What Australia told the International Court of Justice concerning Japan's stockpile of refrigerated whale meat

International Court of Justice 28 June hearing in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening):

As recently as October 2012, the Director of the JFA openly admitted to a Japanese Parliamentary Subcommittee that maintaining its purportedly "scientific" whaling program in the Southern Ocean was necessary to perpetuate the market in minke whale meat. (Tab 108):

"Minke whale meat is prized because it is said to have a very good flavour and aroma when eaten as sashimi and the like . . .

 [T]he scientific whaling program in the Southern Ocean was necessary to achieve a stable supply of minke whale meat."....

As of January 2013, there were 4,355 tonnes of refrigerated whale meat in the market's distribution stock. That is a lot of refrigeration. To counter the decline in sales, the ICR has undertaken a number of new sales promotion activities……

The real reason for the Japanese Government's decision to reduce target catches is as simple as it is commercial - the sharp decrease in domestic demand for whale meat in Japan. The well-known Mr. Komatsu, the former head of the JFA, has confirmed in numerous public  statements that Japan's reduction in catches has been a deliberate strategy to keep the price of whale meat high. For example, he said in June 2010 that Japan had deliberately reduced its target catches - this is tab 110: "because of the stagnation of the sales of whale meat. Some government officer tried to think that if . . . the . . . supply would be down that may lead to a bit higher price of . . . the whale meat", which is a fairly good commercial tactic….

Japan's stockpile of frozen whale meat is four times greater today than it was 15 years ago.

PUP leader Clive Palmer flouts federal law

The Australian 29 June 2013:

MINING magnate Clive Palmer has been hit with a $6.2 million charge for flouting the law on carbon emissions, in a blow to his nickel business as he mounts a campaign to become prime minister at the federal election.

Federal regulators disclosed the charge on Mr Palmer's nickel refinery yesterday in one of the first actions against companies that failed to account for thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite receiving free carbon permits worth millions of dollars, Mr Palmer's private company, Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd, did not provide the carbon units required by June 17 and must pay the charge or face further action.

Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd operates the Palmer Nickel and Cobalt Refinery which is wholly owned by Clive Palmer. The company has an outstanding 206,46 carbon unit shortfall totalling $6,172,436.40 in shortfall charges.

In May 2012 Clive Palmer was seeking a permit for Queensland Nickel to dump toxic tailing dam water into the Great Barrier Reef. The application to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has since lapsed, however the tailing dam problems do not appear to be fully resolved.

Palmer United Party candidates in Page (Steve Janes), Cowper (Rod Jeanneret), Richmond (Phil Allen) and Lyne (Simon Rock) need to explain why they are supporting a party leader who is comfortable flouting federal law and who apparently believes polluting the Great Barrier Reef is a right his company should enjoy.

Another of Mr. Palmer’s companies Waratah Coal Pty Limited has applied to renew its mining exploration leases in the Clarence River catchment area.

The NSW Government has suspended recreational hunting - but only in 400 State Forests & 2 Crown Land areas

Excerpts from 14 June 2013 the Governance Review of the Game Council of NSW also known as the Dunn Review:

There is a serious question about how the current situation has been allowed to develop. The Game Council has its roots deeply embedded in politics. It was established because of, and has grown with, the influence and power of the Shooters and Fishers Party in the NSW Legislative Council.

In the opinion of the review this power has resulted in the development of an inappropriate service delivery model. What should always have been a service delivery function undertaken by a government department, became a statutory body. What could have still been a tightly controlled body, has drifted, its autonomy encouraging governance risk taking and a lack of accountability.

The Shooters and Fishers Party argued and fought for autonomy and independence through the establishment of a statutory body. But winning that debate was the easy part. The hard part has been making it work. Despite many of those involved having highly credible private sector, political, and hunting expertise, that expertise could not substitute for the skills and experience required to set up and administer a new government function through a new statutory body in a way that meets government and community requirements and expectations.

Despite lots of hard work and well meaning effort by councillors and staff, and the ad-hoc support of other government agencies, the Game Council has become further and further isolated from mainstream government administration.

It has been argued that a high degree of autonomy and independence is desirable because the Game Council needs to be entrepreneurial if it is to achieve its ambition to be largely independent of government funding. But the Game Council is dependent on government for the majority of its funding and this situation is unlikely to change; so that justification fails.

With autonomy and independence should come ultimate accountability for actions and risk. But accountability clearly lies with government and that is highly unlikely to change…..

In less than a decade the Game Council has built its business to the point where it now licences over 20,000 hunters to either hunt on public land, or to hunt certain game animals on private land…..

The Game Council has its roots deeply embedded in politics. It is commonly known that for many years the support of the Shooters and Fishers Party has been important to the Government of the day to ensure the passage of legislation through the Legislative Council. Mr Brown said the Shooters and Fishers Party has a general philosophy of supporting the legislative agenda of the Government but expects to be able to promote its own policy agenda in return, and aims to get support for at least some elements of that agenda…..

MEDIA STATEMENT

5 July 2013

On Thursday 4 July 2013 the Minister for Primary Industries announced the dissolution of Game Council NSW as a result of recommendations made following the NSW Government’s governance review.

The NSW Government has suspended hunting in all NSW State forests, pending a new risk assessment. All issued Written Permissions are now invalid. Game Council and the Forestry Corporation of NSW will attempt to call all licence holders with bookings to confirm cancellation of their permits in the coming week.

Game Council is committed to working with the NSW Government as the report recommendations are implemented and will also be working closely with NSW game hunting licence holders to minimise the impact of interim arrangements.

Media Contact: Brett Fifield P: (02) 6391 3311, M: 0427 029 511 or brett.fifield@dpi.nsw.gov.au

www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au

The Sydney Morning Herald 4 July 2013:

In a simultaneous announcement, Environment Minister Robyn Parker revealed the introduction of amateur hunting to national parks will proceed in October, but on a trial basis in 12 parks.

Pending the results, hunting may be rolled out in up to 75 parks and reserves as previously announced by the government under a deal with the Shooters and Fishers Party.

On 4 June 2013 before the International Court of Justice Japan asserts that the International Whaling Commission has no control over its Antarctic lethal science programs conducted under UN convention

It was no part of the agreement made in 1951 by Japan that research related to whales conducted by any individual State or group of States should be subjected to collective control by IWC Contracting Governments, or to control by the IWC itself.

The Government of Japan also asserts that its goodwill has been taken advantage of.

Words fail me when listening to Japan’s position in this matter…….

Court transcripts for 4 July 2013 will be found when available at Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) Oral Proceedings.

Government of Japan funded whaling fleet takes what appears to be a female and calf during one Southern Ocean killing season.

Coles stores in the Northern Rivers may not brush off customer concerns so quickly after this ACCC media release

A rather satisfying media release, given the attitude of certain Coles staff when customers' concerns over this advertising pictured below were dismissed with version of; ‘But people will know that the vegetables under the sign are imported. Head office makes us put up these signs – we are doing nothing wrong!’

Graphic from WA Today

Coles pays infringement notices for alleged misleading country of origin claims

1 July 2013

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) has paid six infringement notices totaling $61,200 for alleged misleading representations about the country of origin of fresh produce made in five of its stores between March 2013 and May 2013. The stores were located across Queensland, New South Wales, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission took action following a complaint that Coles had displayed some imported navel oranges and kiwi fruit underneath price boards reading ‘Helping Australia Grow’ with the triangular ‘Australian Grown’ symbol. The ACCC surveyed a number of Coles stores and found that the signage was also being used in other stores to advertise imported asparagus and almonds.

The ACCC alleges that this signage gave the overall impression that the imported produce was Australian grown, when it was not. The overseas country of origin was correctly identified either by stickers on the produce itself, on its packaging or under the display bin.  However, the ACCC considered that the relatively small sized stickers or statements were not sufficient to correct the overwhelming impression of the ‘Helping Australia Grow’ campaign imagery that was associated with the sale of the product.

“Consumers should be able to rely on the accuracy of claims about food, particularly when they are prepared to pay a premium for products made in Australia. Misleading country of origin claims can also have a significant impact on the competitive process and hurt the local economy,” ACCC Chairman Rod Sims said.

“While this does not appear to be a case of widespread or systemic conduct, ‘Helping Australia Grow’ is a significant national campaign driven hard by Coles to advertise its fresh produce. This is a lesson to all retailers that they need to take care when undertaking significant advertising campaigns to ensure consumers are not misled by those campaigns,” Mr Sims said.

The ACCC is prioritising its work in relation to credence claims, particularly those in the food industry with the potential to have a significant impact on consumers and competitors.

Coles advised the ACCC that the conduct arose out of the relocation of stock within stores without updating the promotional imagery on the price boards. The ACCC nevertheless considered action was necessary given the importance consumers place on representations of this kind, and the importance of strong compliance processes when choosing to make such claims in the context of a widespread campaign.

The payment of infringement notice penalties is not an admission of a contravention of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The ACCC can issue an infringement notice where it has reasonable grounds to believe a trader has contravened certain consumer protection laws.

Infringement notices.

Release number: 

148/13

Media enquiries: 

Mr Duncan Harrod - (02) 6243 1108 or 0408 995 408

So how much is the softer, gentler Tony Abbott costing taxpayers?

 The Abbott Family - portrait of a sense of entitlement

Sometime after the 2010 federal election Opposition Leader Tony Abbott began appearing more often in the media accompanied by his wife and sometimes his daughters.

At the end of that year Abbott's family travel costs amounted to $14,191.47.

By 2011 family members were occasionally seen with him as he spread his political message.

This family unity on the propaganda trail is reflected in those family travel costs reimbursed to Mr. Abbott from government coffers.

In 2011 family travel costs totalled $27,688.35.

At the end of June 2012 another $9,694.48 was added to the bill which had now reached $51,574.30.

In October 2012 the Abbott family again ramped up its profile in an effort to present the ‘softer’ and ‘gentler’ Tony and, he was often seen with his wife or one of his daughters by his side.

When the Dept. of Finance and Deregulation published figures for the second half of 2012, the Abbott wife and daughters total travel costs had increased by another $4,578.22.

Taking the Abbott women's faux campaigning costs passed on to Australian taxpayers up to an estimated $56,152.52 up to 31 December 2012.

Heaven knows how much higher the bill will climb before the federal election or how these costs will blow out if the Abbott's gain tenancy at The Lodge.

Update:

Questions have also been raised concerning use of a car in 2011, although to date no specific driver has been identified.

http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/parliamentarians-reporting/docs/T28/ABBOTT_Tony.pdf