It's hard to believe that an Australian Government could try this on - Nicola Roxon's speech laws

It's shocking to think that this proposed legislation even made it to the drafting stage.   Who could possibly put their name to this abomination?  As usual, the Gillard Government proposes to exclude itself from the effects of its rabid laws, but as Victoria's Attorney General Robert Clark points out, everyone else will be subject to what amounts to thought control.  And thanks to The Australian newspaper for its vigourous pursuit of this issue and our right to free speech.  

Labor's dangerous discrimination draft should be shown the door

• BY:ROBERT CLARK 
• From:The Australian 
• January 28, 2013 12:00AM

LAST last year, the Gillard Labor government released a draft anti-discrimination law for public comment that was supposed simply to consolidate a few existing commonwealth laws.

Instead, the proposed law would impose sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech and on people's conduct in their workplaces, shops, schools and clubs. It would also impede the ability of state police and state governments to protect the community.

The draft law proposes dramatically to extend the definition of discrimination to include conduct that "offends" or "insults" another person, based on 18 specified attributes including age, gender, political opinion and "social origin".

If this becomes law, merely expressing a view that others find objectionable because they (or their friends) have such an attribute could constitute an act of "discrimination" for which the person expressing the view may be liable to pay compensation.

The prohibition would not even be based on what a reasonable person might consider insulting, but on whether the person complaining felt offended or insulted.

The prohibition would apply not only to statements made in public debate, but to private conversations in places such as workplaces, schools and clubs.

Not only does this threaten long-standing freedoms under Australian law, it is also contrary to the right of freedom of expression set out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is one of the key international treaties on which the Gillard government claims its new law is based.

The draft law also proposes sweeping extensions to where discrimination is prohibited. Current law regulates specific groups that might discriminate, such as providers of employment, education, goods and services, clubs, and sporting associations.

However, the draft new law covers the conduct of any person "connected with any area of public life". This means the law will regulate the conduct of any employee of a business, any student at a school, any customer in a shop, any volunteer in a community organisation, any blogger - and so forth.

The draft law could also dramatically affect the ability of state governments to serve and protect their communities.

It appears to apply, for example, to responsibilities of police and other law enforcement authorities such as the pursuit, arrest, transport and detention of suspects, transport and accommodation of prisoners and exercise of discretion by prosecutors.

If the Gillard government's proposal becomes law, police and prison authorities could be hamstrung in their work of protecting the community by a barrage of anti-discrimination claims brought by suspects, offenders and prisoners.

The Gillard government proposes to exempt all its own activities authorised under commonwealth law from the application of its new law.

However, it proposes no such general exemption for activities authorised under state laws, even though a vast range of state government roles affected by the new law are crucial for safeguarding the community.

The draft law will also create a greatly expanded layer of regulation in addition to the existing state anti-discrimination laws, with different rules and exemptions for the same types of conduct, producing uncertainty both for those who have been discriminated against and for those who are trying to comply with the law.

In addition, the proposed law gives the Australian Human Rights Commission a power to issue "compliance codes" that could exceed the standards in the draft law and would operate to override state anti-discrimination law.

All of this involves a massive increase in red tape, not only for businesses but for voluntary community organisations, with directors and office-holders facing liability for these sweeping new forms of "discrimination" by their employees and volunteers, and also facing a reverse onus requiring them to prove that they or their staff or volunteers did not act for a discriminatory reason.

The hardest hit will be small and medium-sized businesses and small volunteer-run community organisations.

To add to the uncertainties, there are also doubts about the constitutional validity of the proposed new law itself.

The government relies on its power to implement international treaties to justify much of the proposed law. However, as former NSW chief justice James Spigelman has said "none of Australia's international treaty obligations require us to protect any person or group from being offended".

The law's attempt to restrict state governments in areas such as law enforcement and management of prisoners also seems to be beyond the commonwealth's powers.

This flawed and dangerous proposal needs a lot more scrutiny and debate before it gets anywhere near the statute book.

Robert Clark is Attorney-General of Victoria.

A very big chapter in the nation's history is brewing - @mpsmithnews

Michael Smith: I have been dealing with The AWU Scandal for more than 12 months and every day I learn something new about it.

I am so grateful to Steve J and Spin Baby Spin for their analyses of the law and what we have all seen of the Power of Attorney.  It is taking time, but more and more of us are starting to realise that there is a big, stinky issue that will soon engulf people who are trying to hide it. 

Here's to lifelong learning!

"Dog" is a word with ominous undertones in the underworld - @mpsmithnews

This Twitter post from the lawyer Chris Murphy about Ralph Blewitt is just awful.

A dog in police/crook parlance is a person who has co-operated with police and put-in fellow criminals.   Named dogs are often "offed".   To be "offed" is to be murdered, as was the case with Lewis Moran of the Melbourne crime family, whose last words were "I'm off here".

Ralph Blewitt has done an honourable thing in coming forward to give a complete account of his role in The AWU Scandal.  He has no protection from prosecution.   Blewitt is helping the state, that is us, to find out what happened to the money and who was in on the giggle.  He should have our support and not this horribly unsubtle suggestion from a prominent lawyer. 

REPLY FROM MICHAEL SMITH @mpsmithnews

"Dog" is a word with ominous undertones in the underworld - Michael Smith News

Victoria Police confirm (again) that it is investigating a certain union scandal

AWU whistleblower Ralph Blewitt plans to talk to Victorian police

• Stephen Drill 

FORMER AWU VICTORIAN (sic) SECRETARY RALPH BLEWITT. THE AUSTRALIAN

VICTORIA Police has confirmed it is investigating a complaint against a union as AWU whistleblower Ralph Blewitt arrived back in Melbourne to meet police.

Mr Blewitt, who admitted to being involved in the misappropriation of union members' funds, said he had new information for fraud squad detectives.

The return of Mr Blewitt from his home in Malaysia threatens to reopen the affair, which engulfed Prime Minister Julia Gillard last year.

Ms Gillard, who was involved in setting up the fund for her then boyfriend while working as a lawyer for Slater and Gordon, has consistently and strongly denied any wrongdoing.

Victoria Police spokeswoman Leonie Johnson said she would not comment on individual cases.

But she said in a statement this afternoon: "Victoria Police Fraud and Extortion Squad is currently investigating a complaint regarding the alleged misappropriation of funds from a union.

"As the matter is under investigation, it would be inappropriate to comment further."

Mr Blewitt told the Herald Sun in a taped face-to-face interview at a Melbourne café that he was willing to risk time in jail to get to the truth.

He said he was in discussions with Victorian fraud squad detectives in Melbourne and would meet them as soon as possible. A planned meeting at 2.30pm tomorrow had been postponed, he said this afternoon. 

Mr Blewitt said he would provide new information regarding Mr Wilson's action in Victoria and to Ms Gillard's alleged involvement in the AWU Workplace Reform Association.

"I've reviewed documents that there was some information I should have passed on before but was left out," he said.

"I want to add that to statements I have made before."

Mr Blewitt said he had made himself available to police, who then agreed to meet him.

"They said: ‘You're more than welcome to come and talk to us anytime Mr Blewitt to assist us with our investigation.' "

Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson allegedly misappropriated $400,000 through the AWU Workplace Reform Association, which was used as a "slush fund".

The political storm has centred on Ms Gillard's role in providing legal advice to set the association in 1992.

The Prime Minister has made several strenuous defences of her actions and in November hit out at Mr Blewitt.

She said he had been described as "a complete imbecile, an idiot, a stooge, a sexist pig, and a liar."

Mr Blewitt told the Herald Sun today that he was considering taking defamation action against Ms Gillard but did not have the money to cover legal costs.

He said he would reserve his rights to sue in the future.

The Prime Minister's office has not responded to the Herald Sun's questions on the matter this afternoon.

Climate results validate sceptics

GRAHAM LLOYD, ENVIRONMENT EDITOR 

From:The Australian 

January 12, 2013 12:00AM

AS Australians sweltered through a record-breaking summer heatwave this week, one of the world's leading scientific bodies revised down its five-year projection for the world's average temperature.

The revision, slipped quietly into the public domain on Christmas Eve by Britain's Met Office, has fuelled a significant and growing debate about what exactly happened to global warming.

On one analysis, the forecast confirms what many people have been saying for some time. Global warming effectively stopped 17 years ago and, if the new forecast is accurate, that "pause" will be extended to 20 years.

Using new computer models, the Met Office now believes global temperatures up to 2017 will most likely be 0.43C above the 1971-2000 average, with an error of plus or minus 0.15C.

The Met Office had previously estimated the most likely global temperature increase to be 0.54C above the 1971-2000 average during the period 2012 to 2016.

The Met Office says despite the change, "we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years".

"This means temperatures will remain well above the long-term average and we will continue to see temperatures like those which resulted in 2000-2009 being the warmest decade in the instrumental record dating back to 1850."

But the release of the data - and the way in which it was released - has fuelled a strong reaction. David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the new prediction challenged the assertion that the underlying rate of change of global warming was unchanged.

"If the latest Met Office prediction is correct, and it accords far more closely with the observed data than previous predictions, then it will prove to be a lesson in humility," Whitehouse said.

"It will show that the previous predictions that were given so confidently as advice to the UK government and so unquestioningly accepted by the media, were wrong, and that the so-called sceptics who were derided for questioning them were actually on the right track."

In response, Britain's science media organisation released quotes from leading climate scientists to explain the revision.

Richard Allan, reader in climate science at the University of Reading, said: "Global warming is not 'at a standstill' but does seem to have slowed down since 2000 in comparison to the rapid warming of the world since the 1970s."

He said the slowdown reflected greater scientific understanding and was due in part to increased heat being trapped in the world's oceans. "Nothing in their (Met Office) data leads me to think that global warming due to human influence has stopped, or is irrelevant. It hasn't, and it isn't," he said.

Professor Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University of Oxford, effectively said the revision provided a lesson in the dangers of spin.

"A lot of people (not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) were claiming, in the run-up to the Copenhagen 2009 conference, that 'warming was accelerating and it is all worse than we thought'. What has happened since then has demonstrated that it is foolish to extrapolate short-term climate trends."

For the sceptical, the Met Office's near-term predictions are coming home to roost. In 2007, it predicted that by 2014 the global average temperature was expected to have risen by 0.3C compared with 2004, and that half of the years after 2009 were predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year in 1998.

"Given that we have data for three of the five years of that period, and all show no departure from a constant temperature when analysed statistically, this is a prediction that will probably be totally wrong," Whitehouse said.

"In any case, it is completely at odds with the new forecast."

Responding to media reports, the Met Office said "small year-to-year fluctuations such as those we are seeing in the shorter five-year predictions are expected due to natural variability in the climate system, and have no sustained impact on the long-term warming."

"Century-scale projections are less sensitive to natural variability and updates to the 2012 decadal forecast do not necessarily tell us anything about projections of climate change for the coming century," the Met Office said.

In the popular British press, it has been another opportunity to beat up the Met Office for being unable to accurately forecast the weather. If nothing else, the debate highlights an inconvenient fact of life for climate scientists: that they claim to be able to predict the perils of next century with greater confidence than what is likely to happen on timescales that people can better understand.

For instance, the IPCC is "virtually certain" the world will have more hot days and warm nights through the 21st century. But there is obviously far less precision about exactly how that change may come about.

It is in part why "global warming" has been strategically rebranded as "climate change": to overcome a conundrum that global temperatures have not followed a linear increase in a way that lobby groups find easy to explain.

Scientists say there are a host of reasons for this. Key are natural variability and genuine gaps in understanding about what makes the complex climate systems tick.

The Climate Commission will release its latest report today. Author David Karoly said: "The baseline conditions have shifted. We live in a hotter world and the risk of more frequent and severe extreme weather has already increased. Although Australia has always had heatwaves, hot days and bushfires, climate change is increasing the risk of more frequent and longer heatwaves and more extreme hot days, as well as exacerbating bushfire conditions."

Even with the impact of climate change on extreme weather, the best advice is it will be several decades before science is able to unpack the impact of climate change from natural variability. But the new emphasis on weather sits well with the media's insatiable demand for updates. Another storm, flood, cyclone or heatwave is always just around the corner.

A perverse result has been that - with the full blessing of government climate agencies - climate change is now reported like a cosmic soccer match, with little regard for the long-term horizons that are properly required.

Nonetheless, being held to account for predictions made over five- and 10-year periods can only be a good thing. With luck, it will help promote real science over political spin and avoid the sort of future "foolish extrapolations" highlighted by Allen.

Better models, which reflect greater scientific understanding, can only be a good thing, particularly if it means the outlook, in the near term at least, is not as bad as it once might have seemed.

Climate results validate sceptics

Labor scum MP Brendan O'Connor sorry over Tony Abbott 'stunt' remark

Tony Abbott prepares to help contain the Deans Gap fire. Picture: Dan Himbrechts Source: News Limited

FEDERAL Labor minister Brendan O'Connor has apologised for calling Tony Abbott's volunteer fire fighting a "stunt".

Mr Abbott has delayed his annual holiday to volunteer with the Davidson Rural Fire Brigade at Nowra, in southern NSW.

Mr Abbott has been a volunteer with his local brigade since 2000, served as its deputy captain before becoming Opposition Leader in 2009 and has direct experience fighting fires.

The Opposition Leader said yesterday on Twitter: "I'm now on my way to Sydney to be on standby with my local fire brigade."

Mr O'Connor retweeted Mr Abbott's message but added the tag "standbystunt".

Tony Abbott is briefed by the fire commander at Nowra RFS headquarters with the Davidson Rural Fire Service team. Picture: Dan Himbrechts

The minister deleted the message from his Twitter account and issued an apology today.

"Apologies for any offence. I respect and acknowledge the critical work of all our volunteer firefighters including Tony Abbott," Mr O'Connor wrote.

Mr Abbott issued a five-paragraph media release stating that he had been deployed to Nowra to assist with the bushfires.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott arrives at the Nowra RFS headquarters with the Davidson Rural Fire Service team. Picture: Dan Himbrechts

Court documents reveal more on the Slipper allegations.

Fairfax media has more on the Slipper allegations.

Slipper 'toured wineries at taxpayers' expense'

Jonathan Swan and Judith Ireland

Former parliamentary speaker Peter Slipper used a government-issued Cabcharge card to pay for trips to leading wineries in the Canberra region, court documents allege.

A summons document in the ACT Magistrates Court alleges that on three occasions in 2010, Mr Slipper took a hire car to visit wineries that included the top-rated Clonakilla winery, well known for its $85 Shiraz Viognier.

On one trip in January 2010, Mr Slipper travelled from Parliament House to six wineries before taking the hire car to his home suburb of Hughes.

Clonakilla in the Canberra region rerenowned for its Shiraz Viognier. Photo: Adrian lander 09

They included Poachers Pantry, which is famous in the Canberra region for its gourmet smoked meats, as well as its winery.

Advertisement

According to the documents, Mr Slipper stopped at and visited each of the six wineries, which also include Doonkuna Winery, Yass Valley Wines, Shaw Estate Vineyard and Gallagher Wines.

''Mr Slipper knew that he was not entitled to use the Cabcharge card to pay for the hire car fare, but he did so,'' the description of offences says. The former speaker - who resigned from the position last October - allegedly used the card by filling in and signing four Cabcharge dockets instead of one.

Susan Bruce from Poachers Pantry near CanberraPhoto: Andrew Meares

''He filled in the trip details on the dockets by showing false information,'' including the pick up and put down locations and the amount of the fare. The documents further allege that Mr Slipper travelled to wineries again in April and June 2010.

The trips described in the documents, including some within Canberra, cost $1194.

MPs can travel at government expense only if they are undertaking "parliamentary, electorate or official business". Official business includes "meetings of a government advisory committee or taskforce" or "functions representing a minister or presiding officer".

The documents say that the Department of Finance informed Mr Slipper on three separate occasions between 2006 and 2007 that electronic and not manual Cabcharge vouchers should be used, as they were more accountable and secure.

It alleges that Mr Slipper continued to use Cabcharge vouchers because he wanted to avoid investigation by Finance about his card use.

Slipper summonsed to appear before court 

On Monday, Mr Slipper was summonsed to face court next month for alleged breaches of federal criminal laws, further destabilising Julia Gillard's minority government in an election year.

The police statement said it was ''in relation to three offences of dishonestly causing a risk of a loss to the Commonwealth''.

The Queensland MP is due to appear in the Canberra Magistrates Court on February 15, where he can expect to be formally charged.

The Australian Federal Police have not confirmed what the summons is about, but court documents show that they relate to Mr Slipper's alleged misuse of travel entitlements. The alleged offences carry a maximum five-year jail term.

If Mr Slipper is found guilty of the alleged Cabcharge fraud he could go to jail, despite the fact that the amount of money involved is relatively small, says the Canberra criminal lawyer Ben Aulich.

''If the allegations are proven against him, I could not rule out a jail term as a sentence,'' said Mr Aulich after reading the court summons for Mr Slipper released on Tuesday by the ACT Magistrates Court.

''These sorts of matters are very serious... Anything to do with a fraud on the Commonwealth involving a breach of a position of trust in a systematic way, the first port of call is a jail term.''

If a federal MP is found guilty of a criminal offence that carries a jail term of one year or more, they are disqualified from Parliament.

This could place the government's slim majority under pressure on contentious pieces of legislation, but would not likely see it fall.

Labor has 76 votes to the Coalition's 74 (if Green Adam Bandt, independents Craig Thomson, Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor are counted with Labor and Bob Katter, Tony Crook and Peter Slipper are counted with the opposition).

However, Fairfax Media understands that even if found guilty, Mr Slipper is very unlikely to face the maximum penalty. It is also unlikely the case would be resolved before the next federal election.

On Monday, a government source played down the news of the summons, saying the offences mentioned by the AFP did not relate to claims made by former staffer, James Ashby, but to the alleged hire-care trips beyond the allowed Canberra region.

Not the first set of Cabcharge claims 

Mr Slipper stood aside as Speaker last April following accusations by Mr Ashby that he had misused taxi dockets, as well as separate claims that he had sexually harassed Mr Ashby.

Mr Ashby alleged that his former boss had rorted his travel entitlements by handing over signed blank Cabcharge vouchers to drivers. Mr Slipper later released photocopies of the 13 manual dockets in a bid to refute claims.

Dates on some of the copied vouchers were not legible, and the pick-up and drop-off descriptions tended to be vague, using terms such as "suburbs", "city" and "airport".  None of the dockets appeared to specify what time Mr Slipper was in the vehicle.

At the time, Mr Slipper said that the ''so-called criminal allegation'' of Cabcharge rorts was a ''complete fabrication''.

In May, Mr Ashby dropped the travel rorts claims to avoid any delay in the court's consideration of his civil claim of sexual harassment and discrimination.

But by then, the AFP had launched an investigation into Mr Slipper's travel use, referring material from the matter to the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in July.

Abbott: Slipper development shows Gillard's lack of judgment. 

A spokesman for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon on Monday said Mr Slipper was entitled to the presumption of innocence, and prejudicial comment had to be avoided to ensure he got a fair trial. Last month, the Federal Court threw out Mr Ashby's sexual harassment claim. In a scathing judgment, Justice Steve Rares found that the case was an ''abuse of process''.

In Brisbane on Tuesday, before the court documents were public, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the latest development involving Mr Slipper again exposed Prime Minister Julia Gillard's lack of judgment.

"Why did the Prime Minister ever think that the gentleman in question was fit and proper to be the Speaker of our country?" had said.

Mr Abbott said it was up to Mr Slipper to decide if he should resign from the parliament.

Fairfax Media has attempted to contact Mr Slipper without success.

Police visited local winery

The owner of Gallagher Wines, Gregory Gallagher, said police visited him "sometime last year" to investigate transactions made by Peter Slipper at his winery.

Mr Gallagher said he does not remember meeting Mr Slipper but commended his good taste in wine.

On his January 2010 tour of Clonakilla Wines, Mr Slipper would have sampled a range of 2008 reds including the Shiraz Viognier, O'Riada and Hilltops and a range of white wines including the Clonakilla Riesling, according to David Reist, the sales and marketing manager at Clonakilla.

Mr Riest says he does not recall meeting Mr Slipper but adds "he was not so well known back then".

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/slipper-toured-wineries-at-taxpayers-expense-20130108-2cea4.html#ixzz2HMaDydkq

Laws are broken: Independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor work against the law : Section 142.1/1b of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act...

Independent MPs Andrew Wilkie, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor in the House

A little over two years ago, in the wake of an indecisive Federal Election, Prime Minister Julia Gillard secured the formal support of three independents that would allow her to form government and retain office.

To do that deal, Mr Wilkie, Mr Oakeshott and Mr Windsor were offered priority funding allocation for their electorates in the ''regional priority'' round of the Health and Hospitals Infrastructure Program. In total, applications for projects in their electorates totalled around $450 million, which is about one third of the total funds available. There were 114 applications for funding under that scheme, and the other 111 could now only draw from whatever money was left over. 

Section 142.1/1b of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act states that it is an offence for a public official to offer a benefit if “the receipt, or expectation of the receipt, of the benefit would tend to influence a public official (who may be the other person) in the exercise of the official’s duties as a public official “. The Act explicitly states that it doesn’t matter whether the person to whom the offer is made is the ultimate beneficiary.

And on the other side, Section 142.1/3b of the Act states that an offence has been committed if “the receipt, or expectation of the receipt, of the benefit would tend to influence a Commonwealth public official (who may be the first-mentioned official) in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official”.

So… a leader of a political party needs the support of three independents to form government. To secure that support, she guarantees that applications for substantial grants for each of their electorates will be approved before applications from 111 others, irrespective of the merit of those other applications. They agree, and give their support.

Draw your own conclusion.

The grown-ups in the Labor Party must publicly denounce The Greens today @mpsmithnews

"Even if the Greens are sufficiently stupid to say it; how can the ALP be so foolish as to not immediately denounce it? Although public statements are a large part of the issue, there are other aspects. If this individual is not prosecuted that sends a truly horrible message to the capital markets; and we will all pay a hefty price for it."

And just in case you forgot.

The Greens make their true intentions very, very clear - Christine Milne and Lee Rhiannon say crimes OK for climate change: @mpsmithnews

Jonathan Moylan is being investigated by authorities for serious offences.   He has apparently admitted impersonating a bank and as a result of his hoax against a company and the ANZ bank he wiped $314 million off the value of Whitehaven Coal.   And Christine Milne endorses his actions.

I'm sure that was just hilarious to the investors whose capital was tied up in the company.

We live in a free market society.   Markets have to operate without fraudsters and hoaxers.   I don't think it makes a jot of differences whether this bloke impersonated a bank with his hoax press release for the purpose of making a few million shorting the stock - or whether his intention was some other personal benefit like promoting Global Warming and feel-good-greenism.

He is a goose who should be made to repay his debt to society.

But Senator Christine Milne and Lee Rhiannon are something of an altogether different hue.   They are law-makers, legislators, members of the parliament.   And they both endorse this man's actions.

Greens MPs congratulate hoaxer whose deceit triggered sharemarket turmoil

Jonathan Swan, Judith Ireland, Damien Bright January 09, 2013

THE Greens leader, Senator Christine Milne, has endorsed a controversial hoax by an anti-coal activist, saying his actions were ''part of a long and proud history of civil disobedience, potentially breaking the law, to highlight something wrong''.

Her comments came after a tweet by her colleague Lee Rhiannon, who publicly congratulated Jonathan Moylan, an activist under scrutiny for impersonating a bank and temporarily wiping $314 million off the value of Whitehaven Coal.

''Congrats to Jonathan Moylan, Frontline Action on Coal, for exposing ANZ investment in coalmines,'' Ms Rhiannon tweeted on Tuesday night.

Mr Moylan orchestrated an elaborate hoax on Monday in which he tricked investors into thinking that a recent $1.2 billion loan arranged by ANZ for Whitehaven had been cancelled on ethical grounds.

Shares in Whitehaven, which counts the struggling coal baron Nathan Tinkler as its biggest shareholder, fell from $3.52 to $3.21 in rapid time before the stock was put into a trading halt.

Mr Moylan designed a fake ANZ press template, website and dummy email inbox online and impersonated a company spokesperson to callers, including Fairfax Media. Moylan is now obtaining legal representation, and has received calls from ASIC.

The Greens make their true intentions very, very clear - Christine Milne and Lee Rhiannon say crimes OK for climate change - Michael Smith News