Judicial appointments controversy in South Australia

As I believe Henry Kissinger once said: "If only both sides could lose". In South Australia, the lawyers want to appoint the judges but the government insists that it will.

Political appointments to the U.S. Supreme court have produced judicial dictators with little respect for the actual law that they are supposedly enforcing so that model is thoroughly on the nose. They found, for instance, a right to abortion in the constitution, when the word "abortion" in fact appears nowhere in that document.

On the other hand, appointments to the High Court of Australia have generally reflected the views of the legal fraternity rather than being obviously political and the result there has been law that arouses little controversy. So I am afraid I do come down on the side of the lawyers on this one -- particularly since the government has made clear that its appointments will not be wholly merit-based but will in part be based on what is between the legs of the appointee.

If it weren't for political intervention, the legal fraternity would appoint only "good old boys" to the judiciary, at the expense of women, non-Christians and members of ethnic minorities. In an escalating dispute between South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson and the legal fraternity, he told The Australian the state Government would continue to appoint judges, crushing hopes for an independent board to handle the appointments. "I really don't think religious minorities, be they Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox, Hindu, Sikh or others, would have much chance under the system of a judicial appointments committee, because they would be turned down on most occasions on the grounds they are not the most meritorious appointment," Mr Atkinson said.

"It would be argued there is always a good old boy more deserving. The only way broader consideration would come into judicial appointments is because the Government appoints them - otherwise it would be a closed shop."

The Law Society of South Australia has called for an independent board, arguing that the Government had failed to maintain national standards by refusing to create independent bodies for law reform and police integrity, and an independent commission against corruption. Funding is in place to appoint three extra District Court judges, one by the end of this month and two next financial year. It is hoped the additional judges will help clear a backlog of trials.

But prominent Adelaide lawyer Lindy Powell QC said the views of the Government on appointing women had been "slow-moving". There are 55 men and 22 women holding positions in the supreme, district and magistrates courts in South Australia. "The consciousness of the need to have women properly represented on the judiciary, I think those views have developed about as quickly in government as they have on the bench," Ms Powell said. "I think the views of government are mirrored in the views of the judiciary. "I don't think it (an independent board) would have made any difference, quite frankly."

She rejected claims the legal fraternity pushed for "boys' club" appointments. Regardless of who appointed the judiciary, it was imperative to have wide consultation to appoint on merit. Ms Powell supported forming an independent body to appoint judges and magistrates.

Law Society of South Australia Criminal Justice Committee chairman George Mancini said Mr Atkinson had misunderstood the calls for independence. "I didn't think affirmative action was an approach to an appointment," Mr Mancini said. "I thought it was merit-based."

Source







Activists want moratorium on kangaroo shoot

Kangaroos being "wiped out"??? What bulldust! You can see them hopping about the streets of some Brisbane suburbs early in the morning. And Brisbane is a big city. There are millions of kangaroos in country areas. And they do well in zoos too. You can walk among them lying lazily about in Brisbane's main zoo (Lone Pine). Children feed them there. The famous picture below is generally titled "Not now kid"



ANIMAL rights activists want the Federal Government to impose a moratorium on kangaroo shooting, saying they are might be wiped out in some areas. Australian Society for Kangaroos co-ordinator Nikki Sutterby said yesterday that 73 million kangaroos had been killed by the kangaroo industry since 1980. Most had been turned into pet food and sports shoes.

She alleged a further 14 million pouch joeys had been bashed to death or decapitated and seven million at-foot joeys had been orphaned and left to die a slow death from stress, starvation and exposure. "This, combined with years of intense drought, floods and bush fires, has seen red kangaroos, western grey kangaroos, eastern grey kangaroos, wallaroos and euros plummet to densities of less than five per square kilometre or quasi extinct across most of Queensland, NSW and South Australia," Ms Sutterby said. "These species are now at risk of extinction in these states if the commercial industry is allowed to continue."

Ms Sutterby said an investigation of data, including the Murray Darling Report on kangaroo densities, showed that 'roo numbers were under pressure. Further interpretation of state government data from NSW, Queensland and SA showed kangaroo densities were less than two per square kilometre across more than half the states. "We have grave fears for the future existence of kangaroos and the fact that these state governments have already set commercial kill quotas at 12 to 20 per cent of the population for the next four years," she wrote to Environment Minister Peter Garrett.

A spokesman for Mr Garrett rejected the suggestion of a moratorium or that the species were in danger of extinction, saying quotas were adjusted annually depending on scientific advice. "Populations will fluctuate naturally," he said. "That's why the states survey regularly and quotas are adjusted according to sustainable harvests."

Source






Queensland Health bureaucracy to be "slashed"

Only a minor reshuffle, unfortunately. No employee becomes unemployed as a result of it. Bureaucracies generally would survive a nuclear winter

An entire level of Queensland Health's bureaucracy will be abolished in an effort to make the controversy-ridden department more efficient. Queensland Health Minister Stephen Robertson and director-general Mick Reid today announced the department's three health areas would be abolished. The northern, central and southern areas were created in late 2005 following a review of the department by consultant Peter Forster after the Bundaberg Hospital scandal.

However, Mr Robertson and Mr Reid denied their abolition was a deviation from the recommendations of the review. "I would see this as very online with what Forster recommended," Mr Reid said. "He recommended a flatter structure, greater performance, greater accountability, increased transparency and ensuring that the majority of our $8.5 billion (budget) is directed at clinical services."

The responsibilities of the area managers will now fall to the state's district managers who will report directly to Mr Reid. Under the restructure the number of health districts will also be cut from 20 to 15, through the merger of several southeast Queensland districts. "This will allow larger and better resourced districts to deliver local health services and important hospital building programs," Mr Robertson said.

Mr Reid said all district manager positions would be made vacant and existing district and area bosses would be able to apply. The restructure will mean the loss of about 50 jobs, including more than a dozen public relations staff, and a saving of about $5 million a year, which will be directed to clinical services. However, there would be no forced redundancies, he said.

Mr Reid, who started in his current role about two months ago, said his recent tour of health services had convinced him the area structure should be abolished. "More than anything people are saying to me there is confusion and some lack of clarity which can be rectified and there needs to be a decision as to where the accountabilities lie," Mr Reid said. He said some staff may be unhappy with the restructure but most would not notice any change....

Source






'Rudd's carbon tax bad governance,' says agricultural scientist

The Rudd government's carbon pollution tax is based on non-scientific and theoretical computer modeling and does not make good governance at a time of rising inflation, global food shortages and increasing export uncompetitiveness due to rising cost and freight pressures. That's the view of agricultural scientist John Williams - a researcher, author and educator who is studying for a PhD at the University of Melbourne.

Mr Williams said there are `strong and powerful counter-arguments' to the theories on global warming and carbon trading that are not being fully considered. Drawing on a chorus of disbelief from a growing number of scientists, Mr Williams said "there is no proof that carbon dioxide is causing or precedes global warming". "All indications are that the minor warming cycle finished in 2001 and that Arctic ice melting is related to cyclical orbit-tilt-axis changes in earth's angle to the sun."

Yet in the government's pursuit of a carbon trading scheme, Mr Williams said there was likely to be economic distortion, higher costs, investment disincentives and taxpayer-funded subsidies. He says any carbon trading scheme is likely to have a heavy impact on agriculture by:

Causing economic distortions, such as favouring imports over export industries (despite huge government subsidies to exporters which will attract World Trade Organisation [WTO] attention).

Penalising resource industries (and Australia's comparative advantage).

Compensating road transport, thereby discriminating against less-polluting rail transport.

Replacing highly productive cropping farmland in high-rainfall zones with tree plantations, reducing cropping agriculture and confining it to the less fertile lower-rainfall areas at a time of global food shortages and rising food prices.

Discriminating against animal industries which comprise one of the most successful Australian export industries.

Discriminating between farmers based on soil type.

Discriminating against consumers, who will bear the brunt of the costs through higher energy and food costs.

Mr Williams says the likely outcome of these economic distortions will be:

Increasing export uncompetitiveness at a time of record global shipping freight rates.

A worsening trade deficit which will necessitate persistent high interest rates to attract balancing foreign capital inflows.

Reduced investment in energy and rail industries.

Coal demand decreasing, which will lower prices and provide signals to buyers that the resource boom may be over;

Depressing rural communities even further, as long-term tree investment cannot replace short-term crop revenue cash-flows; and

Increasing cost pressures boosting prices and inflation for consumers already encountering economic difficulties.

He says shifting animals from pasture to higher protein feeds will exacerbate food shortages and higher prices. "As more than 80pc of Australian exports are price-taking commodities, any carbon emissions cost is going to be borne by the domestic producer and exporter, and require large compensation under any carbon trading scheme," Mr Williams said. "This compensation will be seen as a producer subsidy under WTO guidelines at a time when Australia is supposed to be leading by good example in freer trade for the rest of the world."

He said governments worldwide had spent $50 billion on global warming research since 1990, with no evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming. "All this cost is borne by taxpayers yet where exactly are the benefits beyond normal pollution control regulations?"

He also questioned what incentive there was for farmers to increase organic carbon in the soil, only to sell it off as carbon credits and become managers of it for someone else. And he asked what would happen if soil carbon levels dropped due to drought, fire, flood or crop rotations. "Farmers could be forced into bankruptcy by having to refund money they do not have."

He said increased rural land values caused by demand from industries seeking carbon credits through forestation programs was only going to distract farmers from producing food, cause uncertainty in investment decisions and entice them to seek short-term property sale benefits.

Rural towns would also struggle from a lack of money (from reduced production revenues) and decreased investment at a time when farms are being replaced by long-term forests. "To introduce a new high-cost system based on fear and feeding off superstition does not make good fiscal governance when there are serious economic distortions, measurement difficulties, investment disincentives, potential carbon market liquidity problems and a low probability of achieving any benefits in energy reduction or environment improvement," Mr Williams said. "Without a similar cost scheme for Australia's major export competitors, the outcome could be economic suicide for exporters in terms of loss of international competitiveness."

Source