The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
The future of my children and grandchildren and the wellbeing of all future generations are in our hands—such responsibility must be shouldered and fought for. I have recycled, reduced, reused for decades but much more is needed.
I have been able to follow the effect in Sweden on the use of less polluting fuels, on the move towards more sustainable energy … and consequently on the decrease in atmospheric pollution due to carbon dioxide from Swedish sources. This has been encouraging.
I have also seen how ever more countries around the world are taking their share of responsibility for what is a global problem with possibly devastating consequences. There can no longer be any doubt that the observed increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing dangerous global warming and that the increase is caused by human pollution sources.
Based on these facts I am sad that the Australian government is now contemplating backwards steps.
People like Jon Moylan and others are stepping up to stop the Maules Creek coalmine and protect the Leard State Forest in New South Wales.
The Blue Mountains bushfire crisis was the result of a lack of political leadership and had nothing to do with climate change, one of Australia's foremost disaster management experts said. David Packham, a former Deputy Director of the Australian Counter Disaster College, said linking the NSW fire disaster with global warming was nonsense. Mr. Packham previously accused latte conservationists of having too much influence on forest management.
Nothing could be worse for democracy than to adopt the practice of permitting knowledge to be overthrown by ignorance.
If I have honestly and thoughtfully arrived at a certain conclusion on a public question and my electors disagree with me, my first duty is to endeavour to persuade them that my view is right.
If I fail in this, my second duty will be to accept the electoral consequences and not to run away from them. Fear can never be a proper or useful ingredient in those mutual relations of respect and good-will which ought to exist between the elector and the elected.
And so, as we think about it we shall find more and more how disfiguring a thing fear is in our own political and social life.
Men fear the unknown as children fear the dark. It is that kind of fear which too often restrains experiment and keeps us from innovations which might benefit us enormously.
It is the fear of knowledge which prevents so many of us from really using our minds, and which makes so many of us ready slaves to cheap and silly slogans and catch-cries.
It is the fear of life and its problems which makes so many of us yearn for nothing so much as some safe billet from which risk and its twin brother enterprise are alike abolished.
An emissions trading scheme probably is the best way to put a price on carbon …
I suspect that a straight carbon tax or charge could be more transparent and easier to change if conditions change or our understanding of the science changes.
There is much to be said for an emissions trading scheme. It was, after all, the mechanism for emission reduction ultimately chosen by the Howard government. It enables an increasing market price to be set for carbon through capping volumes of emissions.
I am, as you know, hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have significantly increased since the spread of industrialisation, but it seems that noticeable warming has only taken place between the 1970s and 1990s.
I don't think we can say that the science is settled here.
There is no doubt that we should do our best to rest lightly on the planet and there is no doubt that we should do our best to emit as few waste products as possible, but, having said that, whether carbon dioxide is quite the environmental villain that some people make it out … is not yet proven.
Climate change is the greatest ecological, economic, and social challenge of our time.
Heatwaves, storms and floods are likely to have a direct impact on the health of Australians … Moderate warming in the absence of rainfall declines can be beneficial to some agricultural crops … However, these positive effects can be offset by changes in temperature, rainfall, pests, and the availability of nutrients. Production from cropping and livestock is projected to decline over much of southern Australia, as is the quality of grain, grape, vegetable, fruit, and other crops.
… will be among the companies most heavily affected by the new carbon price scheme.
Aside from power stations, Wesfarmers is Australia's sixth biggest carbon emitter, producing 2.7m tonnes of direct emissions.
… a A$100m net annual cost in the first year of the scheme as a result of the initial carbon price of A$23 per tonne.
… it can maintain its margins by taking steps to reduce carbon emissions and improve energy efficiency.
Apart from the investment to improve energy efficiency, much of the group's focus in the last year has been on intensive emissions reduction, particularly in the chemicals business.
… developing internal policies to guide employees as they prepare greenhouse and energy reports and deal with customers and suppliers on issues to do with carbon pricing—
Though the carbon cost is significant, Wesfarmers believes it can mitigate it to a large extent with top line growth and increased organisational efficiency.
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
The government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help cost-of-living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business.
…Australia's high carbon tax raises business costs unnecessarily, hitting industry competitiveness and investment confidence.
…places excessive costs on business and households because the carbon charge under the legislation is now one of the highest in the world.
…the best assistance the government and the opposition can provide is the removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars…
What went up will clearly come down when you take away the carbon price.
… this severe, extended drought is clearly linked with global warming.
My support has always been for two things. And this is a life-long commitment back to my thesis. And that is firstly, to reduce emissions. And secondly, to use economic instruments to do that.
Professor Ross Garnaut has argued that Australia is unlikely to see another era of extensive micro-economic reform because of the growth in rent-seeking behaviour since the days of the Hawke-Keating government.
… … …
What gets me is how blatantly self-seeking our lobby groups have become. It is as if the era of economic rationalism - with its belief that the economy is driven by self-interest - has sanctified selfishness and refusal to co-operate for the common good.
It's finally dawning on people that major and genuine reform—
requires a degree of bipartisanship at the political level and a spirit of give and take on the part of powerful interest groups. But these prerequisites are further away than ever.
Instead what we get is lowest-common-denominator politics from the pollies and rent-seeking posing as ''reform'' from the interest groups.
It lets down the whole British tradition that a country should have become so selfish about this issue that it’s prepared to spoil the efforts of others and to foil what very much less rich countries are doing … All that pollution which Australia is pushing into the atmosphere is of course changing my climate. It’s a real insult to the sovereignty of other countries … It’s wholly contrary to the science, it’s wholly contradictory to the interests of Australia and I hope that many people in Australia will see when the rest of the world is going in the right direction what nonsense it is for them to be going backwards.
The best assistance the government and opposition can provide …
If we need some more foreign investment in Qantas subject to—
changes to the Qantas Act, then so be it …
It's about what's required to maintain Qantas.
I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Defence (Senator Johnston) and the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) to questions without notice asked today.
It would simply be a waste of time and political energy, when it is obvious that I think the majority of the Australian people and certainly the majority of the people elected to the parliament at the present time, especially in the Senate, do not favour that course of action.
The entire aviation industry is financially haemorrhaging right now and approaching collapse.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to a fire at the Hazelwood coal mine in Morwell, Victoria.
According to a source close to the committee, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, committee members were surprised when the Attorney-General took literally his ''ex-officio'' membership and chose to attend in person and to engage in active discussion of individual award recommendations.
According to the source, the attendance of any politician at the committee ... is uncommon.
Senator Brandis was unavailable for comment late on Monday due to a cabinet meeting.
That leave of absence be granted for Senator Ludlam from 4 March to 6 March 2014 for electorate business.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Reducing Barriers for Minor Parties) Bill 2014.
The opportunity for all citizens to run for election, either individually or collectively as political parties, regardless of wealth and background, is an absolute cornerstone of our democracy. In recent years there has been an alarming trend across a number of Australian jurisdictions to increase barriers to political participation, in particular barriers that make it more difficult for minor parties to run in elections.
In February of last year, the Coalition and Labor teamed up to pass legislation that doubled nomination fees for candidates running for election to the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Greens strongly opposed this change, alongside other minor party and independent Senators.
At the time, The Greens warned about the consequences these changes would have on minor parties. In the House of Representatives, my colleague and Australian Greens Deputy Leader Adam Bandt noted that these changes were unlikely to have a significant impact on The Greens, but would create a barrier to smaller parties and individuals. Many minor parties would still try and raise the funds necessary to participate in the democratic process, but it would leave them with fewer financial resources to use in their election campaign. Labor and the Coalition – the architects of this proposal – would however be flush with cash from private, corporate donors and face no such impediment.
In the last federal election we saw a significant number of minor parties, including new parties, register and run. While The Greens may not support the policies of every one of these parties, we absolutely support their right to participate in the democratic process. There has been much media coverage and discussion following the election about the number of minor party Senators who were elected in 2013. Concerns have been raised, rightly in my view, around the lack of transparency around the Senate voting system and the proliferation of secret preference deals that leave voters in the dark. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is looking into those issues, and I look forward to participating in that discussion. The Greens have a clear position on these issues. We strongly support the right of all political parties, and future political parties, to register and run for election without having to pay exorbitant fees, but we don’t support a Senate voting system that forces parties and candidates to enter into secret preference deals that voters have no knowledge of.
If the legislation passed last year was an attempt to try and lock out minor parties, and it’s hard to see it as anything other than that, it failed. More minor parties than ever contested the election and a number of new parties were elected to the Senate – some at the expense of Labor and the Coalition.
There is a growing concern shared by minor parties across the political spectrum that the response from the major parties will not necessarily be a democratic reform of the Senate voting system that will end compulsory, secret preference deals, but will take further steps to limit the role played by minor parties. After all, both Labor and the Coalition have recent form in this area.
In a similar vein to Labor’s doubling of nomination fees last year, the Campbell Newman Liberal National government in Queensland is proceeding with plans to make it more difficult for minor parties to get off the ground and running in that state, by increasing the threshold required before parties become eligible for public funding.
The Greens strongly oppose those reforms, and will oppose any reforms in this Parliament that are designed to protect the interests of the major parties.
This Bill makes our intentions clear. It seeks to undo the anti-democratic doubling of nomination fees pushed through by the major parties last year. It will revert nomination fees to $1,000 per Senate candidate and $500 per House of Representatives candidate. It will restore some fairness to our electoral processes.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Criminal Code Amendment (Harming Australians) Bill 2013 be extended to 28 May 2014.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 5 March 2014, from 1.30 pm.
That the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 4 March 2014, from 6.45 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Australia Post.
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Thursday, 6 March 2014;
(b) Thursday, 20 March 2014; and
(c) Thursday, 27 March 2014.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, from 9.40 am, as follows:
(a) Wednesday, 5 March 2014;
(b) Wednesday, 19 March 2014; and
(c) Wednesday, 26 March 2014.
That the Senate—
(a) notes, with concern, the decision of the Russian Parliament to authorise the use of force against Ukraine;
(b) supports the United Nations (UN) Secretary‑General’s call for the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty;
(c) urges all parties to exercise restraint, and to seek to resolve the situation peacefully; and
(d) calls on the Australian Government to continue to work together with the international community, including as a member of the UN Security Council, to seek a peaceful resolution to the situation in Ukraine through dialogue.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Native Title Act 1993 to further the interests of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT (REFORM) BILL 2014
The Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2014 is the third iteration of native title reform proposed by the Australian Greens.
The Bill seeks to address key failures of the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA). We want to provide meaningful rights and a basis for economic and community development to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, something the Act has not adequately achieved in the 20 years since it came into force.
By introducing this Bill and any further reforms we intend to contribute constructively to a debate about native title reform that can ultimately lead to simpler legislation which produces more meaningful outcomes in a more timely fashion for all those involved.
In March 2011, I introduced the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2011. The Bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee in May last year. Over 35 submissions were received, from a range of stakeholders and government agencies during the course of the inquiry. The majority of these were supportive of the intent of the legislation—many noting the great need for the Native Title Act to be reformed. The submissions contained many useful suggestions on how the Bill might be strengthened and improved.
The Bill I introduced in 2012 built on those suggestions. We closely examined the submissions and incorporated numerous revisions, creating a more robust and effective piece of law.
In the original Bill we sought to address some of the 'low-hanging fruit' of native title reform—by targeting some of the areas of native title law where relatively simple amendments could have far-reaching implications for addressing some of the current barriers to effective native title outcomes. In 2012’s Bill we focused on the most important and most urgent of those areas and drafted amendments which we hope will gain broad support.
As I have said previously if we do not work together to traverse the "impenetrable jungle"1 that is native title litigation, there is little hope for just outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The second reading speech for the original Bill is still relevant for this current revised Bill:
… nearly two decades after the introduction of the NTA it is clear that native title has failed to deliver on its promises.
The Preamble states that …
"The people of Australia intend:
(a) to rectify the consequences of past injustices by the special measures contained in this Act… for securing the adequate advancement and protection of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders; and
(b) to ensure that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire."
Unfortunately as we marked the twentieth anniversary of the NTA in 2013, there had been no progress on native title reform, and so communities are still waiting for native title to deliver on some of the seemingly forgotten promises contained in the preamble to and objects of the NTA.
In practice, the people who the Act recognises and describes as "…the most disadvantaged group in society…" as a consequence of the dispossession of their lands have had to rely on one of the longest and most complex pieces of Australian legislation to try to "…secure their advancement…" and to recognise and protect (not establish) their pre-existing rights.
In two decades since its introduction, only a handful of native title claims have been resolved, with many of these being in remote areas which had been of little interest to European colonists. For the majority of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, particularly those in urban areas and regional centres, native title has offered little and delivered less.
Meanwhile the promised complementary measures have also been a grave disappointment—the land fund has only been able to help out a limited number of communities, and the social justice package never eventuated.
It is clear that in the application and judicial interpretation of the NTA a huge gap has emerged between these original promises and intentions, and the on-the-ground experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities seeking to have their native title rights recognised and protected.
Justice Kirby characterised the barriers to the recognition of native title rights as comparable to an impenetrable jungle, saying:
"It would be easy for the judicial explorer to become confused and lost in the undergrowth to which rays of light rarely penetrate. Discovering the path through this jungle requires navigational skills of a high order. Necessarily, they are costly to procure and time consuming to deploy. The legal advance that commenced with Mabo v Queensland, or perhaps earlier, has now attracted such difficulties that the benefits intended for Australia's Indigenous peoples in relation to native title land and waters are being channelled into costs of administration and litigation that leave everyone dissatisfied and many disappointed."2
There are many who still believe that the recognition of rights to land, culture and resources through native title could provide a strong and sustainable basis for 'advancement' by underwriting and enabling community and economic development.
The former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for instance, spoke of the capacity for respect for native title to provide a sturdy foundation for durable economic and social outcomes in his Apology speech.3
It is a tragic shame that neither his government nor its successor did anything to seek to strengthen and facilitate recognition of the native title rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to help make that vision a reality. Instead the only changes to native title laws we have seen recently have been those that either diminished native title rights or at the very least have failed to enhance the capacity of traditional owners to participate in securing meaningful outcomes.
This of course came on the back of over a decade of Coalition Government under John Howard that systematically wound back the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, diminished native title rights, and saw the scrapping of all the existing avenues for representation and decision making with the removal of ATSIC.
The challenge in moving forward is to make the vision of the apology a reality, to actively engage Aboriginal communities in policy development, decision making and community development. This also means recognising, as the Cape York Land Council put it, that "[m]eaningful respect for native title as a valuable property right is part of the solution … not an impediment".4
The impetus for reform
The impetus for this Bill arose from the interactions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and native title experts that took place in and around the 2009 inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009. A Bill which in and of itself had little to do with reforming native title to deliver better outcomes.
The discussions that took place around that Senate inquiry crystallised many of my long-standing concerns with the NTA which lead to a continuing dialogue on broader native title reform that has ultimately led to these reforms.
At the time of the introduction of the first 2009 Bill, the then Attorney General Robert McClelland stated that the intent of the Australian Government in introducing the Bill was "… achieving more negotiated native title outcomes in a more timely, effective and efficient fashion".5
The vast majority of the evidence tendered to that Senate inquiry supported the need for native title reform that would achieve more effective native title outcomes in a more timely and resource efficient manner but disagreed with the Attorney General's suggestion that the Government's reforms came anywhere near achieving those outcomes.
As Tony McAvoy of the National Native Title Council put it at the time:
"…the amendments that are proposed in this amendment Bill are not controversial. They may make some small difference but they are not going to make any vast change in the way in which native title matters are dealt with. There is not going to be any rush of settlement of native title applications as a result of any of these amendments."6
The submissions to that inquiry identified a number of other possible reforms to the NTA that promised to address the barriers to timely and meaningful native title outcomes and went beyond the narrow agenda of the government's first 2009 Bill. These included addressing the 'burden of proof' through a rebuttable presumption of continuity,7 strengthening the requirements for parties to 'negotiate in good faith', and raising the threshold on extinguishment, among others.
Many of the issues raised in this inquiry were further discussed and developed in the Native Title Report 2009 of the Australian Human Rights Commission by the then Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma. This report made an important series of recommendations for native title reform, many of which have provided the basis for the reforms proposed within this Bill.
I note that this Bill does not cover all of the reforms recommended by Tom Calma, and includes a number of measures that he did not discuss at the time. While many of the good ideas can be attributed to Mr Calma and to others, I take full responsibility for the way they have been interpreted as legislative amendments. I commend the work of the former Commissioner and thank him sincerely for his efforts.
I would also like to thank the native title experts, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, land councils and representative bodies that have contributed their thoughts, ideas and comments to us in response to our inquiries and as part of the consultation process we undertook around the discussion paper and draft amendments proposing these reforms.
The right to negotiate also applies offshore
Item 2 seeks to improve procedural rights over offshore areas for native title holders. In doing so it seeks to address the contradiction between the existing provisions of subsection 26(3) of the NTA (that limits the right to negotiate to acts that relate to a place on the landward side of the mean high-water mark) and the fact that native title rights have been recognised to exist in offshore areas.8
This amendment is consistent with the views expressed by the then Attorney General Robert McClelland, who stated in 2009 that:
"When it comes to behavioural change, I accept that the Australian Government has to lead by example. I believe we are doing just that. For example, last year I announced that the Government will take a more flexible approach to recognising native title in Australia's territorial waters. The Australian Government now accepts that native title can exist out to the limits of the modern territorial sea, generally 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline. Given that the Government is involved in all claims over offshore waters, this approach should help bring about more negotiated settlements."9
The limitation of procedural rights under subsection 26(3) that denies traditional owners a right to negotiate over future acts in offshore areas is clearly inconsistent with this recognition that native title can exist up to 12 nautical miles out to sea, and so item 2 of the Bill remedies this by repealing subsection 26(3) to remove this unnecessary contradiction and allow traditional owners the right to negotiate over acts that impact on their sea country.
Strengthening good faith negotiations
The future acts regime plays a crucial role in the manner in which traditional owners are able to exercise their native title rights, by governing the requirements placed on parties negotiating agreements concerning proposed activities. There has been sustained criticism of the manner in which the future acts regime has led to protracted and uncertain outcomes, and calls for the act to be amended to create stronger incentives for beneficial agreements and to achieve greater procedural fairness by striking a better balance between native title and non-native title interests.
To this end the amendments proposed in items 3 to 12 of this Bill expand on the current requirements for parties to negotiate 'in good faith' in relation to future acts.
Currently the burden of proof for proving the absence of good faith in negotiations is on the native title party, rather than the proponent of a proposed future act. This appears procedurally unfair as it is in effect the proponent who is effectively asserting that they have negotiated in good faith for the required period when they apply for a matter to be taken to arbitration.
Item 3 of this Bill seeks to strengthen the requirement to negotiate in good faith, in line with the recommendations of the Native Title Report 2009.10
The NTA as it stands prevents parties from resorting to an arbitral body, such as the National Native Title Tribunal, for a period of six months from the issue of a notice that the government intends to grant a mining tenement. This fixed negotiating period does not take into account the relative scope or difficulty of the proposed negotiations—it is the same irrespective of whether the parties have established previous agreements or are meeting for the first time, and irrespective of whether they are negotiating a single act or attempting to conclude an overarching agreement on a 'whole of claim' basis.
So on the one hand, parties who are undertaking complex negotiations in a genuine attempt to make efficient use of their time and resources to secure wide-scale agreements over large areas of land and multiple future acts need to do so within the six month limit (irrespective of the number of negotiations and the lack of resources of the native title representative body). On the other hand, proponents who are not inclined to enter into serious negotiations with native title holders can effectively stonewall and sit on their hands for six months, knowing they can then force the matter to arbitration without any requirement to demonstrate they have made all reasonable efforts to come to agreements.
To this end item 3 of this Bill substitutes a new paragraph 31(1)(b) which requires parties to negotiate in good faith for at least six months and to use all reasonable efforts to come to an agreement about the conditions under which each of the native title parties might agree to the proposed future act. As made clear in the evidence to the Inquiry, this provision does not limit the ability of parties to reach agreement within 6 months but it does require negotiation for at least 6 months before either party can apply to the Tribunal.
Item 4 inserts new subsections 31(1A)-(1C), providing clarification of what the requirement to negotiate in good faith really means.
The good faith negotiating requirements are one of the few legal safeguards that native title parties have to protect their native title interests under the NTA. While section 31 of the NTA seeks to oblige the parties to negotiate in good faith during the negotiating period, in practice it is virtually impossible for claimants to establish that a proponent is not acting in good faith. This is borne out by the decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of FMG Pilbara v Cox11—a decision which substantially watered down the right to negotiate, to the extent that any negotiation in which the native title party cannot demonstrably prove bad faith is effectively considered to be a good faith negotiation.
Item 4 strengthens the requirement to negotiate in good faith by including explicit criteria for the type of negotiation activities that are indicative of good faith and clarifies that deceptive or unsatisfactory conduct is not a perquisite to demonstrate a failure to negotiate in good faith. Furthermore, it places a requirement on the arbitral body to consider the financial resources, and in the case of the native title party, the demands of cultural and religious practices, when considering whether a party has negotiated in good faith.
Item 7 reverses the onus of proof so that the party that is asserting good faith is the one that is required to prove it, by inserting a new subsection 31(2A).
Item 10 provides that a party may not apply to an arbitral body (under subsection 35(1)) until the party has first demonstrated good faith negotiations have taken place in accordance with section 31.
Strengthening coexistence by disallowing extinguishment
Another area where the NTA has failed to deliver is the manner in which the bar on extinguishment has been set too low. This has meant that in practice the principle of 'coexistence' of native title rights, which is clearly envisaged within the NTA, is too often brushed aside or ignored.
Item 13 of the proposed amendments seek to address this issue. Item 13 inserts new sections 47C and 47D. The new section 47C provides that in the case of National, State or Territory Parks, extinguishment is to be disregarded. Given the nature of national parks, it is appropriate for the non-extinguishment principle to apply and to allow for the co-existence of native title rights and interests. Chief Justice French has used the example of the vesting of a nature reserve on Crown land as one act which could be determined to have extinguished native title, where it would make sense to be able to disregard extinguishment and provide for an agreement between the traditional owners and the state to recognise native title rights in the interests of managing that reserve.12
New section 47D provides that at any time prior to a determination, the applicant and a government party can make an agreement that the extinguishment (or possible extinguishment) of native title rights and interests can be disregarded.
The current breadth and permanence of the extinguishment of native title through the provisions of the NTA is arguably unjustifiable, unnecessary and in breach of Australia's human rights obligations.13
Section 47 of the NTA provides a model for coexistence of native title and other rights on pastoral leases. The new sections in item 13 are consistent with the current application of the NTA, and allow the existing coexistence provisions to be extended to nature reserves and allow extinguishment to be disregarded by agreement in a wider range of circumstances.
Presumption of continuity
In practice, the bar for the recognition of native title rights has been set too high—with the onus of proof of cultural continuity being placed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and with evidence standards effectively mandating a reliance on the written accounts of European colonists that deny the predominantly oral nature of Indigenous cultures.
As the Australian Human Rights Commission argued in its submission to the 2009 Senate Inquiry:
"It cannot be disputed that Indigenous peoples lived in Australia prior to colonisation and that the Crown was responsible for the dispossession of Indigenous peoples throughout Australia.
It has also been acknowledged by governments over time through various policies, laws and statements of recognition, including the creation of land rights regimes and other mechanisms, that Indigenous peoples are the Traditional Owners of the land.
It is in this context that the Commission argues that it is unjust and inequitable to continue to place the demanding burden of proving all the elements required under the Native Title Act on the claimants."
The issue of prior occupation and hence the pre-existence of native title rights is not being questioned (as the preamble to the NTA readily acknowledges) and so under these circumstances it seems to be 'fundamentally discriminatory'14 and a gross injustice to place the burden of proof upon the dispossessed. This is particularly true when we consider that it is State and Commonwealth Governments that have granted the rights that have led to the possible extinguishment of native title, and that it is those governments who hold many of the historic records needed to establish connection.
The intent of providing for a rebuttable presumption of continuity is to shift the burden of proof in a way that encourages government parties (who must now take on the role of adducing evidence in their archives to rebut presumptions) to be more inclined to settle claims with a strong prospect of success—rather than dragging them out in the Federal Court as they are currently entitled to do.
Item 14 of our proposed amendments to the NTA seeks to address this issue, by putting into legislation amendments suggested by Chief Justice French15 that reverse the burden of proof to create a rebuttable presumption of continuity.
Moving to resolve more native title cases by consent determination could result in timelines being 'streamlined beyond recognition' and costs being 'reduced out of sight'.16 However, as the Native Title Report 2009 points out,17 a respondent would still be able to defeat a native title claim due to the operation of section 223, by providing appropriate evidence.
We have adopted a suggestion from the Law Council of Australia to insert new section 61AB clarifying that a court may determine that section 223 has been met notwithstanding substantial interruption of or significant change to traditional laws and customs if the interruption or change resulted from the action of a State or a Territory or a person or a party who is not an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander.
Definition of ' traditional '
As described in the second reading speech to my original Bill, in practice, the manner in which 'traditional' culture is defined by section 223 of the Act fails to recognise the dynamic and living nature of Indigenous Australian cultures. Instead it seeks to freeze culture in some pre-colonial past, which defines traditional culture based on a snap-shot of cultural practices at the time of European settlement and an expectation that they should continue unchanged. This ignores the fact that by their very nature the cultures of Australia's first nations were geared towards adapting to and surviving in an often harsh environment, not to mention the substantial efforts and resources expended by successive governments aimed at forcing or encouraging changes in behaviour.
This limited and unrealistic definition of 'traditional' means that in practice it is far too easy for a respondent to rebut the presumption of continuity by establishing a law or a custom is no longer practiced in exactly the same way it was at the point of colonisation. A more sensible and realistic definition of traditional culture would be one that "encompasses laws, customs and practices that remain identifiable through time"18 and allows at law for an appropriate level of adaptation to the changing circumstances brought about by colonisation.
The narrow application of section 223 has created insurmountable barriers to cultural resurgence as clearly seen by the Noongar, Larrakia, Wongatha and Yorta Yorta cases. In practice, the policy decision to narrowly interpret continuity and traditional practice under section 223 in the Yorta Yorta19 case has created a situation which directly contradicts the original objects of the NTA—in that it means that there is no opportunity to raise the role of past injustices in the interruption of cultural continuity in an Act whose every intent is to provide remedy to those injustices.
Where a group has revitalised its culture, laws and customs by actively seeking out and recovering those elements of cultural continuity driven underground by dispossession, forced relocation, or the removal of children, a comparatively minimal interruption to the sharing of that culture across the claimant group should not be sufficient to prevent the recognition of native title rights.
This state of affairs is clearly at odds both with the stated intentions of the NTA and Australia's international human rights commitments. On this basis it would be sensible to empower the Court to disregard any interruption in the observance of traditional laws and customs where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Item 18 of our proposed amendments inserts new subsections 223(1A), (1B), (1C) and (1D) which provide clarification of the definition of 'traditional' to ensure that the interpretation of what counts as ongoing Indigenous culture and law is based on a more realistic understanding of the maintenance and continuity of traditional practices and cultural values over time. This should help ensure that communities who have maintained a strong connection to their lands, laws, cultural practices and values will not have their recognition discounted based on changes which do not fundamentally alter the core of their cultural identity as traditional custodians of their land and sea country.
Commercial rights and interests
As mentioned in the second reading speech to my original Bill, in practice, the rights native title have delivered have also not been strong or complete enough to effectively provide 'for the advancement' of traditional owners or to provide a basis for economic and cultural development as they have not provided an unambiguous and exploitable right to land and resources.
Currently there is no mechanism to provide for the recognition of commercial rights to enable agreement making that delivers on the stated intent of the NTA "for securing the adequate advancement … of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders" by providing a vehicle for social and economic development. Furthermore, courts have appeared to take a view of customary Indigenous laws that does not properly recognise existing cultural economies and effectively distinguishes between customary or cultural rights and commercial ones.
This is at odds with a wealth of existing evidence of customary trade rights and practices which were based in customary rights to resources—including aquaculture, trade in clay and ochres and turtle shells, as well as crafts such as baskets and spears. It also includes strong evidence of a long-term trade relationship with Macassan fishermen from Indonesia.
Many have argued that Aboriginal communities should be able to use their native title rights to leverage economic development. To achieve that the NTA needs to strengthen the rights of native title holders, but amendments to date have largely confined themselves to those that reduce the rights of native title holders.
The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, has spoken of his "determination to ensure that the Aboriginal people of Australia finally get a fair go where their land is concerned" and went on to say that "the land which Aboriginal people have secured is obviously a cultural and spiritual asset but it should also be an economic asset." On the face of it, it would seem in principle that there should be broad support for these measures.
To this end, item 19 the Bill provides that native title rights and interests can be of a commercial nature, removing what is an unnecessary impediment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples’ economic development.
Conclusion
As with our previous Bill, the reforms contained in this legislation put forward clear and specific measures to address a number of key areas of interest to native title claimants.
They address the barriers claimants face in making the case to demonstrate their pre-existing native title rights and interests and they tackle some of the procedural issues within the future acts regime that restrict the ability of native title holders to assert and exercise their native title rights.
As we stated before, native title has the potential to play an important role as a basis for the economic and community development of those of Australia's first peoples who have been able to maintain their connection to their traditional lands and culture in the face of dispossession.
It is clear that the original intention of the Parliament was that the Native Title Act would 'rectify the consequences of past injustices' and secure their 'adequate advancement and protection'; however, it is equally clear that in its application this complex area of law has failed to deliver on those hopes.
The strong relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their land and sea country should provide a firm basis on which to strengthen their culture and build their future. To make this happen, native title reform is needed.
The Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2014 is an important first step on that path—I commend it to the Senate.
—————
1 Justice Kirby in Wilson v Anderson, High Court of Australia (2002) 213 CLR 401.
2 Justice Kirby in Wilson v Anderson, High Court of Australia (2002) 213 CLR 401.
3 Hon. Kevin Rudd, Apology speech, Address to the Opening of Parliament, 13 February 2008.
4 Cape York Land Council, Submission 2, Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009, p6.
5 Attorney General Robert McClelland, second reading speech, 19 March 2009, Hansard.
6 Transcript, p20.
7 As recommended by Chief Justice Robert French.
8 AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, p106.
9 R McClelland (Attorney-General), speech to the Third Negotiating Native Title Forum. http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/
10 pp 104-107.
11 FMG Pilbara v Cox (2009) 175 FCR 141. AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, Chapter 1.
12 Chief Justice French, Lifting the burden of native title, 2008.
13 HREOC, Native Title Report 2002.
14 Les Malezer, 2009 Mabo Lecture.
15 Chief Justice French, Lifting the burden of native title, 2008.
16 Justice North & T Goodwin, Disconnection the gap between law and justice in native title, 2009.
17 AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, p82.
18 AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, p85.
19 Yorta Yorta v Victoria, High Court of Australia (2002) 214 CLR 422.
That the Senate:
(a) endorse the conclusion at paragraph 1.57 of the 152nd report of the Committee of Privileges on a possible unauthorised disclosure of the draft report of the Select Committee on Electricity Prices; and
(b) adopt the recommendation that no contempt be found in respect of the matter referred.
That the Senate expresses its sincere condolences to the family, friends and work colleagues of Mr Michael Welsh, who was tragically killed at work at the Mount Lyell copper mine on Tasmania’s west coast on Friday, 17 January 2014.
That the Senate authorises the publication of the unpublished documents provided to the former Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee by Fair Work Australia in relation to the Fair Work Australia report, Investigation into the National Office of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 .
At the end of the motion, add:
(2) That, in taking the unusual step of ordering the publication of in camera evidence, the Senate notes:
(a) the sensitivity of much of the material has been diminished by the passage of time and the disclosure of these matters in criminal proceedings or in the Fair Work Australia report; and
(b) publication is not inconsistent with the Senate’s well-established principles on the application of the sub judice convention or with any of the usual grounds on which Senate committees would generally decline to publish evidence.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Transfield Holdings is a major sponsor of the 19th Biennale of Sydney,
(ii) Transfield Holdings is a shareholder in Transfield Services,
(iii) Transfield Services is being paid $1.22 billion by the Australian Government to run offshore detention centres on Manus Island and Nauru,
(iv) five artists have pulled out of the Biennale of Sydney because of Transfield’s links to Australia’s cruel mandatory detention policies, and
(v) 28 Biennale artists have written to the Biennale board, urging it to cut ties with Transfield and to find new sponsors; and
(b) commends the courage and commitment to human rights of the Biennale artists who have both written to the board requesting new sponsors and the artists who have pulled out of the Biennale of Sydney.
The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the shark cull and the deployment of drum lines continues in Western Australia,
(ii) at least two mako sharks have died after they were caught on the drum lines,
(iii) the mako shark is listed as a migratory species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), and
(iv) the Minister for the Environment (Mr Hunt):
(A) has exempted the drum lines from the EPBC Act, and
(B) says that 'any breach of conditions will result in the exemption being terminated'; and
(b) calls on the Government to terminate the exemption of the drum lines from the EPBC Act
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' position is that Australia should provide asylum seekers who enter Australia by whatever means with a full and efficient refugee status determination process in Australia, and
(ii) it would be significantly more cost effective to process asylum seekers onshore as opposed to off shore;
(b) recognises that Australia:
(i) only has limited influence in ending the circumstances forcing people to flee their homeland and seek asylum,
(ii) must increase efforts overseas to do all it can to foster peace and stability in areas of conflict around the world, and
(iii) must also focus on what it can do to help the plight of asylum seekers in a balanced, dignified, safe and compassionate way; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) strengthen relations and provide further assistance to Indonesia to stop people attempting the treacherous journey from Indonesia to Australia by boat,
(ii) increase our annual asylum seeker and refugee intake from Indonesia, and
(iii) process all asylum seekers onshore, at least in recognition of it being cheaper.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) meeting notes and draft decision documents released under Freedom of Information in regard to the Abbot Point Coal Terminal Capital Dredging Project have revealed That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA):
(A) believed the Abbot Point dredging proposal in the form proposed at that time should be refused a Great Barrier Reef Marine Park permit for offshore dumping of dredge spoil,
(B) found offshore dumping of up to 1.6 million cubic metres per year for three separate dredging campaigns has the potential to cause long term, irreversible harm to areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, in particular seagrass meadows and nearby coral reefs of Camp Reef, Horseshoe Bay, Cape Upstart, and Holbourne Island,
(C) considered the North Queensland Bulk Ports dredge plume modelling for the offshore dumping to be of limited value, deficient and unreliable,
(D) considered that remnant and recovering seagrass meadows, such as those around Abbot Point, provide critical foraging refugia for struggling turtle and dugong populations,
(E) found the project could result in water quality in the region being in a degraded state for approximately the next 6 to 7 years, and
(F) clearly advised Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities officials in June 2013 that GBRMPA did not consider it practical or feasible to develop environmental offsets of the magnitude required to offset the damage caused to the reef by the proposed dredging and offshore dumping at Abbot Point, and That the project approval as proposed would involve conditions which are effectively unachievable, and
(ii) there do not appear to have been changes made to the proposed Abbot Point Coal Terminal Capital Dredging Project since these concerns were raised by GBRMPA officials that would address these concerns; and
(b) calls on the Minister for the Environment (Mr Hunt) to immediately revoke his approval of the Abbot Point Coal Terminal Capital Dredging Project.
That the Senate—
(a) notes That the National Perinatal Depression Initiative, since 2008:
(i) has improved the prevention and detection of antenatal and postnatal depression, and provided better support and treatment for expectant and new mothers experiencing depression, and in doing so, has provided what experts have called 'the ultimate two-for-one', by ensuring the babies' wellbeing in the course of supporting mothers at this critical stage of life, and
(ii) has demonstrated Australia to be a world leader in terms of its support for, and treatment of, people experiencing perinatal depression;
(b) notes That the initiative is under review, and there is no clarity in relation to the future of its federal funding; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to express whether it has a commitment to the support of new mothers and their children, by continuing the National Perinatal Depression Initiative beyond the 2013-14 financial year.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, no later than noon on 17 March 2014, any reports received from the National Commission of Audit.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
"The failure of the Abbott Government to adequately respond to the tragic incident on Manus Island that led to the death of Reza Barati and the serious injury of many other asylum seekers."
We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
This is a tragedy but this was a very dangerous situation where people decide to protest in a very violent way and to take themselves outside the centre and place themselves at great risk …
Earlier this week I noted that when people co–operate and conduct themselves appropriately within the centre then we are able to provide for their safety. This is the most effective way to ensure the security of these facilities and safety of all those who are accommodated and work within the centre.
We saw them going in with machetes. They had anything they could pick up—rocks, sticks, the poles from the exercise weights. Once they knocked people to the ground, they were stomping on their heads with their boots. A day later you could still see guards and staff and cleaners walking around with blood on their boots.
… … …
I just remember blood everywhere I looked. Blood everywhere.
Under agreement, all media queries relating to this deceased transferee are being handled by the Australian government. You have to direct your queries to Canberra …
This is actually a police matter in PNG, so our role has been to support the PNG police in the investigation of a crime, and any matters that follow in relation to an autopsy or a coronial inquest are matters for the PNG government, and we have provided all the support that has been required for that. It is not a matter that is within our control.
We believe that the current approach to dealing with asylum seekers arriving by boat, especially offshore detention and claims determination, is seriously flawed and unsustainable.
It breaches Australia's international legal obligations, including its obligations as a party to the Refugee Convention. It demonstrably harms the physical and psychological health of detainees.
Furthermore, it seriously undermines the status and good name of Australia as an international citizen.
We call on the Australian government to close the detention centres on Manus Island and in Nauru immediately.
Yours sincerely—
Some have left the island suffering from serious post-traumatic stress and one … has spoken to the ABC … and says the situation is now so tense that the asylum seekers are refusing to have anything to do with local staff.
There is nothing compassionate in a policy where you see people drowned at sea.
… … …
In the first place, if it does have an impact on the number of people risking their lives on the high sea, that is a massive difference and compassion can't be limited to who is in your line of sight. The people who drown on the way here don't end up giving interviews.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The proposed legislation may constrain FTA negotiations.
One of the most apparent examples would be Bangladesh, where recently a factory building collapsed due to shoddy construction and unsafe working conditions and an estimated 1,129 people died. Less than six months before this, another factory building caught fire and more than 100 people died. In this case too, unsafe working conditions, as well as poor maintenance and planning, were the cause behind the large number of deaths.
We strongly believe the primary objective of all trade negotiations should be to raise living standards and make a positive difference in the lives of working people in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. Reducing barriers to trade and investment and increasing economic cooperation and integration are possible means of achieving this.
ALHR considers that passing the bill will assist Australia to meet its obligations as a member of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and to promote human rights on a global level, to follow specific recommendations that have been made by human rights organizations, and to add its voice to the growing international consensus that promoting labour standards in other countries is justified in both a social and economic sense.
This bill creates a legal framework for such conditionality and it aims at achieving a more inclusive trade where all those involved in the production and distribution of goods and services capture a fair share of trade's gains. Australia will not be the first country to make the inclusion of conditionality obligatory for trade agreements. The two parties of the US Congress concluded an agreement in May 2007 that enforceable conditions on labour and environment are to be part of all trade agreements negotiated by the US.
1. The bill would assist Australia to meet its obligations to implement international agreements to which Australia is a signatory.
2. The bill would encourage Australia's trading partners to provide their workers with access to minimum standards regarding workers' rights.
3. The bill would support standards in Australia, to the benefit of Australian workers and business.
The DAP is very similar to the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Plan (GGAP) introduced by the Howard Government in 1999 as that plan also called for a reverse auction process for abatement action funding. It failed to deliver over a ten year period and was originally intended to be a four year programme. Ultimately despite the increase in implementation period only 36% of the funds were expended and the amount of abatement achieved was considerably less than was expected at tender and at a greater cost per tonne of abatement. It effectively delivered under 15% of its target in its original programme term.
It would therefore be expected that DAP will suffer from similar problems, that is, it will have a considerably extended implementation period, an inability to disburse funds quickly and have increased abatement costs over those tendered for any abatement it does encourage. The current national target for abatement is a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020. It is unlikely that DAP will be able to achieve the quantum of abatement required by this target within the requisite timeframe. History shows us GGAP was regarded by the Howard Government as a failed experiment as they then adopted an emission trading scheme as their preferred mechanism to address climate change.
… fleet operators could be rewarded for reducing emissions per tonne of freight per kilometre.
Tony Abbott will have to either drop the promise to cut emissions by five per cent or the promise to repeal the carbon tax - both together will be impossible without massive Government spending under the proposed "direct action" policy of paying companies to reduce emissions.
The liquefied natural gas (LNG) export boom will make it virtually impossible for Australia to meet the Government's carbon emissions reduction target.
… the Prime Minister and Treasurer Joe Hockey will be, or at least should be, desperately hoping that the Senate never allows the repeal of the emission trading scheme legislation, so it's not exactly a broken promise—at least they tried.
A market based mechanism can achieve the necessary abatement at a cost per tonne of emissions far lower than any other alternative direct-action policies.
… there is a risk that the Emissions Reduction Fund does not deliver the abatement outcomes sought. As currently understood there is no equivalent to an emissions cap or other legal guarantee that the targets will be met.
… Shell as a company is actually very much advocating that we need a price for carbon on a worldwide basis and we want that to be on a market mechanism.
The easiest cut you'll make is the stuff you never go into.
Of course, one group that will see only upside from the abolition of the price floor is the private brown coal generators in Victoria and South Australia. The government handed them billions of dollars of cash compensation and permits in the high fixed-price period, based on the Treasury modelling of carbon prices across many years, not just the fixed price period, that now look unrealistically high. Ironically, this makes the dirty brown coal generators more valuable than if the government had never priced carbon and compensated for it.
It also makes the dirty brown coal generators relatively more valuable than the cleaner, government-owned black coal power generators in NSW and Queensland that have not been compensated.
… pre-existing taxes already create economic distortions that discourage investment, consumption and labour. When a carbon price/tax is imposed in addition to these existing taxes, the resulting economic costs are multiplicative, not additive.
Federal Parliament of Australia
This petition was created on behalf of the Call Upon the Australian Government to Protect the Dingo organisation and has collected over 8,000 signatures world-wide. The initial target was 5,000.
The action we require from the government is for the dingo, an animal native to Australia, to be protected under Federal law because at this stage the level of protection varies from state to state and in some states, it is not protected at all. A particular case in point is that of the Fraser Island dingo, the last of the pure bred strains of dingo left in Australia.
Please consider this petition carefully and with the respect due to any native animal of
Australia. They are all relevant to the environmental health and wellbeing of our country and this includes the dingo.
Thank you.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… do we really want to invest … hard-earned taxpayers' money in what is essentially a video entertainment system?
… if you're gonna get me into a technical argument, I'm going to lose it …
Every contract the NBN Co has entered into will be honoured in accordance with its terms.
I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked …
… the alternative would be to breach them …
and that is a course we would not countenance.
I think we've had a good go on this issue and we'll go onto other issues if you don't mind.
Do you accept that it's a broken promise to no longer commit to full fibre to the premises rollout given what was said by Liberal Party candidates and members before the election?
Are there any other subjects people want to ask questions about?
If you want things done, if you want to go ahead as a State and as a nation let's have the State Government and the Commonwealth Government working together.
The methodology appears to defy common sense by not asking whether the many issues that were presented to the committee in evidence, but not included in the report, or not included in any detail, could:
Mr Dolan's evidence in this regard is questionable and has seriously eroded his standing as a witness before the committee.
On behalf of the hospital in recognition of the suffering and pain you have gone through for so many years I would like to offer you this letter of apology and to wish you the best for the future and hope you will gain a lot from the counsel you are about to receive.
Thank you very much.
From 2001 to 2011, collated national population estimates across commercial hunting zones in the four mainland States recorded a 40 per cent drop ...
We need to ask why this is not an issue of concern. Maybe it is because there were still an estimated 34 million in 2011. But this is down from 57 million in 2001, according to the department's own collated figures.
Current analysis of the survey methodology and raw data is now suggesting systematic and massive inflation of kangaroo numbers, from which corresponding excessively inflated commercial shooting quotas are extracted—so that larger numbers may be shot from shrinking populations.
M states that he told Immigration at Christmas Island he was 16 years old and that they sent him here because he couldn't provide the necessary documentation.
Most people take it for granted that we all make choices. The only difference, they say, is that some people make good choices and others don’t. But I believe there are people who just do things. They don’t make choices at all because they don’t think they have any choice. That’s probably how I’d have been if I hadn’t met my ‘other family’.
Without Sarah, Greg and Ben, I know that as a child, and maybe even as an adult, I would never have camped under the stars, cooked marshmallows over the fire, caught my first fish, ridden on the cockle train or trekked around Granite Island.
It was the day-to-day activities that influenced my life the most. It was far more than just a break for me.
I saw the world in a different light just from spending time with them. They didn't go out of their way to do anything special. The were just there, being themselves, doing what they always did.
Successive governments have failed to inspect any planes in Shannon and have allowed the continued militarisation of a civilian airport. Rather than addressing these issues, the state has focused its efforts on arresting and jailing a 79-year-old woman.