Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton: a photo study in lifestyle contrasts

This is 109 Jefferson Lane, Palm Beach, Queensland. It is what is described as an investment property owned by the Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Craig Dutton.

He reportedly purchased it for $2.32 million. In September 2014 the real estate agent described it as a lifestyle address that is simply unrivalled.

This is where many of the asylum seekers in his care live. None of this accommodation can be described as ‘a lifestyle address’.

All detention centre images were found at Google Images

As we approach the Abbott Government's second set of Budget Papers due in May 2015 - a timely reminder of how far we are going backwards

Sky News on 3 April 2015 telling Australia what social media commentators have known since December 2013:

In the year ended 30 June 2013 the then Labor Federal Government reported total revenue of $338.7 billion, total expenses of $381.4 billion (est. 25.1% of GDP) and a fiscal balance deficit of $28 billion. Net government debt and net interest payments on that debt stood at stood at 10 and 0.5 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) respectively.

The Abbott Coalition Government was sworn in on 18 September 2013.

In the month Tony Abbott took hold of the reins of government the Department of Finance listed Australia’s net debt at $174.5 billion and an underlying cash balance (deficit) of $22.9 billion projected to fall to $18 billion by 30 June 2014.

The Abbott Government reported total revenue of $374.6 billion, total expenses of $415.2 billion (est. 26.2% of GDP) and a fiscal balance deficit for the year ended 30 June 2014 of $42.2 billion. At that time net government debt stood at 12.5 per cent of GDP and net interest payments at 0.6 per cent.

In February 2015 and just on halfway through the Abbott Government’s term in office, the Department of Finance listed net debt at $254.9 billion and an underlying cash balance (deficit) of $40.4 billion projected to fall to $40.3 billion by 30 June 2015. At which time net government debt is expected to be 13.9 per cent of GDP and net interest payments at 0.7 per cent of GDP.

So why did budget deficit and public debt increase so dramatically in those first nine months and why is it barely decreasing to date?

Well, there have been signposts along the way and the most obvious place to start is with the borrowing spree that Treasurer Joe Hockey went on almost from Day One of the Abbott Government.

By 4 December 2013 (after less than 3 months in office) Abbott Government borrowings were averaging in excess of $203 million a day. At 30 June 2014 borrowings stood in excess of $351 billion and the 2014-15 budget papers predicted that borrowings will be 23.3% of GDP by 30 June 2015.

Then there was the $8.8 billion grant to the Reserve Bank in October 2013 and the loss of est. $2.9 billion over the 2015-16 and 2016-17 financial years due to the repeal of the Mineral Resources Rent Tax.

Add to this the cost of The War On Terror conducted Abbott-style, which is conservatively estimated to cost $400 million in this year alone for troops deployed in the Syria region, plus the $5.3 million a month cost of an ongoing and inevitably fruitless search for a long gone commercial aircraft.

Throw in the approximately $4.7 million spent on the prime ministerial fleet of bomb-proof cars (which will be stationed around the country for Abbott's convenience) and the est. $250 million reportedly being spent on a new VIP aircraft sometime this year primarily for the prime minister's use .

Factor in the cost of servicing political egos found in the Dept. of Finance lists of parliamentary entitlements paid and the additional expense of VIP flights for political elites.

Add the est. $2.4 billion in tariff revenue foregone due to international trade agreements signed since 2013, along with the est. $86 million spent on two royal commissions into 'pink batts' and trade unions.

Pour in the mix that $400 million plus reportedly spent on hosting the G20 Summit in 2014.

Then toss in a reported $1 billion in public service redundancy payouts expected to flow from the Abbott Government's 'restructuring' of government departments and downsizing of the public service between September 2013 to 2016-17.

Insert the increasing costs of immigration detention and the in excess of $2 billion in contracts awarded in early 2104 for the management of two overseas detention centres. This equates to these contracts costing over $420 million annually. The National Commission of Audit's February-March 2014 report states the projected detention costs for all centres over the forward estimates currently exceeds $10 billion.

Top it all off with the unfair 2014-15 federal budget, which for all the ideologically driven pain it intended to inflict was expected to only save $27 billion over a four-year period and which has now been effectively gutted by the Abbott Government is a desperate grab for some degree of popularity.

Combine all of the above with Prime Minister Abbott's recent conversion to a 'debt is good' philosophy and it is easy to see why government finances are mired in red ink. With the non-Treasury document being circulated by the Treasurer, the March 2015 Intergenerational Report Australia in 2055, predicting net government debt could be as high as 60 per cent of GDP in forty years' time.

Now Tony Abbott has abandoned his 'debt and deficit disaster' rhetoric he has decided that the real budgetary crisis is actually federal government spending. Spending is probably the slowest growing line item in all the aforementioned figures, nevertheless Abbott was quoted in The Australian on 2 April 2015 as stating;even with the changes that we’ve already made, we’re still heading for government spending at around 31 per cent of GDP".

If all this sounds a mite confusing, remember one of the features of budget predictions and economic outlooks produced by the Abbott Government to date is that rarely do all of the documents contain the same basic assumptions or numbers. Since September 2013 creative writing not reliable economic policy appears to be the order of the day.

Australian journalist Andrew Bolt and News Corp get their comeuppance

Although News Corp tried to spin the outcome of this defamation case reported in The Age on 2 March 2015, the first judgment (set out below) delivered in this matter clearly shows why it had to settle.

Human rights lawyer George Newhouse has won his defamation case against controversial News Corp blogger Andrew Bolt. In the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday, Justice Lucy McCallum ordered a verdict for Mr Newhouse and said News Corp was to pay his legal costs. The terms of the order - agreed to by both parties - requires the article to be taken down from News Corp's various online sites. Other terms of the settlement are confidential….In the final orders the defendants were listed as Nationwide News, Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times…. A spokesman for News Corp said: "The matter has settled and therefore did not proceed to trial so there was no judicial determination of the issues in dispute." [The Age 2 March 2015]

Newhouse v News Limited [2014] NSWSC 1939 (11 December 2014)

Last Updated: 11 March 2015

Before: McCallum, J

Parties: George Newhouse (Plaintiff)

              News Ltd (First Defendant)

              Andrew Bolt (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1. HER HONOUR: These are proceedings for defamation commenced by Mr  George Newhouse  against News Limited. Mr Newhouse sues that entity as the alleged publisher of articles published in various media forums held within the News corporate group.

2. The proceedings are governed by Practice Note SC CL 4 and this is the first listing. The Practice Note states that, at the first listing of an action for defamation, the defendant is expected to state whether publication is in dispute and, if it is, to state why.

3. In correspondence in response to the Statement of Claim, News Limited has disputed that it is liable as a publisher of the matters complained of. The letter states:

"Take notice that News Limited is not the publisher of either the print or on-line versions of the Herald Sun, the Daily Telegraph and news.com.au.”

4. Ms Chrysanthou, who appears for Mr Newhouse, submitted (correctly, in my view) that it was incumbent upon News Limited to state the reason it contends it is not properly named as a publisher of the matters complained of in circumstances where it is, as a matter of public record, the registrant of www.news.com.au and, further, where that website identifies News Limited as the holder of the copyright of material appearing on the site, with the necessary implication that it authorises whatever entity it says is the publisher to publish that material.

5. Prima facie, each of those contentions taken together would appear to bring News Limited within the scope of person liable for publication as that term is apprehended in the decision of High Court in Webb v Bloch [1928] HCA 50; 41 CLR 331. I think, however, that Mr Lewis, who appears for News Limited, adequately discharged the obligation identified in the practice note in the submissions he made today. What the plaintiff chooses to do with the information given is a matter for him.

6. Ms Chrysanthou foreshadowed an application for leave to interrogate on that issue, noting the attractive simplicity of there being a single defendant to the proceedings in the circumstance of multiple entities having responsibility as "the publisher" for multiple electronic places for publication. It may well be that a respectable case could be made for leave to interrogate in those circumstances.

7. The substantive argument heard today was a series of objections taken by the defendant to the imputations pleaded by Mr Newhouse. The parties agreed that those objections could be determined by reference to the first matter complained of, the second and third matters complained of being in substantially the same terms, save for the headline.

8. The article was written by Mr Bolt, a journalist employed by The Herald Sun. Broadly speaking, the article addresses Mr Bolt's views as to the position taken by a group, to whom he refers to as "the refugee lobby", concerning the Australian Government's treatment of asylum seekers.

9. The first matter complained of appeared under the headline, “Fearmonger's Hateful Fraud”. Ms Chrysanthou submitted that, under that headline and in light of what follows, the article may be seen to be focussed on the conduct of “the refugee lobby” of which Mr Newhouse is clearly identified in the article as a member.

10. The first imputation is (a):

“that the plaintiff, a lawyer, has fraudulently represented to the public that people whom he represents are refugees when they are not”.

11. Mr Lewis submitted that the imputation is incapable of arising from the matter complained of for a number of reasons. The first was the contention that the matter complained of is:

"An opinion piece highlighting that despite the refugee lobby arguing that the Abbott Government breached its human rights obligations, Australia properly returned 41 Sri Lankan boat people to Sri Lanka as they were economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers."

12. That may be Mr Bolt's opinion, and it may well be one that emerges from a reading of the article, but it does not follow logically, or at all, that that is the only thing the matter complained of says. I have previously observed that it is commonly objected in this List that a defamatory article does not say A because it says B. That argument rarely succeeds unless it is sustained by what can be characterised as a true dichotomy. The present article says a lot more than is contained in the submission put by Mr Lewis.

13. The submission comprehended the proposition that the term "fraudulently" usually denotes "intending to deceive." That much may be accepted. I am of the view that the matter complained of is plainly capable of conveying the meaning that Mr Newhouse intended to deceive by the representation that his clients were refugees. As submitted by Ms Chrysanthou, the whole thrust of the article is to expose the fraud of that representation. That emerges from a number of statements in the matter complained of, including the following:

"The outrage over the forced return of 41 Sri Lankan boat people has been exposed as a fraud by the asylum seekers themselves."

14. As submitted by Ms Chrysanthou, the article plainly focuses on the proposition that those like Mr Newhouse, who purport to stand on the high moral ground protecting asylum seekers, are in fact engaged in a fraud on the public. A similar theme emerges from a number of the statements in the balance of the article.

15. Mr Lewis also sought to seek comfort from the fact that the article focusses on the alleged fraud relating to the 41 people returned to Sri Lanka, whereas Mr Newhouse is identified in a different context as having appeared for the 153 people for whom he obtained an injunction in the High Court. I think the distinction is one that would not necessarily be drawn as distinguishing him from the criticisms levelled by Mr Bolt in the article. Certainly, on a capacity basis, I do not think that distinction precludes the imputation from being capable of arising. In my view, the imputation (a) is capable of arising.

16. The second objection is that the imputation is imprecise or bad in form. Specifically, it was complained that the imputation does not distil precisely what it is that the plaintiff is said to have done fraudulently and what representations he is said to have made to the public. I do not accept that submission. The imputation plainly specifies that the representation attributed to Mr Newhouse is that “boat people” whom he represents are refugees. The objections to imputation (a) are accordingly rejected.

17. Imputation (b) is:

"The plaintiff, as a lawyer, has lied to the High Court in order to obtain a temporary injunction of his clients.”

18. The specific part of the article dealing with Mr Newhouse's involvement in proceedings in the High Court states:

"Mr Newhouse and barrister Ron Merkel QC have persuaded the High Court to issue a temporary injunction against returning these 153 to Sri Lanka and the same superheated rhetoric is heard about torture, the ‘disappeared’ and Nazis.”

19. The article then asks, rhetorically, whether those boat people are any more likely to be true refugees than the 41 Mr Bolt describes as having been rightly returned to Sri Lanka, and answers unequivocally "no". Whilst the paragraph I have set out does not, in terms, accuse Mr Newhouse of lying to the High Court, in my view the overall tenor of the article, which is to expose the “fraud” of persons in the lobby in which Mr Newhouse is named to participate, does at least on a capacity basis give rise to an imputation of deliberate dishonesty in what was said to the High Court. The article is written in strident terms and concludes with a plain allegation of dishonesty, as follows:

“So if a crime against morality has been committed, it is surely this: that so many atrocity mongers and moral posers have inflicted upon us a gigantic fraud."

20. I accept, as submitted by Ms Chrysanthou, that in the context of the article as a whole, that paragraph plainly refers to Mr Newhouse. The lying imputation is in my view capable of arising.

21. Imputation (c) is:

“The plaintiff is despicable in that he has made fraudulent representations to the public about his clients being refugees.”

22. For the reasons stated in respect of imputation (a), I am satisfied that the imputation is capable of arising. A separate objection is that the imputation is bad in form because the word "despicable" does not distil precisely what it is said the plaintiff is said to have done fraudulently and what representations he is said to have made to the public.

23. I have already dealt with the imprecision objection to imputation (a). In my respectful opinion, the term ‘despicable’ neatly distils precisely what it is the article says of the character of a man who would make such a representation. The form objection must be rejected, in my view.

24. Finally, it was objected that imputation (c) does not differ in substance from imputation (a).

25. Mr Lewis relied on the decision of the Simpson J in Griffith v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2002] NSWSC 86, where her Honour suggested that the appropriate test is to consider what the matter complained of is really saying. Her Honour concluded in that case that an inspection of the matter complained of revealed:

"When they are read in the proper context of the matter complained of, it can be seen that the two imputations are no more than different ways of complaining of the same message."

26. I think, on balance, however, that Ms Chrysanthou is right in contending that, whereas imputation (a) identifies an act attributed to Mr Newhouse, imputation (c) identifies the condition one would attribute to a person who engages in that act. I am satisfied that the two imputations do differ in substance and each can properly stand.

27. Imputation (d) is:

"The plaintiff, a lawyer, is motivated by deceit in representing boat people from Sri Lanka."

28. In one passage of the matter complained of, Mr Bolt describes statements made by the asylum seekers themselves as "conclusive proof that our refugee lobby is motivated by deceit, self-pruning and self-hatred of the Abbott Government."

29. The basis for the defendants’ objection appears to be that, although named three times in the matter complained of, Mr Newhouse somehow escapes inclusion in the class of people referred to as belonging to the refugee lobby. In my view, imputation (d) is plainly capable of arising.

30. Separately, it was objected that the imputation is imprecise and bad in form. For my part, I do not have any difficulty understanding what condition is attributed to Mr Newhouse as captured in the imputation. The objections to imputation (d) must be rejected.

31. Imputation (e) is:

“that the plaintiff, a lawyer, has acted immorally in his representation of the Sri Lankan boat people.”

32. That imputation is plainly capable of arising, having regard to the concluding paragraph of the article, to which I have already referred.

33. I do not think it is bad in form. In my view, it plainly differs in substance from imputations (a) and (c). I do not accept Mr Lewis' submission that the notion of being fraudulent means the same thing as being despicable or immoral. It follows that the defendant's objections to the plaintiff's imputations are rejected.

34. A separate issue was raised in the correspondence as to the need for the plaintiff to provide particulars of the persons or any person who downloaded, viewed and comprehended the first matter complained of. I understood Mr Lewis to put a submission that no reader of The Daily Telegraph comprehended the article and that may be so. In any event, the parties propose to engage in correspondence as to what further steps should be taken by the plaintiff to address that issue.

35. The plaintiff, having been entirely successful in respect of the objections to his Amended Statement of Claim, seeks his costs of the argument.

36. Mr Lewis, who appears for News Limited, noted that the Practice Note contemplates an exchange of correspondence in which a plaintiff pressing an imputation in the face of an objection will, where appropriate, state brief reasons for doing so. The chronology of the exchange of correspondence in the present matter, coupled with my view as to the strength of the imputations and the merit of the objections, persuades me that although the plaintiff's response was brief, bordering on curt, he is nonetheless entitled to the costs of the argument today.

37. I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

In Australia on this one day of the year.....

DON'T SHOOT!

http://www.brisbanekids.com.au/

Abbott Government advertising for new contractors at Nauru & Manus detention centres

In early 2014 the Abbott Government extended the Transfield Services* contract to cover both Nauru and Manus Island centres and this contract was reportedly worth $1.2 billion.

In February 2014 an asylum seeker was murdered in the Manus detention centre.

In May 2014 the Cornall report into the incident leading to his death and serious injury to other asylum seekers was handed to the government.

By November 2014 the Abbott Government was in possession of the Australian Human Rights Commission report on the treatment of children in these centres.

In September 2014 it was reported that inadequate medical attention on Manus Island resulted in the eventual brain death of an asylum seeker in a Brisbane hospital.

In December 2014 it was announced that International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) had received a contract renewal, to provide medical services on Nauru and Manus Island worth around $900 million over five years.

By January 2015 the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection had begun advertising these contracts on AusTender:

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection invites interested parties to submit Tenders in accordance with this Request for Tender for the provision of services in Regional Processing Countries. 

Services will be required to be delivered within the Regional Processing Centres on Nauru and Manus, Papua New Guinea, as well as limited services within the local communities of Nauru and Manus to support settlement activities for Refugees.  Potential suppliers will be able to bid for one or both service categories listed below.

The Request for Tender seeks responses in relation to two service categories. 

Service Category 1. Health Services, which includes:
(a) Health screening and assessment processes;
(b) Health promotion and education programmes;
(c) Management of mental health and public health risks;
(d) Medical escort services;
(e) Supply and management of medical equipment and pharmaceuticals;
(f) Environmental health services;
(g) Health advice services;
(h) Outreach health services; and
(i) Telehealth.

Service Category 2. Garrison and Welfare Services, which include:
(a) Programmes and Activities;
(b) Management of property of Transferees;
(c) Communication management;
(d) Management and maintenance of assets;
(e) Cleaning;
(f) Security and Incident Management;
(g) Catering;
(h) Environmental management;
(i) Logistics;
(j) Personnel accommodation;
(k) Transport and Escort;
(l) Complaints Management;
(m) Individual management of Transferees;
(n) Complaints and request management;
(o) Specialist care for vulnerable cohorts (infants, families with children, minors);
(p) Independent observer services; 
(q) Communication Management; and
(r) Business Services.

Further details of the Services are set out in the RFT documentation.

The current contracts for garrison, welfare and health services on Nauru and Manus expire on 31 October 2015.  New arrangements must be in place and fully transitioned by this date.

The euphemistically named regional processing centres are requiring new contractors it seems.

In March 2015 the Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was released and quickly followed by the Moss report on sexual abuse and sexual assault allegations at the Nauru detention centre.

So which company or companies are walking away from any further engagement in the Abbott Government's overseas detention centres?

  

Is it IHMS (or possibly a subcontractor) and Transfield's subcontractor Wilson Security? 

Has corporate greed finally been overridden by a need to protect their brands?

Or are the aforementioned contract details merely being advertised due to competitive tender requirements and the usual suspects will still be in place after October this year. 

* Transfield Services is in the process of rebranding the company as Transfield Holdings has served notice on the company to cease using the trademarked Transfield name and logo.
Industry super fund HESTA appears to be in the process of divesting itself of shares in Transfield Services in response to pressure from a section of its membership.

Destroy The Joint is counting dead women - Part Three

      

Destroy The Joint

Since 1 January 2015 twenty-eight women have died in violent incidents. That equates to two women killed each week so far this year.

Destroy The Joint keeps a register of these deaths here.

ACOSS: Drop unfair plan to lower pension indexation, reform super and pension assets test instead

Australian Council Of Social Services, 1 April 2015:

Drop unfair plan to lower pension indexation, reform super and pension assets test instead

The Australian Council of Social Service today issued a call to the Federal Parliament to reject the plan to lower the Indexation of pensions that would severely impact all pensioners, and instead focus on eligibility for the part-pension and reforming the unfair retirement incomes system, including superannuation tax concessions.

The decision to reduce the Indexation of pensions in the last Budget came as a great surprise to most of us, especially to pensioners. It would effectively lead to people on pensions, including older people, sole parents, and people with disabilities, falling behind community living standards," said ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie.

"We know these groups are already struggling to get by on a daily basis and if this measure goes ahead, they would lose as much as $80 per week over the next 10 years based on modelling by the National Commission of Audit.

"This would be a massive cut to the income of some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who simply could not afford to absorb it. The last thing we should be doing is reducing indexation of payments for pensioners down to the inadequate indexation which is still in place for people struggling to survive on Allowances, including young people on Youth Allowance (just $30 a day) and unemployed people on Newstart (just $37 a day). Two thirds of people on Newstart and Youth Allowance have been on these payments for over a year.

"Indexation to wages should be maintained for older people but also for sole parents and people with disability who already experience high levels of income poverty. Indexation for all basic income support payments -both Pensions and Allowances - should be linked to wages if they are to be enough for people to live with some dignity.

"We urge the government, opposition parties and crossbenchers to work together on alternative solutions to ensure the sustainability of retirement incomes system into the future. This must include reform to better target the Age Pension to those who need it and to superannuation tax concessions as part of the tax review.

"ACOSS has put forward sound and fair recommendations to this end, including reducing the current threshold that allows couples with as much as $1.1 million dollars in assets on top of the family home to qualify for a Part Pension.

"We also support the Government's move to abolish the Seniors Supplement, which is available to people who are not eligible for the Aged Pension because they are in a much better financial position than most.

"The Supplement extends to older people who are disqualified from the Age Pension due to the assets test - which means for example, it would go to couples with assets in excess of $1 million apart from the family home. By excluding superannuation income from the income test for existing recipients, it also extends to people with significant superannuation incomes.

"A couple could have a million dollars in a superannuation fund paying them an income of $100,000 a year in addition to their assets and still receive the supplement.

"We strongly support the need for an adequate safety net system to ensure that people are supported when they fall into hard times. However, this supplement of $858 each year for singles and $1,295 for couples, simply cannot be justified," Dr Goldie said.....

1. Tighten the Age Pension assets test 
• Reduce the assets test free area for home owners to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples, and increase the taper rate for both home owners and non-home owners from $1.50 per $1,000 of additional assets to $2 per $1,000, so that the cut out point for the part pension for couples is reduced from $1.1 million in assets besides the family home to $794,250 in assets besides the family home - Savings: $1,350 million ($1,450 million in 2016-17).

2. Abolish the Seniors Supplement
• Abolish the Seniors Supplement (available to people who do not qualify for the Age Pension due to their income and assets) from 1 July 2015 leaving the Pension Supplement in place for Age Pensioners - Savings: $240 million ($250 million in 2016-1).

3. Reform Superannuation system 
• Increase the preservation age so that it corresponds to the Age Pension access age by 2027 - with early access arrangements for people with disabilities and caring roles that effectively require them to retire earlier. May include allowing access from age 55 for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people whose disabilities or caring roles would ordinarily qualify them for certain social security payments (such as the Disability Support Pension or Carer Payment) or by allowing withdrawals earlier than 55 for any purpose up to modest annual and lifetime limits - Revenue neutral.
• Replace existing tax concessions for superannuation contributions with a simpler taxation structure, in which employer contributions are taxed at the employee's marginal tax rate and a capped superannuation rebate is paid into employee's superannuation accounts - Revenue neutral.
• Extend the 15% tax rate on superannuation fund earnings to accounts in the ‘pension phase', in three annual steps of 5% each year - Saving $300 million in 2016-17.
• Stem the avoidance of personal income tax by individuals over 55 years of age who ‘churn' their earnings through superannuation accounts: From 1 July 2016, reduce the annual cap for concessional contributions by $1 for every dollar withdrawn from a superannuation account in the same year by a fund member - Saving $500 million in 2016-17.

Abbott Government has given permission for Dutch-owned Seafish Tasmania and Parlevliet En Van Der Plas Beheer B.V. to bring a super trawler into Australian waters

FV Dirk Dirk now known as the Geelong Star

Photo: www.maritimetraffic.com

The FV Dirk Dirk owned by Parlevliet & Van der Plas Beheer B.V. based in The Netherlands, now rebranded the Geelong Star, is currently in or near the port of Albany in West Australia.

This refrigerated trawler has a gross tonnage of 3,181 and is 95.18 metres long, 14.50 metres wide, with a service speed of 14,000 knots.

It has freezing and holding capacities of 230,000 kg fish/day (230 tonne) and 91,000 cartons respectively.

The newly re-named Geelong Star comes from the same fishing fleet as the notorious FV Margiris which Seafish Tasmania and Parlevliet En Van Der Plas temporarily rebranded the Abel Tasman during its unsuccessful 2012 to 2014 attempt to fish these waters.

The Geelong Star is reportedly expected to take up to 16,500 tonne of fish during its initial trawl this year – only 2,000 tonne less than the larger super trawler Margiris was hoping to take in 2012. 

The Geelong Star’s maximum quota is an est. 47 per cent of the 2014-15 total allowable catch.

The Abbott Government intends to allow this ship to fish the Australian Small Pelagic Fishery which extends from the Queensland/New South Wales border, typically outside 3 nautical miles, around southern Australia to a line at latitude 31° south (near Lancelin, north of Perth).

In what appears to be a deliberate attempt to politically deceive, the government issued a media release on 12 February 2015 which ignored the antecedents of Seafish Tasmania.

Calling this company “Australian” when in fact it is a company merely registered in Australia but wholly-owned by Silver Pit B.V. a subsidiary of Parlevliet & Van der Plas which also has branches in the U.K., France, Germany, Spain and Lithuania.

The media release also ignores the fact that it is highly likely that the entire catch will be exported, so that there will be little benefit from the vessel's fish catch flowing to Australia either economically or as available food stock.

As for the potential for adverse environmental impacts – I doubt whether the Minister for Agriculture and Nationals MP for New England, Barnaby Joyce, has given more than a passing thought to this issue.

He did not release the REPORT OF THE EXPERT PANEL ON A DECLARED COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITY: FINAL (SMALL PELAGIC FISHERY) DECLARATION 2012 until October 2014 and then with little fanfare.

Unfortunately this report cannot rule out localised depletion of fish stocks given the number of variables in play when a large refrigerated trawler is operating within a fishery.

In 2012 the then Labor Member for Page, Janelle Saffin, stood up for the North Coast region and successfully lobbied to keep the Margiris out of Australian waters.

Based on his record to date, it would be foolish of anyone to expect the current Nationals MP for Page, Kevin Hogan, to stir himself.

Fishing fleets based on the NSW North Coast from the Clarence to the NSW-QLD border have been working towards achieving sustainable fishing practices and they bring millions of dollars annually to the regional economy, so it is disappointing to see the Abbott Government allowing a foreign-owned company to trawl in the NSW fishing zone when it has a history of breaching conditions* imposed by host countries.

* Dutch pelagic group Parlevliet & van der Plas (P&P) fined €105,000 in an Irish Court in 2014.
* In 2012 Parlevliet & Van Der Plasfined fined €595,000 in Cherbourg after the Maartje Theadora was stopped with €1.2million of illegally-caught fish in freezers.

* Parlevliet & Van der Plas FV Jan Maria alleged to have dumped almost 1.6 thousand tonnes herring at sea to make room for fish with a higher market value (highgrading) in 2012-2013.

UPDATE

This was a Seafish Tasmania spokesperson in The Advocate on 3 April 2014:

Mr Geen said he expected his Dutch partners Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV involved in the proposed super trawler,  earmarked to operate out of Devonport and create about 45 jobs while fishing the Great Australian Bight,  would still be keen to pursue the venture pending a successful outcome on the court and expert review hurdles.

"The only thing that's clear is we would like the opportunity to catch our quota,'' Mr Geen said.

"We need to talk to our Dutch partners.

"We have not called them for a long time but as far as I'm aware they are still interested.

Note how carefully crafted is this misleading impression that Seafish Tasmania is an independent company in partnership with the Parlevliet & Van der Plas and not owned by this Dutch company.