ICAC investigating water theft and allegations of NSW government corruption involving party donors

Eventually full details of this investigation will become public, as it cannot seriously be thought to be in the public interest for the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) not to publish findings.

The Australian, 27 October 2017:

ICAC has begun a preliminary ­investigation into whether NSW public officials favoured Nationals donor and irrigator Peter ­Harris by not prosecuting him over ­alleged water theft.

The Independent Commission Against Corruption is also investigating whether public officials made decisions in favour of western NSW irrigator and lobbyist Ian Cole by changing water sharing arrangements to benefit him.

A day after The Australian ­revealed that the corruption watchdog was investigating a case where Multicultural Affairs Minister Ray Williams wrote to ­Primary Industries Minister Niall Blair asking for prosecutorial ­action against constituent Garry Bugeja to be dropped, it has emerged that the NSW government is facing a ­series of inquiries over its water policies.

The Berejiklian government is facing the real spectre of a public ICAC inquiry potentially involving the two ministers and at least one former primary industries minister, Katrina Hodgkinson, just months out from the 2019 state election.

ICAC is investigating whether former deputy director-general of the Department of Primary ­Industry Gavin Hanlon disclosed confidential information to ­Barwon-Darling irrigators, allegations that have been the subject of a government inquiry and led to Mr Hanlon’s resignation.

The commission is also understood to be looking at whether any public official failed to properly investigate or prosecute Mr Harris, a cotton farmer from Moree, in northern NSW. ICAC is also understood to be investigating why the department’s strategic investigations unit was disbanded, leading to the abandonment of several water compliance operations.

There is also an investigation into whether any public official acted inappropriately in making changes to the Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan to benefit ­irrigator Mr Cole.

Another line of investigation is understood to be whether any person improperly gave access to departmental files and confidential material for the benefit of Mr Harris. Investigations into Mr Cole are understood to also involve whether pumps were attached to a property and were authorised by the department in breach of water laws…..

It was revealed earlier this year that Mr Blair sought law changes which may have benefited Mr Harris by retrospectively approving water-trading rights granted to him that appeared to not comply with the law. But Environment Minister Gabrielle Upton blocked the changes.

Mr Blair also legislated to allow past illegal works to be retrospectively approved — another piece of law which may have helped Mr Harris….

Mr Bugeja was not prosecuted for an alleged ­illegal dam in Sydney after Mr Williams wrote to Mr Blair

Australian Attorney-General, Liberal Senator for Queensland and faux Queen's Counsel fails to convince there is a need to change Sec 44 of the Australian Constitution

Commonwealth of Australia Coat of Arms 1912

Now that the High Court of Australia has removed the Leader and Deputy Leader of Coalition partner, the National Party of Australia, it seems the next move by the Liberal Party is to change the rules governing federal elections.

This was Australian Attorney-General, Liberal Senator for Queensland and faux Queen’s Counsel, George Brandis, on 29 October 2017 according to Sky News:

Mr Brandis said while the government accepted the High Court ruling, Section 44 in its current form on citizenship 'is not suitable for a multicultural democracy'.

'Australia is one of the most successful multicultural society in the world…..It is an unusual situation that there should be a provision of our constitution... where there are doubts about the capacity or eligibility of potential millions of Australians to stand for parliament.'

In 1891 the first published headcount of the Australian population occurred. There were 3.17 million people resident in the country and of these 31.99 per cent were born overseas in the United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Polynesia and New Zealand.

In 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution which includes Section 44 (disqualification from nominating as a candidate in a federal election/by-election) was adopted and, and the censuses of Australian states were undertaken that same year.

On 31 March 1901 the total combined population of all Australian states was recorded as 3.77 million people with 22.24 per cent of this population identified as being born overseas in the United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Other Countries and New Zealand.

So right at the beginning of Federation this nation could rightly be considered a “multicultural democracy”.

However, one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the new federal parliament 1901 was the Immigration Restriction Act which was the basis of what became known as the “White Australia Policy”.

Ten years later in 1911 when another national census occurred 4.45 million people were recorded as resident within Australia. Despite immigration restrictions Australia was still maintaining a strong multicultural presence with 17.68 per cent of the population having been born overseas in the United Kingdom, Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Polynesia and New Zealand.

In 1958 the "White Australia Policy" was finally dismantled for good and seventeen years after that the Racial Discrimination Act was pased.

At the 2016 national census there were 23.40 million people recorded as resident within Australia and 28.5 per cent of this population were born overseas in - you guessed it – Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America, Polynesia (now recorded as Oceania) and New Zealand.

It seems that – with a few hiccups along the way such as restricted immigration, two world wars and the Great Depression – cultural and ethnic diversity by way of immigration has always been a significant part of post-colonial Australian society.

If Senator Brandis wants to convince voters that the Constitution should be changed or additional legislation created, which would allow wannabe politicians free rein to decide to ignore holding dual citizenship and determine for themselves what they can declare or conceal from the electorate on their nomination forms, he will have to think of a better argument than the one he put forward to Sky News.

The American Resistance has many faces and this is just one of them (16)

Impeach trump ads are starting to pop up. A beautiful sight. The trashy, unhinged, treasonous racist isn't America.pic.twitter.com/wkEYnlKuaJ

— Ricky Davila 🇵🇷 (@TheRickyDavila) October 21, 2017

via @TheRicyDavila 

* The US Fox Nertwork LLC entered a contract to sshow this political advertisement. It has withdrawn this advertisement from Fox News on or about 28 October 2017.

"It is no coincidence that the Cancellation of the Advertisement, in the second week of its run, came on the heels of a tweet from President Trump, criticizing the spot and Mr. Steyer personally" Mr Steyer’s lawyer asserts.

Are NSW police racially profiling young offenders?

Junkee, 26 October 2017:

A NSW Police intelligence program that uses secret algorithms to identify suspects who may commit a “future crime” is disproportionately targeting young people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, according to a comprehensive new report.

The ‘Policing Young People in NSW’ report was published by the Youth Justice Coalition, a network of youth workers, lawyers, academics and policy experts. It was written by Dr Vicki Sentas, an academic at the University of New South Wales, and Camilla Pandolfni, a solicitor at the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.

The report is the first comprehensive look at the Suspect Targeting Management Plan (STMP), a NSW Police program that “seeks to prevent future offending by targeting repeat offenders and people police believe are likely to commit future crime”.

The STMP involves the use of “risk assessment tools” and algorithms that take into account a series of “risk factors” to identify potential future criminals. Suspects in the program are categorised on a scale from “low risk” to “extreme risk” and then targeted by police officers through regular house visits and the use of stop and search powers.

The criteria used to identify suspects is not publicly available, and individuals targeted through the STMP are not notified of the reasons behind their risk categorisation. The whole program is managed internally by the police and there are no specific laws or regulations governing its operation.

Excerpt from Youth Justice Coalition Report, Policing Young People in NSW: A study of the Suspect Targeting Management Plan:

The preliminary findings based on this research are:

* Disproportionate use against young people and Aboriginal people: Data shows the STMP disproportionately targets young people, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and has been used against children as young as ten.

* Patterns of ‘oppressive policing’ that may be damaging relationships between police and young people: Young people targeted on the STMP experience a pattern of repeated contact with police in confrontational circumstances such as through stop and search, move on directions and regular home visits. The STMP risks damaging relationships between young people and the police. Young people, their families or legal representatives are rarely aware of criteria used to add or remove people from the STMP. As the case studies show, young people experience the STMP as a pattern of oppressive, unjust policing.

* Increasing young people’s costly contact with the criminal justice system and no observable impact on crime prevention: The STMP has the effect of increasing vulnerable young people’s contact with the criminal justice system. Application of the STMP can be seen to undermine key objectives of the NSW youth criminal justice system, including diversion, rehabilitation and therapeutic justice. The research has identified several instances where Aboriginal young people on Youth Koori Court therapeutic programs have had their rehabilitation compromised by remaining on the STMP. There is no publicly available evidence that the STMP reduces youth crime.

* Encouraging poor police practice: In some instances, the exercise of police search powers in relation to a young person on the STMP have been found unlawful by the courts. The STMP may be inadvertently diminishing police understanding of the lawful use of powers (set out in the Law Enforcement Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 (NSW) (LEPRA)) and thereby exposing police to reduced efficacy and civil action. * No transparency and an absence of oversight, scrutiny or evaluation: The operation of the STMP is not transparent or accountable. Criteria for placement on the STMP are not publicly available, individuals cannot access their STMP plan and it is unclear what criteria are used by police to remove a person from the STMP…..

Based on the research and findings presented here, the report recommends that:

1. NSW Police discontinue applying the STMP to children under 18. Children suspected of being at medium or high risk of reoffending should be considered for evidence-based prevention programs that address the causes of reoffending (such as through Youth on Track, Police Citizens Youth Clubs NSW (PCYC) or locally based programs developed in accordance with Just Reinvest NSW), rather than placement on an STMP.

2. NSW Police make the STMP policy and operational arrangements publicly available to enable transparency and accountability.

3. NSW Police amend the STMP policy so that any person considered to have a ‘low risk’ of committing offences not be subject to the STMP.

4. NSW Police amend the STMP Policy to mandate formal notification by police to any individual placed on a STMP, including reasons for placement on the STMP and the date of next review. Subsequent notifications to individuals on an STMP should outline the outcome of the review and reasons for the STMP being maintained or discontinued.

5. NSW Police make data on the STMP publicly available through the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR). Available data should include demographic information (age, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, ethnicity, Local Area Command LAC), as well as data on the length of time enrolled in the STMP and the category of risk determined.

6. NSW Police commission BOCSAR to evaluate whether the STMP is reducing youth crime.

7. NSW Police provide all police officers with formal training on the STMP which:

i. Clarifies its status as an intelligence tool;

ii. Provides guidance on the criteria for inclusion and exclusion from the program and the alternative programs available;

iii. Sets out its operational requirements, and limits; and iv. Provides guidance on the relationship of the STMP to the law. For example, training should clarify that a persons’ inclusion on an STMP cannot provide a basis for grounding a reasonable suspicion (either on its own or together with a number of other factors) under LEPRA.

8. The Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) conduct a comprehensive review of the STMP.1 The terms of reference of the recommended LECC review should include consideration of whether the STMP:

i. is effective and appropriate in dealing with the risk of offending in young people under 25 and children;

ii. is effective and appropriate in dealing with the risk of offending in adults;

iii. is effective and appropriate in relation to other vulnerable people (as defined in clause 28 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Regulation 2016), including those with impaired intellectual or physical functioning, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and persons from non-English speaking backgrounds;

iv. is consistent with NSW policy and practice for juvenile justice including principles of diversion from the criminal justice system as well as NSW law, including the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW), and the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW); and

v. is consistent with NSW Police policies and practices for policing children and young people, including the NSW Police Force Youth Strategy, as well as the Aboriginal Strategic Direction and Aboriginal Action Plans, the NSW Domestic Violence Strategy, the NSW Police Disability Inclusion Action Plan and all other policies and procedures regarding vulnerable persons.

In the course of the review, the LECC should consult with other professional disciplines such as mental health practitioners, Family and Community Services Managers, the Department of Justice, and community workers about best practice in diversion, crime prevention and the needs of young people.

Finally, this report is the first publicly available study about the STMP. The unjustified secrecy around the STMP has prevented appropriate, transparent, program evaluation and more thorough examination of the impact the STMP is having on young people, crime prevention and police practice. This report’s conclusion that the operation of the STMP is likely to be having damaging effects on young people is compelling grounds for further investigation and external scrutiny.

Anthony Waldron: "I knew there were a lot of threatened species in Australia, but I didn't realise things were getting worse so quickly."

ABC News, 26 October 2017:

Koalas are one species under pressure in Australia.

(Supplied: WWF)

Australia is one of seven countries responsible for more than half of global biodiversity loss, according to a study published today.

Scientists based their findings on the worsening in conservation status of species between 1996 and 2008 on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list.

The IUCN red list uses a series of categories to rank how close a species is to extinction, from "least concern" through to "extinct in the wild".

Of the 109 countries studied, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, China and the United States (primarily Hawaii) also ranked inside the top seven as the worst offenders on conservation.

The researchers conceded that species native to multiple countries presented an obstacle to their calculations, but lead author Anthony Waldron says they were able to narrow down where the pressures were coming from.

"Once you actually work out [which country] might have been responsible for the loss of diversity, Australia is standing there at number two," Dr Waldron said.

"I knew there were a lot of threatened species in Australia, but I didn't realise things were getting worse so quickly."

Compared to Australia, which recorded a biodiversity loss of between 5 and 10 per cent of the total global decline, the study published in Nature found Indonesia had "absolutely the highest number of declining species", representing around 21 per cent of the total decline during the period.

Reduction in biodiversity was calculated by looking at species that had their IUCN red list upgraded during the period, such as from "least concern" to "threatened", or "vulnerable" to "endangered"……

Environmental sustainability professor Barry Brook from the University of Tasmania said there were a number of pressures threatening biodiversity in Australia.

"The predominant one is landclearing — ongoing clearing for habitat. New South Wales and Queensland have been particularly bad for that over the past two decades," Professor Brook said.

"[But] it's also what's known as 'lags' or 'extinction debt'. That's where you've had this historical change over many decades and it takes time for extinction to catch up as populations are reduced and fragmented and lose genetic diversity, then gradually fade away."

He said that spending on conservation is worthwhile when it involves preserving habitat or targeting pests.

"Native biodiversity is definitely improved by removing invasive plants and to a lesser extent invasive species."

Orange-bellied parrots are one of Australia's critically endangered species.

(ABC News: Caroline Winter)

BACKGROUND

Nature Magazine, Anthony Waldron  et al, Reductions in global biodiversity loss predicted from conservation spending, 25 October 2017

US President Donald Trump can run but can he hide?

After months of fighting to have this court case go away US President Donald J. Trump is in the process of being forced to hand over documents relating to at least ten sexual assault allegations, as part of a defamation action.

This subpoena only became public in September 2017.

Subpoena in Summer Zervos v Donald J. Trump by clarencegirl on Scribd

According to BuzzFeed on 15 October 2017:

Trump’s response to Zervos’s motion is due Oct. 31, according to Zervos’s attorney, Gloria Allred. In a statement Allred said: “We are hopeful that the court will deny President Trump’s motion to dismiss, so that we may move forward with discovery and obtain relevant documents and testimony.”

The original compliant and jury demand was lodged in the Supreme Court Of The State Of New York County Of New York in January 2017 as Summer Zervos v Donald J. Trump.

UPDATE

Trump's response has been reported in the media as characterising his allegedly defamatory statements, about private citizen Summer Zervos, as political opinion protected under the US Constitution.

Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman examining payment terms and conditions for subcontractors working on government projects

Medianet Release 16 Oct 2017 12:00 PM AEST - Call for subcontractors to be paid promptly The Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman is examining payment terms and conditions for subcontractors working on government projects. Ombudsman Kate Carnell says small business "subbies" are vulnerable to delayed payments, which can have an adverse impact on their livelihoods and the broader economy. "Most government departments pay their invoices within 30 days, but when a prime contractor is appointed to manage a project there are regularly delayed payments further down the chain," Ms Carnell said. "Government agencies and prime contractors should ensure that payment terms and conditions throughout the supply chain are no worse than those in the head contract. "It's not good enough to leave responsibility with a head contractor and overlook small businesses who do much of the work." Ms Carnell said cashflow was vital to small business success. "Cashflow is king," she said. "A lack of cashflow is the leading cause of business insolvency and this underscores the importance of prompt payments." Ms Carnell has written to seven government departments seeking information about their procurement and payment policies. It follows her inquiry into payment times, which recommended the government pay invoices within 15 days. The inquiry recommended: The Australian Government require its head contractors to adopt the payment times and practices of the procurement policy through the supply chain; The Australian Government extend its payment policies to all agencies and entities; The Australian Government publish its payment times and policies, and for all its agencies and entities, with performance against best practice benchmarks; The Australian Government procure from businesses which have supply-chain payment times and practices equal to or better than its practices. The inquiry also recommended that all levels of government adopt the same prompt-payment policies. Ends Distributed by AAP Medianet