, the AHRC is the first step in the process. A complaint is made to the AHRC, and the AHRC will then try to resolve the complaint by assisting the parties to reach an agreement for resolution. If the complaint can’t be resolved, the AHRC “terminates” the complaint, and the complainant can then take the terminated complaint off to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court to start a court case.

The AHRC cannot decide discrimination claims, because the AHRC is not a court – it doesn’t have any judges and it doesn’t have the power to impose a resolution on the parties to the complaint. The AHRC cannot decide that a complaint is hopeless and should go no further. The AHRC cannot decide that a complaint will invariably succeed and award damages to the complainant. The function of the AHRC is to investigate (and, if possible, to conciliate), not to decide. The deciding needs to happen in a place where Federal judicial power can be exercised, namely, in the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court.

It is true that there are many different grounds on which the AHRC (acting through a delegate of the President of the AHRC) can “terminate” a complaint (which is the necessary precondition for the matter to go to a Federal court). Those grounds include that the delegate “is satisfied that the alleged unlawful discrimination is not unlawful discrimination” or “is satisfied that the complaint was trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance”.

According to press reports, Ms Prior’s complaint was terminated on the more commonly used ground that the delegate was “satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the matter being settled by conciliation”.

Shouldn’t the AHRC should have taken the harder line? For two reasons, no.

The first is that it wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference. Ms Prior’s right to commence court proceedings would have been exactly the same regardless of the ground on which the complaint was terminated by the delegate. Ms Prior decided, presumably with the benefit of legal advice from the experienced firm of employment lawyers who are acting for her, to commence proceedings against all of the respondents. That was a choice which the AHRC could not have denied her, regardless of what view was expressed by the President or her delegate as to the merits of the claim at the time the complaint was terminated.

The second is that Ms Prior’s complaint is still continuing against four of the respondents (including QUT, who are also represented by highly experienced employment lawyers). Those respondents did not seek to have the claims against them struck out summarily, which suggests that Ms Prior’s claim as a whole could not be properly have been described, at the time the complaint was terminated, as hopeless.

The case proves that section 18C is terrible and must be abolished

Good luck trying to make that one work, given the basis on which the respondents succeeded in convincing the court to dismiss the claims against them. The two respondents who succeeded on the basis of the Court’s analysis of section 18C succeeded on the basis that (a) their Facebook posts were not made “because of” Ms Prior’s (or anyone else’s) race and (b) the posts were not reasonably likely to give rise to offence, insult, humiliation or intimidation.

In making those findings, the Federal Circuit Court expressly referred to the jurisprudence of section 18C to the effect that the section does not extend to “mere slights” but requires “profound and serious effects”. (This is jurisprudence which needs to be mostly ignored in order to advance the case that the words “offend” and “insult” somehow create an overly broad restriction on free speech).

The final respondent succeeded on the basis that there was no evidence that he had made the Facebook post alleged to constitute the breach of section 18C, which has nothing to do with the section, and everything to do with orthodox principles of establishing a “no case to answer submission”. In any litigation, successful defendants will feel aggrieved at having been put to the time and expense of defending claims which failed. However, the fact that a claim fails does not mean that the law used to bring the claim should be demolished.

No-one sensibly suggests dismantling the law of defamation every time a defamation plaintiff loses, or suggests tearing up the law of torts every time a personal injury plaintiff is unsuccessful. For the same reason, it is hard to see any sensible legal basis to suggest that the decision of the Federal Circuit Court last Friday should affect anyone other than the parties to the claim. If only the ability to distinguish “sensible legal basis” from “nonsense” was a precondition to publishing on the topic of section 18C . . .

Australian House of Representatives in November 2016: "It's like deja vu all over again"*

This makes it three times in less than ten weeks that the Turnbull Government has managed to make itself a laughing stock on the floor of the House of Representatives since the 45^th Parliament was opened on 30 August 2016.

News.com.au, 7 November 2016:

IT HAS happened again.

The Government today has again accidentally backed a motion criticising itself.

This time the support was for a demand that the Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull cease “short-changing pensioners”.

The first to recognise the impending Government snafu was Labor’s Anthony Albanese, who was sitting at the table of the House of Representatives.

He watched, almost open mouthed, as LNP member for Wright, Scott Buchholz, seconded a motion which had just been moved by Labor’s MP for Lindsay, Emma Husar.

Fortunately for the Government the motion didn’t get to a vote and was adjourned. It had no substantial consequences.

But it recalled a similar incident on October 13 when Revenue Minister Kelly O’Dwyer accidentally waved through an amendment to a multinational tax bill which called on the Government to “explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia”.

BRIEF BACKGROUND

ABC News, 13 October 2016:

The Federal Government has been embarrassed by a procedural bungle in Parliament, after accidentally endorsing a bill amended by Labor, which criticised the Government.

Minister for Revenue and Financial Services Kelly O'Dwyer was seeking to pass the International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016 through the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

But Ms O'Dwyer accidentally endorsed a second reading amendment put forward by shadow assistant treasurer Andrew Leigh.

The amendment calls on the Government "to explain why it has failed to close tax loopholes and increase transparency in Australia".

After some confusion, Ms O'Dwyer appeared to support the amendment, facilitating its passage through the House of Representatives.

Manager of opposition business Tony Burke said it was the first time in the history of federal parliament that a second reading amendment had ever been supported.

The Australian, 2 September 216:

The Coalition is reeling after the Prime Minister’s grip on power was dealt a severe jolt when his majority government became the first in five decades to lose a series of procedural votes on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Leader of the House Christopher Pyne has conceded it was a “stuff up” that he said would never happen again as Mr Turnbull hit out at those MPs, including cabinet ministers Peter Dutton and Christian Porter and Justice Minister Michael Keenan, who did the “wrong thing”.

“I’ve read the riot act to them, their colleagues will all read the riot act to them, they’ll get the riot act read to them more often than just about anyone could imagine,” Mr Turnbull told 3AW radio.

“They’re in charge of themselves. Two of them were cabinet ministers and one of them was a minister. They’re grownups, they’re experienced parliamentarians, they knew they should not have left and they left early because they thought they’d get away with it (but) they’ve been caught out, they’ve been embarrassed, they’ve been humiliated, they’ve been excoriated and it won’t happen again.”

* Quotation attributed to Yogi Berra, U.S. professional baseball player, 1925-2015

The Murder of Medicare in Australia

Labor’s Medicare Locals integrated health care scheme ceased operations on 30 June 2015 when the Abbott Government replaced it with the Primary Health Networks scheme.

The Abbott and Turnbull governments’ grand plan for further ‘reforming’ Medicare service delivery swam into view on News.com.au and other media platforms on 30 March 2016:

SEVEN MILLION people in the country with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer will have to enrol with a single medical practice under a revolution in GP care to be announced by the Prime Minister today.

Patients will get to choose the GP practice that will co-ordinate all of the medical, allied health and out-of-hospital services they need.

And those with multiple chronic illnesses will get a care plan individually tailored to meet their needs.

Instead of paying their doctor a fee for service every time they receive treatment for their chronic illness, the government will give doctors a quarterly lump sum payment to care for the patient.

A fee for service will still be paid when the patient sees the doctor for other illnesses such as the flu or broken bones or other acute illnesses.

And the performance of doctors will be checked by the government via a new information bank that will measure patient outcomes at a local level and highlight areas for improvement.

Malcolm Turnbull says enrolling patients in a single medical home will help keep people with chronic diseases out of hospital by giving them evidence-based treatment.

This it turns out was merely announcing stage one in the introduction of the Health Care Homes model, which in October 2016 saw Prime Minister Turnbull and Health Minister Ley officially announcing the selected regions, based on Primary Health Network boundaries, for Stage One implementation of Health Care Homes. These include: Perth North, Adelaide, Country South Australia, South Eastern Melbourne, Western Sydney, Tasmania, Nepean Blue Mountains, Northern Territory, Brisbane North, as well as Hunter, New England and Central Coast in New South Wales.

The Hunter New England and Central Coast Primary Health Network includes, but is not limited to, the following locations: Armidale ,Bulahdelah, Cessnock, Forster, Glen Innes, Gosford, Gunnedah, Inverell, Moree, Muswellbrook, Narrabri, Nelson Bay, Newcastle, Quirindi, Tamworth, Taree and Tenterfield.

Therefore in NSW the scheme will be initially implemented in three primary health care networks which stretch from western Sydney through to the NSW-Qld border.

By 4 November 2016 this scheme had quietly morphed in right-wing political backrooms into this according to the Herald Sun:

THE nation’s sickest cancer patients and people with diabetes and other chronic illnesses will get a maximum of $1795 worth of GP care a year funded by Medicare under a revolution in the way doctors are paid.

And Medicare will fund just five extra visits to the doctor if these people need medical attention for issues aside from their chronic illness under the Turnbull Government’s Health Care Homes model.

Doctors were expressing deep concern about the adequacy of the payment levels that were released without consultation with medical groups on November 4.

“The modelling is concerning and potentially leaves the whole program at risk of falling over because of being underfunded from the beginning,” AMA vice president Dr Tony Bartone said.

The Health Care Homes policy is a signature government policy which it claims will solve the woes of the Medicare system by providing comprehensive care for one in five Australians who have a chronic illness, keep them out of hospital and save the health system money.

Patients will have to enrol with a single GP practice to get a new form of wrap around health care under the model but Doctors are worried they’ll get less money than they receive now to care for the sickest patients.

Currently doctors are paid on a fee for service model and get paid $37 by Medicare every time they see a patient for a standard 20 minute visit, they get paid more for longer visits.

There are no limits on how many times a patient can see a doctor and get a Medicare rebate.

Under the new model patients with the least complex chronic conditions will get $591 a year worth of GP care, those with a slightly higher level of complexity will get $1,267 worth of GP care and the most complex patients will receive $1795 worth of care.

The sickest 12 per cent of patients account for 40 per cent of Medicare benefits and on average they receive 51 services a year, Dr Seidel said.

The maximum funding under the government’s health care homes model is only enough to cover 48 GP visits a year, or less than one per week.

Dr Seidel says a patient with diabetes and an infected leg would need to visit the GP at least three times per week to get it dressed.

The RACGP had asked the government to provide doctors with an extra $300 per patient per year on top of existing funding to make the new Medicare model work.

The current funding suggests doctors will be receiving less than they currently get.

Dr Bartone said the Health Care Homes model was based on a long standing method of paying GPs for caring for war veterans.

So now we all have a slightly clearer picture of how multi-millionaire Malcolm Bligh Turnbull and his fellow travellers intend to further pervert Medicare’s aim of providing universal health care.

Those with a chronic or complex medical condition will be tied to one general practitioner or medical practice and be restricted as to how many times a year they can see their doctor. Bulk billing is not guaranteed if that is not the policy of the medical practice/GP with which they are enrolled and, if they require more than 48 standard GP visits a year they may possibly be forced to pay the full cost of any additional ‘chronic illness’ visits . As for any other type of illness or injury they might experience – only five extra GP visits a year will be covered by a Medicare rebate [See update below].

At the moment participation on the patient’s part is allegedly voluntary, however if they agree to enter the Health Care Homes scheme they are forced deeper into the Abbott and Turnbull Governments’ insecure national database and ongoing government data retention scheme.

According to the Australian Dept. of Health, enrolment of up to 65,000 patients begins in 2017 and implementation of services delivery begins on 1 July that same year and continues through to the end of stage one on 30 June 2019. During this initial stage, Health Care Homes services will be limited to Medicare-eligible patients with two or more complex or chronic conditions.

Ongoing evaluation and refinement of Health Care Homes is also promised which probably means that, like e-Health aka My Health, the scheme will cease to be opt-in and become opt-out - or possibly even mandatory.

The Turnbull Government intends to fund Stage One of Health Care Homes by redirecting $93 million in MBS funding between 2017-18 and 2018-19 and providing an additional $21.3 million over the next three years to establish the design principles, IT systems and provide the training needed to assist health care providers to transition to the new system.

Thus far, this new scheme appears to offer no enhanced or additional health services to the chronically ill or those with complex medical conditions - it presents as nothing more than another federal government cost-cutting measure wrapped up in a public relation bow.

Stay tuned for the next instalment in the ongoing saga, “The Murder of Medicare”.

UPDATE

Turnbull Government backs down on capping number of extra GP visits for illness or injury not related to patient's chronic or complex medical condition. However, all other Medicare 
limits impacting on health services delivery to chronically ill patients appear to remain.

News.com.au, 9:35pm 8 November 2016:

The cap on doctor’s visits was revealed on Friday when the government announced details of its keystone Health Care Homes trial.

The trial will see 65,000 chronically ill patients in 200 GP practices enrol with a single GP practice for all their health care.

The Health Department revealed doctors would be given an annual budget of between $591 and $1795 a year to care for these patients, a budget doctors say amounts to a pay cut.

And in a fact sheet the Department of Health said:

“Enrolled patients can still access fee-for-service billing for a small number (up to five) of episodes of care not related to a patient’s chronic conditions”.

On Monday, in a tweet, Health Minister Sussan Ley denied there was a cap of five visits.

“No limit to Medicare fee for service under health care homes. 5 appts departmental guide only. Opt in not capitation. Co-designed with docs!”

Mysteriously, and without a new press statement, wording of the department’s fact sheet on Health Care Homes was changed on Monday to remove the five visit rule:

“Enrolled patients can still access fee-for service episodes of care not related to a patient’s chronic condition”.

Yesterday Ms Ley tweeted “Capped visits were never on the table”.

In response to an inquiry a spokesman for Health Minister Sussan Ley said the Department of Health said it had “changed its fact sheet on payment information”.

“The Department amended it to make it clear that there is no hard cap or limit on the capability of GPs to bill MBS services not related to an enrolled patient’s chronic conditions. The Department says it had nominated five as a notional number for planning purposes for these services and that it was based on clinical advice. The number of fee-for-service episodes of care will not be capped or restricted and will be monitored during stage one of Health Care Homes,” he said.

"This is sacred land": noting Lakota resistance at Standing Rock, Dakota, U.S.A.

A reminder that standing up for community and against powerful mining interests is never easy no matter where in the world you live.

Inquisitr, 29 October 2016:

Amnesty International and the United Nations have announced that they are sending officials to investigate allegations of human rights violations at the site of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North Dakota.

Amnesty International announced Friday that they were sending a delegation of human rights observers to monitor the response of law enforcement against DAPL protesters after concerns mounted about increasingly violent actions towards the peaceful protesters.

Telesur, 29 October 2016:

Owners of the North Dakota Access Pipeline have been warned that they risk legal liability over several instances of human rights abuses against peaceful Native American and environmental activists opposing the US$3.8 billion pipeline, as militarized law enforcement have increasingly used violence and repression at protest camps.

The joint letter released Friday by five environmental and legal advocacy organizations said that the joint owners of the pipeline “have a corporate duty under international law and the laws of the United States to respect human rights and to avoid complicity in further human rights abuses.”

The advocacy groups said that in recent weeks the situation in the Standing Rock camp “has deteriorated further,” making reference to recent violent crackdowns by law enforcement and security personnel on peaceful protestors.

Twitter, 31 October 2016:

  

I was shot by militarized police WHILE interviewing a man on camera at #StandingRock…and here's the footage. #NoDAPL  pic.twitter.com/4DRwNPkfZ9

— Erin Schrode (@ErinSchrode) November 3, 2016

Facebook post:

Erin Schrode at Standing Rock, ND.

52 mins · Cannon Ball, ND, United States 

Speechless. I was shot by militarized police WHILE interviewing a peaceful man at Standing Rock live on camera. I woke up this morning with the thought that I may have that very footage – and broke down in reliving the 40-second horror before my own eyes. Warning: it's very very difficult to watch and sent me into quivers and tears, even without the compounding historic trauma that Native Americans face.

I do not wish to divert focus away from the bravery of the Water Protectors, from the power of nonviolent direct action, from the people fighting for their lives and for our futures – but I want you to witness the indiscriminate use of excessive force firsthand. Many have said that militarized police firing a rubber bullet at a female reporter was a fabrication, provoked by violence, or otherwise merited, including a Morton County, North Dakota press release. That is a lie; we have proof and eyewitnesses (cc Josh Fox, Matt McGorry, Jordan Chariton, Josue Rivas, Evan Simon, Josh Fox, Wes Mekasi Horinek, Kendrick Sampson, Doug Pineda, Doug Good Feather and countless more).

I was standing innocently onshore, not making any aggressive gestures, never exchanging a single word with the police who fired at my lower back from their boat. Peaceful souls were seeking to cross the river to hold a prayer circle on Army Corps public land, but halted by over one hundred hostile military police armed with and deploying tear gas, pepper spray, batons, and rubber bullets, as well as assault weapons and the threat of jail, only one week after 141 individuals were brutally arrested. I was shot at pointblank range, dozens were maced and pepper sprayed in the face, hundreds faced freezing waters. There were no arrests or deaths and I will be okay physically, but the safety and wellbeing of many peoples and lands remain in danger, for present and future generations.

Thank you for your prayers, for your action in calling upon our President, government and Department of Justice to halt this atrocity immediately, for showing up and donating to support this fight for human rights, for the environment, for peace. Please continue to pray for the strength and protection of all peoples, for the physical pain, for the emotional trauma, for the desecrated land. #StandWithStandingRock #NoDAPL

Maced. Tased. And put into cages.

The UN is investigating human rights violations against #NoDAPL activists at Standing Rock: pic.twitter.com/OqmcUUZLCs

— Fusion (@Fusion) November 3, 2016

Senate finds Attorney-General Brandis sought to undermine rule of law in Australia

Australian Senate, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Inquiry into the  Nature and scope of the consultations prior to the making of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016, 8 November 2016 – majority view:

4.9 It is the committee's view that the Attorney-General has sought to undermine the rule of law in Australia by failing to adequately consult the Solicitor-General and constraining the independence of the Solicitor-General….

4.27 The committee makes the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1 

4.28 That the Senate disallow the amendment to the Direction or the Attorney-General withdraw it immediately, and that the Guidance Note be revised accordingly.

Recommendation 2 

4.29 That the Attorney-General provide, within three sitting days, an explanation to the Senate responding to the matters raised in this report.

Recommendation 3 

4.30 That the Senate censure the Attorney-General for misleading the parliament and failing to discharge his duties as Attorney-General appropriately.

Full report here.

Did Attorney-General 'Gorgeous' George Brandis think no-one would notice he is intent on politically stacking the Administrative Decisions Tribunal?

Attorney-General for Australia Senator the Hon George Brandis QC, media release, 6 May 2016:

Appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

6 May 2016

Today I announce 76 reappointments and appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Mr John Cipolla and Ms Kira Raif have been reappointed as full-time senior members for five years. Mr John Billings has been reappointed as a full-time senior member for three years.

Mr Shahyar Roushan has been reappointed as a part-time senior member for three years.

The following members have been reappointed on a full-time basis for three years:

Mr Antonio Dronjic

Mr Alan Dino Duri

Ms Alison Mercer

Mr Hugh Lindsay Sanderson, and

Mr Christopher Jeremy Smolicz.

Mr Sean Erik Baker has been reappointed as a part-time member for five years.

The following members have been reappointed on a part-time basis for three years:

Ms Robyn Margaret Anderson

Dr William Appleton

Ms Michelle Diane Baulch

Ms Angela Therese Beckett

Ms Margret Bourke

Mr Alexander Reinhard Byers

Dr Niall Francis Cain

Mr Steven Cullimore

Ms Jean Cuthbert

Mr Bronte John Earl

Ms Kathryn Ann Edmonds

Mr Stavros Georgiadis

Dr Martin John Glasson

Dr Beverley Grehan

Ms Patricia Alida Hall

Ms Julia Ann Leonard

Ms Susan Georgina Lewis

Dr Geoffrey Markov

Ms Sally Mayne

Mr Paul Noonan

Dr Aruna Reddy

Ms Andrea Schiwy

Ms Wan Shum

Ms Rania Skaros

Ms Alison Smith

Ms Meenakshi Sripathy

Dr Bruce Albert Swanson

Dr Robin Taylor, and

Ms Yvonne Mary Webb.

These members have been reappointed to the Tribunal commencing on 1 July 2016, except Dr Cain and Dr Grehan who will commence on 16 May 2016.

Dr Denis Dragovic, Mr Theodore Tavoularis and Ms Adria Marissa Poljak have been appointed as full-time senior members for seven, five and three years, respectively.

Ms Chelsea Rebelle Walsh has been appointed as a full-time senior member for three years. Ms Walsh was previously a part-time senior member of the Tribunal.

The following part-time senior members have been appointed:

Ms April Christina Freeman and Mr John Sosso for seven years

Mr Peter Edward Nolan for five years, and

Professor Michael John McGrowdie for three years.

The following full-time members have been appointed:

Mr Clyde Campbell and Mr Peter Vlahos for seven years

Ms Angela Cranston, Ms Justine Clarke, Mr Jeffrey Robert Thomson and Ms Jennifer Cripps Watts for five years, and

Ms Moira Brophy and Mr Mark Gordon Hyman for three years.

In addition, the following people have been appointed as part-time members for seven years:

Mr Michael Bruce Hawkins

Ms Kate Juhasz, and

Ms Saxon Rice.

The following people have been appointed as part-time members for five years:

Ms Ann Barbara Brandon-Baker

Dr Louise Bygrave

Ms Mila Foster

Mr John Fitzsimons Godfrey

Dr Eric Knight

Mr Michael Manetta

Ms Jane Louise Marquard

Ms Adrienne Millbank

Mr Seamus Francis Rafferty

Mr James Edward Silva, and

the Honourable Judith Mary Troeth AM.

The following people have been appointed as part-time members for three years:

Ms Rhonda Ruth Bradley

Mr Marshal John Douglas

Ms Julie Dianne Forgan

Mr Paul Samuel Glass

Dr Heidi Gregory

Mr William Bruce Kennedy, and

Dr Sofia Khan.

These appointments will commence on 30 May 2016, except Ms Walsh who will commence on 6 May 2016, Ms Clarke who will commence on 1 August 2016, Ms Brophy who will commence on 13 June 2016 and Mr Silva who will commence on 2 August 2016.

I congratulate the appointees and look forward to the contribution they will make to the Tribunal.

Breakdown of that announcement by Buzz Feed News, 3 November 2016:

Attorney general George Brandis has been slowly stacking an independent tribunal with failed Liberal candidates, unemployed political staffers and party donors, with some of the jobs worth more than $300,000 per year.

Earlier this year, Brandis quietly announced a number of appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which deals with complaints and appeals made against federal agencies.

The tribunal has multiple divisions and makes important decisions around refugee applications, freedom of information requests, disability and veterans’ appeals, and determinations around child support payments.

Brandis’ AAT announcement came on the final work day before the election date was announced, ensuring his choices would be appointed even if the government lost the election.

As BuzzFeed News previously revealed, among those appointed to the tribunal is Brisbane lawyer Theo Tavoularis, who donated to the Liberal National Party in the lead up to the 2013 election and recently represented Brandis’ son in court in a criminal matter….

But Tavoularis is far from the only well-connected individual that Brandis has appointed to the AAT in the past 18 months.

In the same pre-election period, Brandis appointed Ann Brandon-Baker (pictured), who was Scott Morrison’s chief of staff during his time as immigration minister.

There was also Dr Denis Dragovic, who had just failed in his bid for Liberal pre-selection in the prized Victorian seat of Goldstein. He was appointed by Brandis to review refugee appeals for the next seven years.

John Sosso also scored a last minute Brandis appointment. The Queensland lawyer served as a departmental head under Liberal National Party premier Campbell Newman until last year, when he was sacked by the incoming Labor government…..

Liberal MP Tim Wilson left the Australian Human Rights Commission earlier this year to run for parliament, but his senior adviser Louise Bygrave was taken care of - she was appointed to a seven-year term in the disability services division of the tribunal.

Fresh from failing to win a seat in the South Australian parliament as a Liberal candidate in 2014, Michael Manetta was given a part time tribunal place for the next five years.

Saxon Rice, who served as a Queensland LNP MP for just three years before losing her seat at the 2015 state election, was rewarded by Brandis with a seven year appointment.

Former Liberal candidate in Victoria for the federal election of 1998, Peter Vlahos, got a seven year appointment.

The final familiar name in the pre-election announcement was former Liberal senator Judith Troeth who was tapped to join the migration and refugee tribunal for five years.

Six weeks earlier, Brandis quietly made more appointments to the tribunal. Among them were unemployed staffers, failed candidates and donors.

Justin Meyer, who was appointed for five years full time, was an adviser to former Victorian Liberal premiers Ted Baillieu and Dennis Napthine and electoral records show the lawyer donated more than $11,000 to the Liberal party in 2010-11.

Former ACT Liberal leader Bill Stefaniak was appointed for five years and now sits on the freedom of information division of the tribunal.

Dr Bennie Ng, who served as head of social policy in former prime minister Tony Abbott’s office, was also given a seat on the tribunal’s FOI division for five years.

Then there was Anne-Marie Elias, who was a former senior policy adviser to NSW minister Andrew Constance. Elias got a part time, five-year term on the tribunal’s social services and child support division.

It’s not the first time Brandis’ appointments to the AAT have raised eyebrows. In mid-2015, as some members’ tenure on the tribunal expired, the attorney general staged what was considered a “purge” of the migration and refugee division.

As reported by The Australian, 38 members had terms expiring and Brandis re-appointed only seven of them.

One of the new members of the tribunal was Helena Claringbold, a former staffer to Tony Abbott who, according to electoral returns, donated $45,000 to the Liberal party in 2002.

Another was Nick McGowan who ran as the Liberal candidate for the Victorian seat of Jagajaga in 2013. He failed to win, and was appointed by Brandis for two years on the tribunal.

Starting at the same time, in July 2015, was Brendan Darcy, who had recently served as adviser to former Liberal defence minister Kevin Andrews.

There was also David McCulloch - who had recently worked as a policy adviser to Liberal MP Paul Fletcher and as a staffer to former Liberal immigration minister Amanda Vanstone - and Michael Cooke, who was an adviser to Tony Abbott.

Former Liberal party senator Karen Synon had her term extended full time for another five years on the tribunal.

Bruce MacCarthy, who was a NSW Liberal MP during the 90s, was appointed for two years in the migration and refugee division.

And finally, George Brandis’ former Senate colleague, ACT Liberal Gary Humphries, found himself appointed deputy president of the tribunal for four years, on a salary of $450,000 a year.

Prof. Hugh Possingham quits NSW Independent Biodiversity Legislation Review Panel in disgust at Baird Government's actions

The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 November 2016:

A leading adviser to the Baird government's proposed changes to native vegetation laws has quit in protest, warning the plans could lead to a doubling of broadscale land clearing in the state.

Hugh Possingham, a Queensland University conservation biologist, submitted his resignation letter to Premier Mike Baird and key ministers, saying his advice and those from a panel he had sat on were being ignored.

Instead of improving the existing legislation, the new biodiversity conservation package due to be put to Parliament as soon as next week will enable farmers to clear hundreds of hectares a property without having to find equivalent areas of offsets to preserve biodiversity under so-called "equity codes".

"It's not what we agreed to," Professor Possingham told Fairfax Media. "If you increase the quantity and quality of land clearing, you increase the chances of extinction."