In a move that has taken the state by shock, the state government has, at the behest of the Premier Kristina Kenally, officially closed the formal business of parliament.  The move is one of the most blatant political manipulations of the parliamentry process which the state has witnessed in quite some time.  The political reason for the move is that it ensures that the Opposition will be blocked from holding its inquiry into the electricity sale which was due to begin today.  There are serious questions over whether this is consitutional under our present legal system because of the system of government implied under the rule of law in the Australian Constitution which has been interepreted as applying to the states as well.

In a statement released by the Premier’s office this morning, Kristina Keneally said the NSW Governor, Marie Bashir, had prorogued the parliament, effective immediately.  Parliamentry committees cannot hold hearings before the March election, including the planned upper house inquiry into the government’s controversial $5.3 billion sale of the state’s electricity assets.  The strategy is clearly an attempt to muzzle the government’s critics on a number of issues, but most likely the electricity sell off.  The Opposition had planned to reveal the details of the inquiry today, including the proposed terms of reference and the expected start date, which could have been as early as January 10.  The inquiry had the support of the Greens and the Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile which meant the inquiry could have started as soon the procedural issues had been resolved.  Parliament was not expected to be prorogued until late February, according to the official calendar on the NSW Parliament’s website.

In one of the more surprising moves by the new Gillard government, under Julia Gillard has pledged a referendum on whether to recognize indigenous peoples in the constitution. There is also a move afoot to do this in New South Wales. However, the federal level referendum will be more difficult to achieve given the majority of voters needed in a majority of states. Aborigines have long sought recognition in our national and state constitutions because these fundamental laws have either ignored their existence or permitted discrimination against them. They also argue that the story of our nation is incomplete without the histories of the peoples who inhabited the continent before white settlement.

Arguably, the Constitution was drafted by a racist nation. The result was a constitution that referred to Aborigines only in negative terms. Section 127 even made it unlawful to include ”Aboriginal natives” when counting the number of ”people” of the Commonwealth. An unsuccessful attempt was made to recognise indigenous peoples in the constitution at the 1999 republic referendum. The states then took the lead, bolstered by the advantage of not needing to hold a referendum. Victoria and then Queensland have reformed their constitutions by way of a simple act of Parliament. The change introduced by Premier Kristina Keneally into the NSW Parliament last week follows the same approach. The passage of the bill is assured after being supported in heartfelt speeches by Keneally, Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell and the indigenous minister, Linda Burney.

These are fine words, but it must be remembered that they are just words. The section will do no more than make a symbolic change to the state constitution. Kevin Rudd was hailed as a hero for having finally gotten to the point to saying sorry to the stolen generations. However, the actual living standards of aboriginal people in terms of health care, education and literacy, rates of imprisonment and other indicators of social well being have not seen any marked improvement since Mr Rudd;s apology. Despite the fact that symbolism can be important, it can also obfuscate the true nature of the problem by glibly apologizing without any act that supports the sincerity of the apology.

In the a nation that seems increasingly divided, US President, Barack Obama has said that Islam is not the enemy, but that Al Qaeda is the enemy. Saturday in the USA saw a number of ceremonies commemorating the 3,000 dead as a result of the attacks on the world trade center on September 11 2001.

Tensions have been running high with protests outside mosques which are only a few blocks from ground zero and a Christian pastor threatening to burn the Koran in public/ It seems that the President has enraged Americans because of his lack of fervor for the fight against what is perceived by many in America as a holy war and he has alienated Muslims around the world with the uncompromising policy stance on the War in Afghanistan. The president said that:

“As Americans we will not and never will be at war with Islam. It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was al-Qaeda,” Obama said, urging Americans not to succumb to “hatred and prejudice”.

At Ground Zero, where for the first time reconstruction work is visibly gathering pace, a youth choir opened the ceremony with the national anthem. Vice President Joseph Biden and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg were among those attending the annual ritual of reading the names of all 2752 people killed when two hijacked airliners destroyed the Twin Towers.

The pastor arrived in New York late on Friday to continue publicising his campaign, while rival street rallies were planned near the controversial mosque project site.
On Saturday, the pastor told NBC television he no longer wanted to desecrate the Muslim holy book, “not today, not ever”.

The president has weighed into the debate on the side of tolerance even further by saying that “we champion the rights of every American, including the right to worship as one chooses”.

“We stand together to rebuff the stereotypes,” Susan Lerner, New York director of the rights group Common Cause, told the crowd. “We reject the idea that any neighbourhood in our great city is off limits to any particular group.”

Anti-mosque demonstrators, led by ultra-conservative groups, predicted a large protest of their own on Saturday.
Some protesters accuse the Islamic centre of aiming to honour the 9/11 terrorists and argue that Muslims should not be allowed a significant presence anywhere near Ground Zero. Others say that the feelings of families of those killed on 9/11 are still too raw to accept the project. The political turmoil around this year’s anniversary has disturbed many who have asked for the day to remain purely commemorative. There have also been some reports of racist reprisals and violence between the groups which has heightened the tension.

The ever popular car enthusiast’s program – BBC’s Top Gear presented by Richard Hammond (‘the Hamster), James May (‘Captain Slow’) and Jeremy Clarkson has one essential character called The Stig, a white-clad, white-helmeted “tame racing car driver” with a glistening black visor, who trains celebrities in doing laps for the show’s competition and who sets test times for various cars. Until recently the Stig’s identity was a secret, and there has been much speculation as to who he is. It has now been revealed that he is Ben Collins, an F3 racing car driver. Collins is planning to release an autobiography which would reveal his identity for once and for all. The BBC sought and injunction in the UK High Court to prevent this but failed.

A number of the reports mention that The Stig is subject to a confidentiality agreement with the BBC. There is a possibility that the BBC could rely on an action in contract to make The Stig disgorge his profits. In the case of Attorney-General v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 the courts in the UK found that it was possible to award accounts of profits for breach of contract in ‘exceptional circumstances’ where the plaintiff has a ‘legitimate interest’ in performance of the contract.

The contract in Blake itself involved an undertaking in a contract of employment to the effect that, even after his work had ceased, the employee would not disclose any information about his work without the consent of the Crown. George Blake had been a spy for MI6, but he was also a double agent for the Soviets. When his treachery was uncovered in 1960, he was convicted and imprisoned, but he subsequently escaped from prison and fled to the Soviet Union. Perhaps he wasn’t being kept in the fashion to which he was accustomed after the fall of the Iron Curtain, because in 1990 he published an unauthorised autobiography entitled No Other Choice. The British government was outraged to hear that Blake was being paid £150,000 for the book by his British publishers, and successfully sought an account of profits over all profits remaining in the jurisdiction (some £60,000 had already been paid to Blake in Russia, but about £90,000 remained in Britain). Some of the cases which have developed jurisprudence around a similar concept are Pell Frischmann Engineering v Bow Valley Iran Limited [2009] UKPC 45; Vercoe v Rutland Fund Management Limited [2010] EWHC 424 (Ch). The end outcome of this legal battle remains to be seen.

Hu’s lawyer stated that the current evidence is not sufficeinet to show that Hu actaully stole information which caused damage to the state to the tune of 1 billion yuan as is alleged.  In China, the judgments of courts are only published at the discretion of the court and it is not compulsory as it is in the Western Systems.  From the reasoning of the courts which have been published, it appears that the authorities in China are likely to be far more aggressive in their regulation of the steel industry.  One of the activities complained of is the collection of information about chinese steel production by Rio Tinto’s offices in Singapore.  Also, part of the  factor which indicated that the whole process is subject to broader political interference was the fact that the incarceration of the Rio Four occured by Rio refused to sign up to a $US19.5 billion deal with Chinalco which was reported very negatively by all of the state owned media and the state owned company itself in China.  This case highlights some of the challenges of doing business in China because of the legal and political environment there.