Friday, 20 July 2012

Microsoft...is it the first of many more losses?

MS Office softens historic fall as Microsoft posts quarterly loss


MICROSOFT swung to a fiscal fourth-quarter loss - its first in 26 years as a public company - as the software giant booked a hefty writedown on its online services division and deferred revenue related to its Windows 8 upgrade promotion. 

Microsoft's continued strength in sales of its Office suite of products to corporate customers has helped cushion the company from the impact of slumping personal computer sales. The company earlier this week gave a preview of its new Office software that embraces cloud computing and mobile devices in an effort to revitalise its core software offering for global business.

Microsoft needs demand for Office to remain robust as it transitions customers to cloud services and its forthcoming Windows 8 operating system that will run on both traditional PCs and tablet computers. Windows is the software powering most of the world's PCs. Windows 8 is widely seen as Microsoft's best chance at competing with machines running Google's Android operating system and Apple's iPad. The new Microsoft system will go on sale October 26.
To sustain sales of its Windows 7 operating system through October, the company has said buyers of selected versions of Windows 7 through the end of January 2013 will be able to upgrade to a version of Windows 8 Pro at a discount.

For the quarter ended June 30, Microsoft reported a loss of $US492 million ($471.7m), or US6 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier profit of $US5.87 billion, or US69c a share.

The latest period's results included a $US6.19bn goodwill writedown in its online services division, connected to its 2007 acquisition of online-advertising agency aQuantive for $US6.3bn. It also included the deferral of $US540m of revenue related to the Windows Upgrade Offer.

Excluding the impairment and deferred revenue, adjusted earnings were US73c a share. Revenue increased 4 per cent to $US18.06bn.Analysts polled by Thomson Reuters most recently projected earnings of US62c a share and revenue of $US18.13bn. Total operating expenses were up 60 per cent. Microsoft's Windows and Windows Live Division saw revenue decrease 13 per cent, including the impact of the deferred revenue, as profit fell 18 per cent.

Revenue for the company's servers and tools products, which form the backbone of enterprise networks and private clouds, jumped 13 per cent while the segment's profit improved 24 per cent. At the business division, which earns most of its sales from Microsoft Office, sales were up 7.1. per cent as profit advanced 9 per cent. Recent quarters have seen strong demand for the company's cloud-based Office 365 suite of office utilities and collaboration tools.

Sales at the entertainment-and-devices business, which houses the Xbox video game console, jumped 20 per cent. In online services, revenue was up 8.1 per cent. Microsoft has invested heavily in the unit, launching a splashy advertising blitz last year to promote Bing, which is the second-most-popular search engine in the U.S. behind Google, according to comScore.

Microsoft shares rose 1.9 per cent to $US31.24 after hours. Through the close, Microsoft's stock is up 18 per cent since the start of the year.

                     _______________________   |   _____________________

Monday, 16 July 2012

Christine Milne exploits Julia Gillard's silence



Julia GillardJulia Gillard meets and greets the party faithful at Sydney Town Hall, yesterday, where she addressed the 2012 NSW State Labor Conference. Picture: Sam Mooy Source: The Australian
 
JULIA Gillard yesterday attempted to sidestep the escalating anti-Greens backlash in the ALP, avoiding the issue in a speech to its NSW conference even as senior Labor figures in Victoria and Queensland sharpened their warnings against deals with the minor party.

The Prime Minister elected not to engage with the battle between the ALP and the Greens, using her speech in Sydney to outline her achievements and refocus the party's attentions on its traditional strengths of workplace relations and jobs creation.

But the tactic appeared to backfire when Greens leader Christine Milne seized on Ms Gillard's speech as a sign of support - congratulating the Prime Minister for rebuking "the brawling boys"of the NSW ALP and for recognising the "positive" achievements of Labor-Greens government. Sweeping aside the Labor attacks, Senator Milne laid out the Greens' next demand - a $5 billion-a-year increase in education funding to implement the Gonski review.
The timing of Senator Milne's announcement would not have pleased the Prime Minister nor her party, and makes it likely that the Green-Labor relationship will dominate debate for a second week. For the past 10 days Labor MPs, union leaders and party administrators have demanded Labor distance itself from the Greens, who agreed in 2010 to support Ms Gillard's minority government in exchange for her promise to price carbon.

The attacks began as a tactical prelude to the NSW Labor conference but gained momentum as federal MPs expressed their anger over the Greens' refusal to back government moves to reinstate offshore processing of asylum-seekers. As Ms Gillard yesterday declared she would "stand and fight" for Labor values, more senior party figures expressed their angst and opposition to the party's affiliation with the Greens.

Queensland ALP secretary Anthony Chisholm told The Australian he was convinced Labor's alliance with the Greens was damaging its electoral credibility in Queensland. Victorian Labor leader Daniel Andrews vowed he would never sign any deal with the minor party and said the federal Greens were frauds who demanded compromise from others while refusing to budge from their own absolutism.

After a torrid conference debate on Saturday, the NSW branch backed a motion ensuring the Greens would not automatically receive Labor preferences. However, party members hoping Ms Gillard would take up the cudgels against the Greens were disappointed yesterday. The Prime Minister took the diplomatic route, not even mentioning her alliance partners and instead focusing on the achievements of her government, including industrial relations reform and increases in the minimum wage and the Superannuation Guarantee.

She said Labor remained a unique force in Australian politics 120 years after its formation. While conservative forces always found their voice in parliament, other parties would "come and go - often promising more, always delivering less". "But we endure - not a brand, a cause," she said. Noting that Tony Abbott had told Liberal MPs earlier this year that she would not "lie down" despite Labor's poor position in opinion polls, Ms Gillard said: "Too right I won't. Not while I have our great program to fight for, not while I have our great movement to fight alongside. "I will stand and fight because I know you will stand and fight."
While the speech was well-received by the party faithful, the Coalition frontbencher Christopher Pyne said Ms Gillard had failed the test of leadership by avoiding the "key issue of the day".

Senator Milne identified what Labor had achieved with the Greens. "We've worked with the government to get rid of Work Choices," she said in Hobart. "We've worked with the government to increase superannuation from 9 to 12 per cent. We've worked with the government to get a good outcome and to implement the changes from the Fair Work decision (on equal pay) earlier this year."

Referring to the standoff over asylum-seekers, Mr Andrews said federal Labor was stuck with "a political party who require everyone else to compromise except them". "That sort of purity, that sort of absolutism, means you don't get good outcomes," he told ABC TV's Insiders. Mr Andrews insisted the by-election next Saturday in the state seat of Melbourne, which is widely expected be won by the Greens, had nothing to do with Ms Gillard's leadership.

While not wanting to be seen to be critical of Ms Gillard's leadership, Mr Chisholm said: "I am deeply concerned that Labor's relationship with the Greens at the federal level has hurt Queensland Labor's chance of winning back working-class, blue-collar voters lost to Bob Katter's Australia Party." Environment Minister Tony Burke said he was pleased with the debate within Labor about the Greens because it allowed Labor to set "some very clear markers" about how it was different from the minor party.

The motion on the Greens that passed the NSW ALP conference on Saturday was a moderate version of what was originally proposed, after the Left faction warned the party was in danger of alienating progressive voters. It contained no criticism of the Greens. Even so, the motion sparked intense debate on the conference floor, with key Left figures such as senators John Faulkner and Doug Cameron, and Infrastructure Minister Anthony Albanese, warning that the debate on the Greens provoked by the Right was counter-productive.

NSW ALP secretary Sam Dastyari, the convenor of the Right, denied his faction had suffered a defeat. "The Greens stuff came out exactly how we wanted it to be," he said. "Previously, I wasn't in a position to go into preference negotiations with the Greens with a free hand."

NSW Labor Left assistant general secretary John Graham agreed with criticism of Right figures such as Mr Dastyari and union boss Paul Howes for starting the Greens debate. "But, having been raised, it had to be responded to," Mr Graham said. "The debate finished on a much better note than it started."

Additional reporting: Troy Bramston

Delicate rebound of Rudd



Kevin Rudd
Polls continue to show Kevin Rudd as a two-to-one favourite over Julia Gillard as PM. Picture: Jane Dempster Source: The Australian
 
OPERATION return Rudd to the leadership is a delicate affair with many variables. Despite an increasing number of senior Labor Party figures referring to a Kevin Rudd comeback as "inevitable", they are universally uncertain about how it might happen. 

But how it happens will be all-important to just how successful it would be at turning around Labor's woeful standing in the polls. Even though the polls show Julia Gillard to be deeply unpopular, tearful scenes at a media conference immediately after she has been blasted out of office aren't the sort of start to a leadership honeymoon Rudd is looking for.

Nevertheless, it may yet come to that, so desperate is the parliamentary party to improve its standing within the electorate. Few regard the Prime Minister's personality as suited to going without a fight. And animosity between Gillard and her predecessor is so toxic that the notion of putting the Labor Party first by avoiding a bloody showdown may not be possible. Yet polls continue to show Rudd as a two-to-one favourite over Gillard as PM.

The whole situation severely undermines Gillard's standing as Prime Minister, and hence her capacity to improve Labor's political fortunes now that the carbon price has been put into practice - a key promise during the February spill.

Left-wing elder statesman John Faulkner used the NSW state Labor conference to point out that the party's primary vote was at record lows and likely to continue falling. It was the second part of his observation that turned the most heads - hardly an endorsement of Gillard's ability to improve the situation.

Rudd backers have been remarkably quiet since the February challenge saw Gillard overwhelmingly re-endorsed as leader. They wanted Gillard to own her failure to improve the government's position, free of excuses that leaking against her was to blame. But silence has been replaced by discreet activity, as the survival instincts of MPs increasingly start to kick in.

Chief government whip Joel Fitzgibbon, also the convener of the Right faction, backed Gillard in the February ballot but has switched his support to Rudd. Fitzgibbon has factional clout and the time necessary to devote to building caucus support for Rudd, which he is believed to be quietly going about doing. When Gillard easily beat Rudd in their February showdown (71 votes to 31) she mistakenly believed that gave her the authority she needed in the aftermath to punish Rudd backers. Robert McClelland was dumped from the frontbench and Kim Carr demoted to the outer ministry. All that such moves did was increase animosity.
The character assassination of Rudd engaged in by numerous ministers was designed to veto any chance of a second strike by Rudd.

But the attacks instead lowered the standing of those who engaged in them among sections of Labor's back bench, at least on the issue of leadership. It brought out into the open a sense of chaos within the government that makes it harder for desperate MPs to win re-election. And the fact that polls went on showing voters continued to prefer Rudd overwhelmingly over Gillard despite what was said, highlights Rudd's comparative popularity and the disregard the public have for the opinions of senior ministers.

This latter point coupled with the difficulties such ministers would have in working for Rudd, were he to return as leader, mean that opportunities on the frontbench may also open up if Rudd returns - which is perhaps added self-interest for some MPs to shift support to Rudd.

The return of parliament next month is being discussed so far as timing for a Rudd comeback is concerned. So are the final sitting weeks of the parliamentary year, often referred to as the killing season because of the number of leaders who have met their end during that time.

Rudd is believed to be in no rush, however. He is more interested in a smooth transition (so far as that is even possible) than a quick return to the prime ministership. Rudd's lack of desperation about how to seize back the top job may be Gillard's last advantage in their increasingly inevitable showdown.

The Prime Minister is understood to have lost the active backing of figures such as AWU national secretary Paul Howes and NSW Labor secretary Sam Dastyari. "While neither of them are going to turn on her because of their public comments, they won't lift a finger to defend her", one senior figure in the NSW Right points out. His reference to "lifting a finger" refers to threatening MPs' preselections: "What's the point of winning preselection if you can't hold your seat?" he wryly adds.

"Pushing for a Rudd comeback has been a bottom-up phenomenon for some time now," another MP tells The Australian. "That's starting to change." A key figure in convincing Gillard to minimise the fallout from an orchestrated change back to Rudd is Simon Crean. He and Gillard have long been close, and Crean was one of the first voices to attack Rudd which precipitated Rudd's resignation as foreign minister.

But Crean's rhetoric in February was not as scathing about the job Rudd did as prime minster as was that of other ministers. And Crean's status as a former leader would elevate his capacity to play a role in any transition, were he to be convinced that a Rudd comeback was in the best interests of the Labor Party. In terms of setting the government up for a good start in the aftermath of a showdown, bringing back Faulkner into the ministry would be an important move. It would send a message to the electorate that wiser heads were back running the government. If called on, Faulkner is unlikely to say no. Beyond such a move, room on the frontbench would be determined by the manner in which Rudd came back. The more bloody it was, the more likely it would be that wholesale changes would happen.

Bill Shorten is the person most likely to assume the position of treasurer following Wayne Swan's certain move to the back bench. After what the deputy PM said about Rudd, there is no way the pair could work together again.

Speculation abounds that Shorten and Rudd have already had a conversation about such a scenario, but Shorten denies this. Shorten's retail political skills would be important for the government to re-engage with voters after another leadership change. And a reward for the Victorian powerbroker in terms of ministerial promotion might be the only way to prevent him potentially blocking a return to Rudd.

It would also mean replacing one AWU-backed MP with another in the treasurership. A Swan departure also frees up the deputy prime ministership. A Rudd return would probably mean that position would go back to being the preserve of the Labor Left. While Anthony Albanese and Greg Combet appear as the most likely options to take on the role, Health Minister Tanya Plibersek's name has been mentioned as a possible way of insulating against a backlash among female voters.

Plibersek has only just moved into cabinet, promoted by Gillard no less. Because Rudd saw health as a central policy area during his time as PM, having the Health Minister as his deputy could help elevate the portfolio's importance in the political debate. Personnel movements aside, the most significant moves Rudd must make after a comeback are on the policy front.

The NSW Right's decision to start a debate about distancing Labor from the Greens has given Rudd a key point of difference to Gillard. She refused to endorse the Howes-Dastyari push (having not been told about it before the pair went public), even though senior ministers and MPs lined up during the week to do just that.
One senior figure in the Labor caucus pointed out that Gillard's brush-off that preferencing was an organisational party issue was a sign of weakness, given the role leaders have played in preferencing decisions in the past. He pointed to Kim Beazley's insistence that Labor put One Nation last during his time as leader.

Rudd was less than lukewarm towards the Greens when he was PM, and would be expected to immediately tear up the alliance Gillard signed with Bob Brown were he to return to the position. An increasing number of Labor MPs see such a gesture as an important way for Labor to re-engage with its traditional base, something Gillard has struggled to do during her prime ministership.

Sources close to Rudd say that he would be likely to take up Tony Abbott's offer to reopen Nauru without towbacks or TPVs being put in place. While it might not stop the boats, Rudd supporters believe that it should neutralise the issue as a political negative for Labor. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen - who voted for Rudd in February - is believed to be open to such a change of policy even though Gillard was not during negotiations in the final sitting week before the winter recess.

A Stephen Conroy departure is expected, if not certain, if Gillard falls - like Swan, because of the ferocity of his comments in February. That would free the government up to rethink its approach to media regulation. Some Labor MPs have doubts about the political value in the government seeking statutory oversight of the media. Two weeks ago Rudd backers Nick Champion and Ed Husic publicly questioned the need for media regulation beyond the existing constructs, and The Australian understands those sentiments run much wider within the party.

Conroy stepping down as communications minister would give Rudd the opportunity to recalibrate the government's policy on the media front, but the decision would need to be Conroy's to make. Like Nicola Roxon, Conroy may have said some vicious things about Rudd in February, but the pair are popular and respected within the caucus. "I could see them crab crawling away from what they said," one Rudd backer says. What Rudd should do to shift gears on climate change policy is the area most dividing his supporters. Some say he should immediately drop the floor price and not worry about the difficulties that might cause so far as achieving next year's promised budget surplus goes. Others suggest that he should introduce legislation to start the emissions trading scheme early, forcing the Opposition Leader to vote with the Greens to block the move.

Few think that he can stick with the carbon tax as it stands now. A more radical proposal is for Rudd to use the final sitting period of the year to try to legislate an ETS and, if doing so fails, pledge to bring the legislation back into the parliament in the new year and go to a double-dissolution election - what he should have done two years ago before Swan and Gillard talked him into walking away from the ETS. In Yes, Prime Minister parlance, that would be a courageous decision.

Gillard remains Prime Minister, but increasingly in name only. She presides over a minority parliament which saps her of authority, illustrated during the refugee stand-off. She has a backbencher in her ranks far more popular than she is with voters, and the caucus is getting over its aversion to giving him another chance at being PM.

And Gillard has now played her last card in the long list of promised political moves that were supposed to improve Labor in the polls - the start-up of the carbon tax.

Sunday, 15 July 2012

ALP reject Greens preferences

NSW Labor delegates vote to deny Greens automatic preferences

dastyari2
Delegates at the NSW State Labor Party conference today backed Sam Dastyari's call for an end to the Greens' "free ride" in preference deals with the party. Picture: Sam Ruttyn Source: The Australian
 
DELEGATES at New South Wales Labor's annual conference voted overwhelmingly to deny the Greens automatic preferences at elections, despite a passionate defence by Left faction stalwarts. 

A clear majority of the party's 850 delegates, including the Left, supported a resolution that ‘NSW Labor should not provide the Greens Party with automatic preferential treatment in any future preference negotiations’.

The motion also reaffirmed that Labor would continue to put One Nation and other “racist right” parties last.
The vote followed a week of a week of Labor attacks on the Greens, amid party fears that Julia Gillard's deal to govern in minority with Greens support had alienated moderate Labor supporters.

NSW Labor general secretary Sam Dastyari, whose anti-Greens motion was revealed by The Weekend Australian last weekend, told delegates earlier today that the Greens’ “free ride” on Labor preferences should be ended. “The Greens political party are not our friends, they are not our allies, they are our political rivals,'' Mr Dastyari said.
But Senator John Faulkner, a former defence minister, told the conference that floating the motion in the media appeared to be a ploy to chase headlines and would not win over Greens voters. “There's another reality. You have to win primary votes to have preferences to give,'' Senator Faulkner said. “And in case you hadn't noticed, our primary vote is far too low and getting lower.” “Our party is facing a crisis of organisation and a crisis of belief and instead of grappling with those threats to our survival as a party ... we're talking about the miniature of politics, tactics, preferences,’ he added.

Assistant secretary John Graham, from the party's Left, said that the NSW Right's proposal would do more to alienate Greens voters. Mr Graham described Mr Dastyari and Australian Workers' Union chief Paul Howes, a right-wing ally of the state secretary, as “human headlines''.

NSW Labor senator Doug Cameron, from the party's hard Left faction, said that while he disagreed with the Greens' stance on the Rudd government's emissions trading scheme and refugee policy, Labor should not attack their left-wing values. “I say that we should not attack any party that takes progressive positions,'' Senator Cameron told delegates from the conference floor. “The type of positions that the Greens take on the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the WTO (World Trade Organization; my union the AMWU wrote those policies and they plagiarised them so why should we attack them on decent policy?”

But Joel Fitzgibbon, a right-faction federal MP from the mining-rich Hunter electorate, who moved the motion, said that the minority government was being unfairly blamed for its alliance with the Greens. “For too long we have been appeasing them and it must come to an end,'' Mr Fitzgibbon, the chief government whip, told the conference. “There's an assumption wrongly out there that the Greens are pulling us by the nose, that we are too close to the Greens, and therefore too close to some of the extreme policies they promote including policies that would have a devastating impact on my electorate like the ... effectively the closure of the coal mining industry.''

However, federal infrastructure minister Anthony Albanese, who faces a strong threat from the Greens in his inner-western Sydney seat of Grayndler, said that Labor needed to talk more about its values than about preference deals. “Labor will defeat the Greens political party by the value of ideas and our principles, not by the value of our preferences,'' Mr Albanese said.

Senator Faulkner saved his venom for Mr Howes, who has actively pushed for Labor to distance itself from the Greens. “I've even fought more Greens and Nationals than you've done media interviews,'' Senator Faulkner said. “Why don't you just put a sock in it for once?''

The conference also passed a motion to have a committee examine a proposal for rank and file party members to directly elect Labor's parliamentary leader. The Right and NSW opposition leader John Robertson supported this position

Saturday, 14 July 2012

ALP in turmoil while in free fall.

I can well understand the frustration that constantly torments ALP’s supporters. It is evident in the posting on this and other political pages. I imagine every time Abbott hits the TV or radio they collectively mutter in sheer despair, ‘Oh no, not another reminder of where Gillard has stuffed up’.

What then follows is typical of a supporter of any political party in a moribund state. Ask Howard’s Liberal how they felt when Rudd’s star was on the ascendancy. Ask Fraser’s supporters how they felt when Hawke’s was about to capture the imagination of the electorate with his slogan ‘reconstruction and reconciliation’. Ask Whitlam’s supporters how they were consumed with sadness when Fraser came across as the white knight.

Today the ALP is going through the same dynamics. Instead of the ALP criticising Abbott it should analyse why does Abbott have so much traction, why is Gillard so much on the nose, why does the ALP when in Government jettisoned so readily its core values? It is in denial.

Unfortunately, while the ALP is in denial, most of its members know no better and resort to their primal political instincts. Instincts that includes, attack and ridicule the Opposition and Abbott for being negative and just saying no.

It follows then that they do not question the ALP and Gillard on the state of the party. Members become lazy thinkers and find safe harbour in ridicule and when this does not bear fruits they then become despondent.

The ALP needs to accept that 70% of the electorate does not like them and will not give it their primary vote.

Gillard chasing the Greens to form Government was her biggest mistake. Gillard’s supposed negotiating skills have proved to be nothing more than selling off core ALP values and principles.

Why on earth would Gillard renounce her opposition to a carbon tax, one of the reasons why Rudd was unpopular with the electorate and stabbed by Gillard. Why would she agree to impose a tax that indirectly export jobs offshore to Australia’s competitors for little or no appreciable reduction in carbon emissions. A tax that today is $23 a tonne and rises to $350 a tonne in 2050. The electorate examines this and concludes the following; if electricity prices rise by 10% with a $23 tax on resources and the means of production, how much electricity will rise when a $350 tax is imposed.

The perception that the Greens’ tail is wagging the ALP’s dog is cemented in the physic of the electorate and what seems to the ALP as a master stroke is indeed the very reason why the ALP will be pulverised.

The right of the ALP's organisational wing (in possession of the internal polling ) knows the electorate’s perception and is desperately trying to extricate the ALP from the Greens. Gillard's brilliants negotiating skills have brought the 'chickens home to roost.'

Furthermore, unless Gillard tears up the agreement she signed with the Greens’ Bob Brown which keeps her in the Lodge, the ALP latest tactical move seems to the electorate exactly like Abbott point out a sham, much like a bout in world championship wrestling.
Author: R. Parisi   14.07.2012

Wednesday, 11 July 2012

G 20 summit in Brisbane

Funding stoush clouds Brisbane's G20 bid

Posted July 11, 2012 08:23:06 

 
Brisbane city skyline  
 

The Federal Government will formally announce today that Brisbane will host the G20 summit in 2014, but the decision has angered New South Wales and raised questions over who will pay for it.

It is the first time an Australian city will host the G20 meeting, and Treasurer Wayne Swan says having the leaders and finance ministers of the world's biggest economies in Brisbane will put Australia centre stage in world economic affairs.

Mr Swan has told AM that the Government called for expressions of interest to host the meeting, and Brisbane was the clear winner.
'I think Brisbane in particular is the snap shot of our economy more broadly, and certainly in terms of Brisbane and Queensland the logistics here were excellent, the convention centre and the airport were particularly important in those considerations.'
Treasurer Wayne Swan

"I think Brisbane in particular is the snapshot of our economy more broadly. And certainly in terms of Brisbane and Queensland, the logistics here are excellent, the convention centre and the airport were particularly important in those considerations," he said.

But there is confusion over who will foot the bill, with Queensland Premier Campbell Newman indicating his state does not have any spare funds to chip in. Mr Swan says Queensland will be contributing to the cost of the event."It is my understanding that they will be pitching in to the G20 and they will be working with us to make sure that we put on a world class event," he said."They will be partnering with the Commonwealth Government in the provision, if you like, on a whole range of services which are critical to the success of a conference of this size. "They certainly will be contributing to the cost of running this conference in Brisbane in the normal way that any other state would be contributing."

The Treasurer says the Federal Government has already allotted almost $400 million to cover costs.
'Everyone should expect the Federal Government to come to the party. I am sure the Federal Government will pick up virtually all the tab'.
Politics lecturer Paul Williams

"I can't go into all of that detail at this stage because we'll still be talking with the Queensland Government about all of the detail," Mr Swan said."But in terms of the Commonwealth budget, we've put aside something like $370 million over four years."

Politics lecturer Paul Williams says the cost will be immense, but the Federal Government is likely to pay for the majority of the event. "Everyone should expect the Federal Government to come to the party. I am sure the Federal Government will pick up virtually all the tab," he said.

Meanwhile, the New South Wales Government has accused Prime Minister Julia Gillard of choosing Brisbane as the host city to shore up Queensland votes.

State Planning and Infrastructure Minister Brad Hazzard says he is appalled because Sydney is a better option. "Sydney is the only true world city of Australia. It is the city that can best showcase Australia to the world and particularly to the G20 leaders," he said. "And it would appear that Julia Gillard is quite prepared to use the world's leaders as her own political play things by taking them to Brisbane in an effort to shore up the Labor vote in Queensland."

Economic boost

Dr Williams says the summit will require the biggest security operation ever seen in Queensland.
"Brisbane might not be quite the level of the London Olympics in terms of security, but I think it won't be far behind in terms of the police, private security and perhaps army and other security bodies," he said.

"In terms of sweeping for anti-terrorism, right down to keeping protesters away and that's another issue of course, we're almost certain to see protesters."

Wrangling over the cost aside, the news has been greeted with excitement by leaders in the Queensland capital over the announcement.
'There is no bigger international event than the G20 in terms of a meeting of government leaders.
And from that point of view it really does show Brisbane has come of age, we are the new world city and it is a very exciting prospect for Brisbane'.
Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk

David Goodwin from the Chamber of Commerce and Industry says with 7,000 delegates and media expected to attend the summit, the economic benefits would be huge.

"When you host it you get an opportunity to have a major stimulus to your local economy," he said.
"When you do get thousands of people coming in from overseas, your restaurateurs will do well, your hotels will do well."

Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk says it is a coup for the city to host the summit, which brings together the leaders of the world's largest economies.

"There is no bigger international event than the G20 in terms of meting of government leaders, and from that point of view it really does show Brisbane has come of age," he said. "We are the new world city and it is a very exciting prospect for Brisbane. "It provides an opportunity to showcase our city and an economic boost for our city as well.
                             ________________________  |  ____________________

Will Gillard survive the latest political play?

Home-state blues for Julia Gillard as Greens head for Victorian by-election victory

Internal ALP polling has revealed that Julia Gillard and federal Labor are toxic in the Prime Minister's home state of Victoria, and the party is on track for a disastrous loss to the Greens in a looming state by-election. 
 
Labor's Victorian campaign committee was told yesterday that federal factors were hampering the party's campaign to hold the once heartland seat of Melbourne from a Greens' onslaught. The warning came amid continued sniping between Labor and the Greens at the federal level, with Greens federal leader Christine Milne declaring that Labor powerbrokers were attacking her party to undermine Ms Gillard.

The Australian understands that the Victorian internal polling on the Melbourne by-election, caused by the resignation of former minister Bronwyn Pike, found that three times as many people cited the performance of the federal government rather than the performance of the state government as the reason they would not vote for Labor.

"We are getting flogged by the Greens," a Labor source told The Australian. At the 2010 state election, Ms Pike received 35.7 per cent of the primary vote to the Greens' 32 per cent. Labor won on Liberal Party preferences.

The Liberal Party's decision not to contest the July 21 by-election has made the contest a straight Labor-Greens fight, just as senior figures in Labor's NSW branch are examining taking the fight to the Greens and moving towards a new tough line on preferences.

The Greens' how-to-vote card for Melbourne shows the minor party has preferenced Labor's Jennifer Kanis ninth, behind self-proclaimed anarchist Joseph Toscano (sixth) and corporate activist Stephen Mayne (fifth). The party's second preferences will flow to former Victorian of the year Berhan Ahmed, the leader of the African think tank. Adrian Whitehead, a former Greens candidate, is fourth.

Should the Melbourne by-election deliver a loss to Labor, the result will increase pressure on Ms Gillard's leadership and increase despair in Labor ranks. A collapse in Labor's primary vote at the Penrith by-election in Sydney's west in 2010 was a precursor to Kevin Rudd's dumping and savage defeats in state elections in NSW and Queensland have deeply concerned MPs.

Some express doubts about Ms Gillard's ability to revive support in those states. "Victoria is supposed to be our best state," said one party source, adding that a loss in Melbourne would be "an eye-opener" for the party.

A source close to the by-election campaign said last night the party's job would be a lot easier "if Gillard wasn't there", arguing that the Prime Minister was having a demonstrable effect on driving down Labor's primary vote.

The source also backed NSW general secretary Sam Dastyari's weekend move to take a tougher line on Greens preferences, saying Labor was taking all the heat on issues such as gay marriage and the carbon tax while the Greens were claiming credit from progressive voters. On a contentious issue such as asylum-seekers the Greens had failed to back Labor.

"We have lost a significant portion of votes from our pile," the source said. "The majority have left because of federal issues." Another senior figure predicted the leadership issue would arise again. "It's a matter of who pulls the trigger and starts the war."

Relations between Labor and the Greens have been tense since Mr Dastyari and Australian Workers Union national secretary Paul Howes savaged the party as extremist and questioned whether Labor should favour the Greens with its electoral preferences.

Yesterday, as Labor MPs continued to question the minor party's policies, ALP national secretary George Wright sent all members and supporters an online poll inviting them to have their say about the future of their party and to reflect on the principles for which it stood.

In a covering note, Mr Wright told respondents he wanted Labor to be "a vital, growing and engaged movement ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century". Liberal Party federal director Brian Loughnane sent party members an emailed message saying that, if Labor was serious about its criticism of the Greens, Ms Gillard should dump the deal under which the Greens supported her minority government.

Senator Milne hit back yesterday, accusing Labor powerbrokers of attacking her party to undermine Ms Gillard's leadership. The Greens leader declared that Labor was "in crisis" and at risk of handing power to the "extreme Right". Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young last night attacked Mr Howes for backing a Labor push to put the Greens last on how-to-vote cards. "What on earth are Labor Party voters going to think when they hear Labor unionist leaders like Paul Howes saying he'd prefer Tony Abbott and Work Choices over the progressive party, the Greens," Senator Hanson-Young told Sky News's Showdown.
"People are characterising this as an attack on the Greens, but this is an attack on their (Labor's) own voters, and progressive voters across Australia."

Mr Howes told Showdown he would back a motion at the weekend by Mr Dastyari to put the Greens last in preferences. "I think it will be overwhelmingly endorsed because it's a motion about standing up for the values of the Labor party and the Labor party's people," he said.

The Greens' attacks came as some Labor critics of Ms Gillard's leadership also rejected the government's anti-Greens push, questioning how Labor could seriously expect voters to accept its criticism of the minor party while the government continued to rely on its support to maintain government.

In Perth, Tony Abbott said sections of Labor were campaigning against Ms Gillard's  deal to govern with Greens support. "You can't pretend the Greens are your worst enemy in the electorate and your best friends in the parliament."

Additional reporting: Milanda Rout, Mitchell Nadin

Janet Albrechtsen | Opinion

Silencing critics in seven illiberal steps

Julia Gillard has instructed Labor MPs to spend this winter recess from parliament warming up their electorates about the need for government regulation of the media.

In fact, senior members of the Gillard-Greens government have been trying to soften us up for much longer. If former prime minister John Howard had struck out at the media in this way, there would have been protests in the streets with burning effigies and signs attacking "the fascist PM" and that sort of thing.

Liberal MPs would find their offices picketed by inner-city university academics and students, who we now know to be opportunistic in their freedom-loving tendencies. Their silence now, as Gillard tries to muzzle the media, is deafening. And the rest of us? Are we also at fault for sleepwalking towards an illiberal Australia? The absence of a wider and louder uproar from ordinary Australians over the government's clearly articulated agenda to punish those in the media with whom they disagree is deeply concerning.

Wake up, Australia. Each step that has brought us to where we are now, facing government intervention in editorial standards of the media, has been deplorably illiberal. The government's seven-step program to regulate the media is a depressing read for anyone who cherishes the progress delivered by two centuries of Western liberalism.

What happens in the final chapter will depend on whether we are duped into believing that we, the people, need specially appointed guardians to protect us from a media deemed by the government to be malicious or incompetent. The conclusion also depends on us believing that government regulation will improve our media without infringing free speech. Surely we understand liberal values enough to realise this is a non sequitur. It is as illogical as calling those on the Left "progressives" when it has become clear that so many of their views are regressive and, worse, the antithesis of freedom.

But let us start at the start. For political reasons, Labor is now trying to distance itself from the Greens. But the two parties share a determination to regulate the media. In step one, then Greens leader Bob Brown laid down his anti-freedom card when he described News Limited newspapers as the "hate media". Our crime? To analyse, scrutinise and critique Greens policies. Even our national broadcaster, which for years had given the Greens an easy ride in the media, has started asking questions about their policies.

Step two of the warming up process involved Brown calling for an inquiry into the media. He demanded new licensing requirements for newspapers, a new "fit and proper" character test for newspaper owners, new curbs on foreign entrants and a wide-ranging review of media ownership "in light of the domination of News Limited in print media". Let's be frank. The real targets of the Greens are centre-right newspapers that dare to expose the cant of left-wing policies. Step three: at the first opportunity, the Prime Minister followed the playbook of Rahm Emanuel, former chief of staff to US President Barack Obama.

Emanuel once said progressives should never waste a crisis. Hence, the phone-hacking scandal in Britain became a politically convenient catalyst for the Gillard government and the Greens to heighten the tempo of calls for greater regulation of the media.

Never mind that there was zero evidence of phone hacking here. The PM said News Limited, publisher of The Australian, had "hard questions to answer". Except that she could not elaborate on those questions. Meanwhile, her senior ministers kept ploughing the ground, attacking various News Limited newspapers, particularly The Daily Telegraph, for their coverage of government policies.

Caving in to the Greens, Gillard convened an inquiry into media regulation. The result, step four, was another step towards illiberalism. In the Finkelstein report, a retired judge and an academic tabled a report that concluded the Australian media was failing the public interest.

Largely based on opinion surveys, it recommended a new body, the News Media Council, to license the press and censor news reporting and political commentary. Under its recommendations, there would be no appeal from council findings. And those who disobey the council findings would face fines or imprisonment.
This super-regulator would also have power over online sites that get 15,000 hits a year. This report eschewed John Stuart Mill and embraced a Putin-style push where people on the street are treated as too dumb to be left to read newspapers without Big Brother having the power to censor what they read.
John Roskam, the head of freedom-loving think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, identified the real problem when he wrote that the Left no longer wants free speech. Progressives talk only about fair and balanced speech, whatever that means. They talk about those in the media having a "social licence" to operate, whatever that means. And these lofty guardians of media morality get to define and apply these terms.

Step five: the Gillard government has started talking openly about imposing a new test of public interest where mergers and acquisitions would be judged against tests of editorial independence, free and fair expression of opinion, and a larger number of owners. In the process of softening us up, senior ministers are not averse to using dubious tactics. They have pointed to the Slipper affair as reason enough for regulation of the media. And as this newspaper reported last week, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy tried to bolster his agenda using a 10-year-old Productivity Commission report that advocated a "public interest" test. Conroy, who must surely think we are stupid enough to fall for his tricks, failed to mention that he took this recommendation out of context.

Step six: another effort to plough the ground for media regulation came when the Gillard government started attacking Gina Rinehart for buying almost 19 per cent of Fairfax. Rinehart's move was labelled a danger to our democracy. The emotional, hyperbolic language from Labor ministers and MPs was deliberate. Gillard and co are betting on us believing that these dangers to democracy warrant government intervention.
Step seven: happily for the Gillard government, its campaign has been aided and abetted by some of The Sydney Morning Herald's most senior journalists who have howled day and night against Rinehart's move on Fairfax. When SMH journalist Ross Gittins was asked whether it was better to have a newspaper thriving under Rinehart or no Fairfax at all, he replied: "that would be a difficult choice". Gittins is a business journalist. Go figure.

It helps, but it is not enough, that lawyers and regulators, familiar with the misuse of subjective tests such as "public interest", have spoken out. Likewise, it is revealing but not sufficient that the author of the Productivity Commission report has exposed Conroy's misleading use of that report.

It helps that the Coalition plans to campaign on free speech. Let's repeat that slowly. We have reached the point where one side of politics needs to campaign in favour of liberal values such as free speech. To this end,opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis is doing a fine job of reminding us just how extraordinary it is to see the government of the day launch a campaign against a free press.

Still, more heft is required. If we are to beat back the spectre of illiberalism, the conclusion rests with us. Our interest, after all, is clear enough: only a genuinely free press can hold our governments of whatever political persuasion to account. The final chapter must therefore record how we, the people, reaffirmed our commitment to the central tenet of liberalism that is freedom of speech. Over to you.

Tuesday, 10 July 2012

G20 summit - Brisbane tipped to host summit


Prime Minister Julia Gillard is expected to announce tomorrow that Brisbane will host the G20 summit in 2014.

Last month, Ms Gillard joined world leaders at this year's G20 summit in Mexico.

Australia will host the international meeting in November 2014 and Ms Gillard is expected to name Brisbane as the host city.

A spokesman for Queensland Premier Campbell Newman says it is understood the city is the Federal Government's preferred venue.

He said, however, that given the current position of the state's finances, Queensland would push for the Commonwealth to cover the entire cost.

Around 4,000 delegates and 3,000 international media are expected to attend the event, which is likely to be held at the Brisbane Exhibition and Convention Centre.
                                   ______________  |  ______________

Friday, 6 July 2012

'The public service and political patronage'



This article does not necessarily condone the actions of Campbell Newman and the new LNP Government but rather to illustrate the dynamics of a reforming government. I am well aware of the human angel and the anguish that no doubt is currently consuming Queensland families as their contract are not renewed.

What Queenslanders are witnessing in an LNP Government setting its own agenda after 21 years of one administration.

If a reforming Government irrespective of whether its ALP or LNP is sincere in implementing its agenda, it cannot tinker around the edges. All that will happen then is pretty much more of the same, which is what the electorate rejected. It must literally dismantle before it can create something new.

The fact that Queensland has a projected deficit of $ 85 billion compounds the problem. Generally if the debt was not a financial concern (and it is to the international agencies that credit rate Queensland) then the need for bureaucracy slashing would not be so obvious. A new Government could implement its mandate without reduction in outlays. The bottom line is that it must make financial room for its policies to be implemented.

Of recent time the Whitlam Government and Rudd Governments did similar. The difference of course is that the ALP is noted as bureaucracy builders, so there were no dislocation in the public service work force, whereas the LNP is not as much focused on the bureaucracy (process building) but rather laying the groundwork for business to thrive with less red tape.

Middle management another characterisation for the concept of process building literally went through the roof under Goss, Beattie and Bligh. Generally this is how Governments particularly left leaning ones generate patronage. It is in this aspect of Government that the LNP is directing its focus.
Author: Ross Parisi
06.072012
 

Friday, 29 June 2012

Gillard outscources the Aslyum impasse

Politicians of all sides must be left room to move, to save face, to eat humble pie. For the life of me I still fail to understand how a supposed 'libertarian' Government can look its fellow politicians and supporters in the eye and say lets send them to Malaysia, a country with a questionable human rights record, as a deterrent. I find this action as symptomatic of the reasons why the Gillard Government is so lost in the eyes of the electorate.

Why is there a need to process them off score...why can't they be processed on shore? Fraser and Hawke had no problem with accommodating the Vietnamese and Chinese respectively. Why does Gillard have such a problem to do like wise, especially with asylum seeker that stem from the ravages of wars, wars that have been supported and fought by the Gillard Government.

Gillard is desperately trying to bridge the political and humanitarian impasse. I believe Gillard has set up the latest Refuge Panel with the hope that it will recommend that Gillard abandons the Malaysian solution, thereby building a pontoon for Gillard to escape from her embarrassing non tenable position.

As far as Gillard is concerned she is in a no win situation, a situation that is of her making. If Gillard somehow manages to tag along the coat tails of the anticipated recommendations of the Panel, that is to abandon Malaysia as a asylum solution, Gillard will be then be seen by the electorate as lacking political judgement in the first place. Bottom line Abbott wins again. Some say to smart for Gillard.
Ross Parisi.

Wednesday, 20 June 2012

EARTHQUAKE: 5.3-magnitude tremor rocks Victoria for at least 20 seconds

5.3-magnitude quake struck 10km southwest of Moe
  • Seismologist recorded the massive murmur at 10km deep
  • Residents report the shaking lasted up to 40 seconds
quake damage melbourne 
Bottles fly off shelves at a supermarket in Victoria.

Picture: Nathan Dent / THE biggest earthquake for more than a century has hit Victoria tonight with millions feeling it when it struck just before 9pm (AEST) for around 30 to 40 seconds.
Reports started coming in from residents in suburban Melbourne, and then spread to the northeast and southeast of the state.

Windows were rattled, floors rocked and roofs shaken as the quake struck around 8.55pm. The Geoscience Australia website was in meltdown as people flocked online to find out what occurred and Twitter went wild and when Geoscience was able to restore its site it had the news that the quake that rocked Victoria was the biggest in the state for 109 years.

The US geological survey reported the earthquake was almost 10km deep with an epicentre between Trafalgar and Moe in the southeast. The SES says it's had more than 30 calls for help. The USGS reported the earthquake hit 120km out of Melbourne, some 10km southwest of Moe. The USGS registered it as a 5.2-magnitude quake, but Geoscience Australia clocked it at 5.3, revising it down from an initial 5.5 reading. Readers have swamped the Herald Sun with calls reporting significant tremors from everyone from the suburbs all the way across the state to country Victoria.

The tremor, which lasted about 20 seconds, has been felt from Kilmore, Gippsland, Drouin, Rowville and inner-Melbourne. Reports are coming in from all over the city - from the Dandenongs in the east, Bentleigh in the southeast, Pascoe Vale in the west and through the inner citSeismologist recorded the massive murmur – almost 10km deep - at 8.53pm.

The mammoth quake spread itself statewide, reaching as far as 10km across southwest of Moe in the state's south-southeast, 18km west of Morwell, 30km off Traralgon and 78km southwest of Sale. It is not yet known if the tremor has caused any damage Darren Gay said he felt tremors in Chirnside Park. “The whole house shook for ages,” he said.

Sunbury’s Tori Sims said the event was “very frightening”. “Sitting on the couch with my little boy the whole couch shook and then it sounded like a massive gust of wind and it rocked the house!” she said.
“Would hate to be caught in a major one!” Lauren Gardiner in rural Victoria said it was also felt in north-east Victoria at Tallangatta and Bullioh, east of Wodonga.

The Geoscience Australia website crashed as people flocked online to find out what occurred.
A spokeswoman for Geoscience Australia said its recordings showed it was a magnitude 5.3 earthquake, which was more accurate than international seismologist estimates.

The epicentre has been identified 16km south-west of Moe, at the Latrobe Valley in Victoria’s east.
“Our preliminary information is that it’s a 5.3,” she said. “We haven’t had any reports of local damage yet.”
People who have experienced damage from the quake are urged to contact the SES.

The Bureau of Meteorology said the quake was felt further afield than Melbourne, with reports coming in from Bright and Myrtleford in the northeast and Wonthaggi in the southeast of Victoria.
Ron Smith from Kew said his whole house shook.

"We heard a roar and thought it was the wind," he told AAP."The floor and the walls shook, the whole house shook. Jan Turnbull of East Bentleigh was in bed when the room started moving. My lamps were shaking and the windows were rattling, it was quite strong," she said.

Near the epicentre of the quake, Moe police constable Chris Hand was enjoying a cup of coffee when it hit.
"I had the cup sitting on the table and it spilled over," Const Hand told AAP "We've had a lot of calls but no one is reporting any damage or injuries at this stage. "It was a decent-size rumble, the biggest I've ever felt.
"The ground moved for 15 to 20 seconds."

Anthony Atkin, the duty manager of the Criterion Hotel at Trafalgar, just west of Moe, said he feared for his life when the quake hit. "I thought the roof was going to fall down," Mr Atkin said. "Everyone in the hotel ran outside, it was like a train was coming through the hotel. "I've been here for 44 years and never felt anything like it."
He said the quake lasted for around 20 to 30 seconds "but it felt like a lifetime."
In the state's northeast Bright resident Mandy Ditcham said she felt her house shake just before 9pm and initially thought it was high winds.
"I was sitting by the computer and I felt the ground shaking," Ms Ditcham told AAP. "I thought it must have been really windy outside. It was making the house shake... it lasted for about 10 seconds." She said the tremor was felt all over the alpine area from Wangaratta to Harrietville. Victorian MP Bruce Billson says members of his community are shaken and puzzled.

"There are plenty of people with shaken nerves, wondering what was going on," Mr Billson told the chamber. Mr Billson said the thoughts of MPs were with the citizens in Victoria affected by the earthquake.
"To our community, our thoughts are with all those responding to anxious calls and hope there is no injuries or substantial damage," he said. Mr Billson has been a Liberal MP for the Melbourne outer southeast/Frankston seat of Dunkley since 1996.

- with AAP
* please note the size of the earthquake has fluctuated from initial reports due to more accurate readings becoming available.

michaeler@heraldsun.com.au

                                         ______________   |  ___________


Wednesday, 6 June 2012

Venus transit 2012

Venus's 2012 transit across the sun will let researchers test methods for observing Earth-like planets light years away. It's an opportunity that won't be available again until December 2117.


Frequency of Transits
The orbit of Venus is inclined 3.4° with respect to Earth's orbit. It intersects the ecliptic at two points or nodes that cross the Sun each year during early June and December. If Venus happens to pass through inferior conjunction at that time, a transit will occur. Although Venus's orbital period is only 224.7 days, its synodic period (conjunction to conjunction) is 583.9 days. Due to its inclination, most inferior conjunctions of Venus do not result in a transit because the planet passes too far above or below the ecliptic and does not cross the face of the Sun. Venus transits currently recur at intervals of 8, 105.5, 8 and 121.5 years. Since the invention of the telescope (1610), there have only been seven transits as listed below.
 
                                   

                            Transits of Venus:  1601-2200 

                           Date       Universal    Separation     
                                        Time

                        1631 Dec 07     05:19         939 "     
                        1639 Dec 04     18:26         524 "     
                        1761 Jun 06     05:19         570 "     
                        1769 Jun 03     22:25         609 "     
                        1874 Dec 09     04:07         830 "     
                        1882 Dec 06     17:06         637 "     
                        2004 Jun 08     08:20         627 "     
                        2012 Jun 06     01:28         553 "     
                        2117 Dec 11     02:48         724 "     
                        2125 Dec 08     16:01         733 " 
 
  
The 2004 and 2012 transits form a contemporary pair separated by 8 years. More than a century will elapse before the next pair of transits in 2117 and 2125. During the 6,000-year period from 2000 BC to AD 4000, a total of 81 transits of Venus occur.

                                   ________________  |  _______________

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

UNESCO | The Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is a site of remarkable variety and beauty on the north-east coast of Australia. It contains the world’s largest collection of coral reefs, with 400 types of coral, 1,500 species of fish and 4,000 types of mollusc. It also holds great scientific interest as the habitat of species such as the dugong (‘sea cow’) and the large green turtle, which are threatened with extinction.


© Evergreen More pictures ...
 

The Great Barrier Reef is a site of remarkable variety and beauty on the north-east coast of Australia. It the world's most extensive stretch of coral reef and is probably the richest area in terms of faunal diversity in the world. Its great diversity reflects the maturity of an ecosystem which has evolved over millions of years on the north-east continental shelf of Australia. The site contains a huge diversity of species including over 1,500 species of fish, about 360 species of hard coral, 5,000 species of mollusc, and more than 175 species of bird, plus a great diversity of sponges, anemones, marine worms and crustaceans, among others.

The reef system, extending to Papua New Guinea, the reef comprises some 2900 individual reefs of all sizes and shapes covering more than 20,000 km2, including 760 fringing reefs, which range in size from under 1ha to over 10,000 ha and vary in shape to provide the most spectacular marine scenery on Earth. There are approximately 600 continental islands including many with towering forests and freshwater streams, and some 300 coral cays and unvegetated sand cays. A rich variety of landscapes and seascapes, including rugged mountains with dense and diverse vegetation and adjacent fringing reefs, provide spectacular scenery.

The form and structure of the individual reefs show great variety. Two main classes may be defined: platform or patch reefs, resulting from radial growth; and wall reefs, resulting from elongated growth, often in areas of strong water currents. There are also many fringing reefs where the reef growth is established on subtidal rock of the mainland coast or continental islands.

The site includes major feeding grounds for the endangered dugong and nesting grounds of world significance for two endangered species of marine turtle, the green and the loggerhead, as well as habitat for four other species of marine turtle; given the severe pressures being placed on these species elsewhere, the Great Barrier Reef may be their last secure stronghold. It is also an important breeding area for humpback and other whale species.

A wide range of fleshy algae occurs, many of which are small and inconspicuous but which are highly productive and are heavily grazed by turtles, fish, molluscs and sea urchins. In addition, algae are an important component of reef building processes. 15 species of seagrass grow throughout the reef area forming over 3,000 km2 of seagrass meadows and providing an important food source for grazing animals, such as dugongs.

The Great Barrier Reef, and in particular the northern sector, is important in the historic and contemporary culture of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups of the coastal areas of north-east Australia. This contemporary use of and association with the Marine Park plays an important role in the maintenance of their cultures and there is a strong spiritual connection with the ocean and its inhabitants.

Source: UNESCO/CLT/WHC
                                           ___________________  |  __________________

Monday, 4 June 2012

Pre Mabo | Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd


Milirrpum v Nabalco Pty Ltd, (1971) 17 FLR 141 (the "Gove land rights case"), was the first litigation on native title in Australia. The decision of Justice Richard Blackburn ruled against the claimants on a number of issues of law and fact, rejecting the doctrine of aboriginal title in favor of terra nullius.

Although Milirrpum was not appealed beyond the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, it was overruled by the High Court of Australia two decades later in Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992).

Blackburn, in a confidential memorandum to the government and opposition, opined that a system of Aboriginal land rights was "morally right and socially expedient".[1] The judgement concludes: "I cannot help being specially conscious that for the plaintiffs it is a matter in which their personal feelings are involved."[2]

Background

In December 1968, the Yolngu people living in Yirrkala, who were the traditional owners of the Gove Peninsula in Arnhem Land, obtained writs in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory against the Nabalco Corporation, which had secured a twelve-year bauxite mining lease from the Federal Government. Their goal was to establish in law their rightful claim to their homelands.

The Yolngu people claimed they enjoyed legal and sovereign rights over their land and sought declarations to occupy the land free from interference pursuant to their native title rights.

The Yolngu people had petitioned the Australian House of Representatives in August 1963 with a bark petition after the government sold part of the Arnhem Land reserve on 13 March of that year to a bauxite mining company. The government had not consulted the traditional owners at the time.

Yolngu applicants asserted before the Court that since time immemorial, they held a “communal native title” that had not been validly extinguished, or acquired under the Lands Acquisition Act 1955 (Cwth), and should be recognized as an enforceable proprietary right. The lengthy legal battle culminated in 1971.[3]

Ruling

Justice Blackburn found that the Yolngu people could not prevent mining on their lands. He categorically held that native title was not part of the law of Australia and went on to add that even had it existed, any native title rights were extinguished.
Blackburn rejected the claim on the bases that:
  • A doctrine of common law native title had no place in a settled colony except under express statutory provisions (i.e. the recognition doctrine).
  • Under the recognition doctrine, pre-existing interests were not recognised unless they were rights of private property and, while the community possessed a legal system, it was not proved that under that legal system, the claimant clans possessed such rights.
  • The clan’s relationship to land was therefore not a “right … in connection with the land” under the Lands Acquisition Act.
  • On the balance of probabilities, the applicants had not shown that their ancestors, in 1788 had the same links to the same areas of land that they were now claiming.
Blackburn examined comparative Commonwealth, Canadian, New Zealand and US jurisprudence. He accepted that the applicants had established that under traditional law any given part of the land could be “attributed” to a particular clan, but held that this did not amount to a proprietary interest. 

He also found that the evidence did not establish the landholding model asserted. Blackburn acknowledged for the first time in an Australian higher court the existence of a system of Aboriginal law. He also recognised the validity of the use of oral evidence to establish property rights, normally inadmissible, but a vital precondition for a successful land rights case, and he also acknowledged the claimants' ritual and economic use of the land.

Aftermath

Milirrpum led to the establishment of the Woodward Royal Commission and the eventual recognition of Aboriginal Land rights in the Northern Territory. In 1975, shortly before he was dismissed, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam drew up the Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1976 which was later passed (in a slightly diluted form) by the conservative Fraser Government on 9 December 1976.

The court interpreter for the case was Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the son of a Gumatj clan leader, Munggurrawuy, who was one of the Yirrkala plaintiffs. Galarrwuy had earlier helped his father draft the Yirrkala bark petitions. He later became chairman of the Northern Land Council and in 1978 became Australian of the Year for his work on indigenous rights.

References

1.      ^ National Archives of Australia, confidential memorandum provided to government and opposition by Justice Blackburn urging the establishment of a statutory system of land rights, 1972, released 31 Dec 2001
2.      ^ (1971) 71 FLR 141 at 293.
3.      ^ Foley, Gary 'Teaching the whites a lesson' in Staining the wattle (ed) Very Burgmann and Jenny Lee Ringwood; Penguin, 1988 p203
  
__________   |   __________