The world is running out of patience with Australia: Europe warns Morrison Government

Europe has strongly signalled that the Morrison Coalition Government needs to stop pretending it has a national climate change policy and keep the pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions made under the November 2016 U.N. Paris Agreement which the Australian Government ratified and, on the government's part contained such a pitifully weak commitment to a 2030 abatement target i.e. emissions reduced by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 August 2018:

The Coalition's internal climate war risks damaging the economy after Europe declared it would reject a $15 billion trade deal with Australia unless the Morrison government keeps its pledge to cut pollution under the Paris accord.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison this week reset his government’s course on energy policy, declaring a focus on lowering electricity bills and increasing reliability, while relegating efforts to cut dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.

He has reaffirmed his government’s commitment to the Paris accord despite persistent calls by conservative Coalition MPs, led by Tony Abbott, to quit the agreement.

However there is deep uncertainty over how Australia will meet the Paris goal of reducing Australia’s carbon emissions by 26 per cent by 2030 given the government does not have a national strategy to meet the target.

The policy ructions did not go unnoticed at a meeting of the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade in Brussels, where the EU’s chief negotiator on the deal, Helena König, faced angry questions from the floor over Australia’s commitment to climate action.

Australia and the EU will in November enter a second round of negotiations over the deal that would end restrictions on Australian exports and collectively add $15 billion to both economies.

In a video of this week's proceedings, Ms König told the committee that “it’s the [European] Commission’s position ... that we are talking about respect and full implementation of the Paris agreement [as part of the trade deal]”.

“No doubt we will see what comes out in the text [of the deal agreement] but that I expect to be the minimum in the text, for sure.”

Her assertion is a clear signal that any failure by Australia to meet its international climate obligations would have serious economic consequences.

Ms König fired off the warning after a question by Klaus Buchner, a German Greens member of the Parliament who said “the intention of the new Australian regime to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unsettles not only Australians”.

“Australia is by far the biggest exporter of coal in the world ... what will the commission do when Australia does indeed withdraw from the Paris agreement? Is this a red line for us in these discussions or do we just accept it?

“I believe as the largest trading block in the world we have a responsibility to go beyond pure profits.”

Mark Lathan’s defence of defamation dismissed

Excerpts from Federal Court of Australia, Faruqi v Latham [2018] FCA 1328, Defamation:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 

1.  The respondent’s defence dated 23 November 2017 be struck out.

2.  The applicant’s interlocutory application filed 14 December 2017 be otherwise dismissed.

3.  The respondent’s interlocutory application filed 11 December 2017 be dismissed.

4.  The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and associated with the interlocutory applications referred to in orders 2 and 3.

5.  The parties jointly arrange for the matter to be listed for a case management hearing on the earliest date suitable to the parties and the Court after 28 September 2018……

WIGNEY J:

1. What does the martyrdom of Christians in the Roman Empire between the reign of the Emperor Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus and Emperor Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus have to do with a defamation action commenced in Australia in 2017?  How could the persecution of ethnoreligious Huguenots in the French Kingdom during the French Wars of Religion of the Sixteenth Century be said to rationally affect the assessment of the probability of a fact in issue in a modern-day defamation action in which the defamatory imputations are said to be that the applicant knowingly assists terrorist fanatics who want to kill innocent people in Australia, or condones the murder of innocent people by Islamic terrorists, or encourages and facilitates terrorism‽  Could the fact of the segregation and ill-treatment of ethnic Negro people under the doctrine of Apartheid in South Africa between 1948 and 1991 reasonably be said to be relevant to the defences of justification, contextual truth, qualified privilege, honest opinion and fair comment pleaded by the respondent in that defamation action?

2. These and other equally beguiling questions are raised by the interlocutory applications filed by the parties in this matter.

Read the full judgment at https://jade.io/article/602963?at.hl=faruqi+latham

Australian Minister for Home Affairs & Liberal MP for Dickson still has questions to answer

Peter Dutton. Image credit The Chronicle

In six days time the Senate Standing Committee Legal and Constitutional Affairs will deliver its report on an investigation into then Immigration Minister Peter Dutton's alleged improper use of ministerial powers.

Meanwhile the list of potentially questionable situations appears to be growing........

The Guardian, 30 August 2018:

One of the foreign au pairs Peter Dutton saved from deportation came to Australia to work for the family of a former police force colleague, Guardian Australia understands.

Dutton used his ministerial powers under the Migration Act in June 2015 to grant a visa to an Italian au pair who was intending to work for a Brisbane family.

The couple have worked for the Queensland police service and have two young children. The Guardian has decided not to name them.

The matter is one of at least two au pair visa cases which are now the subject of a Senate inquiry.

Guardian Australia revealed on Tuesday that Dutton had saved another au pair from deportation, intervening after the AFL chief executive officer, Gillon McLachlan, raised the young woman’s case on behalf of his relatives.

An email chain was leaked on Thursday featuring the correspondence of immigration officials, Peter Dutton’s office, an AFL staffer, McLachlan and his second cousin. The emails run over 14 pages and indicate that Dutton overruled border security advice and allowed entry to Australia for the French woman, Alexandra Deuwel, on 1 November 2015.

In the Queensland case, the Italian au pair had her visa cancelled upon arrival at Brisbane’s international airport on 17 June 2015. She was able to make a phone call and soon afterwards Dutton approved a new visa.

There are pictures on her Facebook profile showing she ate Tim Tams and Caramello Koalas on her first night in Australia, after the visa dramas were resolved. “First night in Australia.. FINALLY!” she wrote.

She later visited Surfers Paradise, Brisbane’s agricultural show the Ekka, Australia Zoo, Melbourne, and posed for pictures by the Brisbane River.

The au pair’s case file names the Brisbane family as her hosts, a source told Guardian Australia.

Dutton was a police officer from 1990 until 1999 before being elected to federal parliament in 2001. In 1997 Dutton and the family’s father completed a surveillance course together and were pictured in a group photograph.

Asked if the au pair was intending to work for his family, the policeman told Guardian Australia: “Not confirming, not denying. Just talk to Peter Dutton’s office. It’s well above my call as to what to say.”

The visa status of two au pairs have been in the spotlight since March, when it was revealed Dutton granted them visas on public interest grounds.

Crime and Corruption Commission (Queensland), excerpt from media release, 14 August 2018:

The Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC) has tabled a report in State Parliament this afternoon following the completion of its investigation into Ipswich City Council.

The CCC commenced Operation Windage in October 2016 to investigate allegations of corrupt conduct relating to the then Mayor, Chief Executive Officer and a Chief Operating Officer.

The investigation has resulted in 15 people being charged with 86 criminal offences. Of the 15 people charged, seven are either current or former council employees or councillors. This includes two mayors, two CEOs and one Chief Operating Officer.

Queensland Parliament, tabled papers, 8 August 2017:

Since this issue became public Dutton has begun to publicly threaten his critics. 

Revealing he kept files on Opposition members of parliament (and presumably other individuals) who approached him as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and, that he fully intends to use the contents of these files against his critics if he feels the need.

“I’ve got a series of cases that have been put to me by Labor members — and I’ve kept a very good list actually of MPs who have come to me with quirky cases,” Mr Dutton told reporters.

“I will be happy to go into some matters in question time, potentially.”

When parliament resumes sitting next week Greens MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt, seconded by Independent MP for Denison Andrew Wilkie and supported by Labor MPs, will move a motion of no confidence in the Minister for Home Affairs over the visa for au pairs affair.

It will likely fail by a slim margin, as MP for Page Kevin Hogan's faux change from Nationals MP to an independent member sitting on the cross benches (in order to save his seat at the next federal election) will still see him support the dysfunctional Morrison Government and an ethically challenged Peter Dutton.

The Standing Committee Legal and Constitutional Affairs public hearing re allegations concerning the inappropriate exercise of ministerial powers, with respect to the
visa status of au pairs, and related matters commences at 9am today 5 September 2016.

BACKGROUND

House of Representatives Hansard, 26 March 2018:

Shayne Neumann (Blair):  

I refer to concerns raised in the media today relating to the minister's use of his ministerial discretion to grant a tourist visa to an au pair. Was his decision based on departmental advice? If not, what prompted the minister to intervene? And will the minister undertake to provide the opposition with a departmental briefing at the earliest opportunity so the facts can be made clear?

Peter Dutton (Dickson): I thank the honourable member for his question. At last a question from the member for Blair! Well done! Fighting away on tactics each day—finally, you've risen to the top of the pile. It is six past three. You have missed out on television but, nonetheless, it's throw the dog a bone, I guess. There are media reports around today which talk about a decision that I made in relation to a visa. There are defamatory parts of that which I'm going to address with the journalist. Our family does not employ an au pair. My wife takes very good care in my absence of our three children. We have never employed an au pair. I have instructed before that that story is completely false and yet it still continues to be published.

In relation to the matter otherwise, I will release more detail which I'm putting together at the moment. As I say, it is defamatory. I won't tolerate it being printed again. I make decisions—

I won't! I won't have my family—

I won't have false details, as the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate as well, about my wife and my children printed. I won't stand for it. That's the reality.

I make hundreds of decisions each year in relation to ministerial discretion under the Migration Act, as has been the case with many ministers passed. There are cases brought to me by members on the frontbench and members of this parliament on a regular basis. I look at the individual circumstances around each matter. If I determine that there is an interest in me intervening in those cases, I do. In many cases I look at the particular facts. For example, the honourable shadow Treasurer—nodding away—writes to me regularly in relation to matters. If I deem the circumstances to be appropriate, I intervene. In this particular matter—again I'm happy to release further detail—I was advised at the time there were two matters, only one to which you are referring at the moment.

There were two young tourists who had come in on a tourist visa and declared in an interview with the Border Force officers at the airport—I was advised—they were here on a tourist visa but intended to perform babysitting duties while here. The decision that was taken, I was advised, was that the tourist visas would be cancelled, that those two young tourists would be detained and that they would be deported. I looked into the circumstances of those two cases and I thought that inappropriate. I thought if they gave an undertaking they wouldn't work while they were here, I would grant the tourist visas and they would stay, which they did. They didn't overstay; they returned back home. Now if there are facts there you dispute or you think there is another scurrilous point you want to put, put it outside of this chamber.

House of Representatives, Hansard, 27 March 2018:

Mr BANDT (Melbourne): My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Minister, I note your recent statements in relation to your personal intervention to prevent the deportation of two foreign intended au pairs. Can you categorically rule out any personal connection or any other relationship between you and the intended employer of either of the au pairs?

Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection): The answer is yes. I haven't received any personal benefit. I don't know these people. They haven't worked for me. They haven't worked for my wife. I repeated all of that yesterday, and I repeat it again today. I point the honourable member to the facts in relation to ministerial intervention. The member for McMahon—we were just talking about his successful record when he was last in government. Remember, he was the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. At one point in 2012, there were 218 cases referred for consideration. In 2013, the honourable member for McMahon was there, along with the member for Watson. There were 228 cases in the year 2013; in 2014, 193 cases.

Berejiklian Government accused of timber fraud on NSW North Coast

North East Forest Alliance (NEFA), 27 August 2018:

 The North East Forest Alliance has accused the NSW Government of fraudulently claiming a shortfall in high quality logs available from State Forests in north-east NSW to justify their wind-back of environmental protections and intention to log oldgrowth forest and rainforest.

NEFA today released a review of timber yields and modelling for north-east NSW over the past 20 years that has identified a number of serious problems with yield estimations and allocations from the region that will be referred to the Auditor General.

"The most significant issue revealed is that the Government has removed hardwood plantations from yield calculations to concoct a yield shortfall to justify removing environmental protections, while apparently intending to reallocate plantation timber to low value products for export" says report author Dailan Pugh.

"According to the Government's data there is absolutely no need to log oldgrowth forests, or to remove other existing environmental protections to satisfy current timber commitments.

"The Natural Resources Commission (NRC) turned an identified surplus of 37,000 cubic metres per annum of high quality sawlogs from State Forests in north-east NSW over the next hundred years into a claimed deficit of 8,600 cubic metres per annum by simply excluding hardwood plantations from their calculations.

"The NRC's claim that 'it is not possible to meet the Government’s commitments around both environmental values and wood supply' is based on a lie. Nowhere do they identify that they excluded plantations. They did this to create the pretence of a shortfall.

"Plantations already provide some 30,000 cubic metres(14%) of high quality hardwood log commitments per annum, with yields projected to increase up to 75,000 cubic meters of high quality logs per annum into the future.

"NSW Taxpayers have spent $27 million just since 2000 establishing hardwood plantations explicitly to provide high quality logs to take the pressure off native forests.

"It is outrageous that the Government has excluded plantations to concoct a shortfall in timber from State Forests in order to justify increasing logging intensity, reducing retention of habitat trees, removing protections for numerous threatened species, halving buffers on headwater streams, as well as now opening up oldgrowth forest and rainforest protected in the Comprehensive Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system for logging.

"The Government recently issued an Expression of Interest for 416,851 tonnes per annum of low quality logs from north-east NSW, of which 219,000 tonnes (53%) is apparently to be obtained by downgrading all timber from the 35,000 ha of north-east NSW's hardwood plantations to low quality logs and committing them in new Wood Supply Agreements aimed at the export market.

"Three NSW Environment Ministers (Parker, Stokes and Speakman), along with the Environment Protection Authority, repeatedly promised that the new logging rules (Integrated Forestry Operations Approval) would result in no net change to wood supply, no erosion of environmental values, and no reductions in the CAR reserve system.

"Instead of honouring their promises, in a blatant ploy the Government has changed the wood supply, by surreptitiously excluding plantations, to justify erosion of environmental values and reductions in the reserve system.

"NEFA calls upon the NSW Government to honour their promises by reinstating the intended role of plantations in providing high quality sawlogs to take the pressure off native forests, and to use the resultant timber surplus to reinstate the environmental protections they are intending to remove", Mr. Pugh said.

Port News, 28 August 2018:

I noticed in the report by the NSW Government DPI’s principal research scientist, Dr Brad Law, which was published in the Port News on August 1that he claims recent audio recordings of male koalas in the hinterland of our state forests revealed evidence of up to 10 times the previously estimated occupancy.

Well obviously if this was the first time audio study of male koalas in the breeding season had been carried surely finding any koalas at all would be an increase in findings. The Australia Koala Foundation showed that one male koala 'Arnie' a dominant male occupied a home range of 43 hectares in area so no doubt the study took precautions to not record the same koala in other of the 171 sites.

Each site however did not always record even one or two scats. The evidence proves only 65% of the 171 sites tested held one koala and the scats do not prove in any way a home colony had even once existed at these sites.

Dr Law rejoices that in his study that heavily logged, lightly logged and old growth forest areas showed similar results which seemed to suggest that logging of our NSW State Forests has no effect on koala numbers.

Really?

In a study by the recognised koala expert, Dr Steve Phillips, commissioned by our own PMHC he found that most of the suitably sized koala food trees have already been logged out.

So WTF do they eat?

This no harm heavily logged forest claim by Dr Law will get a real test soon when the NSW Government introduces intensive logging in “Regrowth B” area. A map obtained under GIPA by the North Coast Environment Centre indicates 142,818 ha. of our north coast state forests between Taree and Grafton will be clear-felled.

Any small trees left will be hauled away to the soon be established Biomass Plants at Taree, Kempsey and Grafton and now it seems a new “renewable energy” diesel manufacturing plant at Heron’s Creek. “Renewable” meaning over the next 100 years.

Any regrowth in the intensively logged forests will likely be sprayed and Blackbutt monocultures planted.

Oh, and so no damage is done to the forest populations of koalas and protected animals and plants small clumps of forest will be left.

How a male koala will roam to the next paradise island of the living dead to breed without being attacked by wild dogs or run over by logging trucks is not discussed in the literature.

Even Dr Law did not bother to defend his government’s offset scheme which will according to evidence presented at the PMHC Koala Roundtable result in local extinction of koalas in the Port Macquarie local government area…..

Michaelia Cash gets her just deserts

Once she finished knifing then Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in the back, Liberal Party Senator for WA  Michaelia Clare Cash was demoted from Minister for Jobs and Innovation to Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education.

Then she was further ‘rewarded’ by this leak to the media……

Financial Review, 30 August 2018:

Cabinet minister Michaelia Cash has become the latest target of the payback culture inside the Liberal Party, after allegations emerged that she declined to provide a witness statement to the Australian Federal Police investigating the leaking of a union raid from within her office.

Senator Cash, who was demoted in Sunday's leadership reshuffle after turning on Malcolm Turnbull, rejected any assertion she refused to cooperate.

It is understood she told the officers that she did not need to make a fresh statement because she had been quizzed on the matter many times in Parliament and everything she knew was on the public record.

The AFP was investigating a tip-off to the media about a raid on the offices of the Australian Workers' Union last year.

The raids were conducted by the AFP at the behest of the union watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commission.

Senator Cash had asked the commission to investigate whether two political donations made by the AWU more than a decade ago, when Bill Shorten was the union's national secretary, accorded with union rules.

But the exercise backfired when it emerged a staffer inside her office had tipped off the media about the raid. The staffer resigned and Senator Cash denied having any advance knowledge of the raid nor of the tip-off to the media…..

What voters think of the main political parties in Australia

ABC News, 30 August 2018:

When asked by Essential to say which common statements fit the two major parties, the Liberals outranked Labor on almost every negative statement and were behind Labor on every positive statement…..

What voters think of the Liberals and Labor

Divided

Liberal

79%

Labor

46%

Too close to the big corporate and financial interests

Liberal

67%

Labor

36%

Out of touch with ordinary people

Liberal

69%

Labor

51%

Looks after the interests of working people

Liberal

32%

Labor

55%

Clear about what they stand for

Liberal

33%

Labor

47%

Has a good team of leaders

Liberal

31%

Labor

39%

Understands the problems facing Australia

Liberal

40%

Labor

48%

Have a vision for the future

Liberal

43%

Labor

48%

Extreme

Liberal

40%

Labor

36%

Trustworthy

Liberal

30%

Labor

34%

Have good policies

Liberal

40%

Labor

43%

Will promise to do anything to win votes

Liberal

68%

Labor

70%

Moderate

Liberal

48%

Labor

50%

Keeps its promises

Liberal

28%

Labor

30%

The survey was conducted online from 24th to 26th August 2018 and is based on 1,035 respondents.

Source: Essential Media  Get the data

Essential Report, 28 August 2018: