Australian Politics

A twist in the free speech legal fight between X and Australia's eSafety bureaucracy

The eSafety vs X case just got messier

The eSafety Commissioner's fight against X over videos of the Wakeley stabbing just got messier, with two new groups granted leave to join the case.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) have pulled off a rare legal manoeuvre, winning the right to participate in Federal Court proceedings they caught wind of over in the United States.

Court allows terrorist attack vision to stay on X
The Federal Court has chosen not to extend a temporary order for social media company X, formerly Twitter, to hide videos of a Sydney terrorist stabbing globally.

It’s another knock to eSafety, which has been trying to force Elon Musk's company to remove or hide about 65 instances of footage showing a stabbing attack on Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel since April.

To recap briefly, X initially agreed to geoblock the posts, but refused the regulator's subsequent legal notice, which would have meant global removal.

At that point, all hell promptly broke loose.

Amid an intercontinental slanging match between Anthony Albanese and Elon Musk, the Federal Court granted a temporary injunction, which X ignored, ordering the social media platform to hide the material.

The stalemate lasted more than two weeks until Justice Kennett rejected eSafety’s bid to renew the injunction, after hearing arguments that the Commissioner had overreached.

It was enough of a commotion to attract two American interlopers, the EFF and FIRE, who jointly applied to "intervene" in the matter on behalf of internet users outside Australia.

Their bid has mostly escaped public notice so far, but this week Justice Kennett decided the parties had a right to be heard, despite arguments to the contrary from eSafety.

"It's not automatic and it's quite rare in the Australian context for intervention to be granted," said Kevin Lynch, a partner at Johnson Winter Slattery, the firm representing the two groups.

"Our clients won't be arguing for one side or the other," said Lynch, adding that they're only there to bring an "international perspective".

That perspective happens to overlap significantly with the case being made by X, centring on free speech and the appropriate limits of the Commissioner's powers.

"If an Australian court makes a global takedown order, it might signal to other countries that they can impose similar orders under their own laws," Lynch said.

In other words: if it can happen in Australia, there's nothing to stop it from happening in China, Russia, Myanmar or Iran.

EFF and FIRE now have a seat at the table, in recognition of the fact that this fight "has a major impact upon their interests as freedom of speech advocates", Lynch said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05-28/twist-in-legal-fight-between-x-esafety-google-ai-glue-and-rocks/103900668

***********************************

The hopeless mission of the Australian Energy Market Operator

This year 2024 Daniel Westerman will become a well-known if not much-loved public figure.
In his role as the energy czar – the CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator – his mission is to mastermind the great transformation of our energy system to deliver clean, reliable, and affordable energy to your home, business, and in due course, your car.

In fact, the decision to pursue that transformation is the greatest policy blunder in our history, wartime included. To anticipate the punchline of this bad joke: ‘It’s the wind supply, stupid!’ That is explained below.

Westerman’s predecessor laid the foundations for this ‘Great Reset’ of the energy market with a cultural revolution in AEMO, stacking the organisation with green activists and model builders to generate the Integrated System Plan for the transformation. This received high praise from the Net Zero industry and scathing criticism in a forensic review by a team of scientists and engineers associated with the Energy Realists in the parallel universe of energy policy.

The interaction between the two worlds is much like the dispute between two fishwives observed by Boswell and Johnson (literary lions of the time) shouting at each other from their front windows across a narrow street. Johnson remarked, ‘They will never agree. They are arguing from different premises.’

Perhaps a shared perception of impending disaster can provide a common premise for a constructive exchange between the two worlds. The possibility is there since the latest update of the AEMO Electricity Statement of Opportunities in late February flags an impending shortage of supply after Liddell power station closes in April to be followed by the biggest unit in NSW, Eraring, two years later. In less diplomatic language, get ready for blackouts! This is old news for energy realists, still, with the threat officially acknowledged, the time has come for an urgent review of the transition plan.

The role of Daniel Westerman will be crucial in that process. What manner of man is he? Does he have the qualifications and experience to lead a gruelling and divisive campaign to keep the lights on? Can he keep his head while all about him are losing theirs and blaming it on him?

He was born in Australia, graduated in Mechanical Engineering, and gained MBAs in Melbourne and London. He did some time consulting on energy at McKinsey before he moved to England in 2014 and rose to be the Chief Transformation Officer and President of Renewable Energy at London-based National Grid. He also ran the England and Wales electricity system as part of National Grid’s dual responsibility as electricity market operator. The UK was on a ‘rapid energy transformation pathway’ based on large-scale wind and solar, especially wind.

In 2021, he was appointed as the CEO of AEMO, arousing great expectations. The Financial Review reported that the AEMO chairman and the board members were very pleased with Mr Westerman’s experience. The voice of the Energy Network of Australia was effusive: ‘The northern hemisphere’s loss is Australia’s gain as we chart the path towards a clean, reliable and affordable energy future.’

Sarah McNamara of the Australian Energy Council opined that his knowledge of markets in the UK will be invaluable as we navigate the challenges, ‘Protecting the future security of the National Electricity Market and balancing the energy needs of today with the necessary changes for the future.’

What happened in Britain under his leadership to arouse so much hope for our future? Warning: We are now entering the parallel universe where the former Prime Minister of Britain, Theresa May, proudly legislated for Net Zero with practically unanimous support in the House.

Consequently, Britain went into free fall on the energy front, well over a year before the war in Ukraine started. Power prices went through the roof and energy-intensive industries are closing down or heading for the Exit door. Subscribe to Net Zero Watch from the Global Warming Policy Foundation to get a gruesome week by week account of the deindustrialisation of Western Europe, especially Britain, and Germany.

Can we expect to do better? The answer at present appears to be, ‘No!’ At the release of the Electricity Statement of Opportunities, Mr Westerman quickly resiled from the full implications of the report and reverted to the official script, calling for ‘urgent and ongoing investment in renewable energy, long-duration storage, and transmission to reliably meet demand’. This reflects the government commitment to more wind and solar, more ‘big batteries’, completing Snowy2.0, re-wiring the nation, and getting rid of coal.

What don’t they get about the Iron Triangle of Energy Supply? That is the nexus of wind droughts and lack of storage that guarantees blackouts on windless nights unless there is 100 per cent of conventional power available? Surely they appreciate the need for continuous input to the grid…

As for wind droughts, AEMO has all the information they need to document the phenomenon because they have continuous records of the output from all the registered windmills attached the grid. In 2012, Paul Miskelly documented wind droughts across SE Australia when highpressure systems linger, sometimes for days.

Anton Lang drew on the AEMO data to keep tabs on the wind supply and the performance of the other generators, which he documented in thousands of blog posts on his site from 2018 to the present.

It seems that nobody with influence in energy planning and policy took any notice of these public records which clearly signal that the green energy transition is impossible with existing technology. This means that the Net Zero policy is the greatest blunder in our history, wartime included.

Wind literacy is the key to public appreciation of the Iron Triangle. Regular weather bulletins could easily include the amount of wind power in the energy mix at the time. The figures at night and at breakfast and dinnertime, when there is little or no solar power, should be a wakeup call. Similarly, glancing at the NemWatch widget at those times signals how much we depend on coal and gas for hot meals and air conditioning.

The reporters and commentators in the mainstream media have scandalously kept people ignorant of the basic facts pertaining to the Iron Triangle, facts that are required to enable informed public debate. If the news doesn’t travel fast enough to stimulate timely remedial action, be prepared to move to Tasmania or hoard wood and animal dung for the time when household generators are banned or our diesel stocks run out.

https://stophumansacrifice.substack.com/p/rafe-champion-power-policy-in-parallel

*********************************************

Australians Abandon Physical Cash and the Freedom It Protects

The end of cash has been heralded for years—mostly by government officials eager to end the expense of minting coins and printing banknotes while pushing transactions to digital forms that can be tracked and taxed. The transformation has met varying degrees of acceptance or resistance from people around the globe. But Australians appear to be eagerly advancing down the road towards a cash-free world.

Disappearing Banknotes and Coins

"Cash was once a staple in the economy, but it's fast becoming a relic of the past," according to an April report on Australia's financial evolution from SBSNews. "Just a decade ago, more than half of transactions were cash. Now it's just one in seven, and it's happened at an alarming rate."

Various forms of digital payments now account for the lion's share of transactions, with a growing number of merchants now refusing coins and banknotes, and ATMs disappearing around the country. That means cash is increasingly difficult to find and use even for those who prefer physical money.

The transformation was turbocharged by COVID-19, as people moved away from any sort of contact. But usage of cash was already plunging, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia, from almost 70 percent of transactions in 2007 to less than 30 percent in 2019. "Cash payments accounted for 13 per cent of the number and 8 per cent of the value of all consumer payments in 2022," the bank finds.

While Australian consumers and central bank bureaucrats embrace the shift, there are serious downsides to an all-digital economy.

"Digital payments have shortfalls, including their reliance on the internet—which can prove problematic in times of crisis," cautions SBSNews. The report described the plight of people cut off from processing services by wildfires that severed communications; those with cash could still buy necessities.

Digital transactions also require people to have accounts in their names, which is a challenge for young people and immigrants. And budgeting can be easier with paper and coins than with abstract numbers.

Unmentioned in the piece are any concerns about lost independence when all transactions can be monitored and, potentially, blocked. But that's a major concern elsewhere.

'Printed Freedom'

"Printed freedom" is how German economist Lars Feld described physical money in 2015 while responding to a push in his country to abolish physical cash. He defended banknotes and coins on the grounds that people "should be entitled to an escape from all-out state control," as Hardy Graupner of German broadcaster Deutsche Welle put it.

Such concerns came to a head in 2022 when the Canadian government cut off Freedom Convoy protesters' access to their own bank accounts and blocked digital donations to their cause.

"It's a Western version of China's social credit system that does not altogether prohibit political dissent but makes it so costly that it becomes impractical to the ordinary citizen," commented David Sacks, former COO of PayPal. He had already warned that electronic payment processors were working with governments to deny access to the financial system on ideological grounds.

Canada's crackdown was dramatic, but it didn't stand in isolation.

Digital Transactions and Targeted Industries

In 2022, American Banker reported that "a new code identifying credit card sales of guns and ammunition has been approved by the International Standards Organization, creating a potential path for card networks to help law enforcement agencies identify suspicious sales of guns and ammunition."

Amidst concerns that banks would help government officials track gun owners, and several states banning the gun-specific merchant codes, the financial industry "paused" implementation.

The merchant code controversy was reminiscent of earlier government efforts, under programs including Operation Choke Point, to cut off businesses disliked by politicians from financial services.

"Operation Choke Point was created by the Justice Department to 'choke out' companies the Administration considers a 'high risk' or otherwise objectionable, despite the fact that they are legal businesses," summarized a 2014 House Oversight Committee report. "The sheer breadth of industries affected – including firearms and ammunition sales, adult entertainment, check cashing, and payday lending – has generated significant concern with the objectives and scope of Operation Choke Point."

Notably, physical money offers a workaround for businesses that government officials don't like. To this day, marijuana is a largely cash industry for businesses legal at the state level but still illegal under federal law—a serious concern for heavily regulated financial institutions. For pot growers and vendors, cash may not always be ideal (it's a target for thieves), but it offers the freedom to operate.

Use It or Lose It

That was the sort of concern that pushed Germany's Lars Feld to describe physical money as "printed freedom." It also inspired Swiss activists last year to urge their countrymen to vote "yes to a free and independent Swiss currency in the form of coins and banknotes." Swiss officials rejected the initiative as insufficiently specific, but they also promised to incorporate protections for cash into the constitution.

Many Australians appear to feel otherwise, and they're not alone. With demand plunging for cash, Denmark stopped printing and minting kroner in 2016 (private companies will be commissioned to produce more as needed).

"One of the reasons why it is no longer profitable to produce coins and banknotes in Denmark is that the Danes increasingly pay with either credit card or mobile phone," BT reported at the time.

There is no denying that digital transactions are easy—sometimes too easy—requiring only a card or app, and not sufficient paper in your wallet. But despite the still largely unrealized promise of Bitcoin and other cyber currencies, most digital transactions leave records and require processing by third parties. Those intermediaries, under political pressure, can turn our own funds into tools of control. The more accustomed we become to digital payments, the more likely physical money and the freedom it offers will slip away.

"If you don't use it, you're going to lose it," Steve Worthington of Swinburne University's School of Business, Law, and Entrepreneurship told SBS News. "The less and less we're able to access and use cash, the more likely it is that we will lose access to it the same way we have with paper cheques."

It's something to think about the next time you head for the store to make a purchase.

https://reason.com/2024/05/27/australians-abandon-physical-cash-and-the-freedom-it-protects/

********************************************

Changing native vegetation laws to allow burning on private land is good fire management

Bushfires cause catastrophic biodiversity loss across Australia. In the Black Summer of 2019–20 alone, 103,400 square kilometres of habitat went up in flames.

The irony is, laws to protect native vegetation did nothing to prevent this destruction. This is because, in most states, these laws make it hard for private landholders to burn on their own land, meaning more fuel is left to feed bushfires.

We have a chance to change that now in South Australia, where the Native Vegetation Act is under review.

With greater knowledge and understanding of the role of fire in the Australian landscape, we can take better care of native vegetation on private land as well as public parks. There’s a strong case to be made for private landholders to conduct their own cool burns, for dual purposes of reducing fuel load and restoring ecosystems.

Fire can be good for biodiversity

A wide range of species will benefit from good fire management, which creates a patchwork of different ages of vegetation.

Some plant and animal species are found only in long-unburnt vegetation. Others need recently burnt areas. Many shrubs only occur in areas burnt in the past 15–20 years.

Fire is also needed to maintain food supplies for many threatened animals. For example, the glossy black-cockatoo feeds almost exclusively on the seeds of drooping sheoak trees. But seeds become scarce in long-unburnt vegetation.

Breaking up the landscape should also mean fewer animals will be caught in each fire, because they have places to which they can escape.

Managing fire at landscape scale

Proactive burning can reduce wildfire risk under most conditions, when managed at the whole-of-landscape scale. This requires everyone to manage fire on their own land in a coordinated way. Such an approach emulates Indigenous land management and was partially adopted by land managers in southern Australia until the 1970s.

Private landholders are no longer allowed to contribute to these efforts, perhaps because the community distrusts both farmers and fire. However, without landholder involvement, fire management capacity is severely limited.

For instance, National Parks and Wildlife Service South Australia’s Burning on Private Land program has managed only 28 hectares of fuel reduction burns on Kangaroo Island since Black Summer. Given forest fuel loads can reach dangerous levels six years after bushfire, the next big one may not be far away.

Climate change means catastrophic bushfires will happen more frequently. Addressing this escalating risk requires allowing landholders to manage fire hazards on their own land.

The devastating Black Summer wildfires

The Black Summer fires killed an estimated three billion animals and drove at least 20 threatened species closer to extinction.

Human lives were lost, livestock perished. More than half of Kangaroo Island burned, including areas that had not seen fire since the 1930s. Along with 96% of Flinders Chase National Park, about 40,000 hectares of native vegetation burned on privately owned land.

While nothing could prevent the spread of fires under catastrophic weather conditions, many of Black Summer’s fires started earlier. They may have been better controlled, or stopped altogether before conditions got out of hand, if the vegetation was not so thick and connected. The very small amount of fuel reduction being undertaken on private land is inadequate.

Burning does not equal land clearing

In 1985, SA introduced the first laws in Australia to protect native vegetation. These effectively stopped the widespread clearance of native vegetation in the state.

However, they have done little to maintain or restore its ecological condition. Since the laws were passed, we have learned more about the effects of fire in Australian landscapes. We now know proactive use of fire can make vegetation more complex and biodiverse. So, fire needs to be actively managed, not excluded.

While well-intended, the existing legislation discourages burning by private landholders, making it almost impossible for them to take responsibility for reducing fuel loads on their own land. This is because South Australia’s Native Vegetation Act defines all burning as clearance.

What do other states do?

Both New South Wales and Western Australia also classify burning as clearing. In Victoria, approval for burning on private land is managed at the local government level and appears to have no provision for ecological burning.

Elsewhere, burning is only considered to be clearance when it is intentionally used for the purpose of destroying native vegetation, as in Tasmania, Queensland and the Northern Territory, or remnant trees, in the case of the Australian Capital Territory.

All states and territories allow exemptions for the purpose of bushfire prevention or fire fighting. None has incorporated fire management for ecological purposes into their native vegetation legislation.

So far, proposed changes to the SA Native Vegetation Act have missed an opportunity to reduce wildfire risk across the state.

This could be fixed by simply changing the definition of clearance to exclude fire used for ecological purposes. This is effectively the case in Queensland, where fire is only considered to be clearing when it is specifically used to destroy native vegetation.

SA’s Native Vegetation Council would then need to provide guidance on how landholders should burn to both reduce fuel loads and benefit biodiversity. This should extend the current advice to provide the type of detailed ecological and operational information that is provided in Queensland.

Changing South Australia’s Native Vegetation Act to facilitate fire management by landholders is one step we can take to minimise the risk of catastrophic wildfires. The next steps are trusting landholders to take this responsibility seriously and help them do so. This would bring South Australia back to the forefront of native vegetation management in Australia.

https://theconversation.com/changing-native-vegetation-laws-to-allow-burning-on-private-land-is-good-fire-management-229796