Something to remember every time a Liberal or Nationals politician opens his/her mouth in 2019

With both a NSW state election and a federal general election in the first half of this year the Murdoch press and Coalition spokespersons will at some point turn their thoughts to the allegedly oppressive burden of welfare payments on Australian taxpayers and the prevalence of so-called 'welfare bludgers' that are supposedly ripping off the taxpayer.

Leaving aside the fact that every single person in Australia pays one or more forms of tax, even welfare recipients, what is the truth about who gets what from government tax concessions or cash transfers?

In 2018 Australia’s richest 20 per cent of the population owned est. 68 per cent of national private wealth, which means that they owned 80 times more in assets and savings than the poorest 20 per cent of the population.

They also received higher tax and transfer amounts from federal government coffers than welfare recipients.

Here is how that comes about......

Per Capita, The Cost of Privilege Report #7, Executive Summary excerpts, 29 March 2018:

The modelling assessed the various tax concessions and other benefits available to high-income earners and contrasts them with well-understood direct income support measures for low-income earners and those reliant on our social security safety net.

This report quantifies the annual cost to the federal budget of various measures that allow Australians in our wealthiest quintile to minimise their taxable income, thereby reducing government revenue that pays for services for all citizens.

These measures include superannuation tax concessions, negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions, the use of discretionary trusts, the exemption from the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of private health insurance and education, and the exemption from Capital Gains Tax (CGT) of the principal place of residence. All of these concessions disproportionately benefit high income and high wealth households. 

Our analysis shows that, in combination, these measures impose a cost on the federal budget that easily outstrips that of any single welfare recipient group.

According to our calculations, the cost of foregone tax revenue from the richest 20% of Australians is over AU$68 billion per annum. That’s around $37 a week from every worker in the country.¹

In contrast, the cost of income support in the 2016-2017 financial year was, by group:

Age Pension $44.468 billion ($35 a week per worker)

Assistance to families with children $36.404 billion ($20 a week per worker)

Assistance to people with disabilities $31.721 billion ($17 a week per worker)

Newstart (unemployment benefits) $10.994 billion ($6 a week per worker)

1 Calculated using the methodology outlined in Answer to Question On Notice No: 257, Taxation paid and 2016-17 Financial Year, what was the total government spend? Senate Economics Legislation Committee, Treasury Portfolio, Budget Policy Division, Supplementary Budget Estimates 2017 – 2018

Here is a practical example of the value of tax concessions to the third family above who fall within the top 20 per cent of the population:

Household Three – Michael and Gillian

Michael and Gillian have two children, Isabella, aged 12 and Max, aged 8.

They paid off their mortgage two years ago and live in a four bedroom house in a bayside suburb of Melbourne. 

Isabella and Max go to the local Catholic primary school and will go on to Catholic secondary college. The family has intermediate hospital and extras private health insurance.

Michael is a Team Leader at a large telecommunications company, and earns $230,000 per year. Gillian works 20 hours a week, during school hours, in the HR department of a major bank, and earns $60,000 per year.

Both Michael and Gillian salary sacrifice into their superannuation accounts up to the $25,000 concessional cap. While Michael can only contribute an extra $3,150 of his pre-tax income to super on top of the $21,850 in compulsory contributions already made by his employer, Gillian can contribute $19,000, reducing her taxable income to $41,000.

They own a three bedroom house in Rye, which they rent out through AirBnB as a holiday home and negatively gear, allowing them to reduce Michael’s tax by a further $9,400.

The value of the capital gains tax concession on their holiday home gives them $4,500 in concessional benefits annually, and the tax exemption of their family home in Melbourne provides another concession of $23,500 per year.

Michael and Gillian also receive GST tax exemptions on their private health and education costs to the value of $3,250.00 per year.

Their combined family income after tax is $215,446 per annum, or $4,143.19 per week.

The total amount received from the taxpayer in tax concessions for this family is $71,705 per year, or $1,378.94 per week.

This imbalance in the value of government assistance received by different groups in society, which is so strongly biased towards giving most to the affluent, is a perfect example of Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison's social and economic policies structured to give to those who already have.

Giving to those he appears to believe are 'good' or 'worthy' because they have high levels of income and assets, as opposed to those who are 'bad' or 'unworthy' because they have little in the way of income and assets.

When I was young this attitude was simply described as the Protestant Ethic, now it appears to be known as the Prosperity Gospel.

Under either name it is not the mark of an egalitarian society or of a nation which prides itself on giving everyone "a fair go".

Something readers might care to think on as they decide who to vote for this year.

The Liberal Party of Australia: fighting to suppress climate science & avoiding responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions since 1996

The Age, 1 January 2019:

The Howard government was urged more than 20 years ago to consider an emissions trading scheme, while its signature plans to deal with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions were considered by its own departments to be merely aimed at deflecting global criticism.

As the Morrison government continues to fight a debilitating internal battle over how to deal with climate change, previously secret papers from the 1990s reveal a suite of major government departments said the most effective and efficient way to deal with greenhouse gases was to impose a carbon price.

Cabinet papers from 1996 and 1997 released on Tuesday by the National Archives reveal the beginnings of the Howard government's drawn-out response to the threat posed by rising greenhouse gas emissions and the way some of those issues are still playing out in the Morrison government…….

Government departments headed by Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and Foreign Affairs fleshed out the details of a series of proposals backed by the government in September 1997 in a bid to deal with Australia's emissions.

The co-ordinating document produced by the departments, which were aiming to finalise a package discussed at cabinet earlier in the month, made clear the bureaucracy did not believe the government's plans would go nearly far enough in cutting emissions but may be sufficient to deflect international criticism.

"None of the packages presented here would achieve the stabilisation of emissions at 1990 levels," they said.

"Rather, they are aimed at deflecting criticism that Australia is not fully committed to reducing its emissions."

The departments costed a series of proposals which would ultimately become part of the government's official response to climate change.

These included a focus on tree plantations, encouragement for businesses to slice their emissions, the introduction of ethanol into petrol and subsidies to boost investment in renewable energy.

They noted Australia had a "poor international reputation for driving fuel efficient cars", arguing significant gains could be made by improving the nation's car fleet.

Building codes, reform of the energy market and investment in climate research were all encouraged.

But the departments, which acknowledged the government's opposition to a price signal, said these would ultimately be expensive initiatives which would not deliver a real impact on the nation's overall emissions profile.

"The most effective way to reduce emissions would be to combine significant price signals (either general or sectoral increases in taxes on greenhouse producing activities), information so firms and individuals can reduce greenhouse production, opportunities to invest in carbon sinks and some degree of compulsion to address areas where markets cannot be made to work effectively," they said.

"It is generally agreed that reductions will not happen without significant persuasion, incentives or leadership from government."

In late 2006, Mr Howard announced a panel would investigate an emissions trading scheme. Both the Howard government and the Kevin Rudd-led ALP would take a trading scheme policy to the following year's election.

But in 1997, the government's most esteemed departments told cabinet it should consider an ETS even if the results of the study were kept hidden from the public.

"A study of possible emissions trading mechanisms and regulations would help position Australia in the event that emissions trading is introduced internationally," they said.

"This study would not be for public announcement since it may not help our international negotiating position if it became public knowledge."....

The Guardian, 1 January 2018:

In June 1996, cabinet agreed that “Australia’s overall objective in climate change negotiations should be to safeguard our national trade and economic interests while advancing compatible outcomes that are environmentally and economically effective”.

While Australia recognised “the need for effective global action on climate change”, it vowed to pursue an international agreement that “does not contain targets which are legally binding” and argued for differentiated, rather than uniform, reduction targets.

The then environment minister, Robert Hill, reported to cabinet that for the first time the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific report had said that the balance of scientific evidence supported the view that the changes in climate and greenhouse gas concentrations were due to human activity.

Small island states were proposing a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2005. While other time frames were being discussed, all were potentially problematic for Australia because of its carbon-intensive economy.

Hill told the cabinet that modelling showed Australia’s emissions from the energy sector – accounting for half of national emissions – were projected to be 30% above 1990 levels by 2010…..

The consternation grew further by mid-1997. A joint submission to cabinet warned of the prospect of an “EU–US bilateral understanding for progressing climate change” at a forthcoming G7 summit…..

The cabinet actively considered walking away from Kyoto altogether.

It was facing publishing its future emissions as part of the Kyoto process but modelling was now showing that emissions from the energy sector would be 40% to 50% above 1990 levels by 2010…

The cabinet also agreed in July to establish a climate change taskforce to advance Australia’s domestic greenhouse gas strategies, to strengthen its bargaining stance. One option to be explored was “domestic and international emissions trading”.

In the following months, Treasury modelled various measures for reducing domestic emissions.

The memorandum warned that none of its scenarios would cap carbon emissions at 1990 levels but would achieve potential cuts of 22%.

And so began Australia’s long and tortured debate over carbon trading schemes.

A proposal was put forward by the Australian Greenhouse Office in 2000, but was scuttled in cabinet; another came forward in 2003, but was vetoed by Howard.

Finally, in the dying days of his government in December 2006, Howard announced an emissions trading scheme, after bureaucrats convinced him it was the most efficient way to meet Australia’s commitments.

BACKGROUND

National Archives of Australia, 1996 and 1997 – Keating and Howard governments, Cabinet Papers, released 1 January 2018.

The Howard Government fight against taking responsibility for Australia's own domestic greenhouse gas missions.....

See: https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/NAAMedia/ShowImage.aspx?B=32709070&T=PDF. My apologies for not posting this document but current slow upload times have meant that I cannot yet display this document here.

Murray-Darling Basin Plan: a $13 billion fraud on the environment

Some home truth about the current Murray-Darling Basin Plan to remember as we enter into the morass of competeing claims in NSW State and Australian Federal election campaigns in the first half of this year....

IN THE MATTER OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN ROYAL COMMISSION, Adelaide South Australia, 23 October 2018:

MR R. BEASLEY SC, Senior Counsel Assisting:

….Commissioner, the Water Act and the Basin Plan have been hailed as ground-breaking reform. They are. What this Commission has learnt, however, from the evidence it has gathered, and from the witnesses that have informed us, is that it’s one thing to enact transformative legislation like the Water Act and the Basin Plan, it’s quite another thing to faithfully implement it. Sadly, the implementation of the Basin Plan at crucial times has been characterised by a lack of attention to the requirements of the Water Act and a near total lack of transparency in an important sense.

Those matters have had, and continue to have, a negative impact on the environment and probably the economies of all the Basin Plan states but the state that will suffer the most is the state at the end of the system, South Australia. The Water Act was a giant national compromise. At its heart was a recognition that all of the Basin states – Queensland, NSW, Victoria and South Australia – were taking too much water from the system and had been for a long time. That, as a matter of statutory fact in the Water Act, and as a matter of reality, has led to serious degradation of the environment of the Basin. The Millennium Drought of 2000s underscored the fact that, if nothing was done, over-allocation of the water entitlements in the Basin would inevitably and quickly lead to irreversible damage to the Basin environment.

The Water Act was a response to that. It was the statutory means by which the process of restoration and protection of environmental assets would begin. I say the Water Act was a compromise because the Act contemplates that water will be taken from our rivers and used consumptively for irrigation, the growing of crops and permanent plants. Of course, also for human water needs. But it sets a limit. That limit is that no more water can be taken beyond the point where key areas of the environment and its ecosystems might be damaged. In an environment that’s already degraded, that means the Water Act requires the environment to have both enough water to restore degraded wetlands and the like and also, of course, to maintain them.

That’s not just the right thing to do. It’s what Australia’s international obligations require. That task, setting a limit on the extraction of water, is to be based on the best available science. Not guided by the best science, not informed by the best science but based on the best available science. It also has to be achieved by taking into account the well-known principles of ecologically sustainable development. What the Commission has learnt from the evidence presented to it is that the implementation of the Basin Plan, at crucial stages, has not been based on the best available science. Further, ecologically sustainable development has either been ignored or, in some cases, in relation to supply measures, actually inverted.

 I want to read to you a peer review of the Guide to the Basin Plan from some international scientists in 2010 because it demonstrates that they were well aware, even back then, of what was actually going on in the early stages of drafting the Basin Plan. This is a peer review report by Professor Gene Likens of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Mr Per Bertilsson of the Stockholm International Water Institute, Professor Asit Biswas from the Third World Centre for Water Management and Professor John Briscoe, Gordon McKay Professor from Harvard University. What they said was this, in reviewing the Basin Plan, at page 34 of what became exhibit RCE38:

It is a fundamental tenet of good governance that scientists produce facts and the government decides on values and makes choices. We are concerned that scientists in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, who are working to develop the facts, may feel they are expected to trim those so that the sustainable diversion limit will be one that is politically acceptable. We strongly believe that this is not only inconsistent with the basic tenets of good governance but that it is not consistent with the letter of the Water Act. We equally strongly believe that government needs to make the necessary trade-offs and value judgments and need to be explicit about these, assume responsibility and make the rationale behind these judgments transparent to the public.

If all the MDBA had been done in the past eight years since that review was written is “trim the facts”, that would be bad enough. But it’s worse than that. The implementation of the Basin Plan has been marred by maladministration. By that I mean mismanagement by those in charge of the task in the Basin Authority, its executives and its board, and the consequent mismanagement of huge amounts of public funds. The responsibility for that maladministration and mismanagement falls on both past and current executives of the MDBA and its board. Again, while the whole of the Basin environment has and will continue to suffer as a result of this, the state whose environment will suffer the most is South Australia.

The principal task of those implementing the Plan is to set the Basin-wide sustainable diversion limit. How much water can be taken from the rivers before the environment suffers? You’ve heard evidence that has been unchallenged that this task was infected by deception, secrecy and is the political fix. The modelling it has been said to have been based on is still not available seven years later. The recent adjustment of the sustainable diversion limit by raising it by 605 gigalitres, on the evidence you’ve heard, is best described as a fraud on the environment. That’s a phrase I used in opening. It was justified then. It’s re-enforced by the evidence you’ve heard subsequently. The so-called 450 gigalitres of upwater, the water that the then South Australian Government fought for, for this State’s environment, is highly unlikely to ever eventuate. The constraints to the system are just one major problem in the delivery of that water.

Like all aspects of the implementation of the Basin Plan, efficiency measures or infrastructure projects that form the basis of how the 450 gigalitres of water is to be attained, and which are funded by public money, lack any reasonable form of transparency and, as the Productivity Commission recently, and witnesses to this Commission, have noted, are hugely more expensive and less reliable than purchasing water entitlements. I will discuss this in detail but I will give you one quote from an expert who can talk with real authority about the extra 450 gigalitres proposed for South Australia under the Basin Plan. That’s the former Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, David Papps. In his evidence to you said:

 I would bet my house that South Australia is not getting that water.

Mr Papps’ prediction seems safe when one considers the proposed amendments to the Basin Plan by the governments of NSW and Victoria concerning the 450 gigalitres that I will come to shortly. Everything that I have just said to you is based on the views of eminent scientists and other people who have given evidence and lodged submissions. However, neither the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, or any Commonwealth government agency has provided any answer to anything I have just said or to the evidence before the Commission that I will refer to shortly. They have no answer. The submissions provided to you very recently by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, and the DAWR, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, demonstrate, as did their unwillingness to give evidence, culminating in proceedings to the High Court, that they do not have any answer.

The MDBA, you will recall, were even too busy to meet you. The States also have no answer, as demonstrated in their somewhat thin submissions to you, with the exception of the South Australian Government. When I say the MDBA has no answer to the expert evidence given in this Commission, I should emphasise also that it clearly has no answer to the maladministration and unlawfulness of its implementation of the Basin Plan. It is nevertheless a great pity that relevant persons from the Basin Authority, and other Commonwealth agencies, were not required to give answers to you under oath concerning the scientific evidence the Commission gathered.

The opportunity may have been there had the High Court decided those proceedings in your favour. I’m not going to speculate on what the High Court would have done but, regrettably, the South Australian Government chose not to extend your Commission in order to provide you with the opportunity that may have been available to you to question those relevant people. You made it clear to the South Australian Government that was your strong preference. You advised them that the Commission had potential witnesses that wanted to give important evidence, evidence relevant to the South Australian environment, but only if they were compelled by summons. In other words, they were too scared to talk about the implementation of the Basin Plan without the force of a summons. Why the Commission was not extended to explore these crucial matters is something upon which you can draw inferences as you see fit. I will only say that it’s a great opportunity lost……

Water theft within the Murray Darling Basin continues

Water news 21/12/18
Thanks to Barrier Daily Truth

" Dam owner pinged " pic.twitter.com/t2anNiIO86

— Chris Rawlins 🚙 (@ChrisBH011) December 20, 2018

State of Play: NSW North Coast Employment Opportunities

It's a brand new year but in regional New South Wales the old issues followed us past midnight on 31 December 2018.

Employment opportunities - where will our unemployed and underemployed people find a job in 2019 and beyond?

This is how the old year ended.....

NSW North Coast -Summary Data

List of summary data inNorth Coast
Data Name	Data Value
Unemployment Rate (15+):	6.1%
Unemployed (15+):	7,000
Total jobactive Caseload (15+):	10,643
Youth jobactive Caseload (15-24):	1,779
Mature Age jobactive Caseload (50+):	3,562

Download Summary Data in Excel

http://lmip.gov.au/default.aspx?LMIP/GainInsights/VacancyReport

The future appears to be a mixed bag for the NSW North Coast over the next twenty-four years. 

At which point the population may have reached somewhere in the vicinity of 400,000 residents.

However, it is expected there will be a drop in employment levels across Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing on the North Coast.

While Manufacturing only grows slightly in the Richmond-Tweed region and remains static same elsewhere.

Wholesale Trade remains steady in Tweed-Richmond with up to 300 new jobs, but is projected to go backwards in Coffs Harbour-Grafton over the next 24 years.

Retail Trade is predicted to grow modestly across the North Coast, with 900 new jobs predicted.

The Accommodation and Food Services sector is expected to show unspectacular growth right across the North Coast regions with only 900 additional jobs.

Administrative and Support Services employment is projected to rise - but only by 700 jobs up to 2023 and Public Administration & Safety are only expected to add 300 jobs over that same time period.

The Education sector is expected to grow by 700 jobs.

Information, Media & Telecommunications is expected to grow by 8.4% but it will take 24 years to achieve this small improvement on May 2018 figures and barely represents an est. 100 jobs overall.

Financial and Insurance sector employment opportunities are expected to diminish across the regions, but there are expected to be 500 more jobs in the Professional, Scientific & Technical Services.

Transport, Postal & Warehousing employment is predicted to remain at near present levels.

The Mining sector is not expected to grow past May 2018 levels on the North Coast from the Clarence Valley up to the NSW-Queensland border taking in all seven Northern Rivers local government areas.

However Construction employment is expected to grow by 15-16% by 2023 across the region. This represents est. 3,000 more jobs above May 2018 numbers.

Healthcare & Social Assistance is also predicted to grow by 3,900-4,000 available positions by 2023.

See the following Labour Market Information Portal links for further employment projections for regional Australia, including the NSW North Coast:

Employment projections for the five years to May 2023

Each year, the Department of Jobs and Small Business produces employment projections by industry, occupation, skill level and region for the following five-year period. These employment projections are designed to provide a guide to the future direction of the labour market, however, like all such exercises, they are subject to an inherent degree of uncertainty.

The 2018 employment projections are based on the forecasted and projected total employment growth rates published in the 2018-19 Budget, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) data (June 2018) for total employment, and the quarterly detailed LFS data (May 2018) for industry employment data.

2018 Industry Employment Projections Report (Word) (245.0KB)

Industry projections – five years to May 2023 (Excel) (49.3KB)

Occupation projections – five years to May 2023 (Excel) (80.4KB)

Skill Level projections – five years to May 2023 (Excel) (24.6KB)

Regional projections – interactive tool (Excel) (2.2MB)

Regional projections – five years to May 2023 (Excel) (921.3KB)

2018 Gender Employment Projections Report (Word) (116.7KB)

While North Coast Voices was on its annual break….

On Christmas Eve the Morrison Government released the following:

By the time a reader clicks on this link, http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/publicnoticesreferrals/,

there will only be 8-9 days left to submit comments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In what they are now trying to pass off as an attempt at humour the Liberal National Party of Australia posted this petty, divisive Christmas meme on their Facebook page.

LNP’s removal of this meme did little to stop the negative response on social media.

Tone deaf and abysmally stupid was the general consensus.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Guardian, 26 December 2018:

A man has been shot by police in New South Wales after he allegedly lunged at officers with a knife, and has been taken to hospital in a critical condition.

Police were called to a home in Waterview Heights, west of Grafton, in the early hours of Wednesday morning following concern for the 36-year-old’s welfare.

Police said he lunged at officers with the knife upon their arrival.

The man was flown to Gold Coast University hospital in a critical condition.

A critical incident team will investigate the circumstances of the incident.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stock market volatility continued over the Christmas break as President Donald Trump tweets further personal attacks on the US Federal Reserve and its personnel. Mr Trump's latest attack heightened fears about the economy being destabilised by a man who wants control over the Fed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another young child died whilst being held in custody of US Customs and Border Protection. Eight year-old Felix Alonzo-Gomez died on December 25th after a medical diagnosis of “common cold” proved inaccurate. The boy's death follows that of  7 year old Jakelin Caal Maquin, 7, also of Guatemala, who died in Border patrol custody earlier this month. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SBS News, 26 December 2018:

The Coalition could be at risk of losing 24 seats at the next federal election, including those of six frontbenchers, according to a Newspoll quarterly analysis. The analysis, published in The Australian, reveals the government has failed to claw back electoral ground from Labor in both regional and metropolitan seats. While Prime Minister Scott Morrison remains ahead of Bill Shorten as preferred leader, his satisfaction ratings have dropped into the negatives.

According to this Newspoll survey analysis covering 25 October to 9 December 2018, 45% of voters over 50 years of age dissatisfied with Australian Prime Minster Scott Morrison’s performance.

On a two-party preferred basis, polling stands at Labor 53 and Lib-Nats Coalition 47.

Rumours of an early March election, to be called just after Australia Day, persist according to The Guardian.

@nobby15

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Quad_Finn, 27 December 2018:

Japan has announced its first commercial whale hunt since leaving the IWC. The hunt will take place in July 2019 and will target Endangered Sei whales along with Minke whales & Bryde’s whales. It is not known how many whales of each species Japan intends to kill each season. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Thursday 27 December 2018 Marble Bar in the Pilbarra, Western Australia experienced it's hottest day on record reaching 49.3C at 3.40pm.

           

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Daily Examiner, 28 December 2018, p.1:

The $300,000 fine issued to Clarence Valley Council by the NSW Land and Environment Court last week for the destruction of a rare Aboriginal object in Grafton will be reinvested into the area, rather than go back into State Government revenue coffers.

The court’s ruling handed down on December 21 included a series of detailed orders as part of the penalty that includes several Clarence-based directives that were reached after consultation with the Local Aboriginal Lands Councils and community members.

It is believed this case is the first of its kind to be ordered with this directive.

The council was prosecuted for the unlawful maiming and removal of a red/black bean scar tree that occurred in 2013 and 2016. The tree, which stood on the corner of Breimba and Dovedale streets in Grafton and was a surviving original specimen from the flood plain before white settlement, was a registered culturally modified object under the Aboriginal Site Register.

The council will pay the fine amount of $300,000 to the Grafton Ngerrie Local Aboriginal Land Council which will be applied to remediation actions.

These include a feasibility study to establish a Keeping Place in the Grafton area for Aboriginal cultural heritage items including long-term storage for the scar tree remnants.

It will also provide research funding into local Aboriginal cultural heritage for educational purposes including training of council field staff and senior management.

The money will also be used to establish a permanent exhibition and fund a series of one-day Clarence Valley Healing Festivals to be held in various Clarence Valley Aboriginal communities throughout 2019 and 2020.

The council was also ordered to, at its own expense, publish a notice in several newspapers including The Sydney Morning Herald, Koori Mail and The Daily Examiner and on the council’s website and Facebook pages.

Additional costs include a $48,000 legal bill which will bring the total costs to the council to more than $350,000.

The council was convicted of the offence against s 86(1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 of harming an object that it knew was an Aboriginal object.

The original fine was $400,000 but an early plea of guilty made council eligible for a 25 per cent discount on the penalty. The council potentially faced a penalty of up to $1.1million for its actions.

Council general manager Ashley Lindsay said the council agreed it had done the wrong thing by removing the scar tree and accepted the court’s decision.

“As the mayor and I have said previously, we acknowledge the importance of the scar tree to our Aboriginal community and are deeply sorry for the hurt and sense of loss the removal of the tree has caused,” Mr Lindsay said.

“The tree’s destruction does not represent who we are or who we strive to be as an organisation.

“This council values its connections with the Aboriginal community and I genuinely believe we generally work well together.

“But on this occasion we did the wrong thing and for that we apologise.”

BACKGROUND

Chief Executive, Office of Environment and Heritage v  Clarence Valley Council  [2018] NSWLEC 205 (21 December 2018), excerpt:

A scar tree is harmed

1. Until May 2016, a culturally modified tree stood in Grafton, on the corner of Breimba and Dovedale Streets. The tree was either a Red Bean or Black Bean tree. It had a bifurcated trunk with scarring on two parts of it. The larger scar faced a south westerly direction and was approximately 1.4m tall and 40cm wide. The smaller scar faced a westerly direction and was higher up the trunk.

2. Various reasons for the scarring have been passed down by the knowledge holders to local Aboriginal people. Aboriginal elders have said that the scar tree is culturally significant to the local Gumbaynggirr people and that the scarring was made using a stone axe either as a directional marker directing visitors to nearby Fisher Park, or for ceremonial purposes in connection with other sites in the area, or by someone wanting to make a shield.

3. In 1995, the scar tree was registered as a culturally modified tree on the Aboriginal Site Register. In 2005, the information about the scar tree was transferred from the Aboriginal Site Register to the Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (“AHIMS”) maintained by the Office of Environment and Heritage (“OEH”). The scar tree was thereby identified as an Aboriginal object for the purposes of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (“NPW Act”). Under s 86(1) of the NPW Act, it is an offence for a person to harm or desecrate an object that the person knows is an Aboriginal object.

4. The local government authority for Grafton and the Clarence Valley,  Clarence Valley Council  (“the Council”), lopped the crown of the scar tree in July 2013. The Council was issued with and paid a penalty notice for harming an Aboriginal object, in breach of s 86(2) of the NPW Act.

5. The lopping of the scar tree exacerbated the decline in the health of the tree. In 2015, the Council included the scar tree on the Council’s annual stump grinding list for removal of the tree. On 19 May 2016, the Council completely removed the scar tree. The scar tree was cut into four pieces, including a cut through the lower scar. Remnants of the scar tree were taken to the Council’s nursery in Grafton. On 20 May 2016, the Council realised what it had done and self-reported to the OEH that, in completely removing the scar tree, it had harmed an Aboriginal object in breach of s 86(1) of NPW Act.

6. On 27 May 2016, the OEH after an investigation of the offence, seized the remnants of the scar tree pursuant to s 156B(4) of the NPW Act. On 9 June 2016, the remnants of the scar tree were relocated to the National Parks and Wildlife Service’s premises at South Grafton, where they remain today.

Full judgment is here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perth Now, 30 December 2018:

Four months after losing the leadership spill he instigated, Peter Dutton has broken his silence in an extraordinary spray at Malcolm Turnbull.

Calling the deposed prime minister spiteful and indecisive, the Home Affairs Minister told Brisbane's The Sunday Mail that Mr Turnbull had brought about his own downfall through his lack of political nous.

"Malcolm had a plan to become Prime Minister but no plan to be Prime Minister," was Mr Dutton's damning evaluation.

He also criticised the former leader for actions he saw as undermining the Morrison government.

"I am the first to defend the legacy of the Turnbull government. Malcolm was strong on economic management, borders and national security, but Malcolm will trash his own legacy if he believes his position is strengthened by seeing us lose under Scott (Morrison),'' Mr Dutton said.

He excoriated Mr Turnbull for not supporting the Liberal Party's candidate in his old seat of Wentworth.

"Walking away from (his seat of) Wentworth and not working to have (Liberal Wentworth candidate) Dave Sharma elected was worse than any behaviour we saw even under (former Labor prime minister Kevin) Rudd."

Stating emphatically that he wasn't a stalking horse for former leader Tony Abbott or a right wing "Bible basher", Mr Dutton said Mr Turnbull's poor management had lost the Libs 15 seats in the 2016 election, leaving the government "with a one-seat majority which just made the parliament unmanageable. We were paralysed.".....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unanswered questions at the start of 2019. 

The last federal general election was on 2 July 2016. A year later and the Federal Liberal Party was still $3,711,956 in debt. 

Has the party managed to pay down this debt and how much money have they received as political donations since 1 July 2017?

One might safely assume that sacked prime minister Malcolm Bligh Turnbull will not be personally donating $1,750,000 to the Liberal Party this time around and one wonders if the banks were as generous with their donations once the Royal Commission began requesting their presence at public hearings.

This is the last available donor list. Will the corporations on this list still back the Liberal Party so strongly? 

List of donors to the Liber... by on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/396376025/List-of-donors-to-the-Liberal-Party-of-Australia-Federal-2016-17