Latest news with #CoalitionGovernment
The Australian
a day ago
- Politics
- The Australian
Janet Albrechtsen: The Federal Court wasting its time on the Torres Strait climate change case
When are we going to call time on the use of the courts, especially the Federal Court, for performative politicking? The decision last week of Justice Michael Wigney in the Federal Court concerning climate change in the Torres Strait was surely the high-water mark for wasting weeks of high-priced court time, months of work by tribes of expensive barristers and solicitors, and over 1000 paragraphs of judgment on what was essentially a hopeless case. No doubt the aggrieved plaintiffs, Pabai Pabai and Guy Kabai, two Torres Strait Islander elders, received some satisfaction from their day in court, and the environmental bar made out like bandits. But this case should never have been brought, or at minimum should never have made it past first base. Taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the vast amounts of time and money spent on this case would have been better spent on infrastructure or health needs in the Torres Strait. To nobody's surprise, the only beneficiaries from this court theatre were Chris Bowen and his fellow climate crusaders in the Albanese government who achieved a purely symbolic but high-profile, court-ordered caning of previous Coalition governments. Adoring reports in the left-wing media described how the judge found that when the Coalition government 'identified and set Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets in 2015, 2020 and 2021, it failed to engage with or give any real or genuine consideration to what the best available science indicated was required for Australia to play its part in the global effort to moderate or reduce climate change and its impacts', but this all changed when the government changed in 2022. This was pro-ALP publicity the government would have regarded as well worth the cost of the case. What the media reports did not give as much airplay to were the judge's findings that the case, in which the Torres Strait Islanders alleged the commonwealth was negligent in failing to set and implement appropriate climate targets, failed at every step. The court found that the applicants 'failed to prove any of the essential elements of their case'. They failed to prove the commonwealth owed a duty of care to the islanders, failed to prove that even if the commonwealth was subject to a duty of care that the standard of care was as claimed by the plaintiffs and failed to prove a compensable loss. In other words, a resounding defeat. It should have been obvious to everyone involved that once the Full Court of the Federal Court had decided Sharma – an earlier case in which a claim that the commonwealth owed a duty of care to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change was thrown out – the Torres Strait Islands case was a loser. Both in Sharma and the Torres Strait Islands case the court held the law of negligence was not appropriate to test the reasonableness of matters of government policy. The leading commentary on this issue was the following statement (quoted by Justice Wigney) from High Court chief justice Murray Gleeson in the Graham Barclay Oysters case: 'At the centre of the law of negligence is the concept of reasonableness. 'When courts are invited to pass judgment on the reasonableness of governmental action or inaction, they may be confronted by issues that are inappropriate for judicial resolution, and that, in a representative democracy, are ordinarily decided through the political process. Especially is this so when criticism is addressed to legislative action or inaction. 'Many citizens may believe that, in various matters, there should be more extensive government regulation. Others may be of a different view, for any one of a number of reasons, perhaps including cost. 'Courts have long recognised the inappropriateness of judicial resolution of complaints about the reasonableness of governmental conduct where such complaints are political in nature.' One may well wonder why Justice Wigney continued past this finding. The charitable answer seems to be judicial prudence. On a number of occasions when Justice Wigney reached one of the many points at which his reasoning would have ended the applicants' case, he would continue to make findings in case his judgment was appealed. Justice Wigney concluded by saying the applicants' case failed 'not so much because there was no merit in their factual allegations' but 'because the law in Australia as it currently stands provides no real or effective avenue through which the applicants were able to pursue their claims'. He continued that 'until the law in Australia changes, either by the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellate courts by the enactment of legislation', the 'only recourse that those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders have is recourse via the ballot box'. Fans of democracy would say thank God for that. The idea that climate change policy should be determined by judges – even those clever judges in appellate courts – would fill most of us with horror. Look at what a mess judges have made of migration law, not just here but all around the world. At least when politicians get it wrong, we can elect new ones to fix things. But judges are appointed for life, or at least for fixed terms, and their judgments create permanent precedents which, as cases such as NZYQ show, can be virtually immune to the wishes of the electorate. The real wonder of this case is that Justice Wigney took the bait to make a vast array of momentous factual findings in a case whose legal prospects were so dim. Making his decision appeal-proof seems a slight foundation on which to base such a hard-hitting attack on Coalition policy. True it is that he is bound by the submissions made to him, and that both the commonwealth's lawyers (now instructed by an ALP government) and the applicants' lawyers were urging him to find, as he did, that 'climate change poses an existential threat to the whole of humanity'. However, it was not just the lawyers for both sides who were nodding ferociously at the concessions made by the commonwealth. After listing the comprehensive concessions made by the commonwealth, Justice Wigney added 'the commonwealth was correct to make those concessions'. Leaving little doubt where he stood on climate-related matters, the judge said the 'science of climate change is now broadly accepted and doubted by only those on the very fringes of political and scientific debate'. Now, maybe the judge is right, but is this really the best use of the Federal Court's time? Even hopeless cases deserve access to justice, but was this case the right vehicle for both sides and the judge to sit around agreeing ferociously with each other's submissions, only to culminate in the judge offering trenchant criticism of Coalition climate policies while giving the current government a tick? Cynics may worry this looks like an expensive stitch-up. Read related topics: Climate Change Janet Albrechtsen Columnist Janet Albrechtsen is an opinion columnist with The Australian. She has worked as a solicitor in commercial law, and attained a Doctorate of Juridical Studies from the University of Sydney. She has written for numerous other publications including the Australian Financial Review, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Sunday Age, and The Wall Street Journal. Politics Labor's move to condemn Mark Latham with a caucus plaque next to his portrait ignores a century of controversial leaders, opens a Pandora's box of reckoning and sets a silly precedent. Nation Chris Minns has blocked a planned march but defiant activists say 'it's not just up to the Premier to decide', as ECAJ co-chair Alex Ryvchin says the protest would be 'sullying another icon'.
NZ Herald
22-07-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Kāinga Ora tenants accused of firing gun, threatening assault keep homes despite eviction bids
The tenant allegedly asked the boy: 'Do you want to die? Are you not scared of dying? I'll come and kill you right now.' However, the tribunal adjudicator decided there was not enough proof the man made the threats, despite it being confirmed he was facing criminal charges after police found a firearm at his property. The unsuccessful evictions appear to be speed bumps in Kāinga Ora's new policy of getting tough on state housing tenants. In January, Housing Minister Chris Bishop declared the 'easy ride' for disruptive Kāinga Ora tenants to be over. In March last year, the Government told the public housing provider to abandon its 'Sustaining Tenancies Framework'. That programme first started in 2017 as a pilot in which Kāinga Ora staff were urged to try their best to avoid evicting tenants and instead work with them to overcome their issues. Part of the policy's belief was that evicted tenants could be left with nowhere else to go, potentially leading them to cause more trouble on the streets or cost taxpayers more through poor health and medical expenses. The new Coalition Government argued, however, that disruptive and threatening tenants were causing neighbours to live in fear. They believed the threat of eviction would also 'spark behaviour change', forcing these tenants to behave better. That tougher stance led to a five-fold increase in evictions. A Kāinga Ora spokeswoman said about 85% of all its eviction applications to the Tenancy Tribunal were successful. 'Of the 88 applications we made in the past 12 months, 77 were successful,' she said. However, the Hamilton and Nelson cases showed tribunals weren't rubber-stamping every application. The spokeswoman said the tribunal needed a 'high standard of evidence'. 'While we always aim to meet that threshold, sometimes the evidence we are able to present isn't quite strong enough,' she said. In the Hamilton case, tribunal adjudicator Jenny Robson questioned how reliable the neighbour's evidence was. Robson noted that Kāinga Ora had presented evidence saying the neighbour - who was the grandmother of the teenage boy the tenant was accused of pointing the rifle at – originally gave a statement to police, saying she went outside to confront the tenant. She told police the tenant then threatened to also kill her and shot off more rounds from his rifle. But when Robson asked the grandmother what happened during the confrontation, she replied that the tenant ignored her. 'Her oral evidence was contrary to the statement she had given to the police,' Robson concluded. The woman's grandson also didn't appear at the tribunal, meaning Robson was left to doubt the evidence presented. The tenant himself refused to comment at the tribunal, saying he had pending criminal proceedings. In the Nelson case, the tenant's clean record over four and a half years helped save her tenancy despite her admitting she threatened her neighbour. The drama began when her boyfriend assaulted the neighbour's son on January 9. The boyfriend was bailed with conditions to stay away following the attack, but allegedly returned to the woman's flat within two weeks. When her neighbour called police to report the bail breach, the tenant overheard 'inflammatory language' about her boyfriend and confronted the woman, the tribunal said. The tenant wasn't evicted because his neighbour was found to have given contradicting statements about what he did to police and to the Tenancy Tribunal. Photo / 123rf 'The tenant does not dispute she threatened to assault the neighbour. The video evidence of such a threat was conclusive,' tribunal adjudicator Michael Brennan found. However, he noted that only one of seven neighbours had complained about the woman and she had not had run-ins before this incident. He ultimately decided there were enough mitigating factors to let her off. 'I have given the tenant the benefit of the doubt this time, but she should be clear on how any future repeat behaviours … may not result in the tenancy continuing,' he said. Ben Leahy is an Auckland-based senior journalist. He has worked as a journalist for more than a decade in India, Australia and New Zealand.
The Guardian
17-07-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Albanese says Coalition failed to have call with Beijing for years as opposition criticises ‘indulgent' China trip
Anthony Albanese has sniped back at the opposition's criticism of his 'indulgent' six-day visit to China, pointing out the former Coalition government failed to hold a single phone call with the major trading partner for years. The prime minister has spent this week touring the country with stops in Beijing, Shanghai and Chengdu amid a period of geopolitical instability and escalating trade hostilities between US and its trading partners. Albanese met with Chinese president Xi Jinping and premier Li Qiang to discuss a number of issues, including trade tensions with the US, the issue of independence for Taiwan and two-way tourism links. But the prime minister scheduled time for visits to popular tourist attractions, including the Great Wall of China and a panda research facility, echoing historical trips by former leaders, Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser. The opposition finance minister, James Paterson, criticised Albanese for the picture-friendly stops, describing them as 'indulgent' and questioning whether the trip had achieved 'tangible outcomes'. 'I have to say that some of this is starting to look a little bit indulgent,' Paterson told Sky News. 'The appropriate time to do a nostalgic history tour of Labor Party mythology, is after you retire, in your own time, at your own expense, not on the taxpayer dime.' While the opposition leader, Sussan Ley, said she wished him well, she said she was 'disappointed' Albanese didn't receive assurances about the Chinese military's live-fire exercises in international waters between Australia and New Zealand earlier this year. 'What needs to be a strong and respectful relationship, and respect cuts both ways,' Ley said. 'Friendship is important, but it can't come at the cost of our national interest. And Australians expect their prime minister to stand up for that national interest in those conversations that he has with world leaders.' Speaking from Chengdu, Albanese said the opposition should sort 'themselves out' before attacking the Labor government. 'Those pictures go to 27 million people potentially in Australia, they go to over a billion people in China,' he said. 'And those billion people represent people who increasingly are rising up the income ladder and are potential tourists and therefore job creators in Australia. 'If James Paterson doesn't understand that, then he doesn't understand much. And quite frankly, I think the latter applies.' Relations between Australia and China deteriorated in May 2020 under the former Coalition government after the former prime minister Scott Morrison backed an international inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 virus. Australia was hit with trade sanctions on exports to China and frozen out of minister-to-minister dialogues during the two-year period. While trade and diplomatic relations have improved since Albanese was elected, tensions remain on a series of issues, including the imprisonment of Chinese-Australian academic Yang Hengjun, who was given a suspended death sentence in 2024. Following his meeting with Xi on Tuesday, Albanese promised 'patient, calibrated advocacy' on sensitive issues with China. 'President Xi Jinping and I agreed dialogue must be at the centre of our relationship,' Albanese said. 'If you don't have communication, you can have misadventure and misinterpretation.'
Scoop
14-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Feedback Sought On National Fuel Security Plan
The Coalition Government is seeking feedback on a draft Fuel Security Plan that provides a long-term strategy to ensure New Zealanders have reliable access to fuel in times of domestic and global disruption, Associate Energy Minister Shane Jones says. 'As a small and remote island nation that imports nearly all of its liquid fuels, New Zealand is vulnerable to supply chain shocks beyond its borders,' Mr Jones says. 'The Government is seeking to improve our fuel resilience and protect our economic wellbeing so our people and businesses can continue to move, work, and grow. New Zealanders are invited to have their say on the plan.' The plan builds on findings of the 2025 Fuel Security Study by focusing on four key areas: Strengthening resilience against global supply disruptions Enhancing domestic fuel infrastructure and emergency preparedness Supporting the development of domestic low-carbon fuel alternatives Managing fuel security during the transition to new energy technologies 'Our recent decision to boost minimum fuel reserves and improve storage locations is prudent given the current global geopolitical environment. 'Fuel security is not just an energy issue — it's an issue of economic and national resilience. The consequences of inaction are too great. The Fuel Security Plan was a key plank in the New Zealand First-National Coalition Agreement to safeguard our transport and logistics systems and emergency services from any international or domestic disruption,' Mr Jones says. Public submissions are open from 15 July 2025 to 25 August 2025. Feedback can be provided via the MBIE website:
Scoop
09-07-2025
- Health
- Scoop
Government Must Save Tōtara Hospice: NZNO
The Coalition Government must provide urgent funding to Totara Hospice to stop it having to cut its services by a quarter from next week, NZNO says. Totara Hospice provides end-of-life care at no direct cost to patients from a diverse and growing community of around 520,000 South Aucklanders and is the subject of a new documentary series called Hospice Heroes. New Zealand Nurses Organisation Tōpūtanga Tapuhi Kaitiaki o Aotearoa (NZNO) delegate and hospice nurse Ed Boswell-Correa said staff were yesterday told the hospice had to reduce the number of people they actively care for in a month from 420 to 320 because of a lack of Government funding. "This decision is devastating for the local community. It will mean only the sickest people will be able to access our services. "It will force elderly people to remain in aged care facilities when they need specialist palliative care. Other people will be forced to go to Middlemore Hospital for care or worse still, not receive the care they need at all. "These people deserve the dignity they are provided by hospice when they are dying." Ed Boswell-Correa says yesterday's "bombshell announcement" follows a hiring freeze Totara was forced to put in place last month. "Fewer nurses and health care assistants mean less care for our patients. We want to be able to provide our patients and their whānau with the health care they need at this traumatic time in their lives," he says. Sadly, Totara Hospice isn't alone. NZNO is aware of at least four other hospices having to reduce their services. The Coalition Government must provide Te Whatu Ora with the funding it needs to save these services now. A report in March found hospices provide taxpayers with at least $1.59 in health benefits for every dollar of government funding.
