State of Play 2009: Indigenous Land Corporation

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies has published a 2009 discussion paper on Policy Change and the Indigenous Land Corporation.

According to National Native Title Tribunal Library Services:

Policy change and the Indigenous Land Corporation / Patrick Sullivan

The Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) was established in 1995 by the Keating Government as one element of its three-part response to the Mabo judgment. The first part was the Native Title Act (1993), which validated past grants of land to settlers and set up a process for claiming and registering surviving rights of native title. The second part was the creation of an Indigenous Land Fund, established by successive appropriations over ten years, after which it was to be self-sustaining.The ILC was set up at the same time to receive part of the allocation each year to buy alienated land for Indigenous groups. The third part of the Keating response, a Social Justice Package, was never implemented.

This discussion paper investigates changes in ILC policy from its inaugural period, when land was bought and divested to Indigenous groups rapidly, to the present day, when the ILC controls application procedures more tightly, divests under strict conditions, and augments its income from its own operations and investments. The paper suggests the ILC has shifted its focus from the direct benefit of land ownership towards joint programs with other government agencies for training, education and employment. The paper suggests this policy change has occurred without widespread consultation and communication, which has resulted in the dissatisfaction of Indigenous groups. The paper also discusses ILC finances, finding that it has faced considerable challenges since 2004 when it began funding itself entirely from the earnings of the Land Fund and its own investments.

Full research paper PDF here.

Anyone else just a mite suspicious of the G20's motives?

The G20 has been around since 1999. It's a group of finance ministers and central bank governors. Many of the same ministers and bankers who sat complacently by while the global financial crisis grew into a tsunami which threatens to widen the gap between the developed and developing world, between rich and poor, between those countries with enough resources to buffer against climate change and those that will simply sink into the ocean or blow away on the wind.
One or two of its members countries have also been on record in the past as wanting to sideline the United Nations as an international forum and decision making body.
I think that the dynamic duo, Kev and Wayne from Nambour, need to be careful here because in this group of twenty they will still be mice in bed with at least two elephants - the USA and the European Union.
Even though Australia is now considered a developed country by those heavies participating in setting G20 policy, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank; it's still privately rated as something of a wannabee.
When I look at how things went down at Pittsburgh this month I can't help feeling that what I'm really seeing is the international banking and business world shoring up the status quo and trying to kick the UN off the field.

Pic from Financial Axis

Update:
Mungo MacCallum writing over at Crikey believes that the G20 Pittburgh Summit is a true change in the world economic order:
"It is almost impossible to overstate the significance of the events last week in Pittsburgh.
The acceptance by all the major players of the role of the G20 as a rule maker for the conduct of the financial systems of member nations quite literally ushers in a new world economic order.
And this is not some kind of Orwellian nightmare in which a conspiracy of plutocrats (or Jews, or Masons, or Martians) use their might to enslave the wretched of the earth, but a genuine democratisation that directly includes two thirds of the world’s population and indirectly gives a voice to the rest.
The London meeting of the G20 in April proved that the new organisation could actually work; that the diverse array of interests could co-operate in reforms to a system in desperate need of them. Now the process has been formalised and we have a long-overdue representative body with the power and the will to lead the world out of the global economic crisis and towards a better and fairer model of interdependence for the future.
Unsurprisingly, the Australian media have made much of the fact that Australia, as an active member of the club, now has a seat at the top table and this is indeed a cause for rejoicing. But far more important is the part Australia played in its construction, which is a matter for genuine and bipartisan pride."

Leaders Statement from the 2009 G20 Pittsburgh Summit signals new directions or business as usual?

This morning The Pittsburgh Summit released a lengthy Leaders' Statement, the full transcript of which can be found here.
Only a handful of its 50 clauses plus annex dealt with climate change.
In this the G20 (like the G8 before it) fails to live up to the UN's record on climate change, on the day the Australian media reported that it had become the new premier forum for global governance and economic management.

In part the Leaders' Statement reads:

12. Today we agreed:

13. To launch a framework that lays out the policies and the way we act together to generate strong, sustainable and balanced global growth. We need a durable recovery that creates the good jobs our people need.

14. We need to shift from public to private sources of demand, establish a pattern of growth across countries that is more sustainable and balanced, and reduce development imbalances. We pledge to avoid destabilizing booms and busts in asset and credit prices and adopt macroeconomic policies, consistent with price stability, that promote adequate and balanced global demand. We will also make decisive progress on structural reforms that foster private demand and strengthen long-run growth potential.

15. Our Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth is a compact that commits us to work together to assess how our policies fit together, to evaluate whether they are collectively consistent with more sustainable and balanced growth, and to act as necessary to meet our common objectives.

16. To make sure our regulatory system for banks and other financial firms reins in the excesses that led to the crisis. Where reckless behavior and a lack of responsibility led to crisis, we will not allow a return to banking as usual.

17. We committed to act together to raise capital standards, to implement strong international compensation standards aimed at ending practices that lead to excessive risk-taking, to improve the over-the-counter derivatives market and to create more powerful tools to hold large global firms to account for the risks they take. Standards for large global financial firms should be commensurate with the cost of their failure. For all these reforms, we have set for ourselves strict and precise timetables.

18. To reform the global architecture to meet the needs of the 21^st century. After this crisis, critical players need to be at the table and fully vested in our institutions to allow us to cooperate to lay the foundation for strong, sustainable and balanced growth.

19. We designated the G-20 to be the premier forum for our international economic cooperation. We established the Financial Stability Board (FSB) to include major emerging economies and welcome its efforts to coordinate and monitor progress in strengthening financial regulation.

20. We are committed to a shift in International Monetary Fund (IMF) quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries of at least 5% from over-represented countries to under-represented countries using the current quota formula as the basis to work from. Today we have delivered on our promise to contribute over $500 billion to a renewed and expanded IMF New Arrangements to Borrow (NAB).

21. We stressed the importance of adopting a dynamic formula at the World Bank which primarily reflects countries' evolving economic weight and the World Bank's development mission, and that generates an increase of at least 3% of voting power for developing and transition countries, to the benefit of under-represented countries. While recognizing that over-represented countries will make a contribution, it will be important to protect the voting power of the smallest poor countries. We called on the World Bank to play a leading role in responding to problems whose nature requires globally coordinated action, such as climate change and food security, and agreed that the World Bank and the regional development banks should have sufficient resources to address these challenges and fulfill their mandates.

22. To take new steps to increase access to food, fuel and finance among the world's poorest while clamping down on illicit outflows. Steps to reduce the development gap can be a potent driver of global growth.

23. Over four billion people remain undereducated, ill-equipped with capital and technology, and insufficiently integrated into the global economy. We need to work together to make the policy and institutional changes needed to accelerate the convergence of living standards and productivity in developing and emerging economies to the levels of the advanced economies. To start, we call on the World Bank to develop a new trust fund to support the new Food Security Initiative for low-income countries announced last summer. We will increase, on a voluntary basis, funding for programs to bring clean affordable energy to the poorest, such as the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.

24. To phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest. Inefficient fossil fuel subsidies encourage wasteful consumption, reduce our energy security, impede investment in clean energy sources and undermine efforts to deal with the threat of climate change.

25. We call on our Energy and Finance Ministers to report to us their implementation strategies and timeline for acting to meet this critical commitment at our next meeting.

26. We will promote energy market transparency and market stability as part of our broader effort to avoid excessive volatility.

27. To maintain our openness and move toward greener, more sustainable growth.

28. We will fight protectionism. We are committed to bringing the Doha Round to a successful conclusion in 2010.

29. We will spare no effort to reach agreement in Copenhagen through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations.

30. We warmly welcome the report by the Chair of the London Summit commissioned at our last meeting and published today.

31. Finally, we agreed to meet in Canada in June 2010 and in Korea in November 2010. We expect to meet annually thereafter and will meet in France in 2011.

* * *
1. We assessed the progress we have made together in addressing the global crisis and agreed to maintain our steps to support economic activity until recovery is assured. We further committed to additional steps to ensure strong, sustainable, and balanced growth, to build a stronger international financial system, to reduce development imbalances, and to modernize our architecture for international economic cooperation.

The blogosphere is growing?

According to the pundits the amount of Internet time spent on social networking and blogging sites is growing and the amount of time in front of the teev is falling away (except for those over 40 years old).
However we're all still spending more time watching television than cruising cyberspace.

Australia's draconian sedition laws and the Australian Press Council

Last Tuesday the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs held a hearing as part its Inquiry into the Anti-Terrorism Laws Reform Bill 2009.

This private members bill seeks to undo some of the harm done to freedom of speech by Howard Government anti-terrorism legislation, which was subsequently supported by a Rudd Government which has failed to address concerns since it came to office and virtually ignored the Australian Law Reform Commission report and recommendations to date.

Here is an extract from the Australian Press Council's submission to the inquiry:

Executive Summary

Consistent with its long held position that sedition laws are an impediment to freedom of expression and have the potential to have a 'chilling effect', the Australian Press Council support the removal of sedition offences in s80.2 of the Criminal Code Act in their entirety.

In view of the lack of precision in the definition of a "thing" in s101.4 of the Criminal Code Act, the Council is concerned that journalists could be exposed to being charged with a serious offence should they inadvertently come into possession of material in the course undertaking their role. The current provision is unsafe and the Council supports that proposal in the Bill that the section be repealed.

Where it is practical to do so, the Council supports the proposed amendments to Division 102 of the Criminal Code Act that would bring the processes for proscribing a terrorist organisation in line with the requirements of administrative law. By ensuring publicity, public consultation,consideration of submissions by an independent advisory committee, notice and a right of appeal the proposed amendments increase transparency, public and media scrutiny and enhance the public right to know.

The Council supports proposed amendments to s102.7 of the Criminal Code Act to ensure that providing support to a terrorist organisation cannot be construed to apply merely to the publication of view favourable to a proscribed organisation.

Consistent with its earlier submissions, the Council express its concerns that this Division 3 Part III of the ASIO Act poses a threat to freedom of speech and has the potential to obstruct the ability of the media to ensure that government agencies are held to public account and that the questioning and detention practices of ASIO do not go beyond what is necessary to facilitate the investigation and prevention of terrorism.

Consistent with its earlier submissions, the Council holds the view that the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Proceedings) Act is a threat to freedom of the press and it potentially oppressive. The Council supports repeal of this legislation as proposed in the Bill.

Full PDF copy of Australian Press Council submission

List of submissions to the inquiry

Doris O'Grady's art from the Seelands district

Cows at Tristania

Discovering Doris O'Grady 1902 - 1994 exhibition at Grafton Regional Gallery

Main gallery until 25 October 2009

Pavonia Hastata growing on bank of the Clarence 1927

Untitled 1928

Maclean man pleads guilty to Internet intimidation & other charges - gets 12 month good behaviour bonds

The Daily Examiner, 24 September 2009, page 4
Click to enlarge

Yesterday, Grafton Local Court convicted Berlin, also known as John Paul Breslin, of charges of intimidation with intention to cause physical/mental harm, possessing a police uniform when not a policeman, selling police insignia and using police insignia when not a police officer.
In court Berlin changed his plea to guilty on all charges after the defence and prosecution agreed to combine several of the charges.
Berlin came under police notice when he sent abusive and threatening emails to a man living in the United States who distributed police insignia under licence from the NSW Police Department between June and September last year.

Last Monday was World Alzheimer's Day, but I forgot.......

.........which is not as funny as it sounds given the age group I am entering.

The day after that the Northern Rivers Tweed Daily News reported:

TWEED Heads has the highest rate of dementia cases in the state and it's predicted this number will more than triple in coming decades, according to new figures out today.

THE report, commissioned by Alzheimer's Australia NSW, found the Tweed area had the highest incidence of dementia in NSW with 1608 cases this year, increasing to a projected 7451 in 41 years.

In 2009 Alzheimers Australia and Access Economics estimated that 36,000 people diagnosed with dementia live outside of Sydney in rural and regional New South Wales, and Of those people with new cases of dementia in New South Wales in 2009, approximately 14,000 live in Sydney, while approximately 10,000 reside in the balance of New South Wales. Projections suggest that the incidence of dementia in Sydney will increase 4.9-fold to approximately 67,600 (63,600-71,400) people, while new cases of dementia in thebalance of NSW will increase 4.8-fold to 48,700 (45,800-51,400) people by 2050.

The Big Dry, The Big Red, the big dust choke on the NSW North Coast - but Lismore still played on at the 2009 Festival of Cricket

Photo from ABC North Coast News

The Northern Star this morning:
"THE DUST storm that enveloped the North Coast yesterday at one point stretched to Mount Isa and caused humidity at Ballina to plummet to an almost unheard of minus 2 per cent.
Every drop of water was sucked from the air by the dry continental air mass, prompting the Rural Fire Service to declare a total fire ban.
Like a giant snowball it grew as it travelled, blowing close to 16,000 tonnes of dust across the coast every hour."

However, the boys in white were determined to play on in Lismore at Oaks Oval in the 2009 Festival of Cricket!

More pics from The Northern Star, The Daily Examiner, and Nellibell.

Grafton Bridge

Copmanhurst backyard

Lismore airport on 23rd September 2009

Even more pics of Tabulam and Ballina at The Far North Coaster.

Have your say on Australia's anti-terrorism laws before 25th September 2009

Australian Greens MPs have written to Attorney-General Robert McClelland about the Rudd Government's intention to expand Australia's anti-terrorism laws:

Dear Attorney-General,

I welcome the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to Australia's anti-terrorism legislation in a public consultation process.

I am concerned, that detailed changes to our laws are being proposed before the government has provided the promised White Paper on terrorism, or before the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws has begun their work.

I am particularly concerned about the proposal that the Australian Federal Police be permitted to enter premises without a warrant under emergency circumstances that are not clearly defined.

While Dr. Haneef Aside would have benefited from a 7 day cap on being held without a charge, I am concerned that there has been no demonstrated need for the proposed 7 day preventative detention period, and that setting such a maximum could be a licence to use it.

I am not convinced that the proposed redefinition of the act of terrorism is an improvement,, rather the proposal significantly widens the offence. You have departed significantly from the proposals put forward by the Sheller Committee. Your changes will make the legislation more complex, and simultaneously uncertain. Some legal practitioners have suggested that it will be unworkable.

I do not support the strengthening of the National Security Information Act, which allows for closed court proceedings, effectively locking lawyers out of the room, and for some evidence to be closed to the accused and their legal representatives. It also requires security clearances for lawyers which threatens the right to a fair trial and limits the pool of lawyers permitted to act in cases. Your proposed changes would contravene the separation of powers established by chapter three of the Constitution.

As Australia played an active role in establishing the terms of the so-called war on terror, Australia has a role in reformulating what a legitimate response to terrorism should look like. This import role cannot be undermined by unconsidered, ineffective reform.

The Greens also have an online petition which can be signed before 25 September 2009:

The Greens have been calling for review of our anti-terrorism laws since well before the Rudd government was elected. Rammed through our Parliament in 2005, the Howard-Ruddock anti-terrorism laws demand urgent review and overhaul rather than strengthening, because of how seriously they undermine our human and civil rights.

If you would like to sign this petition go here.

Obama still being pursued through US court over his birth certificate and right to hold office

The hostility towards US President Barack Obama continues in the far right section of the blogosphere, in some mainstream media reporting and through action in the courts. American lawyers must having a field day.

Elizabeth Ann Pascal is defending her president in a case currently before a US district court, Kerchner et al v Obama et al.

The plaintiffs in this case assert in part that Barack Hussien Obama II was not solely born a US citizen and cannot hold office as President of the United States of America.

Here is Elizabeth's July 2009 motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's August 2009 response. The matter apparently remains on the court docket at the time of writing this post.

This civil action was not the only one of its kind and, at least one other appears to be still extant as Barnett el al v Obama et al, which has a scheduling conference on 5 October 2009.

The strangest of all these cases (although one brought when Obama was still a senator and based on race not citizenship) has to have been the sealed and dismissed The Church of Jesus Christ Christian/Aryan Nations of Missouri et al v. Obama et al which originated with this filed statement of claim.

Obamaconspiracy has a complete rundown here on how these court actions are playing out.