Australian PM advertises his new 'star' sign

No, it isn’t Aries, Taurus, Gemini, Cancer, Leo,Virgo, Libra, Scorpio, Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius or even Pisces. It’s Prat(t)* and he proudly puts it on display during one of his latest attempts to ape Donald Trump.

* prat noun informal an incompetent or stupid person; an idiot; a person's buttocks

Murray-Darling Basin's historical maladministration continues

The Guardian, 13 February 2019:

Water flows at key environmental sites in the Murray-Darling Basin are unimproved or worse than before the basin plan was implemented, a scientific report has found, raising serious questions about where the $8.5bn of environmental water purchased by taxpayers is going.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, a group of eminent environmental scientists formed a decade ago to advocate for the river system, have looked at two key sites which they identified when the plan was put in place in 2010.

They have found that environmental flows are not meeting the government’s own objectives for improving the health of the river at these sites.

At one site flows have actually declined, compared to pre-plan days.

The work, the first time anyone – including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority – has tried to look in detail at progress against the plan’s own environmental objectives, paints a worrying picture of whether the plan is working.

In coming up with the environmental water recovery targets in the plan, the federal government identified 122 indicator sites – sites that needed more flows to ensure biodiversity was preserved or restored.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 February 2019:

An unsolicited modification of licences for irrigators on the Macquarie River has allowed water earmarked for protecting one of the most important wetlands in the Murray-Darling Basin to be diverted for a cotton crop.

Documents obtained by the Herald show farmers were alerted a year ago by the NSW Department of Industry's water division to changes of the conditions on their unregulated water licences. That prompted the Office of Environment and Heritage to seek to nullify the changes' impact.

One stakeholder, who declined to be named, said he "sat here in shock" when the letter from the water department arrived. "It was like a gift from heaven."

The change effectively gave permission for the licence holders to extract environmental water flows even though they had been paid for by taxpayers in both NSW and the Commonwealth.

Enabled by the new rules, Michael Egan, owner of the Kiameron farm near the eastern side of the marches, alerted agencies of his plans to pump environmental flows even as the drought across the region intensified.

Between September 9 and October 5 last year, the farm extracted about 600 million litres of a 10 billion-litre flow headed for the marshes, assisting the irrigation of his cotton crop.

"When it's in an unregulated part of the system, [the agencies] lose control of the water," Mr Egan told the Herald. "I'm just running with the rules."

The Commonwealth Environmental Water Office said "most of the flow was protected from pumping by licence conditions". Still, the agency was continuing to work with NSW agencies "to address anomalies in the licencing framework and improve the protection of environmental flows".

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority said it had alerted the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) to investigate the matter after "satellite monitoring of environmental water picked up images of water being diverted".

It said amendments to NSW's Water Management Act would "allow environmental water to be left in stream for environmental purposes".

A former water compliance officer said, "That's not an anomaly; that's maladministration. How do you get environmental water to grow a cotton crop?"

Guess that big empty bus and other faux election campaign antics weren’t as effective as Scott Morrison had hoped

Channel 9 News, 16 February 2019:

The Morrison Government is losing support in Queensland in the latest spell of bad news for the Prime Minister.

The latest YouGov Galaxy poll shows that the Prime Minister has lost crucial support in the Sunshine State, often seen as a key election battleground….

The slump comes despite Mr Morrison visiting farmers devastated by the recent floods, promising to rebuild the cattle industry…..

There are only four more sitting days remain until the budget is handed down, and just seven more until the most likely date when the election will be called.

Galaxy poll published 16 February 2019:

Queensland Primary Vote – L/NP 35 (-2) to ALP 34 (unchanged)

Queensland Two-PartyPreferred (TPP) – L/NP 48% (-2) to ALP 52% (+2)

So why is the Morrison Government and Australian mainstream media shouting about asylum seekers?

The Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 colloquially known as the Medivac Bill was passed by both Houses of the Australian Parliament on 13 February 2019.

This bill was originally intended to amend; “the Migration Act 1958 to: provide that, when an unlawful non-citizen is in the process of being removed to another country and the removal is aborted, or is completed but the person is not permitted entry into the receiving country, and as a direct result the person is returned to Australia, then that person has a lawful basis to return to Australia without a visa; provide that, when such a person does return to Australia without a visa, the person will be taken to have been continuously in the migration zone for the purposes of certain sections of the Act which bar the person from making a valid application for certain visas; and allow the department to use an online account to provide clients with certain legally required communications; Customs Act 1901 to: allow the department to make a recoverable payment to a person who is entitled to it; and make technical amendments; and Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978 to insert a new head of power so that regulations can prescribe the charging and recovery of fees for, and in relation to, the payment of passenger movement charge or an amount equal to the charge.”

Labor, the Greens and a cluster from cross benches successfully voted to significantly amend this bill by adding clauses so that persons held in off-shore detention at Manus Island and Nauru could more easily be transferred to Australia for medical treatment in a hospital or as an out-patient while being held in an on-shore detention facility.

This new addition to migration law will only apply to detainees on Manus and Nauru. As of 3 February 2019 there are around 420 people in Nauru, just under 600 in PNG and just over 1,000 in total, with 4 children on Nauru due to depart soon [for] the US.

The relevant minister retains the ability to block medical transfer of detainees to mainland Australia on the grounds of national security or on the basis of past criminal history.

Excerpts from SCHEDULE OF THEAMENDMENTS MADE BY THE HOUSE TO AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE SENATE:

“(2A) The Minister must make a decision under subsection (2):

(a) as soon as practicable after being notified; and

(b) no later than 72 hours after being notified….

(3) The Minister must approve the person’s transfer to Australia unless:

(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the transfer of the person to Australia would be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979, including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act; or

(b) the Minister knows that the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection 501(7) as in force at the commencement of this section) and the Minister reasonably believes the person would expose the Australian community to a serious risk of criminal conduct.

(3A) Within 72 hours of the Minister being notified under subsection (1), ASIO should advise the Minister if the transfer of the person to Australia may be prejudicial to security within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (including because an adverse security assessment in respect of the person is in force under that Act) and if that threat cannot be mitigated….

(5) If the Minister does not make a decision under subsection (2) within the time required by subsection (2A), the Minister is, at the end of the time, taken to have approved the person’s transfer under subsection (2).”

How did this hijacking of a government bill come about?

The New Daily explained it in simple terms on 15 February 2019:

The government has lost control of the numbers in both chambers of the parliament, making it possible for an alliance of Labor, the Greens and like-minded crossbenchers to radically change legislation originally proposed by the government and then pass it into law.

This has resulted in the bizarre scenario where parliament can create laws that the government of the day opposes, such as the ‘medevac bill’.

The medevac bill was created when such an alliance hijacked a government bill in the Senate late last year that was intended to make minor adjustments to border protection laws.

They tacked onto this legislation all the elements of a private member’s bill proposed by new independent MP Kerryn Phelps, that would make it possible for the medical evacuation of offshore detainees to occur.

Embedding the Phelps bill into the government’s bill made it easier for the legislation to make its way quickly through the parliament, because government business is usually given priority over private member’s bills.

The alliance ensured that the medevac bill passed the Senate during the final week of parliament last year, but the government shut down the House of Representatives before the bill could get there for the vote that would turn it into law.

Despite this, the Coalition was defeated in a lower house vote on the legislation this week and the medevac bill became law against the government’s wishes.

The last time an Australian government lost a major vote like this, it conceded the loss was a sign that the parliament had ‘lost confidence’ in the government and called an election.

Mr Morrison has declined to take the same route.

So why are Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton screaming that the sky will now fall and Australia will be inundated with asylum seekers arriving from both Manus and Nauru and by boat from Indonesia?

The shorter answer is that a federal election will occur sometime after 2 April 2019 up to 18 May 2019 and, with voter support for the current Liberal-Nationals Coalition being low, Morrison and Dutton are looking for a scare campaign they believe will resonate across the national electorate.

When one unpacks their argument it is rather illogical.

First of all, off-shore detainees have always been able to come to Australia for medical treatment although the relevant minister also had wide veto powers and often exercised that power.

Secondly, these amendments only apply to the est. 1,000 asylum seekers remaining on Manus Island and Nauru.

Thirdly, Australia has continued to turn back people smuggling boats since 2001 – a boat was reportedly turned back in July 2018.

Finally, although boat arrivals have decreased over the years the number of asylum seekers arriving in Australia has not consistently fallen. Even in 2015 asylum seekers arriving by air on a valid visa outnumbered those arriving by boat.

The total number of onshore asylum claims for all nationalities soared 225 per cent from 8,587 in 2014-15 to 27,931 in 2017-18 with Chinese nationals making up a third of all claims over that period. By June 2018; The Home Affairs Department website shows 27,931 protection visa applications were made in the latest financial year by plane arrivals and 64,362 protection visa applications have been made by unvetted individuals who have arrived by plane while Scott Morrison and Peter Dutton were the relevant ministers.

From 2014 to 2015 a total of 160 asylum seekers arrived by boat, since then people recorded as arriving by boat have fallen to single digits.

The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government has always bragged about "stopping the boats" but stays silent on the fact that asylum seekers are still coming to Australia by air rather than by sea and, they are coming in increasing numbers.

These particular asylum seekers don't give a damn about the Medivac Bill.

The Big Bat & Wildlife Festival, 23 February 2019, Noon till Sunset at Maclean Showground, Cameron St, Maclean NSW

Will the House and the Senate manage to roll back that infamous $487 million grant to a greenwashing charity, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation

Last year mainstream media reported that Australian Prime Minister & Liberal MP for Wentworth Malcolm Turnbull (former director Goldman Sachs), Minister for Environment and Energy & Liberal MP for Kooyong Josh Frydenberg (former director Deutsche Bank Australia) and Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation & Member of the Business Council of Australia John Schubert (former chair Commonwealth Bank) met on 9 April 2018 to discuss the allocation of a grant valued at in excess of AU$487.6 million to the foundation.

The grant had not been advertised or put to tender.

It was further reported that Great Barrier Reef scientists were told they would need to make “trade-offs” to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, including focusing on projects that would look good for the government and encourage more corporate donations, emails tabled in the Senate reveal.

A Senate report of the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program has just been published here.

The question now is will the Senate and the House bring on a vote to reverse this grant?

The Guardian, 14 February 2019:

The Senate committee looking at the Great Barrier Reef Foundation $444 million grant has handed down it’s report.

From Peter Whish-Wilson:

The Senate Environment & Communications References Committee inquiry report into the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program was tabled today by the Chair of the inquiry, Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

Senator Whish-Wilson said, “This was the Senate at its best, acting swiftly and working cooperatively to scrutinise, in full, government policy of significant public importance.

“This grant was a desperate attempt to cover up this Government’s legacy of reef mismanagement, years of chronic underfunding and disregard for climate change, in the context of an imminent World Heritage ‘in danger’ listing.

“It was clearly a political decision made with no consultation, due diligence or regard for proper process.

“It’s a textbook case of how not to implement public policy, and a perfect example of why we shouldn’t trust the future of a dying reef to a government intent on outsourcing public policy.

“This report and its recommendations are a good opportunity to press reset and build the best blueprint for future reef management, in full consultation with all stakeholders.

Some of the conclusions from the Committee were:

 “The granting of $444 million to the Reef Foundation was a highly irresponsible decision, hastily concocted by relevant ministers, without proper consideration of risks and potential effectiveness, no consultation with key stakeholders, and without having undertaken due diligence.”

 “This ‘off-the-cuff’ decision has caused massive disruption to existing policy and program delivery, including by existing government agencies. It has all the hallmarks of a government that is not properly managing its responsibility as the guardian of the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef.”

 “There were widespread concerns about “whether the Foundation was the right organisation to manage such a significant investment,” including “the Foundation’s ability to handle such a rapid increase in size and responsibilities, the high cost of administration, and the duplication and governance complexities the Partnership introduces.”

 “The most appropriate action for the Commonwealth to take is to terminate the Foundation Partnership. The committee believes this is necessary to help restore trust in the process of Commonwealth funding for the Reef, if not the entire Commonwealth grants process. The committee also considers that this is necessary to ensure that Commonwealth funding is spent in the best possible way to help protect and preserve the world’s largest coral reef system.”

And the recommendations:

o   That all unspent Foundation Partnership funds be returned to the Commonwealth immediately; and that these funds be earmarked for expenditure on projects to protect and preserve the Reef, to be expended by 30 June 2024.

o   That a review, to be completed by 1 July 2019, be undertaken of the structure of Commonwealth funding to protect and preserve the Reef; the committee further recommends that the expenditure of unspent Foundation Partnership funds be guided by the outcome of this review.

o   That the Australian and Queensland Governments publish an updated Reef 2050 Plan Investment Framework that provides current figures on established funding by source and priority area.

o   Should a future Government decide to maintain the Foundation Agreement, the committee recommends that all necessary steps be undertaken to ensure that the Foundation’s investment of public funds precludes investment in sectors or funds that directly or indirectly contribute to climate change, particularly companies that generate energy from or undertake mining of fossil fuels.

o   Should a future Government decide to maintain the Foundation Agreement, the committee recommends that the Senate order: That — (a) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, by no later than 31 October each year; (i) an annual performance statement for the previous financial year that provides information about the Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s performance in achieving the purposes of the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program; and; (ii) independent and audited financial statements for the previous financial year for all receipts and payments relating to the Great Barrier Reef 2050 Partnership Program funds, including any co financed contributions; (b) If the Senate is not sitting when a statement is ready for presentation, the statement is to be presented to the President under standing order 166; (c) This order has effect until the end of the last financial year in which the Agreement is operative, following the cessation of the Partnership.

o   Should a future government decide to maintain the Foundation Agreement, that the Auditor-General undertake a second audit of the Partnership in late 2019–20 once the final design aspects of the Partnership have been finalised.

o   That the Australian Government take steps to address and effectively tackle climate change as an underlying cause of economic, social and environmental damage to the Reef and the Australian environment more broadly.

BACKGROUND

See:
https://northcoastvoices.blogspot.com/search?q=the+Great+Barrier+Reef+Foundation&max-results=20&by-date=true

Political Cartoons of the Week

David Pope

Cathy Wilcox