Julia Gillard's 'crime'

Writing in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald, Mike Carlton put a proper light on recent events:

Yes, she (Julia Gillard) once had a dud boyfriend, until she dropped him like a hot brick. Show me a woman her age who hasn't. Even the sanctimonious but risibly ineffectual Julie Bishop might have to plead guilty to that heinous offence.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald, 1/12/2012

Support your local climate sceptic this Xmas?

Twenty bucks plus another eight in postage will get you this little self-published book.

A perfect gift for those rednecks perched on back branches of the family Chrissie tree.
Throw in something shiny and a bootlegged copy of Duelling Banjos and they won't bother you for the next twelve months.  
              

http://www.lighthouses.com.au/

NSW Attorney-General and two separate defamation actions

 

Same court, same courtroom - on one day the respondent & on another the applicant.

 

Click on image to enlarge

Does Tony Abbott have permission to use a comb-over?

 

Well Australian Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s comb-over is now almost complete and well on the way to full bouffant.

 

However, the question remains – did he seek permission or is he in danger of breaching a 1977 patent?

 

Will there be a judicial inquiry into this hair-raising issue?

 

 Patent number: 4022227

 

Tweet of the Week

 

Latika Bourke ‏@latikambourke

 

What are the odds that at the same time on the same day Julie Bishop, Mike Smith, Ralph Blewitt and Steve Lewis are randomly on same st?

Member for Page rejects Metgasco's claim it has a social license

 

Commonwealth Hansard House of Representatives 26 November 2012:

 

Coal Seam Gas

 

Ms SAFFIN (Page) (22:26): I want to speak about three aspects of the coal seam gas debate. It is a vexed issue in my seat of Page. Overwhelmingly the community is saying no. State government legislation says yes, and one local company, Metgasco, says this gives them a social licence because they have the approval of the state government. But they do not have community acceptance and therefore they do not have the social licence.

The key issue is water. In 2010, the National Water Commission produced a position statement on coal seam gas called 'The coal seam gas and water challenge'. Under the heading 'Potential risks to sustainable water management,' it says:

Extracting large volumes of low-quality water will impact on connected surface and groundwater systems, some of which may already be fully or over allocated, including the Great Artesian Basin and the Murray-Darling Basin.

Impacts on other water users and the environment may occur due to the dramatic depressurisation of the coal seam, including:

Changes in pressures of adjacent aquifers with consequential changes in water availability

Reductions in surface water flows in connected systems

Land subsidence over large areas, affecting surface water systems, ecosystems, irrigation and grazing lands.

The production of large volume of treated wastewater, if released to surface water systems, could alter natural flow patterns and have significant impacts on water quality, and river and wetland health. There is an associated risk that, if the water is overly treated, 'clean water' pollution of naturally turbid systems may occur.

The practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fraccing, to increase gas output, has the potential to induce connection and cross-contamination between aquifers, with impacts on groundwater quality.

The reinjection of treated wastewater into other aquifers has the potential to change the beneficial use characteristics of those aquifers.

The position statement goes on to say:

The Commission is concerned that CSG development represents a substantial risk to sustainable water management given the combination of material uncertainty about water impacts, the significance of potential impacts, and the long time period over which they may emerge and continue to have effect. Therefore, an adaptive and precautionary management approach will be essential to allow for progressive improvement in the understanding of impacts, including cumulative effects, and to support timely implementation of 'make good' arrangements.

It goes on to detail 11 principles:

Specifically, the Commission proposes the following principles be applied by state and territory jurisdictions to managing the cumulative impacts of CSG water:

The interception of water by CSG extraction should be licensed to ensure it is integrated into water sharing processes from their inception.

In the conclusion, it says:

The consequences of not managing the water risks and uncertainties associated with the economic benefits of CSG are substantial.

In 2012 the commission updated that statement, and in essence it says that the framework outlined in 2010 is still the framework that applies today.

The second issue is that the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development has been established as a statutory committee—that was a national partnership agreement with states and territories—and in essence the independent expert scientific committee in certain areas will conduct bioregional assessments that look at particularly the impact on water with mining and coal seam gas mining, and until we know the result of that process my view is there should be no coal seam gas mining activity at all on the land. The third issue is fugitive emissions. People have been asking me whether fugitive emissions arising from coal seam gas are part of the whole carbon scheme, meaning the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Yes, they are, and the methods for coal seam gas are currently being reviewed by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency as part of the annual review of emissions estimation methods. (Time expired)

The Case Of The Disappearing Documents - please explain, Ms. Bishop

 

On 18 November 2012 Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop publicly demanded an investigation into the disappearance of documents relating to the Australian Workers Union.

Ms. Bishop was quoted in ABC TV Lateline program on 28 November 2012 in relation to the same union matter:

 

I'm the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I happen to be a lawyer with 20 years experience - as a practising lawyer at this relevant time but obviously in another firm.

 

As Ms. Bishop is obviously happy to refer to her West Australia employment history between 1983 and 1998, perhaps she might like to explain what she knew of another case of disappearing documents as set out below.

 

A situation whose genesis appears to be within the time frame she was reputedly a solicitor/ associate with Robinson Cox and later a managing partner in Clayton Utz (West Australia) and, during a time when these law firms undertook work on behalf of the owner/operators of the Wittenoom blue asbestos mine (including CSR Limited) and on behalf of W.D. & H.O. Wills (Australia) Limited  in the matter of Gallagher v CSR Limited, Supreme Court of Western Australia, 31 March 1994.

With Ms. Bishop most notably appearing for CSR in matters relating to Barrow & Heys v CSR Ltd & Midalco Pty Ltd, Supreme Court of Western Australia, Rowland J, 4 August 1988.  

 

McCabe V British American Tobacco Australia Services Limited [2002] VSC 73 (22 March 2002):

19. I have no doubt that the Document Retention Policy which was put in place did have some quite legitimate management and administrative purposes and benefits, and the documents contained much material relevant to such functions. I am, however, entirely satisfied that the primary purpose of the development of the new policy in 1985 and subsequently was to provide a means of destroying damaging documents under the cover of an apparently innocent house-keeping arrangement. When regard is had to the background material relating to the origins of the new policy, and the critical role played by litigation lawyers in its development and implementation, it is clear that the post-1985 policy documents reflect the acute consciousness of their authors (and explain their attempts to disguise the fact) that the Document Retention Policy was primarily directed towards the risks of litigation.

20. In 1985 the defendant turned attention to the prospects of litigation in Australia, and to the potential for the defence of any such litigation to be prejudiced by the disclosure of embarrassing documents. The firm of Clayton Utz was engaged to advise the company as to that issue and on 30 December 1985 a written Document Retention Policy came into effect. Mr Eggleton of Clayton Utz, who gave evidence before me, denied that his firm had drafted that policy, and it seems that a draft was first written by one Mr R. N. Paton, the in-house solicitor for Amatil Limited, but there is no doubt that the draft was considered and approved by Clayton Utz prior to its implementation. The firm also gave advice as to other strategies, including the enhancement and expansion of claims of legal professional privilege, with the same objective of minimising the prospect of any plaintiff gaining the benefit of damaging documents. As I will shortly discuss, a solicitor, Andrew Foyle, from the English firm Lovell White Durrant, was engaged by BATCO for purposes of addressing policy on document handling. He produced a memorandum setting out the development of the Document Retention Policy, which expressed the clear understanding that it was Clayton Utz that was responsible for the critical terms of the policy formulation.

21. I have not been shown a document which is agreed to comprise the 1985 written policy, but in legal advice written by Brian Wilson, a partner of Clayton Utz, dated 29 March 1990 (to which I will shortly refer), he noted that at page one there were a series of statements inserted into the document which asserted innocent purposes for the destruction of documents, under broad headings of cost efficiency, litigation support and sabotage prevention.

ABC TV Four Corners 10 June 2002:

 

But Justice Eames ruled that the 1990 strategy devised by Wilson PROPOSED destruction of documents.

While Clayton Utz did not act for British American Tobacco for some years after 1990, the judge went on to say: "That strategy has been pursued since that advice was given".

The fate of documents considered by the judge is an intriguing 12-year tale involving people not heard by the court.

Four Corners believes it begins at Wittenoom, in north-west Australia, just five months after Brian Wilson's [of law firm Clayton Utz] advice to get rid of documents.

 

University of New South Wales Law Journal 2002:

C The Document Retention Policy

The defendant stated that it destroyed documents pursuant to a company policy, which it referred to as a ‘Document Retention Policy’. The judge found that, notwithstanding the policy’s title, its purpose was destruction, not retention. He was ‘entirely satisfied’ that the purpose of the policy, in 1985 and subsequently, ‘was to provide a means of destroying damaging documents under the cover of an apparently innocent house-keeping arrangement.’ Clayton Utz, one of the law firms advising the defendant, had ensured that words were inserted into the written policy document which could be relied on to assert an innocent motive for document destruction. That firm also advised the defendant that documents destroyed in Australia should be held offshore so that they could be used by BAT Australia in the defence of any future claims.