Showing posts with label greens. Show all posts
Showing posts with label greens. Show all posts

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Indi Beware, McGowan is Far-Left | Liberty Australia

Indi Beware, McGowan is Far-Left | Liberty Australia

Indi Beware, McGowan is Far-Left

By Anthony Coralluzzo
Fri, 16/08/2013 - 10:27pm
Fri, 16/08/2013 - 10:27pm
 
Cathy McGowan is a Greens-like candidate of the far-left, but that's not the image the "independent" candidate wants out there in the electorate.

She is running in the Victorian rural seat of Indi, which takes in the towns of Wangaratta, Wodonga, Benalla and several others.

Apparently she has a chance to win.

Although she presents herself as a dinky-di local farmer who was recruited by a local grassroots organisation called "Voice 4 Indi", the reality is very different.

The "Voice 4 Indi" Committee
The origin of McGowan's campaign is a small group calling itself "Voice 4 Indi" (V4I), which was formed in September 2012. The group is full of activists of the far-left.
There's Anthony Lane, a green activist who was the inaugural chair of the Wangaratta Sustainability Network. The organisation is a recipient of taxpayer's money, and advocates a 100% renewable energy mandate. They even go so far as to say "It’s criminal to keep supporting non-renewable energy".
The current legislated mandate is 20%, so imagine what your electricity bill might look like on 100%.
Rowan O'Hagan is also a green activist, and was founder and secretary of the Wangaratta Sustainability Network. She believes lifestyles in first-world countries are "unsustainable" and pushes for cultural change to achieve "a more socially just global environment".

"Sustainability" is, of course, the buzz-word for Agenda 21 implementation.

Alana Johnson is a board member of the ultra-feminist Victorian Women's Trust, who were vocal supporters of Julia Gillard. When Gillard was overthrown, the organisation ran full page ads in several newspapers praising Gillard's "successful government", slamming her critics, and blaming her demise on sexism and misogyny.

Johnson actually went further on her twitter account and blamed the whole of Australia for Gillard's demise, saying she was ashamed of the country.

There is also a fellow called Ben McGowan, who I presume is related to Cathy McGowan.
He is a green activist, a supporter of "sustainability" (Agenda 21), and a believer in the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. He has tweeted his support for socialism, and also his opposition to free-market economics, calling it "nonsense". He has even praised the writings of Mark Latham.

And then, of course, there is Cathy McGowan herself who, with Mr Lane, was co-convener of the organisation. That's right, the "grassroots organisation" that chose to endorse Cathy McGowan, was started by Cathy McGowan.

What an amazing coincidence!

The "Kitchen Table Conversations"
"Voice 4 Indi" claim that during March and April a series of "kitchen table conversations" took place, hosted by members of the Indi community. Apparently, feedback was accumulated at these meetings and sent back to the organisation, who would then compile it in a report.

Even V4I's official numbers (which cannot be independently verified) say they only managed to get 55 people willing to host a "kitchen table conversation" with a total of 440 participants.

To put this into context, the federal electorate of Indi contains about 100,000 eligible voters. That means, at best, 0.4% of the electorate took place in these "conversations".

Community forums with voluntary participation will inevitably attract the most fierce ideological warriors, almost invariably from the left, and several of the "conversations" appear to be organised by the family and friends of V4I members themselves.

How can V4I seriously claim this is representative of the electorate of Indi?

Then there's the particular slate of issues that were supposedly emphasised by participants in these "kitchen table conversations". Somehow I don't think the primary concerns of your average farmer in northern Victoria include things like ...
  • Reducing carbon dioxide emissions
  • Stopping coal exports to China
  • The compassionate treatment of boat people
  • Encouraging multiculturalism
  • A new model of capitalism with low & sustainable growth
  • Solidarity with gays and lesbians
  • Abolishing States in favour of regional councils
  • Recognising aborigines in the Constitution
  • More national parks
  • Increasing foreign aid
But all these points appear in a "report" about the outcomes of the conversations, including quotes from the infamous Tim Flannery containing ominous predictions about catostrophic environmental destruction within 15 years.

The report was released by V4I on May 19, in conjunction with an announcement that (surprise, surprise) they had decided to endorse Cathy McGowan as an independent candidate for the coming federal election.

News reports failed to mention that McGowan actually started the very "grassroots" organisation that was now endorsing her, with green activists, radical feminists and perhaps even her own family, among its committee members.

Melbourne's Herald-Sun newspaper simply reported that:
"... she was drafted to stand by a group called Voice for Indi. This group wanted to "rebuild the relationship between politicians and the people""
Again, no mention that she actually started the organisation that "drafted" her, and endless media outlets have reported it in this way.

Laughably, the McGowan campaign have been putting out YouTube videos claiming that McGowan was chosen "through a selection process that was quite transparent and very open ...".
Rather than scrutinise these things, the left-wing media have been putting out what look more like campaign press releases for McGowan, than real journalism.

McGowan's Carpetbaggers
McGowan's campaign has emphasised local representation. The paradox is that McGowan's people admit that most of their donors and campaign volunteers are carpetbaggers from urban Melbourne. Indeed, McGowan has said the genesis of her candidacy was a phone call from young relatives at a Melbourne dinner party.

How appropriate that McGowan decided to become the champion of rural people after getting a call from a bunch of 20-somethings at a dinner party in inner-city Melbourne.

I think that tidbit gives you an insight into the true nature of McGowan's campaign. A foreign insurgency.

McGowan's team: Farmers or Fitzroy Flower-Children? 

The Creepy Abortionist
Perhaps McGowan's creepiest supporter is dogged abortionist, Pieter Mourik (pictured right), who says he's been a "close friend" of McGowan's for 35 years.
"Doctor" Mourik, a retired Albury-Wodonga gynaecologist, is so extreme in his views on abortion, he writes screeching articles attacking the peaceful protests of Albury-Wodonga pro-life campaigners, calling them "vultures" and saying that they should not be tolerated.

These "vultures" Mourik speaks of are women like Anna von Marburg, an Albury mother so dedicated to saving children from abortion that she says she'll take unwanted children into her home.

Mourik certainly doesn't appear sympathetic to freedom of speech.

According to Pro-Life Victoria, Mourik was also active in Albury-Wodonga promoting the then Victorian Labor Government's 2008 abortion law changes which made it illegal for a doctor to conscientiously object to referring women for abortion and made it illegal for nursing and auxiliary staff to conscientiously object to involvement in abortion procedures. It also effectively legalised unrestricted abortion-on-demand, including late-term abortion, partial-birth abortion and perhaps even outright infanticide for babies born-alive following failed abortions.
Mourik appears in a campaign advertisement for McGowan
Also fiercely campaigning for these abortion law changes was "Voice 4 Indi" committee member Alana Johnson, in her capacity as board member of the Victorian Women's Trust.
So excited is Mourik, about McGowan's candidacy, that he admits "this is the first time i've been involved in a political campaign".

Mourik is typical of the circles McGowan mixes in. She is liked by all the wrong people. The detestable duo, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, think she's fantastic. Malcolm Fraser, the Liberal Prime Minister who wouldn't repeal the nightmare policies of Gough Whitlam, has endorsed her. And far-left former Sydney Morning Herald columnist, Margo Kingston has been shilling for McGowan from the beginning.

Given all this, it's not surprising that McGowan, after initially saying she had no policies, turns out to be a supporter of a carbon tax that will rip $1 trillion dollars from GDP growth, the white elephant national broadband network, and more black-hole spending on windmills and solar panels that are driving up electricity bills.

But if a green-in-disguise is what you want, then by all means, vote for McGowan.
Contact me on anthony@la.org.au
StumbleUpon

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Arts graduate climate "expert" on the chopping block: Abbott forecasts Flannery job loss | thetelegraph.com.au

Abbott forecasts Flannery job loss | thetelegraph.com.au

FEDERAL Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has forecast a job loss for chief climate commissioner Tim Flannery if the coalition wins power at the next election. 
 
And he says climate change and carbon tax bureaucracies set up by the Labor government would also go under a coalition government when it abolishes the carbon tax.

When asked on Macquarie Radio on Wednesday if Professor Flannery would be "consigned to the wastepaper basket of bureaucracy", Mr Abbott said he thought there were four climate and carbon tax bureaucracies in place.

"When the carbon tax goes, all of those bureaucracies will go and I suspect we might find that the particular position you refer to goes with them," he told broadcaster Ray Hadley.
"It does sound like an unnecessary position given that the gentleman in question gives us the benefit of his views without needing taxpayer funding," Mr Abbott said.

StumbleUpon

Friday, January 11, 2013

Greens = Reds who hope we're colourblind. FAT REDNECKS BARGE IN | Daily Telegraph Tim Blair Blog

StumbleUpon

Thursday, January 10, 2013

How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught | Wind Watch

How to Fight the Big Wind Onslaught | Wind Watch

Chapter 6. Lawsuits don’t work. They might appear to initially, but ultimately, at some level of court, they fail. With very few exceptions, lawyers and lawsuits are a waste of time, money, and mostly strategic advantage. You’re barking up the wrong tree with a lawyer. Your town board and county commissioners are poised and prepared for you to take them on legally; they’ve got attorneys on retainer and they can swallow you whole in the byzantine legal process.

Don’t bother going down that road. Dr. Martin Luther King (see below) didn’t use lawyers. Neither did Gandhi, who was a trained lawyer. Wrong strategy. If you think the Big Wind Onslaught is not on the scale of a Gandhi and King, but just a minor issue — think again. I suggest you do some reading on the English Enclosure Movement. Look for parallels [and see Chapter 12, below]. The Big Wind Onslaught is a big deal. Stop imagining otherwise.

Chapter 7. Wind energy is bullshit. Nitwits who begin their case by telling the local newspaper, “Well, Gee, we fully support renewable energy, including wind energy, and we feel wind turbines are marvelous so long as they’re placed in the right spot” — nitwits who start off their campaign with this are doomed. Wind energy, folks, is horseshit. …

Chapter 8. Wind energy works because of (a) carbon credits (an unspeakable scam), (b) federal & state subsidies of various sorts, (c) a slow bleed from your monthly energy bill (check it out), (d) PILOT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) arrangements with communities, and (e) huge tax write-offs for wind investors, including big Wall Street banks. It does not work because it is economically feasible — it’s not — or because it produces meaningful electricity — it does not. And if I hear that it “gets us off foreign oil” I’m gonna scream. For that statement, you need not a beginning physics text, you need your head examined.

StumbleUpon

Stranded killer whales break free from Hudson Bay ice | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Stranded killer whales break free from Hudson Bay ice | Environment | guardian.co.uk

marine biologists say killer whales are moving into the Arctic in greater numbers over the last decade as the sea ice retreats due to climate change.


***

Blah blah blah climate change blah blah.

The ice is either retreating, in which case it isn't there, or it is NOT retreating, in which case it IS there. And in this case is getting thicker than ever, hence the unheard of trapping of orcas under its shell.

This- this right here, is cognitive dissonance.

Thick murderous ice is caused by the disappearance of ice.

Huh?
StumbleUpon

Greens burn Red.

Green arrogance burns fiercely | Daily Telegraph Miranda Devine Blog

Despite the lessons which should have been learned in Victoria in 2009, the fuel in Tasmania’s forests has been allowed to build up because of green opposition to fuel reduction burns, which they call “outdated, old school” and a “horrible blight”. 
StumbleUpon

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

50 Shades of Red: Marxists not sexy at all... The Greens make their true intentions very, very clear - Christine Milne and Lee Rhiannon say crimes OK for climate change - Michael Smith News

StumbleUpon

Thursday, December 13, 2012

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing | Watts Up With That?

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing | Watts Up With That?

IPCC AR5 draft leaked, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing

UPDATE1: Andrew Revkin at the NYT weighs in, and semi endorses the leak, see update below – Anthony

UPDATE2: Alternate links have been sent to me, should go faster now.  – Anthony

UPDATE3: The main site is down but a large “all in one” RAR file (and bittorrent) has been created by a readers, see below.

Full AR5 draft leaked here, contains game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing
(Alec Rawls) I participated in “expert review” of the Second Order Draft of AR5 (the next IPCC report), Working Group 1 (“The Scientific Basis”), and am now making the full draft available to the public. I believe that the leaking of this draft is entirely legal, that the taxpayer funded report report is properly in the public domain under the Freedom of Information Act, and that making it available to the public is in any case protected by established legal and ethical standards, but web hosting companies are not in the business of making such determinations so interested readers are encouraged to please download copies of the report for further dissemination in case this content is removed as a possible terms-of-service violation. My reasons for leaking the report are explained below. Here are the chapters:



From http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/
(which is down now, see updated links below in update #2)
Summary for Policymakers
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Observations: Atmosphere and Surface
Chapter 3: Observations: Ocean
Chapter 4: Observations: Cryosphere
Chapter 5: Information from Paleoclimate Archives
Chapter 6: Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Chapter 7: Clouds and Aerosols
Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Chapter 8 Supplement
Chapter 9: Evaluation of Climate Models
Chapter 10: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional
Chapter 11: Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Chapter 12: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility
Chapter 13: Sea Level Change
Chapter 14: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change
Chapter 14 Supplement
Technical Summary

Why leak the draft report?
By Alec Rawls (email) [writing at http://www.stopgreensuicide.com/ ]

General principles
The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires weighing the “public’s right to know” against any harm to the public interest that may result. The press often leaks even in the face of extreme such harm, as when the New York Times published details of how the Bush administration was tracking terrorist financing with the help of the private sector Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), causing this very successful anti-terror program to immediately collapse.

That was a bad leak, doing great harm to expose something that nobody needed to know about. With the UN’s IPCC reports the calculus is reversed. UN “climate chief” Christina Figueres explains what is at stake for the public:

… we are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science.

So may we please see this “science” on the basis of which our existing energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent “green” energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the UN’s political control over a scientific story line that is aimed explicitly at policy makers.

Thus the drafts ought to fall within the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Obama administration implicitly acknowledged this when it tried to evade FOIA by setting up private “backdoor channels” for communications with the IPCC. If NCAR’s Gerald Meehl (a lead author of AR5′s chapter on near-term climate change), has working copies of the draft report (and he’s only one of dozens of U.S. government researchers who would), then by law the draft report (now finished) should be available to the public.

The IPCC’s official reason for wanting secrecy (as they explained it to Steve McIntyre in  January 2012) is so that criticisms of the drafts are not spread out across the internet but get funneled through the UN’s comment process. If there is any merit to that rationale it is now moot. The comment period ended November 30th so the comment process can no longer be affected by publication.

As for my personal confidentiality agreement with the IPCC, I regard that as vitiated by the systematic dishonesty of the report (“omitted variable fraud” as I called it in my FOD comments). This is a general principle of journalistic confidentiality: bad faith on one side breaks the agreement on the other. They can’t ask reviewers to become complicit in their dishonesty by remaining silent about it.
Then there is the specific content of the Second Order Draft where the addition of one single sentence demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.

Lead story from the Second Order Draft: strong evidence for solar forcing beyond TSI now acknowledged by IPCC
Compared to the First Order Draft, the SOD now adds the following sentence, indicated in bold (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999).  
The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

The Chapter 7 authors are admitting strong evidence (“many empirical relationships”) for enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar irradiance, or TSI), even if they don’t know what the mechanism is. This directly undercuts the main premise of the report, as stated in Chapter 8 (page 8-4, lines 54-57):

There is very high confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic forcing. In particular, over the past three decades (since 1980), robust evidence from satellite observations of the TSI and volcanic aerosols demonstrate a near-zero (–0.04 W m–2) change in the natural forcing compared to the anthropogenic AF increase of ~1.0 ± 0.3 W m–2.

The Chapter 8 authors (a different group than the Chapter 7 authors) are explicit here that their claim about natural forcing being small compared to anthropogenic forcing is based on an analysis in which the only solar forcing that is taken into account is TSI. This can be verified from the radiative forcing table on page 8-39 where the only solar variable included in the IPCC’s computer models is seen to be “solar irradiance.”

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing.

The Chapter 8 premise that natural forcing is relatively small leads directly to the main conclusion of the entire report, stated in the first sentence of the Executive Summary (the very first sentence of the entire report): that advances since AR4 “further strengthen the basis for human activities being the primary driver in climate change” (p.1-2, lines 3-5). This headline conclusion is a direct descendant of the assumption that the only solar forcing is TSI, a claim that their own report no longer accepts.

The report still barely hints at the mountain of evidence for enhanced solar forcing, or the magnitude of the evidenced effect. Dozens of studies (section two here) have found between a .4 and .7 degree of correlation between solar activity and various climate indices, suggesting that solar activity “explains” in the statistical sense something like half of all past temperature change, very little of which could be explained by the very slight variation in TSI. At least the Chapter 7 team is now being explicit about what this evidence means: that some mechanism of enhanced solar forcing must be at work.

My full submitted comments (which I will post later) elaborate several important points. For instance, note that the Chapter 8 premise (page 8-4, lines 54-57) assumes that it is the change in the level of forcing since 1980, not the level of forcing, that would be causing warming. Solar activity was at historically high levels at least through the end of solar cycle 22 (1996), yet the IPCC is assuming that because this high level of solar forcing was roughly constant from 1950 until it fell off during solar cycle 23 it could not have caused post-1980 warming. In effect they are claiming that you can’t heat a pot of water by turning the burner to maximum and leaving it there, that you have to keep turning the flame up to get continued warming, an un-scientific absurdity that I have been writing about for several years (most recently in my post about Isaac Held’s bogus 2-box model of ocean equilibration).

The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
President Obama is already pushing a carbon tax premised on the fear that CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. Last week his people were at the UN’s climate meeting in Doha pretending that Hurricane Sandy was caused by human increments to CO2 as UN insiders assured the public that the next IPCC report will “scare the wits out of everyone” with its ramped-up predictions of human-caused global warming to come, but this is not where the evidence points, not if climate change is in any substantial measure driven by the sun, which has now gone quiet and is exerting what influence it has in the cooling direction.

The acknowledgement of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing should upend the IPCC’s entire agenda. The easiest way for the UN to handle this disruptive admission would be to remove it from their final draft, which is another reason to make the draft report public now. The devastating admission needs to be known so that the IPCC can’t quietly take it back.
StumbleUpon

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Seneca would like to tell the Alarmists something about "settled science" (what an oxymoron, unless science is now a doctrinaire religion of some sort))

Natura semina scientiae nobis dedit 
scientiam non dedit

Lucius Annaeus Seneca StumbleUpon

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

David Evans explains the skeptics case (YouTube)

StumbleUpon

Friday, April 27, 2012

"Yeah good job mate"

James Delingpole with Jon Faine - ABC Melbourne - Australian Broadcasting Corporation StumbleUpon

Sunday, April 15, 2012

GetUp's links to BBC and ex-BBC climate change propagandists via the Youth Network octopus... Exactly who is paying for all the green agitprop?

BBC TENTACLES | | Biased BBCBiased BBC


 Every two years the Australian Youth Climate Coalition holds a national youth summit called Powershift. Thousands of young people from all over Australia converge to demand action on climate change. In 2011, 1500 young Australians gathered in Brisbane for the second Powershift conference. AYCC wanted a video that would capture the energy of the conference, as well as excite the next generation to get behind the climate campaign. Make Believe created a music video of epic proportions. Our fresh take on the popular “LipDub” genre starred over 1000 young volunteers dancing through the city of Brisbane. It has since become a much-loved AYCC video and acts as one of AYCC’s most powerful tools to engage Australian youth with their campaign.
 That’s just scratching the surface. The Make Believe team have left their grubby eco-fingerprints over dozens of greenie campaigns, including the election of Adam Bandt, the completely fanatical Oz MP who was crucial in persuading prime minister Julia Gillard to adopt the suicidal carbon tax.
 Ms Osman moved on last autumnwhen she landed the plum role as communications director for Sony Europe. Others have noted brilliantly the extent to which large corporations – in order to extend their earnings potential – now vie with each other to flaunt their green credentials and jump into bed with the obscenely rich environment ‘charities’;  Sony is exceptionally keen on this front.  Their website boasts:
 We have joined other organisations in the WWF Climate Savers Program to work towards climate change targets. We believe setting ambitious targets will demonstrate leadership and stimulate greater action and innovation in tackling environmental challenges.
For example, Sony Europe has signed a joint business declaration with The Climate Group, The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change and the WWF Climate Savers Program asserting that it makes economic sense for the EU to raise its targets beyond its current 20 per cent greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for 2020.
The declaration states that investment in tomorrow’s technology and infrastructure can help boost economic growth and create new jobs. Setting more ambitious targets now will help the EU to lead the low carbon economy of the future.
 Chilling isn’t it? I thought Sony was a manufacturer of snazzy technical gizmos and entertainment products. In reality they are now working with unelected, unaccountable eco maniacs like the WWF to impose insane green targets on us all. You thought you were buying a piece of kit; but no, it’s actually a key token in the WWF battle to subvert and subvent democracy and dismantle capitalism. 
Ms Osman – just like Mr Sambrook at Edelman – seems to have taken to this environment like a duck to water. Is she too, another BBC econut?   There’s no direct evidence of her personal views – she is far too discreet for that – but without doubt, she is quite happy to earn cartloads of money working for, and being associated with, campaigning, doctrinaire organisations that have the green creed stamped through them like a stick of rock.. The BBC tentacles of bias are seemingly everywhere. StumbleUpon

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

GREENS Leader Bob Brown faces a possible investigation by the Senate’s powerful privileges committee over an allegation he used his parliamentary position to advance the interests of a major political donor.

GREENS Leader Bob Brown faces a possible investigation by the Senate’s powerful privileges committee over an allegation he used his parliamentary position to advance the interests of a major political donor.

Senate President John Hogg today approved a motion by Liberal Senator Helen Kroger, which will seek to have Senator Brown explain his alleged advocacy for Wotif founder Graeme Wood, a $1.6 million Greens donor.
Senator Brown’s only hope of avoiding referral to the chamber’s disciplinary committee is if he can secure Labor support to fend off Senator Kroger’s motion.
The motion asks the privileges committee to investigate whether Senator Brown sought improper benefit from Mr Wood on the understanding he would act on his behalf, or whether Mr Wood sought to improperly induce Senator Brown in the discharge of his duties.
The allegations relate to Mr Wood’s purchase of the Triabunna woodchip mill from Gunns Ltd for an eco-tourism venture.
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE RAISED BY SENATOR KROGER
By letter dated 22 November 2011, Senator Kroger has raised a matter of privilege under standing order 81. The matter concerns a possible relationship between Senator Bob Brown and Mr Graham Wood and whether, on the one hand, Senator Brown sought a benefit from Mr Wood in the form of political donations on the understanding that he would act in Mr Wood’s interests in the Senate or, on the other hand, whether Mr Wood, through large political donations, improperly influenced Senator Brown and other Australian Greens senators, including Senator Milne, in the discharge of their duties as senators, including by the asking of questions without notice.

Under standing order 81(2), I am required to determine, as soon as practicable, whether a motion relating to the matter should have precedence of other business, having regard to the criteria set out in any relevant resolution of the Senate. The relevant criteria are in Privilege Resolution 4 as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders, in determining whether a motion arising from a matter of privilege should have precedence of other business, the President shall have regard only to the following criteria:
(a) the principle that the Senate’s power to adjudge and deal with contempts should be used only where it is necessary to provide reasonable protection for the Senate and its committees and for senators against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct them in the performance of their functions, and should not be used in respect of matters which appear to be of a trivial nature or unworthy of the attention of the Senate; and
(b) the existence of any remedy other than that power for any act which may be held to be a contempt.
With respect to paragraph (a), there is no question that the matters raised by Senator Kroger are very serious ones. The freedom of individual members of parliament to perform their duties on behalf of the people they represent and the need for them to be seen to be free of any improper external influence are of fundamental importance. Matters such as these go directly to the central purpose of the law of parliamentary privilege which is to protect the integrity of proceedings in parliament. They meet the test posed in paragraph (a) of the need to provide reasonable protection for the Senate against improper acts tending substantially to obstruct it in the performance of its functions.
With respect to paragraph (b), while there are various criminal offences that may be relevant, the asking of questions without notice by Senators Brown and Milne is central to the case put by Senator Kroger. Such actions are “proceedings in parliament” within the meaning of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 and section
16 of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, and there is therefore no capacity for them to be examined for the purpose of any criminal investigation or proceedings. As a consequence, the only remedy for the alleged conduct lies within the Senate’s contempt jurisdiction.
I therefore determine that a motion relating to this matter shall have precedence of other business and I table the correspondence from Senator Kroger.
Senator Kroger, you may now give notice of a motion to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report.
StumbleUpon
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...