Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gleeson. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gleeson. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday 23 July 2017

Aboriginal Australia seeks more than the symbolic recognition of first peoples status on offer from the Liberal-Nationals Federal Government


“The Australian story began long before the arrival of the First Fleet on 26 January 1788. We Australians all know this. We have always known this.”


Recommendations

The Council recommends:
  1. That a referendum be held to provide in the Australian Constitution for a representative body that gives Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Nations a Voice to the Commonwealth Parliament. One of the specific functions of such a body, to be set out in legislation outside the Constitution, should include the function of monitoring the use of the heads of power in section 51 (xxvi) and section 122. The body will recognise the status of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the first peoples of Australia.
It will be for the Parliament to consider what further definition is required before the proposal is in a form appropriate to be put to a referendum. In that respect, the Council draws attention to the Guiding Principles that emerged from the National Constitutional Convention at Uluru on 23–26 May 2017 and advises that the support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, in terms of both process and outcome, will be necessary for the success of a referendum.

In consequence of the First Nations Regional Dialogues, the Council is of the view that the only option for a referendum proposal that accords with the wishes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is that which has been described as providing, in the Constitution, for a Voice to Parliament.

In principle, the establishment by the Constitution of a body to be a Voice for First Peoples, with the structure and functions of the body to be defined by Parliament, may be seen as an appropriate form of recognition, of both substantive and symbolic value, of the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australian history and in contemporary Australian society.

The Council recommends this option, understanding that finalizing a proposal will involve further consultation, including steps of the kind envisaged in the Guiding Principles adopted at the Uluru Convention.

The Council further recommends:
  1. That an extra-constitutional Declaration of Recognition be enacted by legislation passed by all Australian Parliaments, ideally on the same day, to articulate a symbolic statement of recognition to unify Australians.
A Declaration of Recognition should be developed, containing inspiring and unifying words articulating Australia’s shared history, heritage and aspirations. The Declaration should bring together the three parts of our Australian story: our ancient First Peoples’ heritage and culture, our British institutions, and our multicultural unity. It should be legislated by all Australian Parliaments, on the same day, either in the lead up to or on the same day as the referendum establishing the First Peoples’ Voice to Parliament, as an expression of national unity and reconciliation.

In addition, the Council reports that there are two matters of great importance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, as articulated in the Uluru Statement from the Heart, that can be addressed outside the Constitution. The Uluru Statement called for the establishment of a Makarrata Commission with the function of supervising agreement-making and facilitating a process of local and regional truth telling. The Council recognises that this is a legislative initiative for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to pursue with government. The Council is not in a position to make a specific recommendation on this because it does not fall within our terms of reference. However, we draw attention to this proposal and note that various state governments are engaged in agreement-making.


Pat Anderson AO
Mark Leibler AC
Megan Davis
Andrew Demetriou
Natasha Stott Despoja AM
Murray Gleeson AC
Tanya Hosch
Kristina Keneally
Jane McAloon
Noel Pearson
Michael Rose AM
Amanda Vanstone
Dalassa Yorkston
Galarrwuy Yunupingu AM

The Australian, 18 July 2017:

Two indigenous Labor MPs have expressed doubts about the Referendum Council’s proposal for indigenous constitutional recognition, saying the councils’ final report, delivered yesterday, does not provide a clear line of sight to constitutional change.

Malcolm Turnbull yesterday cautiously backed what he called “a very big new idea” put forward by the Referendum Council he and Bill Shorten appointed 18 months ago, namely their sole recommendation of a special indigenous advisory body to the parliament.

But WA Labor Senator Pat Dodson said the recommendation had surprised some people, while NSW Labor MP Linda Burney said the sole recommendation was “limiting”, and most Australians would be “shocked” to learn that it has ruled out addressing race powers in the constitution.

Prime Minister Turnbull yesterday promised to consider the Referendum Council’s proposal, but indicated he was cautious about putting it to a national vote.

“We do not want to embark in some sort of exercise of heroic failure. I have some experience in trying to change the constitution and know better than most how hard it is.”

Senator Dodson said he wasn’t sure that progress is being made on the recognition of indigenous Australians.

“Unfortunately I think we’re going in circles a bit at the moment,” he told 7.30.

“I don’t think we’ve got a clear line of sight as to where any constitutional change whether it’s going to take place or not. Certainly on our side of politics we’re open to that. I’m not sure whether the government side is quite open as we are to the proposition.”

UNSW Dean of Law George Williams said a strong process would be needed to convince the Australian electorate that the Referendum Council’s proposal is worth voting for.

The Guardian, 18 July 2017:

These powers, s.51xxvi, were inserted into the constitution as part of the 1967 referendum and give the commonwealth power to make laws for “the people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”.

That allowed for the construction of laws such as native title and Aboriginal heritage laws but it also allowed the federal government to make discriminatory laws.
Burney said while the idea of an Indigenous voice to parliament was huge and important, it was limiting to consider it as the only option.

“I think that is very limiting,” Burney told the ABC. “I think that is more of a minimal approach when ... they don’t want us to address the issues of the race powers and recognition of first peoples in the constitution.

“I think the Australian community would be shocked to think that we are not going to deal with the archaic race powers in the constitution but that is what the Referendum Council is instructing the parliament.”

Burney underlined that it was unclear what the Indigenous voice would do, its structure or how people would be elected. 

She said the Coalition and Labor needed to consider the report. Labor’s Indigenous caucus meets on Wednesday. She warned that any idea needed to be passed in the parliament and the idea of enshrining a national body would be a “challenge for some people”.

Sky News, 20 July 2017:

Indigenous Liberal MP Ken Wyatt has expressed disappointment at the decision to abandon the push for constitutional recognition, saying the timeline for a referendum has now been pushed back to beyond this term of government.

Notes

(xxvi)  the people of any race , other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws;

Government of territories
                   The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

Thursday 9 December 2010

Gillard receives a blunt open letter for Christmas


From ABC online The DrumUnleashed on 7 December 2010:

The authors write: We wrote the letter below because we believe that Julian Assange is entitled to all the protections enshrined in the rule of law – and that the Australian Government has an obligation to ensure he receives them.
The signatures here have been collected in the course of a day-and-a-half, primarily from people in publishing, law and politics. The signatories hold divergent views about WikiLeaks and its operations. But they are united in a determination to see Mr Assange treated fairly.
We know that many others would have liked to sign. But given the urgency of the situation, we though it expedient to publish now rather than collect more names.
If, however, you agree with the sentiments expressed, we encourage you to leave your name in the comments section
.


Dear Prime Minister,

We note with concern the increasingly violent rhetoric directed towards Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.

“We should treat Mr Assange the same way as other high-value terrorist targets: Kill him,” writes conservative columnist Jeffrey T Kuhner in the Washington Times.

William Kristol, former chief of staff to vice president Dan Quayle, asks, “Why can’t we use our various assets to harass, snatch or neutralize Julian Assange and his collaborators, wherever they are?”

“Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?” writes the prominent US pundit Jonah Goldberg.

“The CIA should have already killed Julian Assange,” says John Hawkins on the Right Wing News site.

Sarah Palin, a likely presidential candidate, compares Assange to an Al Qaeda leader; Rick Santorum, former Pennsylvania senator and potential presidential contender, accuses Assange of “terrorism”.

And so on and so forth.

Such calls cannot be dismissed as bluster. Over the last decade, we have seen the normalisation of extrajudicial measures once unthinkable, from ‘extraordinary rendition’ (kidnapping) to ‘enhanced interrogation’ (torture).

In that context, we now have grave concerns for Mr Assange’s wellbeing.

Irrespective of the political controversies surrounding WikiLeaks, Mr Assange remains entitled to conduct his affairs in safety, and to receive procedural fairness in any legal proceedings against him.

As is well known, Mr Assange is an Australian citizen.

We therefore call upon you to condemn, on behalf of the Australian Government, calls for physical harm to be inflicted upon Mr Assange, and to state publicly that you will ensure Mr Assange receives the rights and protections to which he is entitled, irrespective of whether the unlawful threats against him come from individuals or states.

We urge you to confirm publicly Australia’s commitment to freedom of political communication; to refrain from cancelling Mr Assange's passport, in the absence of clear proof that such a step is warranted; to provide assistance and advocacy to Mr Assange; and do everything in your power to ensure that any legal proceedings taken against him comply fully with the principles of law and procedural fairness.

A statement by you to this effect should not be controversial – it is a simple commitment to democratic principles and the rule of law.

We believe this case represents something of a watershed, with implications that extend beyond Mr Assange and WikiLeaks. In many parts of the globe, death threats routinely silence those who would publish or disseminate controversial material. If these incitements to violence against Mr Assange, a recipient of Amnesty International’s Media Award, are allowed to stand, a disturbing new precedent will have been established in the English-speaking world.

In this crucial time, a strong statement by you and your Government can make an important difference.

We look forward to your response.

Dr Jeff Sparrow, author and editor
Lizzie O’Shea, Social Justice Lawyer, Maurice Blackburn
Professor Noam Chomsky, writer and academic
Antony Loewenstein, journalist and author
Mungo MacCallum, journalist and writer
Professor Peter Singer, author and academic
Adam Bandt, MP
Senator Bob Brown
Senator Scott Ludlam
Julian Burnside QC, barrister
Jeff Lawrence, Secretary, Australian Council of Trade Unions
Professor Raimond Gaita, author and academic
Rob Stary, lawyer
Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Lance Collins, Australian Intelligence Corps, writer
The Hon Alastair Nicholson AO RFD QC
Brian Walters SC, barrister
Professor Larissa Behrendt, academic
Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, academic, Sydney Peace Foundation
Mary Kostakidis, Chair, Sydney Peace Foundation
Professor Wendy Bacon, journalist
Christos Tsiolkas, author
James Bradley, author and journalist
Julian Morrow, comedian and television producer
Louise Swinn, publisher
Helen Garner, novelist
Professor Dennis Altman, writer and academic
Dr Leslie Cannold, author, ethicist, commentator
John Birmingham, writer
Guy Rundle, writer
Alex Miller, writer
Sophie Cunningham, editor and author
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Professor Judith Brett, author and academic
Stephen Keim SC, President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights
Phil Lynch, Executive Director, Human Rights Law Resource Centre
Sylvia Hale, MLC
Sophie Black, editor
David Ritter, lawyer and historian
Dr Scott Burchill, writer and academic
Dr Mark Davis, author and academic
Henry Rosenbloom, publisher
Ben Naparstek, editor
Chris Feik, editor
Louise Swinn, publisher
Stephen Warne, barrister
Dr John Dwyer QC
Hilary McPhee, writer, publisher
Joan Dwyer OAM
Greg Barns, barrister
James Button, journalist
Owen Richardson, critic
Michelle Griffin, editor
John Timlin, literary Agent & producer
Ann Cunningham, lawyer and publisher
Alison Croggon, author, critic
Daniel Keene, playwright
Dr Nick Shimmin, editor/writer
Bill O'Shea, lawyer, former President, Law Institute of Victoria
Dianne Otto, Professor of Law, Melbourne Law School
Professor Frank Hutchinson,Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney
Anthony Georgeff, editor
Max Gillies, actor
Shane Maloney, writer
Louis Armand, author and publisher
Jenna Price, academic and journalist
Tanja Kovac, National Cooordinator EMILY's List Australia
Dr Russell Grigg, academic
Dr Justin Clemens, writer and academic
Susan Morairty, Lawyer
David Hirsch, Barrister
Cr Anne O’Shea
Kathryn Crosby, Candidates Online
Dr Robert Sparrow, academic
Jennifer Mills, author
Foong Ling Kong, editor
Tim Norton, Online Campaigns Co-ordinator, Oxfam Australia
Elisabeth Wynhausen, writer
Ben Slade, Lawyer
Nikki Anderson, publisher
Dan Cass
Professor Diane Bell, author and academic
Dr Philipa Rothfield, academic
Gary Cazalet, academic
Dr David Coady, academic
Dr Matthew Sharpe, writer and academic
Dr Tamas Pataki, writer and academic
Miska Mandic
Associate Professor Jake Lynch, academic
Professor Simon During, academic
Michael Brull, writer
Dr Geoff Boucher, academic
Jacinda Woodhead, writer and editor
Dr Rjurik Davidson, writer and editor
Mic Looby, writer
Jane Gleeson-White, writer and editor
Alex Skutenko, editor
Associate Professor John Collins, academic
Professor Philip Pettit, academic
Dr Christopher Scanlon, writer and academic
Dr Lawrie Zion, journalist
Johannes Jakob, editor
Sunili Govinnage, lawyer
Michael Bates, lawyer
Bridget Maidment, editor
Bryce Ives, theatre director
Sarah Darmody, writer
Jill Sparrow, writer
Lyn Bender, psychologist
Meredith Rose, editor
Dr Ellie Rennie, President, Engage Media
Ryan Paine, editor
Simon Cooper, editor
Chris Haan, lawyer
Carmela Baranowska, journalist.
Clinton Ellicott, publisher
Dr Charles Richardson, writer and academic
Phillip Frazer, publisher
Geoff Lemon, journalist
Jaya Savige, poet and editor
Johannes Jakob, editor
Kate Bree Geyer; journalist
Chay-Ya Clancy, performer
Lisa Greenaway, editor, writer
Chris Kennett - screenwriter, journalist
Kasey Edwards, author
Dr. Janine Little, academic
Dr Andrew Milner, writer and academic
Patricia Cornelius, writer
Elisa Berg, publisher
Lily Keil, editor
Jenny Sinclair
Roselina Rose
Stephen Luntz
PM Newton
Bryan Cooke
Kristen Obaid
Ryan Haldane-Underwood
Patrick Gardner
Robert Sinnerbrink
Kathryn Millist
Anne Coombs
Karen Pickering
Sarah Mizrahi
Suzanne Ingleton
Jessica Crouch
Michael Ingleton
Matt Griffin
Jane Allen
Tom Curtis
John Connell
David Garland
Stuart Hall
Meredith Tucker-Evans
Phil Perkins
Alexandra Adsett
Tom Doig, editor
Beth Jackson
Peter Mattessi
Robert Sinnerbrink
Greg Black
Paul Ashton
Sigi Jottkandt
Kym Connell, lawyer
Silma Ihram
Nicole Papaleo, lawyer
Melissa Forbes
Matthew Ryan
Ben Gook
Daniel East
Bridget Ikin
Lisa O'Connell
Melissa Cranenburgh
John Bryson
Michael Farrell
Melissa Reeves
Dr Emma Cox
Michael Green
Margherita Tracanelli
David Carlin, writer
Bridget McDonnell
Geoff Page, writer
Rebecca Interdonato
Roxane Ludbrook-Ingleton
Stefan Caramia
Ash Plummer


UPDATE:

The Independant on 8 December 2010 - Informal discussions have already taken place between US and Swedish officials over the possibility of the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being delivered into American custody, according to diplomatic sources.
Mr Assange is in a British jail awaiting extradition proceedings to Sweden after being refused bail at Westminster Magistrates’ Court despite a number of prominent public figures offering to stand as surety.
His arrest in north London yesterday was described by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates as “good news”, and may pave the way for extradition to America and a possible lengthy jail sentence.

Thursday 25 June 2020

When a powerful 77 year-old legal figure is finally revealed as a serial sexual harasser in the workplace


The Sydney Morning Herald,  22 June 2020:

Justice Dyson Heydon arrives at the Royal Commission into trade unions in 2015 in Sydney,CREDIT: BEN RUSHTON



Former High Court Justice Dyson Heydon, one of the nation’s pre-eminent legal minds, sexually harassed six young female associates, an independent inquiry by the court has found.
Herald investigation has also uncovered further allegations from senior legal figures of predatory behaviour by Mr Heydon, including a judge who claims that he indecently assaulted her. The women claim that Mr Heydon’s status as one of the most powerful men in the country protected him from being held to account for his actions.
The High Court inquiry was prompted by two of the judge’s former associates notifying the Chief Justice Susan Kiefel in March 2019 that they had been sexually harassed by Mr Heydon.
“We are ashamed that this could have happened at the High Court of Australia,” said Chief Justice Kiefel in a statement. She confirmed that the lengthy investigation found that “the Honourable Dyson Heydon, AC, QC” harassed six former staff members.

“The findings are of extreme concern to me, my fellow justices, our chief executive and the staff of the court,” said the Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Kiefel has personally apologised to the six women, five of them Mr Heydon’s associates, saying “their accounts of their experiences at the time have been believed”.
Dyson Heydon was on the High Court bench from 2003-13 and in 2014 was appointed by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott to run the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption.
Mr Heydon denied the claims via his lawyers Speed and Stracey who issued a statement.....
“Dyson Heydon was one of the most powerful men in the country,” said Josh Bornstein, the women’s lawyer and a principal with law firm Maurice Blackburn in Melbourne. “As the independent investigation makes clear, he is also a sex pest. At the same time he was dispensing justice in the highest court in Australia’s legal system, he was [engaged in] sexual harassment.”
Vivienne Thom, the former Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, interviewed a dozen witnesses, including five former associates. Dr Thom’s report found that the evidence “demonstrates a tendency by Mr Heydon to engage in a pattern of conduct of sexual harassment” which included unwelcome touching, attempting to kiss the women and taking them into his bedroom.
Herald investigation can reveal that Mr Heydon’s predatory behaviour was an “open secret” in legal and judicial circles. Not only did he prey on his young associates during his decade on the High Court until his mandatory retirement at 70 in 2013, other females in the profession suffered at his hands.....
Read the full article here.

The Guardian, 22 June 2020:

“At the time that this sexual harassment occurred, Dyson Heydon was in his 60s, a conservative judge, a prominent Catholic and a married man,” Bornstein said. 

“The women he employed were in their early 20s and often straight out of university. He was one of the most powerful men in the country, who could make or break their future careers in the law. 

Bornstein said there was an “extreme power imbalance” between Heydon and the young women. 

There was no clear avenue for women to complain about such conduct, he said. 

“The fear of his power and influence meant that the women did not feel able to come forward until recently,” he said.

STATEMENT BY THE HON SUSAN MEFEL AC,CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (PDF)
UPDATE 

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June 2020: 

The Herald and The Age can now reveal claims about his behaviour extend to Britain where he is the subject of allegations, including inappropriate touching. 

Following his mandatory retirement from the High Court in 2013 aged 70, Dyson Heydon sought out a teaching position at the prestigious English university, where he had studied on a Rhodes scholarship in 1964. 

His three-year appointment at the Faculty of Law was greeted with excitement within the university, according to documents released under freedom of information laws...... 

Mr Heydon's lectures were scheduled to occur early each year from 2014 to 2016 inclusive. 

However, allegations about his behaviour would cast a dark shadow over Mr Heydon’s tenure. 

"My first introduction to him was that all the Australian law students at Oxford called him 'Dirty Dyson', that seemed to be the moniker he had widely," one former student said. 

One of Mr Heydon’s postgraduate students, whom the Herald and The Age have chosen not to name, was so upset and angry about Mr Heydon’s harassment of her in the Bodleian Library, that she complained to the university. 

The university decided not to renew Mr Heydon’s visiting professorship. In heavily redacted documents released to the Herald and The Age under FOI, the reason for the university's decision was not apparent. 

"The Personnel Committee has already taken a decision that Dyson Heydon should not be renewed," stated Oxford Law Faculty Dean Anne Davies in an email dated June 1, 2016. "We have written to tell him this."

The Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June 2020:

The ACT's Director of Public Prosecutions has recommended the Australian Federal Police investigate former High Court justice Dyson Heydon over allegations of sexual harassment following a damning investigation commissioned by the court.....

The Sydney Morning Herald, 25 June 2020:

Ms Coutts told the investigator she was worried that Justice Heydon "who was then a large and strong man" may try to harass her friend again. 

Ms Coutts told the investigator called in to conduct the independent inquiry, Dr Vivienne Thom, that she informed Justice McHugh of his colleague's alleged behaviour. 

According to the report, Justice McHugh allegedly replied: "Well Sharona, it's not easy to shock me these days but you have just truly shocked me." 

Ms Coutts said the following day, after further discussions with Justice McHugh, that he left the chambers, returning later to tell her: "I've told the Chief. It's his court. He has to deal with this." 

It is not known what steps were taken by then Chief Justice Murray Gleeson about Justice Heydon's behaviour. Mr McHugh declined to participate in the investigation. When contacted by the Herald and The Age, Mr Gleeson, now retired from the bench, said: "I am unwilling to comment". Mr McHugh, also retired from the bench, did not respond to emails and phone messages..... 

A group of the most senior female barristers in NSW have lodged a complaint with the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner, following allegations of sexual harassment and indecent assault against Mr Heydon. The 14 silks took their action following the revelation in the Herald that a High Court investigation found Mr Heydon had sexually harassed six former associates of the court. None of the female barristers making the complaint allege they themselves were the subject of inappropriate behaviour by Mr Heydon. 

The statutory body, which acts as the professional watchdog, has powers to investigate Mr Heydon's alleged misconduct. It can determine whether Mr Heydon is a "fit and proper person" under the official admission rules for the legal profession. It can also take disciplinary action against a barrister, or commence disciplinary proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In the most serious cases, a practitioner can be disbarred. 

Complaints to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner are confidential. 

The move came as the NSW Bar Association president Tim Game SC released a strongly-worded message warning "barristers who engage in sexual harassment can be investigated and disciplined for professional misconduct".

Sunday 14 April 2013

International Court of Justice to hear Australia's case against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean on June 26, 2013

ATTORNEY-GENERAL TO REPRESENT AUSTRALIA 
 IN INTERNATIONAL WHALING CASE AGAINST JAPAN

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC will appear in Australia’s whaling case against Japan which has now been set down for a three week hearing in the International Court of Justice in the Hague from 26 June, 2013.
“I welcome the announcement of the ICJ hearing date. Australia wants this slaughter to end. We will now have our day in court to establish, once and for all, that Japan’s whaling hunt is not for scientific purposes and is against international law,” said Mr Dreyfus.
“The fixing of the date sets up the final stage in this case brought by the Australian Government. The oral hearings are the last phase of legal proceedings before the Court makes its decision.”
Australia commenced the proceedings against Japan on 31 May 2010. The International Court of Justice has received written submissions from both Parties.
Australia’s views on whaling are well known – we condemn all commercial whaling, including Japan’s so-called ‘scientific’ whaling,” said Minister for Environment Tony Burke.
“The Australian Government’s decision to bring this legal action demonstrates our determination to end commercial whaling.”
Minister for Foreign Affairs Bob Carr said Australia’s whaling case did not undermine the relationship between Australia and Japan.
“Australia and Japan have agreed that our differences over whaling will not affect the strong bilateral relationship we share,” said Mr Carr.
“The International Court of Justice is the appropriate forum to resolve these differences in a calm and measured way.”
Counsel appearing in the case with the Attorney-General will include Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC, Bill Campbell QC, Professor James Crawford SC, Professor Philippe Sands QC and Professor Laurence Boisson de Chazournes.
“We hope the Court will deliver its decision on the legality of Japan’s whaling before the start of the next whaling season,” Mr Dreyfus said.
April 12, 2013

ICJ hearing schedule

Thursday 4 September 2014

Beware the Secret State - Part Two


The Secret State is becoming more than a concept in Australia as successive governments spend more and more money on surveillance and give more and more surveillance power to federal and state government departments and agencies.

On 5 August 2014 the Prime Minister announced his intention to further broaden surveillance powers via the mandatory retention by service providers of all telecommunications metadata, in order for government agencies to access information on Australian citizens, permanent residents and visiting tourists. 

Between 1 July and 31 December 2013 just one of Australia’s major telecommunications companies received these requests for data held on its customers:

Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks 36,053
Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls 2,871
Court orders 270
Warrants for interception or access to stored communications 1,450
Total 40,644
Note: These figures do not include requests by national security agencies.

By 30 June 2014 these requests for data held on its customers in the 2013-14 financial year totalled :

Telstra customer information, carriage service records and pre-warrant checks 75,448
Life threatening situations and Triple Zero emergency calls 6,202
Court orders 598
Warrants for interception or access to stored communications 2,701
Total  84,949
Note: These figures do not include requests by national security agencies.

In addition the centralised database of all Australian telephone numbers including the service and directory addresses provided by the customer, the Integrated Public Number Database (IPND), was accessed by agencies approximately 104,000 times (excluding national security agencies) during the 2013-14 financial year.

Those agencies who can access all this metadata with or without a warrant include; federal, state & territory police forces, Customs, CrimTrac, state anti-corruption agencies, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, state & territory corrective services, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Australian Securities & Investment Commission, Australian Taxation Office, Australia Post, Dept of Human Services (including Centrelink, Medicare, Child Support Program), Dept of Veterans’ Affairs, Dept of Immigration and Citizenship, Dept of Defence, State Emergency Services, the RSPCA, local councils – and many more.

That the system is open to possible abuse is evident.

The Global Mail reported on 13 December 2013 that:

In November [2013], Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus admitted his force had accessed the call data of “up to five” members of parliament. Negus made much of the judicial oversight, through the issuing of a warrant, for any interception of the contents of phone calls, emails or SMS messages – but the elephant in the room was his admission that up to five MPs had been the subjects of warrantless data-surveillance, and that no judge had any input at all regarding the propriety of this access….
The extent of use of these powers is surprising – and suggests that it is being used to shirk the hurdle of judicial oversight. No less than 40 government agencies made 293,501 warrantless requests for metadata from internet service providers in the 2011-12 financial year. Just 56,898 of those requests were made by the Federal Police, which has the primary criminal law-enforcement role. The RSPCA, Wyndham City Council, the Tax Practitioners Board and even the Victorian Taxi Directorate also have been allowed to access individual telecommunications data for a ‘law-enforcement purpose’. Why are we giving quangos and a taxi administrator the power to access often highly sensitive personal telecommunications data?

Voters will never know the level of metadata access, with or without a warrant, that has been available to national security agencies in the the last three financial years.

However, they do know that the Abbott Government intends to increase national security agency powers to spy on them, under the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 before the Senate .

The Australian Human Rights Commission stated that it is particularly concerned about the following elements of the bill which are overly broad in their coverage and which potentially impact upon rights to privacy and freedom of expression:
* Provisions enabling warrants for 12 months access to computers, computer networks and premises in the absence of adequate safeguards
* Blanket immunity to ASIO officers from Australian law in conducting surveillance activities with inadequate, independent oversight
* Strict liability for disclosure of information that could capture the work of journalists, among others.

That the Abbott Government intends to use this new legislation to capture journalists' sources can be inferred from this excerpt from a media report in The Sydney Morning Herald on 31 August 2014:

The Australian government has asked the federal police to investigate if lawyer Bernard Collaery and a former spy can be charged with disclosing classified information after revelations Australia spied on East Timor during sensitive oil and gas treaty talks.
Confirmation of the investigation came as the AFP asked the ABC to hand over material relating to its reports on the clandestine operation.
According to sources, the AFP was particularly keen on getting unedited footage of Mr Collaery's interviews with 7.30, Lateline and Four Corners.
It might also want an extract of an affidavit from the former Australian Secret Intelligence Service agent that reporter Conor Duffy claimed to have obtained.
In the interviews with the ABC and other media organisations, Mr Collaery – who had acted for East Timor and the former  ASIS agent – detailed how the former spy led the operation to insert listening devices into the wall cavity of East Timor's government offices under the cover of an aid project.
Attorney-General George Brandis and solicitor-general Justin Gleeson both said the former spy and Mr Collaery appeared to have breached laws preventing the public disclosure of classified information.
The offence carried a prison term of up to two years.
When asked if it was investigating Mr Collaery and the former spy for breaching commonwealth laws, a spokesman for the AFP said: "The AFP can confirm it has received a referral in relation to this matter. As this investigation is ongoing, it is inappropriate to comment further."
The referral was understood to have come from Senator Brandis or his department, which includes ASIO.
In emailed comments, Mr Collaery said he understood ASIO referred the matter to the AFP because of a suspected breach of section 39 of the Intelligence Services Act.
He noted that current ASIO boss David Irvine was head of ASIS at the time of the spying, which Mr Collaery said was illegal.
"This is the police knowingly or unknowingly trying to base a search warrant on an illegality. 
"The AFP should be investigating [former foreign minister Alexander] Downer and Irvine."
The ABC was considering its response but was understood to be prepared to reject the request, despite intimations from the AFP that it would seek a warrant for the material if it failed to comply.
While it was happy to provide footage that went to air (it was available online anyway), it regarded the unedited footage as including off-the-record information that might reveal the identity of protected sources.

Monday 7 November 2016

Two words only - Oh Gawd!



A quick whip around Australian government, mainstream and social media to amuse, bemuse, appal or anger.

TONY ABBOTT ON THE PRIVATE FUNDING TEAT…..




WEIRD MANBABIES BLAMING WOMEN…

Junkee, 1 November 2016:

A pair of Brisbane entrepreneurs have announced an “innovative way to address male related social issues” through the establishment of Australia’s first co-working space exclusive to men. Because if there’s one thing the startup sector needs it’s a blanket ban on women.

Nomadic Thinkers has the backing of six investors and will operate through a “hybridised co-working model with a gym space.” Membership of the space and the gym is open only to men. The founders have acknowledged that the creation of a gender-restricted co-working space “is bound to ruffle some feathers.”

A number of networking events run specifically for women have while in Australia’s notoriously male dominated startup scene and this year the first woman only co-working space was established in Perth. This latest offering is the first time a co-working space has been established to cater specifically to men. The lack of investment in male only working spaces could be down to the fact that currently three in four startups in Australia are founded by men.

The Nomadic Thinkers founders are currently in lease negotiations and the plan is to open up the space in January next year. Initially it will feature just a co-working space, cafe and a gym but “down the road we’re hoping to get a barber and a physio,” Monaghan says.

The startup offers a number of membership packages including “The Bear Grylls” and the “The Musk Have”, named after billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

Monaghan told Junkee that there were “a couple of things that got us to this point.”

“We’d been working in coffee shops and at home and it wasn’t that conducive to working,” Monaghan said. “We both had a mate who ended up in a violent situation with his wife. He pushed his wife over.”

According to Monaghan, domestic violence is an issue that “stems from depression in many cases”.

“Depression and suicide result from a lack of social support and community. Having a space where they [men] can be men is more of a preventative measure,” Monaghan said. “Healthy, happy men don’t hit their wives.”

Professor Marian Baird, the Director of the University of Sydney’s Women and Work Research Group told Junkee that Nomadic Thinkers could be the first workplace overtly designed to be exclusive to men. “I’ve never heard of a workplace being designed deliberately to be male only in a physical sense,” Professor Baird said.

Professor Baird wasn’t convinced by Monaghan’s justification for the exclusive nature of the space. “I don’t think there’s any excuse for domestic violence and I think that is a bit of a cop-out,” she said…..


Written by Matt Paul, he is the Director and Startup Architect at Nomadic Thinkers a hybrid gym and co-working space in Brisbane. We aim to launch men in business and in life. Opening Soon.

The pendulum is shifting in the west. And it is not just push back against the insanity of Cultural Marxists and globalists but in the individual lives of its citizens. While travelling and taking a break from the west is a great idea. Do you really want to let the civilisation your ancestors built decay away? With the BRITEXIT, Trump and rise of the alternative media there is a clear opportunity for revolutionary change. But change requires small steps and individual choices to be enduring. So what can you do?

REJECT TOXIC WOMEN & FIND A QUALITY ONE

A man needs his own house in order before he can influence others. While MGTOW community advocate checking out on marriage and women the reality is that will lead to quality men not reproducing and not raising the next generation. Simply put think of it as a numbers game. If you have kids and you are raising them well. This have a multiplier effect. Your ideas and worldview can be bestowed upon them meaning your vote at elections increases, your wealth production increases and your general well-being can increase. That being said the risk of finding a quality mate is high. With increasing divorce rates and laws such as no-fault divorce and Disney's absolute destruction of what Love and real relationships are with an obsession with infatuation. But they are out there and even in the West. Another way of looking at this is taking a proactive role in leadership in your relationship setting ground rules at the beginning is vital. But how do you get to that point? If you are well versed with ROK and other manosphere blogs the best way you can do this is by increasing your sexual marketplace value SMV, do this via increasing your traits as a provider and protector and increase your desirability making it easier to find a quality woman. Hit the gym…..

ABBOTT SETS OUT FOR THE LODGE ONCE MORE……

News.com.au, 1 November 2016:

Mr Abbott hadn’t dispatched her on a deliberate mission to publicly argue for a job. She was not acting as his surrogate, just as a writer looking for a topic.

But he had approved the use of the contents of a recent conversation in Ms McGregor’s Daily Telegraph column today.

“Abbott believes that only Turnbull can restore their relationship. He is the leader,” she wrote.

“He alone can ensure that Abbott is accorded the status and workload, which befits a former Prime Minister.

“Being pragmatic, Abbott actually believes that the solidarity imposed upon him by cabinet is the best insurance against his being deemed a wrecker.”

In short, he will stop being a nuisance if he gets a bigger desk……

5 MONTHS IN AND SINGING THE CYBER CSAR BLUES……


NO, IT REALLY WAS MELBOURNE CUP DAY THAT TUESDAY,  NOT APRIL FOOL’S…….

The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 November 2016:

The federal government's hopes of passing contested legislation in the Senate have been thrown into chaos following explosive revelations that its most friendly crossbench senator, Family First's Bob Day, may not have been legally elected.

The news could lead to a recount of all South Australian Senate votes from the July 2 election and that in turn could result in the election of another crossbench senator or indeed, one from the opposition - potentially changing the composition.

The bombshell news was delivered on Tuesday afternoon, hours after the embattled senator actually resigned in the wake of the collapse of his housing construction firm.

In a dramatic late-afternoon development, Attorney-General George Brandis released a statement advising that Special Minister of State, Scott Ryan, wrote to Senator Parry last Friday with "certain information concerning the position of Senator Bob Day".

Senator Brandis said the information related to a "potential indirect pecuniary interest" in a contract with the Commonwealth.

Normal practice would see Family First select a replacement candidate, who would be ticked off by South Australia's Parliament before taking their seat in Canberra by the end of the year, or early next year. 

However in an email sent to senators on Tuesday afternoon, Senate president Stephen Parry said he was "considering information which raises difficult constitutional questions relating to the composition of the Senate and I am seeking further advice".

Senator Brandis said the government would refer the matter to the High Court. 

200,000 LAWYERS SPEAKING OUT………

Australian Lawyers Alliance, 26 October 2016:

The Australian Lawyers Alliance (ALA) has today called for the immediate resignation of Federal Attorney-General George Brandis, in light of this week's resignation of Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC.

ALA national president Tony Kenyon said the Attorney-General's actions in recent months were an unacceptable and gross infringement on the independence of the Solicitor-General, with the Attorney-General no longer able to hold the confidence of the profession.

"Justin Gleeson SC is a distinguished lawyer, with an unblemished reputation for integrity. The attempt to interfere with his independence, and his resignation, are both unprecedented in the 100 year history of Australia's Solicitor-General," Mr Kenyon said.

"There is a compelling public interest in having the Solicitor-General as an independent statutory counsel to government.  A core purpose of the position is to provide frank and fearless advice to government.  Senator Brandis' actions flagrantly ignore this, and bring discredit on his position as Attorney-General.”

"His actions, in requiring the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, other Ministers and Departmental heads to seek his permission before obtaining the Solicitor-General's opinion is a particularly gross infringement on the independence of the Solicitor-General," Mr Kenyon said.

"This action follows a similar incident in Queensland under the Newman Government, who similarly forced the resignation of its Solicitor-General, Walter Sofronoff QC.”
"It is of deep concern to the profession that some Attorney-Generals appear to have no regard for important and fundamental safeguards on executive power, such as an independent Solicitor-General," Mr Kenyon said.

Mr Kenyon said that the ALA had joined many across the broader legal profession in expressing dismay this week at the actions of Senator Brandis with respect to the office of the Solicitor-General……

“IT’S NOT ARAB!”SHE CRIES……

SBS News, 28 July 2016:

In 2007 the One Nation leader took part in a DNA test organised by Queensland's Sunday Mail in which a mouth swab of her genetic material found that her "genetic makeup is drawn from a rich multicultural background, with 9 per cent originating in the Middle East, 32 per cent from Italy, Greece or Turkey and 59 per cent from northern Europe."

It's a fact that has given her detractors plenty of glee to re-report over the years - especially when she pronounces her anti- mosque and halal-certification policies that seem to predominantly target Muslims and migrants of Middle Eastern origin.
 
At the time, Hanson remarked that "All I can think of is that probably down the track it eventuated from some war."

"But I'm not going to knock it. It has made me who I am."
She seems to have changed her tune since then though. Watch the video above to see her reaction when she and the other participants of Pauline Hanson: Please Explain! are asked about their origins and where they are from. 

According to the Sunday Mail; Middle Eastern is defined for the test as modern-day Saudi Arabia, Iraq, parts of Iran, Syria and Jordan and the Arab countries of North Africa.

GOING ROGUE……

The Guardian, 2 November 2016:

Australia’s immigration department has been “freezing” the release of documents about asylum seekers at in its offshore detention centre on Nauru, according to a internal email, suggesting it has been deliberately breaching freedom of information laws.

In an email sent by accident to Guardian Australia, an official at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, says there are “risks” to the apparent policy and asks for it to reconsidered.

The Greens’ immigration spokesman, Nick McKim said the emails showed the department had “gone rogue”.

The shadow immigration minister, Shayne Neumann, said it showed the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, was mismanaging his department.

The department said the email was “a misunderstanding”.


We note that our Nauru­-related FOI cases (ie summary incident reports, health data set and several others) continue to be on­ hold pending confirmation from you about when we can proceed to finalise them.
Are you able to please give us an update/indication of when you consider we will be able to proceed?
There are some risks associated with not proceeding these FOI requests.
Rather than freezing the processing of these cases for several more weeks or months, we might be better off releasing the documents sooner, with the Nauru information fully exempted under grounds of international relations. This is something we’d want to discuss with Susan [Mathew] given the concerns previously expressed about such an approach.

Under Australia’s freedom of information laws, strict timeframes are set out for processing requests for information, and there is evidence that the department has exceeded the timeframe for processing a number of requests made by Guardian Australia.

GORGEOUS GEORGE PLAYS SKITTLES……

SENATOR THE HON GEORGE BRANDIS QC
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
LEADER OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SENATE
MEDIA RELEASE

SENATOR ROD CULLETON

Last Saturday, I wrote to the President of the Senate, the Hon Stephen Parry, to draw to his attention an Opinion which I had received from the Solicitor-General concerning the election of Senator Rod Culleton as a Senator for Western Australia. I received the Opinion late on Friday, 28 October 2016. I also provided a copy of the Opinion to Senator Culleton.

The opinion was sought by me on 13 October 2016 in view of issues raised in proceedings commenced in the High Court against Senator Culleton by Mr Bruce Bell.

It appears that the proceedings brought by Mr Bell are based on an allegation that, at the time of the last election, Senator Culleton had been convicted of an offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for one year or longer, and was therefore “incapable of being chosen” as a Senator under section 44(ii) of the Constitution.

The President of the Senate has written to me today to advise that he proposes to bring the matter to the attention of the Senate when it sits on 7 November 2016. At that time, the Government will initiate a referral of the matter to the High Court pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

2 November 2016

EXCEEDING HIS PARLIAMENTARY BRIEF……

ABC News, 1 March 2016:

Liberal senator Cory Bernardi says he has been warned against "freelancing" during his three-month secondment at the United Nations.

Senator Bernardi has told the ABC he put himself forward for the short-term posting and won the ballot run by his fellow Liberal senators.

"I'm looking forward to engaging with the UN committee system, to see from a much closer perspective how it works and maybe how it can be improved," he said.
Senator Bernardi will be joined by Labor senator Lisa Singh on the annual delegation to New York from September.

They will act as parliamentary observers to the UN General Assembly.

The senators will be expected to help Australia's Ambassador at the "pointy end" of the year by attending committee meetings and speaking engagements.

Senator Bernardi said he was aware he would need to stay on script, telling the ABC: "I've already been told there's no freelancing at the UN."

SBS News, 3 November 2016:

Senator Bernardi has openly backed the Republican candidate - the only person he follows on Twitter - while criticising the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
Although he insists he's not a cheerleader for Trump, he told Sky News on Thursday the Republican has a "better chance to fix what's wrong with America".
It follows similar comments on social media and other outlets in recent days.

It's Halloween and sometimes the kids nail it! @realDonaldTrump




WHEN YOU'RE THE WRONG COLOUR ON A MAP......

Is Australia's signature colour really beige and does it suit us?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/big-changes-looming-across-the-world-but-australians-could-be-left-behind/news-story/88297afa677cde2fe9fe52746ad2efc5

QUEENSLAND LABOR SAYS BUGGER THE GREAT BARRIER REEF…….

The Guardian, 2 November 2016:

Powers granted by the Queensland government for Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine are unprecedented for a private commercial development, new findings reveal.
Legal analysis by the Environmental Defenders Office in Queensland provided exclusively to Guardian Australia ahead of its public release on Thursday shows that the broad powers have previously applied only to essential endeavours.

Anthony Lynham, the state minister for natural resources and mines, declared the Carmichael mine and its associated infrastructure a “prescribed project” and “critical infrastructure” on 7 October.

There has been only a handful of critical infrastructure declared since laws enabling it were introduced to the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act in 2006. Most of the five relate to water supply.

Most notably, in 2007, the then infrastructure minister declared parts of the water grid in south-east Queensland critical infrastructure because that region was experiencing unprecedented drought.

Jo-Anne Bragg, chief executive of the Environmental Defenders Office Queensland, said the use of a declaration power “largely designed to protect Queensland from the worsening effects of drought” for the Adani Carmichael combined project was “deeply inappropriate”.

At the time of the declaration Lynham told the Sunday Mail: “This is a critical project. The government is serious about seeing it happen. We have to get jobs happening for central and northern Queensland.”

Under the law governing critical infrastructure, the coordinator general may speed up or progress assessment and, with ministerial consent, step in and take control of any legal decision still required for the project to proceed.

At that point opportunities for the community to interrogate the impacts of the project on groundwater may be limited.

The Queensland courts are also stripped of their usual statutory powers to review and determine the lawfulness of any decisions that might be made by the coordinator general.

Bragg said this meant the critical infrastructure declaration “could be used to potentially short-circuit legal protection for vital groundwater resources”.

“We believe the provision has been wrongly used in its application to the Adani project, and believe this could open the floodgates to all manner of major private developments demanding to be fast-tracked through the assessment process,” she said.

She recommended that the state government revoke both declarations to assure Queenslanders that proper procedure would be followed, and for the State Development Act to be amended to constrain the broad powers of the coordinator general in future.

The Environmental Defenders Office’s analysis found that the Adani coal project was assessed faster than the average time taken for major coordinated projects in Queensland.

KALISCH CHAOS CONTINUES…..

The Sydney Morning Herald, 4 November 2016:

David Kalisch Photo: Andrew Meares

The jobs of more than 150 Australian Bureau of Statistics public servants are to be axed as the cash-strapped bureau struggles to balance its shrinking budget.

Workers at the bureau, which finished the past financial year more than $36 million in the red, were told on Friday morning that management will be looking to get up to 150 employees to accept voluntary redundancies in a process that is to begin immediately.

The job cuts are the latest in a string of bad news stories for the Bureau which is still dealing with the fall-out from August's dramatic Census debacle and ongoing financial strife.

The axe is falling just weeks after Chief Statistician David Kalisch said data collection on foreign ownership of agricultural businesses, industrial disputes, motor vehicle sales, livestock slaughter, and crime offenders and victims, could all stop because of the financial pressures the bureau faced.

The Bureau said the voluntary redundancies are "part of a planned approach to transform its workforce for the future" and confirmed "at least 100 packages" would be offered.

"The voluntary redundancies are necessary as we transition from higher staffing levels required to implement the 2016 Census," a statement said.

AUSTRALIA GOING NUCLEAR?.......

SBS News, 3 November 2016:

Former prime minister Tony Abbott has told a charity dinner in Papua New Guinea that he regrets not buying nuclear submarines for Australia.
"I do regret, though, that my own government did not give more consideration to off-the-shelf nuclear-propelled options - as this might have provided a more capable submarine more quickly," Mr Abbott told an Anglicare dinner in Port Moresby.
"In an uncertain world, where countries look to Australia for help, it would have been good to have these new subs much sooner than the middle of the 2030s."