A couple of days ago Greens Senator Bob Brown worried about losing his senate seat because he could be forced into bankruptcy if he didn’t pay Forestry Tasmania $240,000 in court costs following a legal dispute over logging in the Wielangta Forest. I haven’t followed the case closely but Brown tells it in brief like this:
Bob Brown won his original court case to stop Forestry Tasmania logging the magnificent Wielangta forest, but the win was overturned on a technicality by the full bench of the Federal Court after the Howard Government joined forces with the Lennon Government to change the law.
Helen in this post after Brown had won the case and before he subsequently lost on appeal, points out that Gunns is more than happy to use court cases to frighten people into silence. Brown himself thought that Forestry Tasmania were pursuing the debt with unusual vigour and that a whole posse of people were out to get him.
Dr Brown believe Forestry Tasmania, a business 100 per cent owned by the Tasmanian Government, is pursuing the debt more vigorously and hastily than usual in an attempt to force him out of the Senate.He claims the Bartlett Labor Government in Tasmania, aided by the Rudd Federal Government and the logging industry, is intent on seeing him expelled from the Senate because of his recently-reiterated determination to have all logging banned in Australia’s native forests.
There was some evidence he was right.
Forestry Tasmania corporate relations manager Ken Jeffreys accused Senator Brown of a “media stunt”, saying he had known since January last year the costs would need to be paid.
Several Coalition MPs agreed. but the Ruddster was sympathetic:
But Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said today he was distressed to learn that the Greens leader could be booted out of the Senate over an unpaid legal debt.
Mr Rudd said he was upset for Senator Brown.
“I’ve actually got a lot of time for Bob; just as a person, (he’s) a bloke I’ve got to know over the years,” Mr Rudd told Sky News.
“I’m quite concerned about it for him personally.”
I understand that his public appeal was encouraging enough that Brown felt he could approach his bank manager for a loan. But then along came self-declared capitalist Dick Smith who said he would pay the entire $240,000 bill if necessary.
Smith reckons that Forestry Tasmania are a bunch of bullies and no-one should be drummed out of parliament this way.
Mr Smith said he was not prepared to see an elected parliamentarian turfed from office because of an unpaid bill arising from a case motivated by a “genuine” concern. “Even though I’m a capitalist, I think he does have an important role in parliament,” Mr Smith said.
Amen to that, but something is not right here. Brown should never have been in that position in the first place.
Finally, if you have superannuation there is a fair chance that you have a beneficial interest in Gunn’s. Sadly for most investing institutions ethics is someone else’s department.
Tom Uren has also entered the lists on Bob Brown’s side. Good one, Tom!
That’s right. He shouldn’t have initiated court action he couldn’t afford to lose. Jeopardy applies.
Two fools and their money are soon parted.
And people were telling me on the Queensland privatisation threads how wonderful it is to have such enterprises owned by the Government, because then they are subject to democratic control and can be made to behave ethically …
Craig MC: “That’s right. He shouldn’t have initiated court action he couldn’t afford to lose. Jeopardy applies.”
Except that he won. And then the laws were changed, and then he lost on appeal.
That’s dirty on multiple levels.
As I understand it, he initiated a court case against the government funded organisation and won – the laws were then changed and he lost the appeal that was initiated by that organisation after their government changed the laws.
If Brown was a right wing/libertarian fundie, CraigMc would regard him as a hero taking on the government. But, of course, all CraigMc has got is the usual hate and ill-wishes. How sweet it is (although that may be harsh of me if Craig’s hate stems from childhood maltreatment or sexual exploitation, even if Craig would say suck it up princess).
I’m very impressed with Dick Smith. In addition to the Smith quotes in the links above, he also said on the wireless yesterday, and I paraphrase “Brown could earn with his medical qualifications and skills over $600k pa, but chooses to represent us and future generations for very little and then most of that little he selflessly puts into defending natural assets”. I agree with Dick Smith, what a guy Brown is!
Is Brown really about to go broke or is this just another Greens publicity stunt to scam money from naive supporters?
Brown should never have been in that position in the first place.
I disagree. Brown must have entered into the court case knowing that this was a risk; he should not be immune from any such costs that are incurred simply because bloggers here agree with him personally.
I think I read in the Australian he (or his donors) has shelled out something like $900,000 over the years in court costs/fees.
Im not sure Imcomfortable (entirely) with a bloke being pretty well insulated from legal costs thanks to donations. While I hate to see anyone sent broke by legal costs the idea that a litigant can walk away from (what may in some cases be) vexatious litigation is a little annoying.
He has a bully pulpit in the parliment for his cause, which he has used with great effect to futher his cause. I cant help but wonder if his litigation is taken with an eye to keeping a profile as much as realistic legal manouvering?
Brown actually won, Craig Mc. Then Howard and Paul Lennon openly connived to alter the regional forest agreement – specifially the very clear section on wildlife protection the federal court enforced, thanks to Brown’s case.
In a legla sense, I’d describe Howard and Lennon’s actions as scarcely a centimetre above a formal conspiracy to hold a court ruling in contempt – with constituionally dubious retrospectivity adding to the grubbiness.
This was not an “appeal” per se – but a show retrial with the goalposts shifted. Its a total outrage, and I say if their lawyers enforce the costs order, we shut down Forestry Tasmania with Federal Intervention for making threats with menaces against Australian democratic representatives.
If he’d chained himself to a tree to save the forests, people would be criticising him for being an attention-seeker who wasn’t prepared to try real-world solutions to the problem. So he takes legal action, becomes a Senator, and he’s still accused of being an attention-seeker. What exactly would satisfy you people?
Bob Brown won the case because Forestry Tasmania was operating illegally. And it would have been forgotten years ago, if the Tassie govt and Howard weren’t determined to chop down every bit of old-growth forest, and willing to change the laws to retrospectively win court cases.
I agree with Lefty E on this. I have seen lots of discussion on the ethics of Bob Brown and his fund raising to cover these costs (the flame war on Poll Bludger, for example), but little consideration on the ethics of what John Lennon and John Howard did. I don’t understand why.
Is it because it crosses party lines (a federal Coalition Govt and a state Labor Govt)?
Is it because we can all think of issues/situations when we might like a Govt to be able to do this?
What flaw in our legal system allowed this to happen?
Isn’t it highly unethical, given the nature of the win, for Forestry Tasmania to pursue costs, even though they were awarded.
Bob Brown and Dick Smith, two ‘fools’? Yeah, I should be so stupid and useless.
If Brown was a right wing/libertarian fundie, CraigMc would regard him as a hero taking on the government.
And if Brown was a ‘right wing liberatarian fundie’ many people on this site would point out the Dick Smith donation and call him a corporate shill. It’s fair enough to point out an inconsistency of views, but that style of criticism applies equally to those on the left and right.
Oooops, Paul Lennon of course!
Pol Lenin would be a better fit for the man’s democratic credentials and ethical standards.
Thanks Brian, and thankyou Dick Smith for bringing some solid Australian intelligence to this matter, along with real generosity.
It’s not true that Brown ‘won’ and then the goals were changed. The sequence of events is that he won the first case, lost the second case on appeal in the federal court, THEN the rules were changed to put it beyond doubt, and so the High Court wouldn’t listen to him.
SO he did still lose on the merits, however it is pretty stinky poor form to change the rules in that manner. I don’t know whether Forestry Tas is particularly going him for costs, but every single organisation, be they government or private, does have a duty to recoup costs.
Glad Dick Smith came to Bob’s rescue. Peculiar how a conspiracy to thwart the law by two right wing shits Howard and Lennon escapes notice in the MSM. Yet another case of ALP standing for Another Liberal Party.
Geting away from the specifics of Bob Brown’s case, can anyone say why this rule against bankrupt people being in the Senate exists? Presumably it is in the constitution, but does anyone know the reasoning as to why should someone who is declared bankrupt not be allowed to take their seat in the Senate?
And does the same rule apply to the House of Reps?
wilful is right. The law was changed after Brown lost on appeal. This is a problem of Brown’s own making. Before he instigated the court case he should of realised the risk that if he lost he would be up for hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs. The other amazing aspect of this is to see the Lefties embracing capitalist Dick Smith. I love it.
Dr Fish:
I assume that the reasoning is the same as the anti-gay reasoning.
A bankrupt person is in danger of needing assistance, and thus could be reasonably blackmailed because of this. Much like a (closeted) gay person might be blackmailed for being gay. Some ethical issues effectively.
If more capitalists displayed the same understanding that their success depends as much (if not more) on the society around them as it does on their own endeavors, then it might happen more often.
Jame : nothing to do with your simplistic ‘lefties’ and ‘capitalists’, (still playing cowboys and indians are you?) but rather the attempted shutting down of any opposition to Gunns, Forestry Tasmania and the CFMEU, which, at this stage of the game, are basically different arms of the same misshapen beast.
should really read: “Gunns, Forestry Tasmania and the Forestry Division of the CFMEU, which, at this stage of the game, are basically different arms of the same misshapen beast.”
This cfmeu bears some scrutiny. Here we see a union that depends on the emission of CO2 (mining) AND the destruction of forrests for its reason for being.
“The other amazing aspect of this is to see the Lefties embracing capitalist Dick Smith.”
Yeah, someone able to see beyond their own opinions and personal interests to the greater good. A better man than some, certainly.
BilB, the CFMEU’s reason for being is to promote the interests of its members, which doesn’t have to mean keeping its members employed for all time in digging coal and cutting down high conservation value forest. It’s unfortunate that the leadership of the Forestry Division is unable to see this.
The other amazing aspect of this is to see the Lefties embracing capitalist Dick Smith.
Dick Smith doesn’t have a reputation as a corporate bastard.
It just amazes me to read some of the blogs here who are having a go at Brown because he shouldn’t have been at court if he couldn’t afford it.
The guy won and then the Govt. changed the rules, turned the goal posts upside down and manouevered without a sceric of morality or ethics to support the Gunns of the world and definitely not in the national interest.
Great to see the daggiest of the rich guys, Dick Smith contributing to nullify these bully boys as well as Tom Uren.
The Howard years legacy continues its ugly stain.
Dr Fish
A number of positions bar you after bankruptcy. Im a JP in WA and it will result in the loss of that as well.
The reasoning being, as was mentioned above, it would make you more likely to accept a bribe, or blackmail. (I dont say thats right, just thats the laws reasoning on it). Its a little strange how it appears to be more flexible about Judges who havent paid their taxes dor a decade or 2, and lawyers….
I actualy heard, (but have never had confirmed) Dick Smith has some involvement/ supplies some funds to the youth group “resistance”. Id treat the rumour with a pinch of salt though.
“The sequence of events is that he won the first case, lost the second case on appeal in the federal court, THEN the rules were changed to put it beyond doubt, and so the High Court wouldn’t listen to him.”
The judgment in Brown v Forestry Tas was handed down in December 2006, The Commonwealth and Tasmania agreed to vary the Regional Forestry Agreement in February 2007 and the appeal was heard in August 2007.
If you’re really interested, you can read the appeal judgment on Austlii:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2007/186.html
FWIW, their honours did not appear to regard the amendments to the RFA as being significant to the matter before them, but ain’t no lawyer or nuthin’.
d
I know that Jeffrey Archer had to leave the British Parliament due to his bankruptcy. He then used the experience as material in the novels Not a Penny More, Not a Penny Less and First Among Equals.
Brian, that’s the best news I’ve heard for ages. Thank goodness for Dick Smith and his generosity.
Such gestures are rare. He’s right about Bob Brown having the choice to pursue a happier more lucrative career other than to selflessly push ‘it’ up hill every day in Canberra. Brown is routinely the only politician who opposes MP’s pay increases and routinely the only politician whose integrity is consistent.
Brian, great post. There’s just one typo in your quotation from the Australian, though:
“Dr Brown believes
Forestry Tasmania, a business 100 per cent owned by the Tasmanian Governmentthe Tasmanian government, a business 100 per cent owned by Forestry Tasmania…”There, fixed it for you.
Totes awse, Hel.
Mwah.
Darryl’s right about the timing, and my comments at 9 stands. The RFA was altered between the first decision and the federal court appeal.
Daz- As I read it, the appeal decision considers the amendements to the RFA at some length from 80-98. In sum, as I read it – they are saying the must consider the RFA as it stands today (at time of appeal). i.e the amended version is the basis of their review.
The bit where they appear to be dismissing the significance of the amendments is mostly a quite separate legal issue – a response to Brown’s new argument at appeal that post the amendments, the RFA was no longer an “agreement” as defined by the Act. Brown’s lawyers were trying to ultra vires the amended RFA. This new argument was not accepted.
Nonetheless, as I read it, the amended RFA was considered to stand as the new ‘goalpost’ for the appeal decision.
“I’m quite concerned about it for him personally.”
But not if the the leader of the Greens were to fall before Penny ( I’m eating an Air Kevin sandwitch) jets off to Copenhagen…
And hey Polyquats @ 11; some Dudd’s Army gems there…
‘Dick Smith is such a media whore he would give financial support to Osama Bin Laden if it got his big mug on TV.’
‘All I can say is suck hard on those organically grown lemons.’ etc…
What Lefty & Darryl sez.
The reason for being of the CFMEU is to represent the interests of its members and the union being a democratic organisation (guffaw when one thinks about its WA Branch and the union is surprisingly shy about posting its democratic constitution on the internet) its members tell the leaders what their interests are, not the other way around.
Re: Helen @ 35
Clarke and Dawe have a good take on the unique system of government in Tassie.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1977339.htm
Pity no White Knight has come over the hill to fund the final appeal of the Customs whistleblower retiree sent broke by four years of legalities, first by the Rodent now by Krudd.
It’s nice to see how libertarians really feel about the central plank of their vision for a better society. Freed from govt intervention, we’re supposed to use strong courts to protect our interests. But if a lefty should happen to do it and fail well that’s too bad. And apparently you shouldn’t use the courts to defend yourself if you don’t have the money to bear the risk.
I wonder where this leaves all those people earning below minimum wage in the libertard “utopia” when their employer starts jerking them around?
Paulus said:
How naïve can you get?
Bob Brown has spent a good bit of his time in parliament complaining about financial donations (especially from business figures), to political parties and to individual politicians. Then he puts the cap out to Dick Smith for $240K for his legal fees.
He is a thorough hypocrite.
Bill @45
The donations from ‘business figures’ to politicians designed to purchase influence for private gain are the ones that Brown rightfully draws attention to.
The donation from Dick Smith to Brown is not designed to procure influence over Brown or favour for Smith’s business interests. Brown is therefore not a hypocrite on this matter.
Smith’s motivation is to protect Parliamentarians in their role of raising matters of genuine public concern.
From the article linked in the original post:
Lefty @9
Howard’s actions in this matter are typically sordid, abusing the law for partisan purpose as in the waterfront affair and, vomitously, the ‘Australians For Honest Politics’ sleaze fund (leg work done by Tony Abbott) to destroy Pauline Hanson. That reprehensible man, Howard, has thus abused the law twice (Hanson and Brown) as a vehicle to attack his personal political foes.
This country is a far better place without Howard.
As pointed out above, the laws barring bankrupts from Parliament are because of the POTENTIAL for undue pressure to be exercised on the politician concerned.
Thus the concern with BB being bailed out by any one is the POTENTIAL for influence in subsequent decisions.
It doesn’t matter (ethically) what Dick Smith has said in the past or is saying now, it’s the fact that sometime down the track he might get into deep doodoos and say to BB ‘well, when you were in trouble, I helped you…”
The law doesn’t say ‘a bankrupt can serve in Parliament as long as he is recognised to have complete integrity’.
He didn’t need the money after all. The public came through, which just goes to show the huge amount of support of BB, and the environment, out there in the “silent majority”.
Absolutely. A change is coming I think. Word down here is that the rank and file CFMEU workers are starting to wake up. Nothing in public as yet but I’ve had a couple of interesting conversations with CFMEU members – not those on the ‘inside’ – that would worry Scott Mclean if he’d been there. Interesting times.
Most super funds give you plenty of choice about where your funds are invested, down to individual stock picking. If you don’t like (or don’t know) where the standard balanced fund is invested, then change it. It can be done online, and is executed within 24 hours.
Indeed, Carbonsink@50.
It is worth remembering that the pressure on ANZ, by vocal clients, changed their attitude to involvement in Gunn’s business. A number of phonecalls or emails to a super fund, asking if they invest in that environmentally unfriendly company, might similarly do the trick.