Australia Attacks Scientific Basis of Japanese Whaling in International Court

As Australia's attempts to get whaling banned, Australia has mounted an attack on the scientific basis claimed for Japan's Antarctic whaling as it broadened its case for a ban by the International Court of Justice.

The 26-year-old Japanese program, conducted under a self-awarded special scientific permit, has taken upwards of 10,000 whales, the International Court of Justice has heard recently.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that the counsel and witnesses for Australia have told the International Court in The Hague that the Japanese whaling research program (known as JARPA II)... "had made a negligible contribution to science".

Describing the program as a "parody of science" Professor James Crawford, QC is reported by SMH as saying:

''JARPA II is not a program of science, it is a parody of science,...It is designed to keep Japan in the whaling business, come what may.''

While Philippe Sands, QC, has according to SMH told the court that while Japanese whalers may have collected data on thousands of body parts, their program was nothing more than a collection of data: "a heap of stones, not a house."

Australia's case referenced the fact that a quarter of a century has passed with thousands of whales being killed and yet Japan is unable to offer any "discernible progress". The case was being prepared through written submissions because Japan had refused to respond to criticisms of its science taking the view that "if we say it's science its science".

Other criticism came from Australian Antarctic program chief scientist Nick Gales who is reported to have told the court that Japanese whalers' research had added nothing to what was already known about what Minke whales ate, or their age at death.

The case is being heard before a panel of 16 judges and is continuing.

Source: 'Science' of Japanese whaling attacked in court case (Sydney Morning Herald)

Metadata Warrants at What Point Should there be Control?

Recently the federal Attorney-General has declared that Australian law enforcement “would grind to a halt” if the police and other law enforcement authorities were compelled to apply for a search warrant every time they wanted or required access to the telecommunications data of Australians (see article published in delimeter.com.au).

Figures released in the federal Budget Estimates hearing sessions recently (Monday 27 May to Friday 7 June 2013) indicate that the Australian Federal Police made more than 40,000 internal requests for telecommunications ‘metadata’ (being defined as data pertaining to the numbers, email addresses, time, length and date involved in phone calls or emails, but not the content) in the past financial year. At present no warrant is required to support these requests.

Given this increasing access to metadata by Australian law enforcement it is no surprise that civil liberties groups and political groups have sought to have such activity controlled and called for he introduction of laws to control this.

Adding to the debate in recent times has been the fact that the US spy agency the NSA (National Security Agency) has been reported to have gained backdoor access to the data servers of major technology companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft - raising concerns among many of what might be made of such information and how it might be used. To this might also be added he use hat might be made of such information by media outlets who, if the News of the World scandal is any indication, seem to be able to obtain this information at will.

This issue of access to the mountains of collateral data produced by the Internet is one that has been attracting more attention and firing debate. It catches my attention because I constantly marvel at how all free societies argue vociferously against a "big brother" like totalitarianism yet seem uncannily to find ways to create it or empower it. The issue of law enforcement and metadata warrants seems to be yet another instance of where unintentionally, even unknowingly we could be delivering information to government which could easily be abused by a government minded to do so at some point in the future.

Modern Man Discovers Financial Gravity

When Sir Isaac Newton sat under his favourite apple tree, or so the conventional story goes, he dozed off only to be rudely woken by a maturing apple clonking down on his head. it is the sharp resulting pain that it is said led to his sudden realisation, simple though it may sound, that "what goes up must inevitably come down", from which the great man went on to contemplate that a force "magnetic like" was in the earth which attracted everything to it including man. Inevitably this force had the power to attract everything leaving the planet's surface back to it - the force we now call gravity.

This got me thinking that in recent times there have been some gravity defying events, for example, the  GFC which saw most of the world economies fall but in defiance saw most of the worlds wealthy escape unscathed, unlike the less wealthy who become even less wealthy, loosing jobs, getting less interest from banks. When it comes to the rich I think gravity is defied, wealth heads in an upward direction building on its self and seldom comes down as the rich are favoured by governments, banks and most institutions in society. Government of the conservative type has even been said to say that "we should favour the rich as wealth will trickle down"! Indeed and if one considers it right that some should drink from the glass while others, the majority, are forced to wait for a trickle then that theory works.

So if a modern equivalent of Newton sat under a fruiting money tree in a modern free market plutocracy such as exist in the modern world today the modern Newton story might look like this:

                             

NSW v Kable: Detention and False Imprisonment

In the recent decision NSW v Kable [2013] HCA 26 (delivered on 5 June 2013) the High Court of Australia has ruled on the validity of claim for damages grounded in abuse of process, false imprisonment and malicious process against the State of NSW.

In the case the High Court ruled unanimously to allow an appeal by NSW holding that a detention order made by a Supreme Court judge of that State under legislation subsequently held to be unconstitutional was a defence to a claim for "false imprisonment".The order it was found by the High Court valid until it was later set aside on appeal.

Background

The respondent (Mr Kable) was detained in custody for six months in 1995 pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court made under the Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) s 9. Mr Kable unsuccessfully appealed against the detention order to the Court of Appeal NSW and after Mr Kable was released from his detention, he successfully appealed to the High Court which ordered that the detention order be set aside on the basis that the Act was unconstitutional and therefore,invalid.

As a result of the Court of Appeal decision Mr Kable commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court, claiming damages against the State of NSW for abuse of process, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution. In those proceedings the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, holding that Mr Kable should have judgment against the State of NSW for damages assessed on his claim for false imprisonment.

Result

By way of a special leave appeal the State of NSW appealed to the High Court of Australia which unanimously allowed the appeal concluding that the detention order under which Mr Kable was detained was valid until it wad set aside. As such it provided lawful authority for Mr Kable's detention. The original orders dismissing Mr Kable's claims were reinstated.

Financial Recognition of Local Government: Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 Bill

The Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 29 May 2013 and Wednesday (5 June 2013) was passed by the lower house. The Bill proposes to amend the Commonwealth Constitution s96 to make specific provision in relation to the granting of financial aid to local government bodies of which there are currently 565 many of whom struggle finically while trying to meet a growing list of funding demands .

Background

The Attorney-General in speaking to the Bill said that in August 2011 the federal government had appointed an Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government chaired by former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of NSW, the Hon James Spigelman AC QC (the Expert Panel) to identify options for the constitutional recognition of local government.

In December 2011 a majority of the Expert Panel members concluded that financial recognition of local government by amendment of the Commonwealth Constitution s 96 was a viable option within the 2013 election timeframe and led to the Commonwealth Parliament establishing a Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Local Government to inquire into and report on the majority finding of the Expert Panel in November 2012. It subsequently supported the findings of the Expert Panel that a referendum on financial recognition of local government be held at the 2013 federal election.

Whistle Blowers get a Harsh Deal

In an article in SMH (5 June 2013) it is reported that informing a regulator like Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) of corruption may not be as easy as it might at first seems: "[i]f you've come across something rotten in the organisation you work for and are thinking of blowing the whistle to the corporate regulator, think twice".

The SMH report deals with a group of "whistle blowers" at the Commonwealth Bank who contacted ASIC in October 2008 with detailed information outlining "serious flaws" in the bank's financial planning unit. But, as reported, instead of ASIC moving quickly on the serious tip-off that one of the bank's top financial planners had engaged in systemic misconduct and his files were being "cleaned up", it took ASIC 16 months to take action and even more concerning is the lack of protection offered to the whistleblowers in the case.

One of the "whistle blowers" quoted said ''We dealt ASIC the cards to take 10 tricks but they settled for six . . . My whistleblower protection consisted of advising me to 'get out with what you have left'."

Although there have been Bills for proposed laws in four states (QLD, VIC, NSW and NT) as well as the CTH aiming to protect whistleblowers are in progress in those jurisdictions none have as yet been enacted  into law and all continue to use the terminology  "whistle blower" with all the pejorative connotations that Australian society connects to the term. Reading stories like this one  it is difficult not to wonder whether if citizens who take it upon themselves to do the right thing were not referred to as "whistle blowers" words which seems to evoke the view that such a person is a "tattle-tale" or "lag" instead of being someone who did the right thing, it might not go better for the said "whistle blowers". Is it our less than splendid origins as a penal settlement that seem to favour a less sympathetic disposition to people who take the often lonely path of revealing corruption, prejudice or deficient administration or even criminal activity by blowing the whistle on it?

Whistle blowing is right not wrong? To be encouraged and supported by government, policy and integrity commissions and regulators? More so than ASIC appears to have done in this case.

Source: Blow the whistle, face the music (SMH)

New Start Bill referred to Senate Committee for Inquiry and Report

The Senate has referred the Social Seurity Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013 (the Bill) to a Senate Committee for inquiry and report. The referral has been very much supported by the Greens who have been critical of the legislation. Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens spokesperson on families) saying:

"This Bill allows people on very low payments like Newstart to earn a miserly additional $19 per week before their income support begins to be affected."

Nature of the Inquiry

The Bill has been referred to the Senate Education, Employment and the Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013. Key measures in the Bill include:

(i) Proposed increase to the income free area applying to recipients of benefits like Newstart Allowance, Widow Allowance, Partner Allowance, Parenting Payment (Partnered) and Sickness Allowance. The increase in the income free area would increase benefits from $62 to $100 per fortnight starting from 20 March 2014 and would be subject to an annual indexation.

(ii) Proposed extension to the eligibility criteria for the Pensioner Education Supplement to single principal carer parents receiving Newstart Allowance Payments from 1 January 2014. 

(iii) Proposes provision of a 12 week extension of eligibility for the Pensioner Concession Card to single parents who are no longer qualified for Parenting Payment (Single) because their youngest child has turned eight years of age, and who do not qualify for another income support payment due to earnings - commencing on 1 January 2014.

Green's Reasoning for Inquiry

The view of Senator Siewert and the Greens is that the short Inquiry would allow the Bill to be dealt with before the end of the current Parliament in June 2013, while at the same time providing the community with the formal opportunity to respond to the measures.

Key criticisms from the Greens include:

The amount of extra casual work proposed: "That's one hour of work extra per week at the casual minimum wage. The Bill does nothing to actually help people into work or to overcome the financial pressures they are facing."

The increase in the income free area: "Such a meagre increase of the income free area - from $62 to $100 per fortnight - falls short of the $50 per week increase to Newstart that has been widely called for. The fact is people on Newstart need an increase to Newstart and an improvement in the income free area."

The timing of changes: "To compound matters, the increase does not start until March 2014, so will offer no relief whatsoever until well after the election".

Indeed the Newstart benefit in particular is agreed by most social welfare advocates to be well below where it should be to provide fair and reasonable treatment for those on it and well below a sustainable living standard even a subsistence level. For his the Greens should get credit for trying to get more. However, it perhaps should also be noted that this is the first federal government in 20 years who has moved to increase such benefits, albeit perhaps not enough?

For those interested making submissions to the Committee have been requested by 11 June 2013 and the reporting date for the Committee is 17 June 2013. Click here to see more information.

Sources:

• Parliament of Australia Web Page
• Senator Rachel Siewert, Australian Greens spokesperson on families Media Release date 3 June 2013 (Chris.Redman@aph.gov.au)