On the Australian Waterfront Everything Old Is New Again In 2017

Chris Corrigan has returned to his old stomping ground.

Swap April 2017 for April 1998, Malcolm Turnbull for John Howard, Sally McManus for Greg Combet and Paddy Crumlin for John Coombs and what have you got?

Perhaps the start of a replay of the Patrick Corporation Pty Ltd versus Maritime Union of Australia waterfront dispute, in which then Patrick managing director Chris Corrigan and his Liberal-Nationals political allies attempted to kill off the union representing dock and maritime workers at ports around Australia.  

The Sydney Morning Herald, November 2016:

Legendary waterfront warrior Chris Corrigan has announced he will stand down as chairman of logistics giant Qube, just months after the company completed the takeover of Asciano's Patrick's container ports business.

Coal industry veteran and long-time Qube director Allan Davies will be appointed chairman after a transitional program that is expected to be completed by around June 2017.

"I could not be more proud of the achievements of the Qube management team and it has been an enormous privilege to be part of the progress of this business," Mr Corrigan told Qube's annual general meeting in Sydney on Thursday.

Mr Corrigan, who has chaired Qube since early 2011 and is a former managing director of Patrick's, said he will continue as a director of the ports group "for a more extended period" to help oversee its integration following the acquisition from Asciano.

ACTU letter to Patrick Stevedores, 11 April 2017:

BACKGROUND

Excerpts from Maritime Union of Australia & Others v  Patrick Stevedores No. 1  Pty Ltd (under administration) (ACN 003 621 645) & Others [1998] FCA 378 (21 April 1998):

1. The Maritime Workers Union of Australia (the Union) and employees of companies in the Patricks group of companies (Patricks) who are members of the Union have brought proceedings in the Federal Court alleging that Patricks and others have acted unlawfully by taking steps to replace the employees with non-Union workers.

2. An urgent situation arose on 6 April 1998, when the Union and the employees believed that Patricks were about to dismiss the entire workforce over Easter.

3. The Union and the employees applied to the Court immediately on 6 April 1998 and asked for temporary orders to keep the employees in work until the main application is heard by the Court. The Court listed that urgent matter for hearing on 8 April 1998.

4. The following night, on 7 April 1998, the Patrick companies which employed the employees (the Patrick employers) appointed administrators to companies on the ground that they were insolvent.

5. Part of the cause of the insolvency was that other Patrick companies which owned the stevedoring operation (the Patrick owners) cancelled a contract for the supply of labour by the Patrick employers to the Patrick owners. That contract was the way the Patrick employers obtained stevedoring work to employ the employees.

6. On the same night, the Patrick owners engaged contractors to provide a new workforce. Under these contracts, the Patrick owners committed themselves to substantial financial obligations……

12. The cancellation of the labour supply contract and the appointment of administrators on 7 April 1998 were made possible by a complex inter-company transaction which occurred in September 1997. By dividing the functions of employing workers and owning the business between two companies, the Patrick group put in place a structure which made it easier to dismiss the whole workforce. It is arguable, on the evidence, that this was done because the employees were members of the Union. So there is an arguable case that the Patrick employers acted in breach of s 298K(1) of the Act.

13. There is also an arguable case that these acts amounted to a breach of the employees' contracts of employment.

14. There is also evidence that the Patrick owners and other companies in the Patrick group, together with others, agreed on these unlawful acts as part of an overall plan to replace the workforce with non-Union labour. This means that there is an arguable case that the Patrick owners and Patrick employers have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy.

Excerpts from Case Note: Maritime Union Of Australia (Mua) V Patrick Stevedores Pty Ltd: Marrying Injunctive Relief And Labour Supply Contracts, 1999:

Patricks conducted the business of stevedoring at 17 facilities around Australia. In particular, four companies in the Patricks group ("the employers”) employed the applicant employees, approximately 1,400 in number, and who were members of the MUA, to carry on the stevedoring business. The employees believed that the employers intended to dismiss their unionised workforce and replace it with non-union labour. This concern was fueled by the fact that, in January 1998, the Patricks group transferred the right to use No 5 Webb Dock in Victoria for stevedoring operations, together with cranes and equipment, to companies associated with the National Farmers Federation (NFF). The MUA employees believed that Patricks had some involvement with the NFF companies, and that the transfer of No 5 Webb Dock was part of a plan by Patricks to train an alternative workforce with which to replace the union employees.

In response, the employees filed an application on 11 February 1998, in which they alleged that the transfer of No 5 Webb Dock was part of a wrongful plan to replace the MUA employees with a non-union workforce. However, matters escalated considerably just before Easter when the employees learned that Patricks intended to dismiss the whole workforce during the Easter period. Then, on 7 April 1998, Patricks announced that it had entered into contracts "for a range of services from nine separate companies including the ... NFF backed P&C Stevedoring ..." and that Patricks had "taken steps to ensure all displaced employees ... will be eligible to receive their full leave and redundancy entitlements.

"On the evening of the 7'h of April, each of the four Patrick employer companies appointed administrators under Pt 5.3A of the Corporations Law. The court was told on 8 April that the administrators intended to dismiss the employees because the employers were insolvent. An interim injunction to restrain the employers from doing so was granted by His Honour North J on 8 April 1998, to have effect until the first hearing day after Easter, that was 15 April 1998. It is this latter hearing, and the subsequent appeals from the decision, which is the subject of this case note.

The employees sought injunctive orders which, in general terms, sought to prevent the employers, until the trial of the action, from dismissing the employees, and which required Patricks to utilise the MUA employees and no others in operating its stevedoring business. The court was also asked to restrain the employers from acting on or giving effect to the purported termination of certain labour supply agreements between the employers and another company in the Croup, Patrick Stevedores ESD Pty Ltd. That purported termination, which occurred on the evening of 7 April 1998, armed the Patricks employers with the power to claim that the MUA workforce was redundant.'' In other words, the purported termination left the employers with no work for their workforces to perform."…..

The injunctive orders granted by North J and upheld on appeal essentially had the effect of requiring Patricks as employers to retain their workforce, and compelled Patrick Stevedores Operations Pty Ltd to use that workforce for any stevedoring work. The orders amounted to the specific performance of the labour supply agreements, and required that the pre-7 April situation, whereby the Patrick operators had employed as their labour force members of the MUA, be maintained. The employees were protected against the imminent termination of their employment….

…the High Court was prepared to uphold the orders made by North J, in light of the undertakings given, on the basis that the administrators had to retain their discretion as to whether the employer companies ought to continue trading, or cease trading, and whether or not it would be feasible to retain the whole workforce. Decisions of that kind were for the administrators to make, not the court. However, if the administrators decided to continue trading, the effect was to restore the pre-7 April employment situation.

The sacked unionised Patricks workforce was finally reinstated in May 1998.

Patrick Corporation was the object of a successful hostile takeover by Toll Holdings in April 2006 and Chris Corrigan became a Swiss citizen spending his time between Sydney, Switzerland and Italy.

As Chairman and major shareholder in Qube Holdings Ltd Corrigan oversaw the purchase of Patricks in 2016.

The Lizard King or Five Ways To Lose An Australian General Election

Australia’s very own shape-shifting reptilian* is at it again……………………..

Tony Abbott during in parliament in March. Abbott says he is not interested in stoking a bout of ‘political cannibalism’. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The Guardian, 18 April 2017:

The former prime minister used an interview with his friend and media booster, Alan Jones, on Sky News, on Tuesday night, to say he would continue to make public contributions as he saw fit, and Abbott slapped down Malcolm Turnbull for suggesting he was intent, with his incursions, on driving down the Coalition’s performance in the Newspoll.

Sacked former prime minister and current Liberal party backbencher, the Member for Warringah Tony Abbott, is once more suggesting ways for the parasitical rich and right wing extremists to maintain their hold on federal government.

A somewhat nebulous policy outline which could be aptly titled Abbott's Five Point Plan to Make Australia Right Again includes a pick 'n' mix of these actions:

“STOP PANDERING TO CLIMATE CHANGE THEOLOGY”, CUT THE RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET (RET) AND STOP FUNDING WIND POWER

CUT IMMIGRATION

DISSOLVE THE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

STOP ALL NEW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND CUT FEDERAL FUNDING TO THE STATES

MAKE IT EASIER FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS TO FIND WORK

REFORM THE SENATE

CELEBRATE AUSTRALIA

Forget about the increasing effects of climate change, racism, unequal distribution of wealth, taxation policies which favour the rich, the investment-driven housing bubble, a decreasing number of adequately funded community services, record low wages growth, fewer full time jobs, current underemployment and unemployment, as well as sustained attacks on the living standards of those on low incomes!

Abbott insists that his agenda will magically reduce our power bills, make housing more affordable, protect our rights, return the federal budget to health, allow government to flourish and win the Liberal-Nationals power again at the 2018-19 general election.

From the perspective of an ordinary Australian not blessed with Anthony John “Tony” Abbott’s privileged upbringing, salary package and superannuation scheme, this agenda looks more like a recipe for political disaster for the Liberal-Nationals coalition rather than one addressing the electorate’s widely-held genuine concerns.

In short, it would be better labelled Five Ways To Lose An Australian General Election.

* Shape-shifting reptiles of alien origin aka lizard people are a particular favourite of conspiracy theorists around the world. Believers often post images of famous people in mid-tongue flick as proof.

Given its record it was inevitable that Adani would wreck a wetland

The foreign-owned multinational, the Adani Group, adds to its record of corporate environmental vandalism……………….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 10 April 2017:

The Queensland government is investigating water spills from the Abbot Point coal terminal into neighbouring wetlands as an expert predicts long-term environmental damage.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection was assessing whether there were any unauthorised water releases from the Adani-operated coal terminal into the wetland after Cyclone Debbie tore through north Queensland late last month.

Satellite images of the Abbot Point coal terminal and neighbouring wetlands. Before Cyclone Debbie on the left and post-cyclone on the right. Photo: Supplied

The EHP and Adani said early indications showed all spills were within guidelines.

But James Cook University professorial research fellow in water quality studies Professor Jon Brodie said coal had clearly spilled into the wetlands and environmental harm was "highly likely".

His comments came in the wake of the release of striking satellite imagery from before and after the storm, appearing to show coal-laden water spilling throughout the sensitive Caley Valley wetlands.

The Mackay Conservation Group said the 5000-hectare wetlands were home to 40,000 shorebirds in the wet season and more than 200 individual species.

The department allowed terminal operator Abbot Point Bulk Coal, owned by Adani, to more than triple its "suspended solids" release limits in the wake of Cyclone Debbie, under what's called a Temporary Emissions Licence.

A department spokeswoman said that licence did not authorise environmental harm but Professor Brodie said it was hard to see how the wetlands could emerge unscathed.

"Obviously wetlands depend on light," he said, calling for a full examination.

"Those plants at the bottom, there won't be too much light there for a while.

"That will settle out of course and it will settle out to the bottom onto the plants that are on the bottom.

"There'll be significant damage from this but that should be quantified."

U.S. Politics: Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall

Twelve weeks after his inauguration US President Donald J. Trump invited companies to submit proposals for design and construction of a US-Mexico border wall:

Solid Concrete Border Wall RFP

Solicitation Number: HSBP1017R0022

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Customs and Border Protection
Location: Procurement Directorate – IN

The Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection hereby provides the attached Request for Proposal for offers to be submitted for a Solid Concrete Border Wall.  See the attached document for complete instructions on how to submit a full proposal.  This is an unrestricted procurement.

Deadline for questions to this RFP is 4:00 PM Eastern, March 22, 2017 - all questions should be sent to mailbox listed. 

About 730 designs have been submitted so far.

Alternative wall designs for materials other than concrete were allowed.

Here is just one:

PENNA GROUP - PENNAGC.COM

How Trump will fund his border wall is still open to question.

Independent UK, 29 March 2017:

Donald Trump may fail to get the money for his border wall with Mexico because of opposition from fellow Republicans, it has emerged.

It had been thought the Trump administration would try to get $1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) for the wall through Congress as part of a spending bill for federal agencies that has to pass by April 28.

But Democrats have vowed that if money for the wall is included they would block the entire bill, depriving federal agencies of funding and triggering a government shutdown of the kind endured by the Obama administration in 2013, where routine administration ground to a halt.

Faced with such a prospect, some Republican leaders are now thought to favour leaving the wall money out of the spending bill, in the hope of getting it passed at a later date……

No decision has yet been made on whether or not to omit the wall money from the spending bill, but Republican Senator Roy Blunt, a member of his party's leadership, has now stated publicly that a request for funding for the construction is likely to be left out……

Privately, some senior Republicans seem far blunter about their opposition to risking a government shutdown over the issue of money for the border wall.

One senior Republican source in the House of Representatives told Politico: “The Trump administration can't have another disaster on its hands. I think right now they have to show some level of competence and that they can govern.”

Adding to Republican reluctance to risk a possible government shutdown over the issue is the fear that the border wall is not actually that popular with the American public. 

One poll showed that 62 per cent of Americans oppose building the wall, and 70 per cent think it will be the US, not Mexican government that would end up paying for it - at a reported cost of $120 (£96) per US household.

The Republican hesitation is also another sign that despite Mr Trump launching his campaign with the boast that “nobody builds walls better than me,” making the construction a reality is becoming increasingly problematic.

Even before Mr Trump took office, the Mexican government was making it clear that it would not go along with the property tycoon’s suggestion that it pick up the bill for building the wall.

In January, as Mr Trump signed an executive order demanding the construction of the wall, the White House was saying it would be paid for out of “existing funds and resources” of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

This month, however, Reuters reported that a leaked document suggested the DHS had identified only $20 million of existing funds and resources that could be redirected to building the wall.

It was claimed that this would cover only a handful of contracts for wall prototypes, but not enough to start constructing the barrier itself.

Some reports have suggested that the full cost of a wall or fence along the entire US-Mexico border would be $21.6 billion (£17.3 billion) - $US9.3m (£7.5m) per mile of fence and $17.8m (£14.3m) per mile of wall.

On 7 April 2017 attn.com asked readers this question:

It appears that Donald Trump’s pledge to build that approximately 1,000-3,200 km long wall may go the same way as his failed pledge to immediately roll back the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) once elected.

"Zero prospect of recovery" for many sections of Australia's World Heritage Great Barrier Reef

James Cook University, ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, media release, 10 April 2017:

Two-thirds of Great Barrier Reef hit by back-to-back mass coral bleaching

For the second time in just 12 months, scientists have recorded severe coral bleaching across huge tracts of the Great Barrier Reef after completing aerial surveys along its entire length.  In 2016, bleaching was most severe in the northern third of the Reef, while one year on, the middle third has experienced the most intense coral bleaching.

“The combined impact of this back-to-back bleaching stretches for 1,500 km (900 miles), leaving only the southern third unscathed,” says Prof. Terry Hughes, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, who undertook the aerial surveys in both 2016 and 2017.

“The bleaching is caused by record-breaking temperatures driven by global warming. This year, 2017, we are seeing mass bleaching, even without the assistance of El Niño conditions.”

The aerial surveys in 2017 covered more than 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and scored nearly 800 individual coral reefs closely matching the aerial surveys in 2016 that were carried out by the same two observers.

Dr. James Kerry, who also undertook the aerial surveys, explains further, “this is the fourth time the Great Barrier Reef has bleached severely – in 1998, 2002, 2016, and now in 2017. Bleached corals are not necessarily dead corals, but in the severe central region we anticipate high levels of coral loss.”

“It takes at least a decade for a full recovery of even the fastest growing corals, so mass bleaching events 12 months apart offers zero prospect of recovery for reefs that were damaged in 2016.”

Coupled with the 2017 mass bleaching event, Tropical Cyclone Debbie struck a corridor of the Great Barrier Reef at the end of March.  The intense, slow-moving system was likely to have caused varying levels of damage along a path up to 100 km in width. Any cooling effects related to the cyclone are likely to be negligible in relation to the damage it caused, which unfortunately struck a section of the reef that had largely escaped the worst of the bleaching.

“Clearly the reef is struggling with multiple impacts,” explains Prof. Hughes. “Without a doubt the most pressing of these is global warming. As temperatures continue to rise the corals will experience more and more of these events:  1°C of warming so far has already caused four events in the past 19 years.”

‘Ultimately, we need to cut carbon emissions, and the window to do so is rapidly closing.”

Not all data is shown, only reefs at either end of the bleaching spectrum: Red circles indicate reefs undergoing most severe bleaching (60% or more of visible corals bleaching) Green circles indicate reefs with no or only minimal bleaching (10% or less of corals bleaching).

Without doubt the most confronting research project I've ever done. Please act NOW to save the #GreatBarrierReef from climate change. pic.twitter.com/rVujRxoPeD

— Terry Hughes (@ProfTerryHughes) April 10, 2017

More than two thirds of Australians are concerned about the rise in extremely hot weather and the impact it will have on health and wellbeing

Media Release

RACP: Australians concerned about the health impact of extremely hot weather

April 5 2017

New research* from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has revealed more than two thirds of Australians (68 per cent) are concerned about the rise in extremely hot weather and the impact it will have on health and wellbeing.

The topic of climate change and health will feature prominently at the World Congress on Public Health this week, with more than 2,000 health professionals descending on Melbourne for the World Federation of Public Health Associations event.

RACP Faculty of Public Health Medicine President-elect Associate Professor Linda Selvey, who will share the RACP research during her session this afternoon, said it was pleasing that the majority of Australians are united in viewing climate change as a significant health issue.

“There is undeniable evidence that climate change is fast becoming one of the most challenging global public health issues of the twenty-first century and one that could over-shadow all others,” explained Associate Professor Linda Selvey.

“Left unchecked, extreme weather events, fires, disease, disruptions to food and water supply, loss of livelihoods and threats to human security will push us all towards a global public health emergency.

“Already in Australia, record-breaking heatwaves have seen significant increases in emergency department presentations, ambulance callouts, and higher rates of heat-related illness and mortality rates.

“Greater temperature increases in coming years will inevitably multiply health risks and put further stress on the health sector.”

Last year was the hottest year on record globally, the third successive year of records, reaching 1.1°C above the pre-industrial period. It was the fourth hottest year for Australia and new record highs were recorded in Sydney, Brisbane and Canberra.

Associate Professor Linda Selvey said the data is both comprehensive and conclusive and she called on the Government to introduce a national climate and health strategy.

“This would ensure that the impact of climate change on health and the health sector would be front and centre of Government deliberations when considering climate policy.

“A strategy would also result in greater collaboration between governments and provide greater impetus for action—both adaptation and mitigation, as well as stronger research, better disease monitoring, and education for healthcare professionals.

“The majority of Australians are concerned about the health risks of climate change – our research has made this very clear. A national climate and health strategy would go some way to reassuring Australians that governments are doing all they can to address this health crisis.”

Associate Professor Linda Selvey said the RACP had long recognised the health impact of climate change. In 2015, it launched its successful Doctors for Climate Action campaign which positioned it as a global leader on the issue. Last year, the RACP released three Climate Change and Health Position Statements.

* Based on attitudinal research completed by Essential Media on behalf of the RACP in March 2017. Sample size of 1004 respondents.

Ends

So the Turnbull Government wants to quarantine your Centrelink income & family assistance payments? Time to read the fine print

A limited compulsory income management scheme was introduced by the Howard Government in 2007.

Its aim was to reduce discretionary disposable income by quarantining 50 per cent of all Australian Government income support and family assistance payments. 

Over time it was expanded to include individuals and/or certain communities in all eight states and territories and the financial vehicle for delivery was the Basics Card.

As of 25 March 2016 there were a total of 26,508 individuals nation-wide whose income was quarantined in the income management scheme and only 20.66 per cent had entered the scheme ‘voluntarily’.

An est. 20,941 people in the scheme identified as indigenous.

Of the total nation-wide figure 79.93 per cent were persons living in the Northern Territory and only an est. 2,755 (13 per cent) of those Territorians on income management were not classed as indigenous.

In October 2016 Prime Minster Malcolm Bligh Turnbull announced that the Healthy Welfare Card – the latest version of cashless debit card income management being trialled – will probably be introduced for all income support and family assistance recipients across Australia, at this stage with the exception of those on Age and Veterans’ Affairs pensions¹.

This version quarantines 80 per cent of fortnightly or other periodic cash transfer payments made to a person receiving income support or family assistance. It also quarantines 100 per cent of any lumpsum payment.

There will be few exemptions available for those who attempt to opt out of the scheme.

Given that there is: 

significant restriction on how this card can be used²,

inadequate consumer protection for card holders,

poor monthly statement record keeping in comparison with an ordinary bank account,

no monthly interest payable on any balance remaining in a welfare restricted account - unlike an ordinary bank account,

no guarantee that the entire account balance will be fully accessible to a card holder, 

no direct debiting allowed³, and

no procedure identified for retrieval/transfer to executor of an account balance on death of a cardholder,

it may be wise to read up on the fine print in advance of full implementation being announced by the Turnbull Government.

Here are the current conditions published by Indue Ltd⁴ which operates this cashless debit card:

Indue: Debit Card Account Conditions of Use  (PDF 84 pages)

Footnote:

1. According to the DSS Guide to Social Security Law, 8.7.2.30 Trigger Payment (Cashless Debit Card Trial), April 2017:

The trigger payments are:

a payment under the scheme known as ABSTUDY that includes an amount identified as living allowance,

austudy payment,

benefit PP (partnered),

BVA, so long as the recipient has not reached pension age,

carer payment,

disability support pension,

newstart allowance,

PgA (other than non-benefit allowance),

partner allowance,

pension PP (single),

sickness allowance,

special benefit,

widow allowance,

widow B pension,

wife pension,

youth allowance.

2. 8.7.6.40 Welfare Restricted Bank Accounts

3. Existing Centrepay deduction/s appear to be subtracted from a Centrelink fortnightly income support payment before the balance is split between the new welfare restricted bank account (80 per cent) and the original unrestricted bank account (20 percent).

4. Indue has been providing income management services to the federal government since at least 2009. The Department of Human Services awarded an 8.6 million contract to Indue Limited covering 1-Jul-2015 to 30-Jun-2017 for Income Management Card Services and a contract worth $840,000 for the period 1-Jan-2017 to 31-Dec-2017 supplying business administration services in the form of Benefits Cards.