text:
Home Parliamentary Business Bills and Legislation Browse Bills Digests Bills Digests alphabetical index 1997–98 Bills Digest No. 226 1997-98 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998
Bills and Legislation wcag
Bills Digests
Browse Bills Digests
Ordering Printed Bills
Budget and Financial Legislation
Bills Digest No. 226 1997-98 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998
Numerical Index | Alphabetical Index
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.
Passage History
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Bill 1998
Date Introduced: 2 April 1998
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Prime Minister
Commencement: On Proclamation, or otherwise within six months after Royal Assent
To provide for procedures which may be used to protect indigenous areas and objects, and to provide for accreditation procedures for State and Territory heritage protection regimes.
Despite the fact that there has been cross-party support for the principle of heritage protection legislation for Australia's indigenous heritage, the actual legislative implementation of this principle has not had enormous success.(1) The support for heritage protection is summarised in the vision statement of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, a statutory body set up with unanimous cross-party support, which states its hope to build:
A united Australia which respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all.(2)
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 (Cth) ('the current Act') was introduced in 1984 as a temporary measure, however when the promised permanent measure did not eventuate the original sunset clause was removed two years later.
In the wake of the Mabo decision in 1992(3) the need for 'immediate Federal legislation ... to ensure total security for Aboriginal sacred sites and heritage' was once again raised.(4) As part of a negotiated settlement with indigenous negotiators the Commonwealth agreed to the planned Native Title Social Justice Package. The proposals developed by the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ('ATSIC'), and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner included suggestions for comprehensive heritage protection.(5)
In 1995 the Hon Elizabeth Evatt AC was commissioned by the then Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to review the Act. Her report, Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 ('the Evatt Review') was presented to the subsequent Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, in August of 1996.
In December the Minister announced an 'overhaul' of the Act, and ATSIC subsequently initiated consultations on the issue of heritage protection. The Evatt Review was also the subject of an inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund ('the Joint Committee') during mid-1997, whose Report, containing numerous recommendations regarding the drafting of Commonwealth heritage protection legislation, was tabled on the same day as the current Bill.(6) This Report was called The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and was the Joint Committee's Eleventh Report ('the 11th Report'). The Joint Committee has subsequently issued a twelfth report into the Bill ('the 12th Report').(7)
While there is broad-based support for the principle that the current Act is in need of reform,(8) there has been no consensus on the substance of this reform. The current Bill implements neither the bulk of the Evatt Review's recommendations, nor the recommendations of the 11th Report.
Commonwealth Responsibility
The Commonwealth has constitutional powers and responsibilities for indigenous heritage protection under a number of provisions, most notably section 51(xxvi) of the Constitution (the race power).
The Evatt Review comments that despite a 'plethora' of Commonwealth legislation and administrative programmes there is no 'comprehensive or integrated Aboriginal cultural heritage protection regime.'(9) The Review concluded that:
[t]he Commonwealth has international, moral and legislative obligations to ensure that Aboriginal heritage in its broadest sense is nurtured and protected in a comprehensive and consistent way.(10)
Thus, while one of the stated policy goals of the Review was '[t]o retain the basic principles of the Act, as an Act of last resort'(11) it envisaged a broader role for the Commonwealth than simply having it function as a legislative mechanism of appeal. While the Joint Committee did not develop this theme of overall Commonwealth responsibility in either the 11th or 12th Report, it has given implicit endorsement to the principle in its recommendation that an independent administrative agency be created which would play a broader role than simply determining applications for protection, and in the recommendations regarding the Commonwealth's role in establishing Minimum Standards.(12)
The majority reports of the Joint Committee also recommended that a Commonwealth-enforced minimum standard for State or Territory accreditation should include 'a blanket protection approach.'(13) The 'blanket protection approach' involves presumptive protection of all significant sites, with the possibility for the protection to be removed, rather than requiring registration before any protection is given. By putting a basic level of responsibility on people who want to work or use the land to make enquiries regarding the existence of significant sites (other than the owners of the land in question), this approach gives greater protection to indigenous heritage than if the onus is on indigenous people to apply for protection. One of the difficulties with the current Commonwealth regime is that the current Act is only ever used when a potential conflict has already arisen. This difficulty remains pronounced in the provisions of this Bill because one of the requirements for a protection order is that a significant site be already under threat of desecration. The Joint Committee commented in its 12th Report that:
Most States and Territories already provide blanket protection... Importantly, the Committee has received no evidence arguing against blanket, or presumptive, protection of indigenous heritage.(14)
The Commonwealth also has constitutional power to legislate with respect to indigenous heritage protection under the external affairs power (section 51(xxix) of the Constitution). The international obligations which the Commonwealth is subject to include provisions of:
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(15) ('ICCPR'), which provides that persons belonging to religious or linguistic minorities:
... shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use his or her own language. (art 27)
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(16) ('ECOSOC') which provides that:
All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
ECOSOC also requires that all State parties to the Covenant 'promote the realisation of the right of self-determination ...'(17)
the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination(18)
the Declaration Of The Principles of International Cultural Co-operation, UNESCO, 1966, which includes the principles that:
Each culture has a dignity and a value which must be respected and preserved;
Every people has the right and the duty to develop its culture;
In their rich variety and diversity, and in the reciprocal influences they exert on one another, all cultures form part of the common heritage belonging to all mankind.(19)
the Convention For The Protection Of The World Cultural and Natural Heritage(20) which imposes a duty on Australia to ensure that its cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value is identified, protected, conserved, presented and transmitted to future generations, which in turn includes a need to integrate the protection of heritage into comprehensive planning programmes, set up services for protecting and conserving heritage, conduct research into the dangers that threaten heritage, do what is necessary to identify, protect and restore heritage and foster centres for training and research on heritage.(21)
Significant Divergences between the Bill and the Evatt Review's Recommendations
In a sense the Evatt Review is the defining document regarding the legal regimes for protection of indigenous heritage protection in Australia today. Its 370 page overview of the various heritage regimes in operation included 117 recommendations which were the product of national consultations and 69 written submissions. Despite some gentle and not-so-gentle criticisms,(22) the Review has found broad-based acceptance and formed the back-drop against which suggestions for reform have been evaluated. So, for instance, the reference to the Joint Committee asked for the inquiry to consider 'the urgent need for amendments...consistent with the report of the Review of [the] Act by Justice Elizabeth Evatt,'(23) while Senator Herron advised that the Government's proposals for reform were partly based on the recommendations in the Evatt Review.(24) The table prepared by ATSIC which compares the Government's proposals for amendments with the recommendations of the Review is informative (the Table forms an Appendix to the 11th Report).(25) Furthermore the Review's recommendations have been widely endorsed by the submissions to the Joint Committee's various inquiries into the proposed Bill.(26)
The three primary areas where the Bill differs from the Review's recommendations are in its treatment of the concept of 'national interest,' its decision not to include any provisions which ensure the involvement of indigenous people in the decision-making processes of the scheme, and its treatment of the plans for State and Territory accreditation.
The Bill's treatment of applications from States and Territories with an accredited heritage regime differs to those without such a regime. If an application for protection is received from a State or Territory with an accredited heritage regime, then the only way the Commonwealth can intervene is if the Minister considers that intervention would be in the national interest. The second reading speech explained that the Government was including this provision because:
[t]he incentive for States and Territories to achieve accreditation will come from the Commonwealth absenting itself from involvement in State or Territory decision-making once a State or Territory is accredited.(27)
ATSIC commented that this provision 'fundamentally changes the nature of Commonwealth involvement in indigenous heritage protection and the relationship between Commonwealth, State and Territory regimes.'(28) Ms Evatt commented that 'this is incompatible with maintaining the Commonwealth procedure as a last resort mechanism' and went on to say:
The protection of Aboriginal heritage is an important national interest in itself, and ... the protection procedure under the Act should be available as a mechanism of last resort in all cases...[The national interest provisions] place a new and significant barrier in the way of heritage protection.(29) [emphasis in the original]
Ms Evatt argued that the concern of Aboriginal people in a particular region or locality, however deeply felt, would not necessarily equate with a national interest.
The majority report of the Joint Committee suggests that the Bill should be amended to ensure that the definition of national interest itself includes the protection of indigenous heritage.(30)
The Bill's use of the concept of the national interest attracted emphatic opposition from ATSIC. In a press release released the day the Bill was introduced, the Commission commented that the Bill:
effectively allows the Commonwealth Minister...to hand over heritage protection to the states and territories, despite the clear constitutional responsibility that the Australian people gave to the Commonwealth Government in 1967.(31)
Mr Djerrkura, the head of ATSIC, also commented that the interaction of the Prime Minister's 10 Point Plan on Native Title and the Bill would place sacred and significant sites in 'double jeopardy.'(32) He said:
[The] Bill significantly erodes this sole remaining option under the Howard Government's own agenda by withdrawing Commonwealth involvement in indigenous heritage, except in cases involving the "national interest."(33)
Accreditation procedures for State and Territory regimes
The minimum standards for accreditation are set out in proposed section 26 of the Bill. They are fairly general in nature and do not contain several of the recommended standards included in either or both the majority Joint Committee's reports or the Evatt Review. Most notably the majority of the Committee recommended that a 'blanket protection' scheme should be required as a minimum standard for State or Territory legislative regimes. This would follow the Northern Territory's legislative approach, which has been cited as the 'best practice' model.(34) Other differences identified by ATSIC include the need for minimum standards to specify:
Indigenous control over assessments
Review rights
Provision for emergency and interim protection
Provision for early consideration of heritage issues in planning processes and
Resources to ensure effective access to State and Territory remedies.(35)
Indigenous involvement in the decision making processes governing heritage protection
There are three levels at which the Evatt Review's recommendation of indigenous involvement have not been taken up. At the level of the implementing agency, which was to have had indigenous members, at the level of the advisory council, which was to give overall policy advice to the implementing agency and the Minister, and at the State and Territory level, where it was recommended that local indigenous heritage bodies be established.
The establishment of an Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Advisory Council was recommended so that it could give advice on issues arising under the Act to the Minister and the independent national body with implementation responsibilities. The recommendation was that the Advisory Council could give particular advice 'on the procedures to be followed and the persons to be consulted in making assessments for the purposes of the Act.'(36) The Advisory Council was to have been constituted by Aboriginal people, 'in such a way as to strengthen links with local Aboriginal communities which have responsibility for heritage issues.'(37)
The Bill has not established an independent agency to function as the implementing body or a national co-ordinating body, although the proposed Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection would perform some of the same functions. Further commentary on the position of the Director is provided in the Concluding Comments of this Digest.
At the State and Territory level it was recommended that minimum standards should include the establishment of Aboriginal cultural heritage bodies with responsibility for site evaluation and for the administration of the legislation. It was recommended that they should:
be controlled by Aboriginal members representative of Aboriginal communities
have gender balance
have adequate staffing, expertise and resources
have access to independent advisers, e.g. anthropologists, archaeologists.(38)
ATSIC have commented that there is a:
[f]ailure to adequately involve indigenous people in the processes and procedures established under the Bill for accreditation and assessment of significance and threat,(39)
while Ms Evatt refers to the 'glaring omission' regarding the recognition of Aboriginal responsibility in this area.(40)
The majority report of the 12th Report was 'strongly supportive of the principle of meaningful indigenous involvement in relevant decisionmaking.'(41) Senator Herron has given an explanation of the decision not to specify that the Director of Indigenous Heritage should be indigenous (see the Concluding Comments of this Digest), but apart from this comment, the Government has yet to respond to the comments regarding indigenous involvement in the Report of the Joint Committee.
Native Title and Heritage Protection
ATSIC has identified this Bill as part of an attack by Government on indigenous rights, and commented that:
[t]he proposal to remove the Right to Negotiate from the Native Title Act is now reinforced by an effective Commonwealth withdrawal from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage protection.(42)
During the debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 there were several amendments moved regarding the protection of indigenous heritage by both the ALP and the minor parties. These were rejected by the Government, which commented in the debate that:
The proper place to deal with heritage issues is in heritage legislation. The proper place to deal with native title issues is in the Native Title Act.(43)
The Evatt Review commented with respect to the Government's plans in the area of native title:
Towards a more workable Native Title Act: Outline of proposed amendments proposes that the right to negotiate about exploration or prospecting activities would be removed from the Act on the ground that heritage legislation would continue to provide protection for sites of significance from the impact of these activities. The right to negotiate would remain in regard to the production stage of mining activity. This would be an unfortunate development so far as the protection of cultural heritage is concerned as neither State/Territory nor Commonwealth heritage protection legislation guarantees an adequate process of negotiation, a process which is essential if heritage is to be given proper consideration in decisions concerning land use. If the proposal is implemented native title claimants and holders may make greater use of the Act to gain protection for their areas or sites.(44)
The minority report of the 11th Report also put the Bill in the context of the Government's approach to native title, saying that the issue of heritage protection could only be considered in the political, social and legislative context of the time, including the 'lengthy and divisive debate' on the native title amendments. The minority said that:
In concert with the extinguishment of native title and the erosion of indigenous rights central to the Native Title Amendment Bill, the majority recommendations [regarding heritage protection amendments] represent a retrograde step in reconciliation between indigenous and non indigenous Australians.(45)
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have made similar comments, saying that the Bill:
cannot be seen in isolation from proposed amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), particularly those affecting the right to negotiate. The proposed amendments to the Native Title Act significantly detract from the already very limited ability of Aboriginal people to protect their cultural heritage. By weakening heritage protection processes even further, this Bill leaves the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in extreme jeopardy.(46)
A brief summary of the Bill's basic schema is provided here for the utility of Members:
The Bill sets up provisions for dealing with applications for protection of sacred sites or objects. A distinction between accredited and unaccredited State and Territory regimes is created, and this impacts on how applications for protection are dealt with. There are minimum standards which must be complied with in order for the Minister to declare a legislative regime accredited. In an unaccredited regime when an application for protection is received the Minister and Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection deal with the application on its merits. There are various procedural provisions, including the separation of determinations regarding the issue of a site or object's significance, the threat against it, and the final decision as to whether protection is appropriate. In the case of an accredited regime the Minister may only grant a long-term protection order if s/he is satisfied that to do so would be in the national interest. In all cases there are provisions made for attempts to be made at arriving at a negotiated outcome.
Part 1 - Preliminary
Proposed section 4 sets out the main objects of the legislation. These are to establish procedures which may be used to preserve or protect significant indigenous areas or objects, and to provide procedures which may be used to accredit State and Territory heritage protection regimes.(47) Unlike the current Act which this Bill would replace, the objects are framed in terms of providing procedures to achieve the aims, rather than focussing on the aims themselves. The object of the current Act is to, itself, preserve and protect significant areas or objects, whereas this Bill's object is to provide for procedures to preserve and protect significant areas of objects.
Proposed section 5 provides for various definitions. The definitions of 'Aboriginal peoples' and 'Torres Strait Islander' combine to give the definition of an 'indigenous person', a term which is central to the rest of the proposed Act.
The definition of 'indigenous human remains' has various exclusions, including those bodies, or remains of a body, which are buried in accordance with the law of a State or Territory, or which are buried in land that is, in accordance with indigenous tradition, used or recognised as a burial ground. It also excludes objects made from bodily material 'that is not readily recognisable as being bodily material' and bodies or remains of a body which fall within the laws of a State or Territory 'relating to medical treatment or post-mortem examinations.'
Proposed section 5 defines an 'accredited heritage protection regime' as a State or Territory regime which the Minister has declared as accredited under proposed section 25. The status of an accredited heritage protection regime is important in determining the role for the Commonwealth in heritage protection.
The acronyms used in the definition of an 'AR application' and a 'UR application' are not explicitly spelt out, however they are important as mnemonics to understanding the scheme of the legislation. An application for a long-term protection order originating in a State or Territory with an accredited regime is an 'AR application' and an application originating in a State or Territory without an accredited regime (an 'un-accredited regime') is a 'UR application.' There are other acronyms which it is helpful to keep in mind. There are LPOs, IPOs and EPOs, which are 'long-term protection orders,' 'interim protection orders' and 'emergency protection orders' respectively.
'Indigenous tradition' is another significant definition, and it is given as 'the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of indigenous persons generally or of a particular community or group of indigenous persons.' It includes traditions specifically relating to 'particular persons, areas, objects or relationships.' The definition of indigenous tradition is also used in the definitions of 'significant indigenous area' and 'significant indigenous object', both of which are defined as significant if they are significant to indigenous persons, in accordance with indigenous tradition.
Proposed sub-section 5(5) defines an 'overlapping area' as an area which falls within, or that includes, an area to which an original application relates.
Proposed sub-section 5(6) defines what constitutes injury or desecration of an area or object, and includes things done which are inconsistent with indigenous tradition. In the case of an indigenous area this may include things done in 'or near the area.'
Proposed section 6 extends the scope of the legislation to encompass any waters claimed by Australia under the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973, while proposed section 8 extends the proposed Act to have an extra-territorial operation.
Part 2-The Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection and the Register
Proposed section 9 establishes a Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection ('the Director'). Under proposed section 10 the functions of the Director would include:
advising the Minister with respect to the accreditation of State and Territory regimes
receiving, and accepting or rejecting, applications for protection
responsibility for the register of applications
taking appropriate action under the legislation when indigenous human remains are reported or delivered
facilitating negotiation or mediation between applicants and other affected persons
assessing the significance of, or threat to, areas and objects which indigenous people are seeking to protect, and to report to the Minister on these assessments, as well as the effect of making a protection order on 'other interests.'
Proposed sections 11-21 deal with the appointment of the Director and the terms and conditions of his or her appointment. The Director is to be appointed by the Minister. There are no conditions laid down for the Minister's choice of appointment and the Director may be appointed on a full-time or part-time basis.(48) The maximum term of appointment is 5 years, with reappointment being possible.(49) Standard conditions apply with respect to the Director's conditions of employment, resignation or termination of appointment. Proposed section 16 provides for the Director to make a disclosure to the Minister of the Director's financial interests and the financial interests of the Director's immediate family. Proposed section 21 would allow the Director to employ consultants 'having suitable qualifications and experience.'
Proposed section 22 & 23 provide for the establishment of a Register of Claims for Protection, which must be made reasonably accessible to the public.
Part 3-Accreditation Procedures
Proposed section 24 provides for the relevant Minister of a State or Territory to write to the Commonwealth Minister asking for accreditation under the proposed Act. There are three distinct areas of accreditation, one for areas, one for objects and one regarding the reporting of indigenous human remains. Proposed section 25 provides that if the Minister is satisfied the State or Territory laws comply with the minimum standards for accreditation then the Minister must declare those laws to be an accredited heritage protection regime with respect to whichever of the three areas have been met. The Minister may seek further particulars and may seek advice from the Director or anyone else s/he considers appropriate.
Proposed section 26 sets out the minimum standards for accreditation. These standards are very general in nature but are crucial because the structure of the Bill places a high degree of significance on whether there is an accredited regime in place. The standards variously relevant to the three areas open for accreditation include the need for the laws in force in a State or Territory to:
provide for the protection of areas and objects that are significant to indigenous persons in terms of their indigenous traditions
recognise that indigenous persons are the primary source of information about the significance to indigenous persons of areas and objects
provide an option for advance approval for an activity in an area to be obtained
promote negotiated outcomes
provide protection for culturally sensitive information disclosed in the course of administering heritage protection legislation
ensure that interested parties are treated fairly, including being given an opportunity to put their views and being able to obtain reasons for decisions
provide effective deterrents to injury or desecration of areas or objects through appropriate offences and penalties
provide for the reporting of findings of indigenous human remains.
If the Minister decides that a heritage protection regime ceases to meet the minimum standards in one of the three areas the Minister must notify the relevant State or Territory Minister and if no response is received or no adequate action taken within 90 days (or longer, as the Minister allows) the Minister can revoke the accreditation (proposed section 28).
Part 4-Applications for Protection
Division 1-The receipt and registration of applications
The first issue dealt with in proposed part 4 is receiving and dealing with applications at a preliminary level. Proposed section 29 would require that, in order for a long-term protection order (LPO) to be made over an area or object, an application must be made in writing to the Director by an indigenous person or their agent. The application must contain various pieces of information, including a description of the significance of the area or object to the applicant, a description of the activity that threatens it and a description of the form of protection sought. The Director is required to enter an application on the Register and notify the Minister (proposed section 30). The Register entry should include the information contained in the application, although there is a capacity to make it more general than in the application, and to protect the identity of the applicant. If there is confidential information included in the application the Director may withhold the information and must state that this has been done and the reasons for it.
An application can be rejected on a number of grounds:
if the applicant has not exhausted the remedies available within the relevant State or Territory (proposed subsection 31(1))
if the applicant fails to supply further information as requested by the Director (and within the time frame specified by the Director) (proposed subsections 31(2) & (3))
if the Minister or the Director are satisfied that the application is vexatious or frivolous (proposed section 32).
If an application is rejected, the Minister or Director must notify the applicant and enter the reasons on the Register.
If an application is not rejected the Director must publish a notice in a newspaper circulating in the region informing the public of the application and inviting any other indigenous person with an interest in the area to lodge an application. If an application is not lodged within 30 days, then any potential applicant is permanently barred from making an application for protection for that area or an overlapping area under the Act (proposed section 33).
Division 2-Dealing with UR applications
The next issue dealt with in this Part deals with UR applications (i.e. applications originating from an un-accredited State or Territory). There is a central requirement that the Director works with the parties concerned in an application to reach 'an agreed outcome' (proposed section 34). This is to be done through the use of negotiation or mediation processes. If the Director decides that negotiation and mediation process have become unworkable the Director must then make a report to the Minister which contains a finding as to whether a site is a significant indigenous area or object for the applicant and whether it is in danger of injury or desecration. It must also explain the proprietary and pecuniary effects (on anyone other than the applicant) of making a protection order and must contain an account of how the information in the Report was collected (proposed section 35). The Report may include any other matter that the Director considers relevant. Proposed section 36 enables the Minister to appoint an independent reviewer to make another report if the Minister is not satisfied the process was adequate or if new information has become available. While the Minister is bound to accept the findings in the Director's report or the independent reviewer's report regarding the question of whether an area or object is significant and under threat of injury or desecration (proposed section 37), the Minister has an unfettered discretion as to whether to make a protection order and can take into account any matter that s/he thinks relevant (proposed section 38).
Division 3-Dealing with AR applications
In the case of applications from an accredited State or Territory (an 'AR application') the Director must refer the application to the Minister who must decide whether to make a protection order on the basis of the 'national interest.' The Minister may be satisfied that the area or object is a significant indigenous area or object under threat of injury or desecration but that, on the face of the application, there is no indication that such an order would be in the national interest. In this case the application would be rejected (proposed subsection 39(2)). The Minister may not make a protection order unless s/he has consulted with the relevant State or Territory Minister regarding the finding of whether an object is significant, whether it is under threat and how these findings were arrived at, as well as information regarding the proprietary or pecuniary interests likely to be affected and the views of the State or Territory on the consequences of a protection order. Once these consultations have occurred it is open for the Minister to treat the findings of the State or Territory regarding the existence of an object or area significant to indigenous persons and under threat of injury or desecration as binding (proposed section 40). Alternatively the Minister may require the Director to make a report concerning one or more of the questions of:
the significance of an area or object to an indigenous applicant
whether or not the area or object is threatened by injury or desecration
the effect of a protection order on any proprietary or pecuniary interests in the area or object concerned.
Under proposed subsection 41(2) the Minister must request such a report unless s/he has opted to be bound by the State or Territory finding on the issue of significance and threat.
Once again the Director may attempt to facilitate an agreed outcome if the Minister asks him or her to do so (proposed section 42), and the Minister may seek a further report from an independent reviewer. The Minister is then bound by either the Director's report or the report of the independent reviewer (proposed section 44).
If the Minister is bound by a report that an object is significant to indigenous persons and that it is under threat of injury or desecration the Ministers can make a long-term protection order provided 'the Minister is satisfied that the making of such an order is in the national interest' (proposed section 45). In making such an order the Minister may take into account the views of the State or Territory, the report of the Director or the report of the independent reviewer and any other matters that the Minister considers relevant.
Division 4-Content, notification and effect of long-term protection orders
The length of a long-term protection order ('an LPO') is not specified in the Bill, rather it 'has effect for such period as is specified in the order.' Proposed section 46 specifies that an LPO must describe the area or object with enough detail to enable identification and must contain provisions relating to the protection and preservation of the area or object. If an LPO is made about indigenous human remains it can include provisions requiring their delivery to appropriate indigenous persons who can accept possession, custody or control or who can give directions about how the remains should be dealt with. If there is no appropriate indigenous person or persons they should be transferred to a 'prescribed authority' for safekeeping (proposed subsection 46(4)). Once a decision about an LPO has been made the Minister must notify the Director, who must enter the details of the decision on the Register and ensure interested parties are notified. An LPO must also be published in the Gazette and in a local newspaper (although failure to do so does not make the order invalid).
Division 5-Negotiation and mediation
The negotiation and mediation processes are important for the operation of the Bill's scheme. The overall scheme provides that agreements arrived at between 'core parties' can be registered and attain the status of a binding contract, thereby excluding further applications under the proposed Act, unless a new threat arises, or a signatory to the agreement breaches it (proposed section 52). If a new application is allowed because of a breach of the agreement the proposed Act would allow the applicant to sue for a breach of contract. Core parties are identified by the Director and include the applicant and any other persons with a direct proprietary or pecuniary interest in the area or object (proposed section 48). When attempting a negotiation or mediation the Director may also involve other parties in the processes as s/he sees fit. The actual process of negotiation and mediation is left for the Director to determine, including the possible appointment of a mediator and the possible need to ensure confidential information is not disclosed inappropriately (proposed subsection 49). If the parties come to an agreement outside of the formal negotiation or mediation process this can be registered too, as long as the Director is satisfied that the core parties s/he would have identified have entered into the agreement (proposed section 54).
The time frame for negotiation or mediation is limited to three months, with the possibility for an extension of another month (the period of time runs from the end of the thirty day period set aside to advertise the initial existence of the application and allow additional applications to be made). In the case of an AR application the Minister can determine a time period for negotiations of less than 3 months (proposed section 50).
During the negotiating period any of the core parties can declare that they will not participate, or alternatively the Director can come to the conclusion that the processes of negotiation and mediation have no prospect of success. In either case the process of negotiation and mediation can be brought to a halt short of the three month period. (In the case of an AR application the Minister makes this decision, and in the case of a UR application the Director makes the decision; proposed section 53).
Division 6-The making of reports
The procedures to be followed by the Director or independent reviewer in preparing reports are laid out in some detail. The Director may choose to adopt a report, or parts of a report, prepared at the State or Territory level when there is an un-accredited regime in place. The Director may accept either the finding regarding the existence of a significant area or object and/or the existence of a threat against it. The Director must then advertise the existence of the application and the likely impact of a protection order, and can ask for input from the community on one of the two issues (of whether there is a significant area or object and the existence of a threat against it), depending on whether the State or Territory report was adopted, and in all cases should ask for representations on the effect of making a long-term protection order on the proprietary or pecuniary interests of people other than the applicants. The Director has a discretion not to advertise the application if s/he thinks it would not be appropriate (proposed subsection 55(3)). In the case of an accredited regime the Director has no discretion regarding advertising the application. An independent reviewer can also advertise inviting representations, or can ask a specified person to put in a submission. The independent reviewer has access to the information collected by the Director and when soliciting submissions should make this clear to people who might make a submission (proposed section 58).
Proposed section 57 recognises that indigenous persons are the primary source of information regarding the significance of areas or objects in terms of indigenous traditions. When making a representation regarding an application people are not entitled to see the application or other representations regarding the application (proposed section 59). The reports by either the Director or the independent reviewer need to include not just information regarding the significance of an area or object and the potential threat, but also the process followed in, and general reasons for, reaching the conclusions. Similarly a finding regarding the proprietary and pecuniary interests of people potentially affected by a protection order needs to have background documentation (proposed section 61).
There are time limits set on the preparation of reports by the Director or the independent reviewer. In the case of reports on UR applications by the Director the period is three months, otherwise the time frame is in the discretion of the Minister (including a capacity to extend the reporting period). Late reports are not rendered invalid (proposed section 60).
Division 7-Emergency protection orders and interim protection orders
The Minister has the capacity to issue emergency protection or interim protection orders ('EPOs' and 'IPOs' respectively). EPOs can be issued on the Minister's initiative or if an application for a long-term protection order has been refused because the applicant has not exhausted the State or Territory remedies (proposed section 62). Before issuing an EPO the Minister must be satisfied that there is a significant indigenous area or object concerned and that it is 'under serious and immediate threat of injury or desecration.' In the case of a State or Territory with an accredited regime there is an additional requirement that the Minister considers that protection of the area may be in the 'national interest.' Similarly the Minister can issue an IPO if an application for a long-term protection order has been made but proceedings have not been completed. Similarly the Minister must be satisfied that the application establishes that there is a significant indigenous area or object concerned and it is under serious threat of injury or desecration, and, in the case of an accredited regime, it must be in the national interest.
If the Minister has given notice that the State or Territory regime no longer satisfy the minimum requirements for an accredited regime then, in the case of an EPO or an IPO, the restriction on granting the orders to cases where the national interest might be at stake is lifted (proposed subsections 62(4) & 63(3)).
An EPO can be issued for 7 days, a period which can be renewed for another 7 days as often as the Minister thinks appropriate. In the case of an EPO where the State or Territory remedies have not been exhausted, the Minister can make a determination as to how long the EPO is to function for, and can extend this period if s/he is satisfied that the remedies have still not been exhausted.
An IPO can be issued for an initial period specified in the order, although there is a limit of four months. This can be extended first for an additional three months, and after that for on-going periods of one month at a time.
Both an EPO and an IPO must specify the area or object sufficiently for identification purposes and must have provisions relating to the protection and preservation of the area or object.
Proposed section 64 requires the Minister to give notice of the order to people affected by it, including publishing an IPO in the Gazette and in a local newspaper.
Division 8-Multiple applications
There are provisions made for dealing with a number of applications over a particular area or object. In the case of negotiation and mediation processes the applications are treated as one application, and all applicants become core parties (proposed section 65). If the applications are for overlapping areas, the areas are amalgamated and considered as one.
If a negotiated outcome fails and the Minister must consider making an order then, when there is more than one application, s/he is required to make one single order over the area or object, despite the fact that different reports are to be prepared in relation to each application.
Part 5-Miscellaneous provisions
Division 1-Indigenous human remains
When there is no accredited regime in place regarding indigenous human remains proposed section 67 imposes a strict liability offence for a failure to report the discovery of such remains. There is an exception if it would be contrary to a person's indigenous traditions to report the remains. When indigenous human remains are delivered to the Director, s/he must give them to appropriate indigenous persons, or a 'prescribed authority' (proposed section 68).
Division 2-Offences
There is a penalty of up to five years for violating a protection order over an area, and two years for an object. In the case of these penalties there is no liability if there is evidence the person violating the protection order did not know there was a protection order in force. This is an unusual provision in that, generally speaking, ignorance of the law is not accepted as a defence to a criminal charge.
Division 3-Administrative review of certain decisions
There is provision made for the administrative review of decisions to reject applications on the grounds that they are vexatious or frivolous.
Division 4-Power of courts and of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal etc
There are various provisions designed to give some measure of protection to the confidentiality of indigenous information in court proceedings under the proposed Act. In making decisions on confidentiality the court or Tribunal must take into account not only the interests of indigenous traditions but also 'any relevant commercial interests' (proposed section 73). An immunity from a requirement to disclose information can be granted to the person holding the information, although if, on balance, there is a public interest in the 'administration of justice' favouring disclosure which outweighs the public interest in protecting the information, disclosure can still be ordered. The Commonwealth Minister can apply for an injunction if there is a danger that a protection order may be violated (proposed section 75).
Division 5-Other matters
Long-term protection orders and declarations about the status of a State or Territory as an accredited regime (or not) are disallowable instruments under proposed section 77. There are also provisions which will prevent them from being treated as legislative instruments.
Proposed section 78 would prevent the proposed Act from breaching the Constitutional requirement for just terms for an acquisition of property. A person who has had, in effect, their property acquired can apply to the Federal Court for the recovery of compensation.
Provision is also made for applicants, or for anyone affected by a decision under the proposed Act, including anyone who may be the subject of an injunction to prevent them from violating a protection order, to apply to the Attorney-General for legal or financial assistance.
Schedule 1-Repeal of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, and related saving and transitional provisions
Rather than simply repealing the whole of the current Act, in item 2 the Bill saves the provisions regarding Victoria, which has a particular Part of the current Act devoted to it. (The Commonwealth passed this Victorian-specific addition to its own legislation when the then State Opposition blocked the Victorian Government's legislation in the upper house in 1984.)
Items 3 & 4 in this schedule deal with declarations or applications that may have already been made under the current Act. These will continue to function as if the current Act continued in force unless convenience dictates otherwise in the case of recent applications.
Schedule 2-Amendment of the Archives Act 1983 and the Freedom of Information Act 1982
This schedule is designed to ensure the confidentiality of documents generated under the proposed Act. Items 1 & 2 make amendments to the Archives Act 1983 ('the Archives Act') which would ensure that such documents which may be archived are exempt from various requirements in the Archives Act, such as the right of public access to Commonwealth records in Part V. Items 3-9 are consequential amendments. Similarly, item 10 would exempt documents generated under the proposed Act from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and items 11-19 are consequential amendments.
Apart from the general differences between the recommendations of the Evatt Review and the provisions of the Bill mentioned in the Background of this Digest there are a few other specific issues which have been commented upon.
The decision to give the Minister an unfettered discretion when appointing the Director of Indigenous Heritage Protection is likely to be the subject of some controversy. Similar appointments in comparable legislation are usually made through the Governor-General, giving the appointments a degree of significance, and possibly a degree of distance from the immediacy of appointment through the Minister. Thus the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and other human rights commissioners are appointed by the Governor-General, as are appointments to comparable positions under the:
Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1973(50)
Australian War Memorial Act 1980(51)
War Graves Act 1980(52)
Australian National Maritime Museum Act 1990(53)
National Gallery Act 1975(54)
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975(55) and
the National Museum of Australia Act 1980(56)
The decision to give no legislative indication regarding the desirable qualifications or experience of a potential Director has been the subject of some criticism. The Director of the Indigenous Law Centre, Mr Mick Dodson, has already suggested that the position should be made subject to the same sort of considerations that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner's appointment was subject to. While that position did not require the occupant to be indigenous, it did require that:
[a] person is not qualified to be appointed unless the Governor-General is satisfied that the person has significant experience in community life of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders.(57)
In evidence to the Joint Committee Senator Herron said that:
we did not think the bill should specify narrow, mandatory qualifications, because it remains to be seen who is available and what their expertise is, et cetera. It is in everyone's interests for the government to appoint an appropriately qualified person as director, but we do not know who is available. We feel that, because of that, we should not specify mandatory requirements-whether they should have a degree in anthropology, for example, or whether they should be indigenous or not. It may well be that they are not indigenous but, of course, the director will need to have an appropriate understanding of the cultural requirements and be culturally sensitive in relation to indigenous affairs.(58)
The majority report of the Joint Committee endorsed Mr Dodson's suggestion.(59)
The question of what constitutes 'tradition' has also been the subject of some comment. Indigenous organisations have pointed out that the definition used in the Bill (in part indigenous tradition is defined as 'the body of traditions, observances, customs and beliefs of indigenous persons generally or of a particular community or group of indigenous persons...')(60) does not conform fully with the Evatt Review's recommendations. The Review says that:
[the] definition should extend to areas and objects of significance to Aboriginal people in accordance with tradition, including traditions which have evolved from past traditions. It should also extend expressly to historic and archaeological sites.
The Bill does not make explicit reference to historic or archaeological sites, and the Indigenous Land Corporation have commented that:
There is no requirement for the accredited regimes to recognise the evolution of tradition. ... There is clearly a need for this in the light of the narrow interpretations that have been given to "tradition" in the recent past.(61)
The National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Catholic Council picked up the same point, commenting that the Bill does not allow 'for the continuing evolving nature of our culture.'(62) ATSIC recommend that the definition of indigenous tradition be extended to explicitly state that tradition is dynamic and evolves over time.(63)
A procedural issue that has been raised regarding the Bill is that it would only allow applications for protection orders to be made orally in the case of emergency protection orders.(64) In other instances the application must be in writing. This contravenes the Evatt Review's recommendation that:
Applications should be able to be made easily. A valid application is one that is 'made orally or in writing by or on behalf of an Aboriginal or a group of Aboriginals seeking the preservation or protection of a specified area from injury or desecration'.(65)
Another procedural issue regards reasons for decisions. Both Ms Evatt's submission to the Joint Committee and its 12th Report make the point that the Bill does not clearly require written reasons to be given by the Minister when s/he makes a decision under the proposed Act regarding protection orders. Given that proposed section 77 would make these declarations disallowable instruments it is important that reasons be supplied in order for the Parliament to be able to give the issues appropriate consideration. This principle is outlined in the 11th Report, which recommended that:
Where the Commonwealth Minister takes decisions under the last resort function, the reasons for the decision be required to be published at the same time that the actual determination is tabled.(66)
During the debate on the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 Senator Minchin, the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister, commented that: 'We obviously support heritage protection. Many Liberal governments have enacted heritage legislation.' Hansard, 3 December 1997, p. 10222. Members of the ALP, minority parties, and independents have made numerous statements in support of heritage protection, both during the Native Title debates and, for instance, in the dissenting reports of the Joint Committee on Native Title.
See, for instance, the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation's home page at
http://www.austlii.edu.au/car/
Mabo v State of Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1.
The Aboriginal Peace Plan presented to Prime Minister Keating on 27 April 1993
See Recognition, Rights and Reform, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Going Forward, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation and Towards Social Justice? From the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and the Office of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commission, 1994. See generally Noble Salvage: Aboriginal Heritage Protection and the Evatt Review, by Russell Goldflam, Aboriginal Law Bulletin vol 3, No 88, January 1997.
Eleventh Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, April 1998 (hereafter the 11th Report).
Twelfth Report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, May 1998 (hereafter the 12th Report).
As the second reading speech puts it: 'There is common agreement on the need for reform.' House of Representatives, Official Hansard, 2 April 1998, 2416.
Evatt, E, Review of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, 1996, p. 36 (hereafter 'the Evatt Review'). The legislative framework includes both the State and Territory legislation in the area and, to varying degrees, The Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 (Cth), The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 (Cth), The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), The Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986 (Cth), The Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 (Cth) and The National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1975 (Cth).
Evatt Review, 42.
Evatt Review, xv.
Recommendation 5 and Recommendations 2 and 9, respectively.
11th Report, Recommendation 9, pp. X and 104 and 12th Report, p. 16 and 17, and p. 24.
12th Report, 16 and 17.
UN General Assembly 16 December 1966, ratified by Australia on 13 August 1980.
UN General Assembly 16 December 1966, ratified by Australia in 1975.
Articles 1(1) and (3). See also ICCPR article 1.
UN General Assembly, 19 December 1966; ratified by Australia on 30 September 1975.
Ratified by Australia in 1974.
Another international document which could be relevant is the Working Group on Indigenous Peoples' Rights Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UN E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/2/Add.1 (1994).
See for example Goldflam, R. Noble Salvage: Aboriginal Heritage Protection and the Evatt Review, Aboriginal Law Bulletin vol 3, No 88, January 1997, p. 4, and the Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund by Mr Steve Palyga, the solicitor for the developer in the Hindmarsh Island affair, Submission No HA1.
11th Report, 5.
In correspondence to the Joint Committee, 11th Report, 3.
Appendix 7 of the 11th Report.
See for instance...ATSIC Submission No HA11(a), Indigenous Law Centre oral advice to the Committee from Prof Garth Nettheim and Mr Mick Dodson, Indigenous Land Corporation, South Australia, Mr David Ross, Submission No HA6(a).
House of Representatives, Official Hansard, 2 April 1998, 2419.
ATSIC submission to the Joint Committee, No HA11(a), 15.
Submission No HA38 to the Joint Committee, 5.
12th Report, 18.
'Heritage Protection Bill another attack on existing rights,' Media Release, 2 April 1998.
Reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, 7th May, 1998.
12th Report, p. 104.
ATSIC Submission No HA11(a), 21.
Evatt Review, Recommendation 11.16.
Evatt Review, Recommendation 6.3.
Submission to the Joint Committee, No HA38, 10.
12th Report, p. 19.
ATSIC 'Heritage Protection Bill another attack on existing rights,' Media Release, 2 April 1998.
Senator Nick Minchin, Senate, Official Hansard, 3 December 1997, 10221.
Evatt Review, 26 and 27.
11th Report, Minority Report, 1.
Submission No. HA25(a), by Ms Zita Antonios, Acting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 8.
It should be noted that the Bill confines itself to self-governing Territories when referring to a Territory. For ease of reference this Bills Digest refers to self-governing Territories simply as a Territory. Jervis Bay Territory and external Territories are not to be regarded as having an accredited protection regime according to proposed section 28.
Proposed section 11.
Sections 10 and 20.
Section 13. It should be noted that not all legislative schemes are comparable and certainly not all comparable appointments are made through the Governor-General. The Australian Trade Commission Act 1985 has the Minister appoint the Managing Director (on the recommendation of the Board), the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Director is also appointed by the relevant Minister on the recommendation of the Institute, while the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 has an advisory committee, the Chairperson of which is appointed by the Minister.
man Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, section 46B.
Evidence, NT134.
Proposed section 5.
Submission to the Joint Committee, No. HA6(a) by Mr David Ross, Chairman, Indigenous Land Corporation, 6.
Submission No. HA37, 1.
Mr Mick Dodson, oral evidence to the Joint Committee, NT202.
Recommendation 10.23.
11th Report, x.
Kirsty Magarey
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the paper is written using information publicly available at the time of production. The views expressed are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services (IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, 1998.


text:
Informação 2 foi o telejornal de horário nobre da RTP2, que estreou em 1978 e terminou em 1982 e um dos símbolos da então recém-autonomizada RTP2. Jornalistas como Joaquim Letria, Carlos Pinto Coelho, José Júdice, Dina Aguiar, Hernâni Santos ou Henrique Garcia apresentaram este programa da Direcção de Informação da RTP.

Este serviço noticioso surgiu aquando a remodelação da RTP2 em 1978, que até então era apenas um retransmissor da RTP1. Foi também o primeiro telejornal da RTP2.

A equipa do Informação 2 queria fazer uma informação menos comprometida com o poder, e contava nas suas fileiras com nomes como os de Carlos Pinto Coelho, José Júdice ou Joaquim Letria.

Este boletim informativo foi cancelado por razões políticas.

História
Desde criação da RTP2 em 1968 que sempre se procurou tornar esta uma alternativa para a RTP1, mas só depois do 25 de Abril é que se procurou autonomizar o canal. Esse objetivo seria alcançado em outubro de 1978, após João Soares Louro assumir a presidência da RTP e estabelecer uma estratégia que, mais tarde, sintetizará da seguinte forma: "Levar até às últimas consequências a concorrência entre o primeiro e o segundo canal", seguindo o princípio de que, em televisão "não há um, mas vários públicos". Separa as direcções de programas dos dois canais e incumbe Fernando Lopes de fazer da RTP2 um canal alternativo. Na Informação, a delimitação de campos entre os dois canais era uma realidade: redacções separadas, uma equipa de cada canal para cobrir o mesmo acontecimento.

Assim, aquando da rentrée televisiva e da estreia da grelha de programação da nova RTP2 estreiam programas de informação como o Informação 2, de segunda a sexta e magazines de actualidades ao fim-de-semana (Cartas na Mesa, aos sábados e A Par e Passo, ao domingo), que introduziram uma ruptura com a concepção informativa existente. Para assinalar a sua componente explicativa e analítica, este telejornal consistia em abordar os assuntos mais importantes do dia e aprofundá-los, privilegiando aqueles "que iam ao encontro das necessidades das pessoas", como a actualidade internacional, bem como problemáticas sociais (saúde, educação, vida sindical), coisa que nenhum telejornal da RTP1 abordava. A dada altura, tornou-se frequente a presença de convidados em estúdio, para melhor explicar ao telespectador alguns dos temas falados, o que marcou também uma ruptura com os padrões vigentes.

Nomes como António Mega Ferreira, José Júdice, Dina Aguiar, Joaquim Furtado, Henrique Garcia, José Rocha Vieira, Luís Pinto Enes ou Gualdino Paredes formavam a equipa deste noticiário. António Mega Ferreira e José Júdice alternavam na função de "pivot" do telejornal que ia para o ar, diariamente às 22h00.

Uma das componentes mais originais do Informação 2 era a ligação que fazia entre a informação e a restante programação do canal. Um dos exemplos mais célebres foi durante a exibição da minissérie "Holocausto", que foi acompanhada por um intenso trabalho jornalístico da redação de informação da RTP2. A partir desta série sobre o genocídio dos judeus na Segunda Guerra Mundial, foi para o ar, no dia 1 de março de 1979, um especial de informação moderado por António Mega Ferreira, contando com a presença de Orlando Neves (crítico de televisão), Ferreira de Almeida (psicólogo) e Erich Brotheim (austríaco fugido em 1938).

Também foram transmitidos momentos de maior solenidade, como o do falecimento de Agostinho Neto, em 11 de setembro de 1979. O Informação 2 fez um especial de uma hora, que terminou com Manuel Alegre a declamar poemas do antigo Presidente angolano. As más condições logísticas e de equipamento não são esquecidas.

O epílogo de Informação 2 começa com a ascensão ao poder da Aliança Democrática, liderada por Francisco Sá Carneiro, no final de 1979 aquando as eleições legislativas. O estilo do programa era cada vez menos bem visto pelo governo de Sá Carneiro. Na verdade, a Informação 2, criou desde o início atritos com o meio político, e eram acusados de ser o "canal vermelho". Victor Cunha Rego substitui João Soares Louro à frente da RTP e sustenta que a estação "é um aparelho ideológico do Estado". A consequência foi a suspensão do noticiário a 20 de outubro de 1980 e a transferência de uma grande parte da equipa do noticiário para o recém-criado Gabinete de Projectos Especiais. A "certidão de óbito" de Informação 2 é passada por Proença de Carvalho, no início de 1981, poucos meses depois de assumir os destinos da RTP. Justificou, anos mais tarde, a decisão pelo carácter "demasiado 'engagé' e esquerdista" do programa e por considerar que a independência informativa não se encontrava nos moldes de uma televisão pública. No entanto, Informação 2 manteve em antena até 1982, com o mesmo nome, mas num registo diferente dos moldes iniciais. Para Henrique Garcia e outros jornalistas da equipa, a Informação 2 acabou por "motivos políticos", dado que "questionava o estado das coisas e isso custou-lhe caro".

O estilo de informação da Informação 2 ainda hoje está assente no Jornal 2, o atual bloco informativo da RTP2, que continua a ser diferente do da RTP1.

Apresentadores
 António Mega Ferreira
 José Júdice
 Joaquim Letria
 Carlos Pinto Coelho
 Dina Aguiar
 Henrique Garcia

Programas da RTP2
Telejornais de Portugal
Programas de televisão de Portugal que estrearam em 1978
Programas de televisão de Portugal encerrados em 1982
1978 na televisão em Portugal
1979 na televisão em Portugal
1980 na televisão em Portugal
1981 na televisão em Portugal
1982 na televisão em Portugal
Programas de televisão em língua portuguesa

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Georgia juggling COVID-19 vaccine supply, demand
Georgia Tech's Savannah campus to offer introductory on-set film production class
Dem leads Kentucky governor's race that is too close to call
by: BRUCE SCHREINER, Associated Press
FILE – In this Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019 file photo, Republican Gov. Matt Bevin, left, and Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear participate in a debate, in Lexington, Ky. Kentucky's political grudge match between Republican Gov. Matt Bevin and Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear now lies in the hands of the voters. (Ryan C. Hermens/Lexington Herald-Leader via AP, Pool)
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The hotly contested governor's race in Kentucky was too close to call Tuesday night, with Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear holding a narrow lead — and declaring victory — over Republican Gov. Matt Bevin.
With 100% of precincts reporting, the tenacious Beshear — son of the state's last Democratic governor, Steve Beshear — had a lead of 5,333 votes out of more than 1.4 million counted, or a margin of nearly 0.4 percentage points.
The bitter rivals gave competing speeches in which Beshear claimed victory while Bevin refused to concede.
"My expectation is that he (Bevin) will honor the election that was held tonight," Beshear said. "That he will help us make this transition. And I'll tell you what, we will be ready for that first day in office, and I look forward to it."
Bevin called it a "close, close race" and said he wasn't conceding "by any stretch."
"We want the process to be followed, and there is a process," he said.
Bevin hinted that there might be "irregularities" to look into but didn't offer specifics.
There is no mandatory recount law in Kentucky. Bevin may request counties recanvass their results, which is not a recount, but rather a check of the vote count to ensure the results were added correctly. Bevin would need to seek and win a court's approval for a recount.
The final hours of campaigning were overshadowed by the endorsement Bevin received from President Donald Trump. Through a spokesman, the president gave himself credit for helping the incumbent governor.
"The president just about dragged Gov. Matt Bevin across the finish line, helping him run stronger than expected in what turned into a very close race at the end," Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. "A final outcome remains to be seen."
Trump had loomed large in the race as Bevin stressed his alliance with the Republican president in TV ads, tweets and speeches. Trump carried Kentucky by a landslide in winning the presidency in 2016 and remains popular in the state. The president took center stage in the campaign with his Monday night rally in Lexington to energize his supporters to head to the polls for his fellow Republican.
The combative Bevin had been struggling to overcome a series of self-inflicted wounds, highlighted by a running feud with teachers who opposed his efforts to revamp the state's woefully underfunded public pension systems.
The political grudge match between Bevin and Beshear stretched into Tuesday night.
Beshear dominated in the state's urban areas in Louisville and Lexington and won some traditionally Republican suburban counties in the state's northernmost tip, just south of Cincinnati, to offset Bevin's strength in rural areas. Beshear also made inroads in the eastern Kentucky coalfields, winning several counties in a region where Trump is highly popular.
Beshear maintained his focus throughout the race on "kitchen table" issues like health care and education to blunt Bevin's efforts to hitch himself to Trump and nationalize the race. He exploited Bevin's feud with teachers over pensions and education issues, which resonated with voters.
School bus driver Conley McCracken said earlier Tuesday that he voted for Bevin the first time. But school issues turned him away from the Republican.
"He's trying to keep retirement away from a lot of the teachers and school employees and things of that nature," the 68-year-old McCracken said.
Trump's support of Bevin wasn't enough to get McCracken's vote a second time around.
"I don't like the way he's doing, so I changed my mind," McCracken said.
On the campaign trail, Beshear said he wants to legalize casino gambling, proposing to use that revenue to support public pensions. He also emphasized public education, proposing a $2,000 across-the-board pay raise for public school teachers and vowing to submit "an education-first budget" to lawmakers.
Calling health care a "basic human right," Beshear supports inserting the federal Affordable Care Act's consumer protections into state law. He also vowed to rescind Bevin's efforts to require some "able-bodied" Medicaid recipients to get a job, go to school or volunteer to keep their benefits. Beshear, whose father set federal health care reform into motion in Kentucky when he was governor, said at least 95,000 people would lose coverage if Bevin's work requirements became law. A federal judge blocked the work requirements, and Bevin's administration is appealing.
The race's result could reverberate far beyond Kentucky. The fierce contest was being watched closely for early signs of how the increasingly partisan impeachment furor in Washington might affect Trump and other Republican incumbents in 2020. Among those with an especially keen interest: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who's on the ballot himself next year in Kentucky.
Three soldiers killed in upstate NY military helicopter crash
Joe Biden sworn in as 46th president, Kamala Harris becomes first female vice president

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


As Hurricane Joaquin works its way toward the United States' East Coast, Service Objects has made every effort to ensure its services will remain available and performance will not be affected.
Our newly launched East Coast data center in New Jersey has activated standard contingency controls as a precautionary measure. Support resources have been placed in neighboring facilities. Facility staff will be available and onsite for the duration of the storm. Precautionary backup generators have been put in place that can run for over 72 hours in case of power outages and fuel trucks on are on site as a standby.
In the slight case that our East Coast data center is affected by the storm, Service Objects has three other data centers located in the United States; in Southern California, Northern California, and in the Midwest. These data centers are live and ready to provide any additional resources required to ensure our customers experience no interruption in service.
As always, security, uptime and data integrity are our highest priority and that's why we offer a 99.995% server uptime guarantee with multiple, redundant datacenters that ensure your service is never compromised.


Aircraft are required to meet the environmental certification standards adopted by the Council of ICAO. These are contained in Annex 16 (Environmental Protection) to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. This Annex at present consists of two volumes, viz., Volume I: Aircraft Noise and Volume II: Aircraft Engine Emissions. These certification Standards have been designed and are kept up to date in order to respond to concerns regarding environmental impact of aviation on communities in the vicinity of airports as well as society at large.
More recently, ICAO, under the CAEP process, has undertaken an effort to establish medium and long-term environmental goals relating to three types of technologies, viz., noise, NOx, and fuel burn. In addition, assessments of environmental improvements expected from operational initiatives in the medium and long term are also underway. This process is being led by panels of independent experts to ensure transparency and involvement from all stakeholders. The purpose of this goal setting exercise is to provide stretch yet reasonable targets for industry R&D to aim at in cooperation with States.
In October 2010 the 37th Assembly (Resolution A37-19) requested the development of an ICAO CO2 Emissions Standard.On 11 July 2012, global aviation moved an important step closer to establishing the worldwide Aircraft CO2 Emissions Standard when the CAEP reached a unanimous agreement on a CO2 metric system to underpin the CO2 Standard. For more details see this ICAO fact sheet: "Aircraft CO2 Emissions Standard metric system".
Aircraft are required to meet the engine certification standards adopted by the Council of ICAO. These are contained in Annex 16 – Environmental Protection, Volume II – Aircraft Engine Emissions to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. These were originally designed to respond to concerns regarding air quality in the vicinity of airports. As a consequence, they establish limits for emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx, carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, for a reference landing and take-off (LTO) cycle below 915 metres of altitude (3000 ft). There are also provisions regarding smoke and vented fuel.
While these standards are based on an aircraft's LTO cycle, they also help to limit emissions at altitude. Of particular relevance is the Standard for NOx, a precursor for ozone, which at altitude is a greenhouse gas. The standard for NOx was first adopted in 1981, then made more stringent in 1993, 1999, and 2005. Most recently, the eight meeting of CAEP (CAEP/8) in February 2010 agreed on a new NOx Standard, which improves on the current Standard by up to 15 per cent with an effective date of 31 December 2013, as well as a production cut-off of engines according to the current Standard with an effective date of 31 December 2012.The ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Data Bank (Doc 9646), issued in 1995, contains a comprehensive database of aircraft jet engine emissions certification data. Subsequent updates of the data bank are available through the ICAO website.
Regarding particulate matter (PM) emissions, CAEP/8 agreed to focus on non-volatile PM since the science is more advanced in this area, compared to volatile PM. Establishment of a certification requirement is targeted by 2013 and a certification Standard by 2016.
Similarly, a workshop to consolidate the knowledge base for fuel burn improvements through weight reduction, aerodynamic improvement, engine fuel efficiency improvement, and aircraft system optimization was conducted in 2009 and a follow-on review was conducted in May 2010. A report of these reviews and workshop and the resultant medium and long term goals for fuel burn reduction technologies will be presented to the CAEP/9 meeting in 2013.
Much of ICAO's effort to address aircraft noise over the past 40 years has been aimed at reducing noise at source. Aeroplanes and helicopters built today are required to meet the noise certification standards adopted by the Council of ICAO. These are contained in Annex 16 — Environmental Protection, Volume I — Aircraft Noise to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, while practical guidance to certificating authorities on implementation of the technical procedures of Annex 16 is contained in the Environmental Technical Manual on the use of Procedures in the Noise Certification of Aircraft (Doc 9501).
The first generation of jet-powered aeroplanes was not covered by Annex 16 and these are consequently referred to as non-noise certificated (NNC) aeroplanes (e.g. Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8). The initial standards for jet-powered aircraft designed before 1977 were included in Chapter 2 of Annex 16. The Boeing 727 and the Douglas DC-9 are examples of aircraft covered by Chapter 2. Subsequently, newer aircraft were required to meet the stricter standards contained in Chapter 3 of the Annex. The Boeing 737-300/400, Boeing 767 and Airbus A319 are examples of "Chapter 3" aircraft types. In June 2001, on the basis of recommendations made by the fifth meeting of the Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection (CAEP/5), the Council adopted a new Chapter 4 noise standard, more stringent than that contained in Chapter 3. Starting 1 January 2006, the new standard became applicable to newly certificated aeroplanes and to Chapter 3 aeroplanes for which re-certification to Chapter 4 is requested. Most recently, CAEP/8 in February 2010 requested the noise technical group to review and analyze certification noise levels for subsonic jet and heavy propeller driven-driven aeroplanes and, based on the analysis, develop a range of increased stringency options. This analysis will be considered at the CAEP/9 meeting in 2013.
When compared to a baseline of today's aircraft, the goals show more promise of noise reduction for larger aircraft because of a broader scope of technologies that can be applied to such aircraft.


text:
The 20 Best Billie Eilish Quotes That Apply To Business
ByDana Hanson Posted on June 13, 2020 June 12, 2020 Updated on June 12, 2020
Billie Eilish is a teen who has become an iconic star in the pop music industry. Her songs have inspired a lot of people and her heartfelt lyrics have shown such great depth of feeling and wisdom that she has been recognized for her amazing writing talent. Her words pack a tremendous impact on a lot of social issues but they can also apply to the business world. Here are the 20 best Billie Eilish quotes that apply to business for your consideration.
1 20. "You're italic, I'm in bold"
2 19. "Call me friend but keep me closer"
3 18. "There are still people who are afraid of successful women, and that's so lame."
4 17. "Sometimes it's flattering when people copy you, but sometimes it gets to a breaking point."
5 16. "There are always going to be bad things. But you can write it down and make a song out of it."
6 15. "I find a lot of inspiration through visuals"
7 14. "I'm really a particular person, I want it my way."
8 13. "If I'm in a bad mood, or if I'm uncomfortable, it's probably what I'm wearing that's making me feel that way."
9 12. "You can write a song about being in love with someone, but you don't have to be in love with anyone."
10 11. "When I write, I try to become different characters."
11 10. "Time is kind of an amazing thing because you can do so much with it. I think people underestimate time… I don't want to just sit on my phone for hours."
12 9. "I have so many designs and video ideas and lyrics in my head, so I always try to be productive."
13 8. "If you write in the same way over and over again, like, in the same place with the same techniques and with the same people, you're sort of writing the same song over and over again."
14 7. "Words are more powerful than some noises."
15 6. I don't really get nervous that much, or if I do, only I know. It's all inside me. I am good at hiding everything.
16 5. " It's really fun to put yourself into a character – into shoes you wouldn't normally be in."
17 4. "I had a period in my life where I decided that I would never be bored again and that, if I had any free time at all, I would make plans, and I would always be doing things. It actually was great for a year or so, but then I lost all of my friends."
18 3. "Wait a minute, let me finish"
19 2. "Standing there, killing time, can't commit to anything but a crime"
20 1. "Make the same mistakes, blame circumstance"
20. "You're italic, I'm in bold"
This is a quote that is really powerful when you stop to consider its implications. Both italic and bold are fonts that set words apart from the crowd in business. They denote importance but in very different ways. When you apply this quote to business you could take it to mean that we're all very special and unique in our own way, and this is probably a very good thing. Each of us brings our diverse talents to the fore and when it comes to problem-solving, it offers more points of view for finding better solutions.
19. "Call me friend but keep me closer"
Eilish meant this in a romantic way, but this statement does have implications in business. Taken out of the romantic context, colleagues who work together form a team and team members who remain close can accomplish much more than those who attempt to do everything independently.
18. "There are still people who are afraid of successful women, and that's so lame."
This statement is entirely true and it stands just as it is. There are some people who are afraid of women in business who are successful. It's an outdated mode of thought that is biased, but it is still a problem in the workforce and there are a lot of women who endure this bias against females in the business world. There are a lot of women who still get passed over for promotions that they are well qualified for by virtue of their gender.
17. "Sometimes it's flattering when people copy you, but sometimes it gets to a breaking point."
In business, there are a lot of young entrepreneurs who emulate a famous businessperson who has achieved remarkable success. While it's a great idea to learn what you can from them, it's not good to try to be just like anyone else. You are unique and your ideas, even if outside the box, could end up making you very successful. It's important to know who you are inside and to be that person instead of trying to become just like someone else. A little originality can go a long way.
16. "There are always going to be bad things. But you can write it down and make a song out of it."
We can't stop all bad things from happening in business, but we can make the best of bad circumstances. Eilish is recognizing the fact that not everything goes according to plan, or the way that we think it should. Instead of letting it cause us to give up, we can adopt a positive attitude and acknowledge the loss then move on to better things instead of dwelling on the negative.
15. "I find a lot of inspiration through visuals"
Visual inspiration is an important concept in almost any business setting. Since there are a lot of people who are visual learners, it pays to know how to use them to train others, to educate, to advertise goods and services, and more. Visuals include advertisements, training tools, the stationary we use in our business correspondence, our brochures, business cards, and almost everything else pertaining to business that you can see with your eyes.
14. "I'm really a particular person, I want it my way."
Ther are a lot of people in the business world who feel this way. If it's the owner of a company or a lead executive, it's great when their way makes everyone else feel important and fairly treated. When it goes the other way this becomes a huge problem. Sometimes we need to learn to let up and not always insist on having things our own way. Collaboration can make a workplace a much more pleasant and productive place to be.
13. "If I'm in a bad mood, or if I'm uncomfortable, it's probably what I'm wearing that's making me feel that way."
Most of us have heard the expression "Clothes make the man(or woman)." When you're at the office and you discover that you're underdressed it can affect the way you feel about yourself and also the way that you interact with others. This is why many companies have dress codes that are enforced. To feel your best on the job, it's always important to look sharp, professional, and to truly look your best.
12. "You can write a song about being in love with someone, but you don't have to be in love with anyone."
What this means when applied to business, is that you can write about something, or talk about something without having experienced it. If you have the knowledge and education along with verified facts, you can take about something without having gone through it yourself. You can be honest about this without insinuating that you've done something that you haven't. You don't have to cut your hand off to become an expert on amputation processes. If you're a surgeon, you can talk about your knowledge on the subject and even teach others effectively and with authority.
11. "When I write, I try to become different characters."
There are times in the business world when we adopt a persona that is not our own. This is not to be mistaken with being phony, it is simply a business persona. For example, when you're the boss at work, you need to act like an authority figure, but when you go home to your spouse, that doesn't really work in the home environment. If you have to step in to fill in for a marketer, you adopt the persona of a salesperson, even though you might really be in accounting. There are a lot of times when we need to take on a different persona to get the job done.
10. "Time is kind of an amazing thing because you can do so much with it. I think people underestimate time… I don't want to just sit on my phone for hours."
This is an amazing admonition not to waste time. Those who spend a lot of time talking on the phone, to gossiping in a corner lose valuable time that they could be getting projects done in the workplace. We all need to value our time and use in wisely in a business setting.
9. "I have so many designs and video ideas and lyrics in my head, so I always try to be productive."
Billie Eilish has the right idea when it comes to taking your great ideas and turning them into something positive. It's good to be productive in business. If every member of a company had this attitude, a lot more would get done in some settings.
8. "If you write in the same way over and over again, like, in the same place with the same techniques and with the same people, you're sort of writing the same song over and over again."
This is Billie's way of saying that it's not good to get stuck in a rut. It's better to try new things and to let your imagination take you in different directions. Creativity should be fostered instead of doing the same thing over and over again. You're only going to get the same results.
7. "Words are more powerful than some noises."
Although this statement is about music, it also applies to business. Words are very powerful when you're interacting with people. This includes the people you work with, your superiors, your customers, your family, and the stranger down the road. Words can help to earn respect or they can make a person not trust you. We are more often judged by the things that we say so it's important to choose our words carefully so we get across our intended meaning.
6. I don't really get nervous that much, or if I do, only I know. It's all inside me. I am good at hiding everything.
Sometimes we need to be really good at hiding how we really feel in the business world. This is especially true when dealing with someone that intimidates you or makes you nervous. For example, if you have to try to sell an idea to the board, you will be more effective if you are positive. If you're nervous, and you let it show, you could appear to not be confident in support of your ideas and it may sabotage your presentation. We all get nervous from time to time but there are magic moments when we need to conceal these emotions and move forward boldly.
5. " It's really fun to put yourself into a character – into shoes you wouldn't normally be in."
In the business world, there are times when it's fun and even therapeutic to change things up a little. It's also good to stretch your wings so you can sharpen weak skills. Sometimes it's beneficial to volunteer for an assignment that you wouldn't ordinarily have accepted, just to broaden your perspective and take on a new challenge. You might find that you're really good at it and it could even signal a future career path.
4. "I had a period in my life where I decided that I would never be bored again and that, if I had any free time at all, I would make plans, and I would always be doing things. It actually was great for a year or so, but then I lost all of my friends."
Not everyone will follow you when you take chances in business. If you know that it's time to move on to pursue other interests and opportunities, you might lose a few friends in the process. This is just a part of life in the business world and moving on can be tough, but when you're bored at your current job, that's a good sign that it's time for a fresh new adventure.
3. "Wait a minute, let me finish"
Interruptions are rude and annoying. Most of us have had to deal with people who constantly interrupt us in the business world. There are times when you just have to take the floor back, when it's your turn to speak and tell them "Wait a minute, let me finish."
2. "Standing there, killing time, can't commit to anything but a crime"
Killing time instead of committing whole-heartedly to a project slows productivity and it can derail a team. There are some workers who can't seem to stay focused on a job. They're always distracted and if there isn't a distraction going on at the time, they'll create one. These are unproductive workers and the issue needs to be addressed swiftly because it's an evil that can spread to others quickly. Every business is affected by workers who are not committed and prefer to spend their time doing meaningless things on the job.
1. "Make the same mistakes, blame circumstance"
We've all worked with someone who keeps making the same mistakes, but they're never the ones to blame in their own minds. They blame circumstances or other people for failing. It's better to own up to mistakes in business, learn from them, and change the way that you're going about it so you can start getting different results.
Dana Hanson
Dana has extensive professional writing experience including technical and report writing, informational articles, persuasive articles, contrast and comparison, grant applications, and advertisement. She also enjoys creative writing, content writing on nearly any topic (particularly business and lifestyle), because as a lifelong learner, she loves to do research and possess a high skill level in this area. Her academic degrees include AA social Sci/BA English/MEd Adult Ed & Community & Human Resource Development and ABD in PhD studies in Indust & Org Psychology.
20 Companies Similar to Fingerhut
ByAllen Lee August 18, 2022 August 17, 2022
Most people are well aware of Fingerhut. If you like to purchase items on credit, it's one of the easiest companies to use. It also provides an avenue for individuals who are trying to build…
Read More 20 Companies Similar to FingerhutContinue
10 Things You Didn't Know about Substack CEO Chris Best
ByAllen Lee August 4, 2020 December 6, 2022
Chris Best was always keen on how people interacted; therefore, even when he worked at Kik Interactive, Inc. as the CTO, he ensured that the messenger app broke the ice between two people who were…
Read More 10 Things You Didn't Know about Substack CEO Chris BestContinue
Common Challenges in Today's Financial Sector Entrepreneurial Landscape and Strategies for Overcoming Them
ByLeslie Tayne December 22, 2017 January 10, 2020
Entrepreneurship is no easy feat. There is no "how to" manual. However, when it comes to experiencing challenges in financial services entrepreneurship, you are likely not the first. Embarking on the entrepreneurial journey will bring…
Read More Common Challenges in Today's Financial Sector Entrepreneurial Landscape and Strategies for Overcoming ThemContinue
10 Things You Didn't Know about Jair Bolsonaro
ByAllen Lee May 30, 2020 May 29, 2020
Jair Bolsonaro is the 38th President of Brazil. His term has been filled with controversy, as shown by his poor handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Something that Bolsonaro seems to be unconcerned about. 1. Born…
Read More 10 Things You Didn't Know about Jair BolsonaroContinue
10 Things You Didn't Know about DaVita CEO Kent Thiry
ByGarrett Parker January 17, 2019 April 8, 2020
Kent Thiry is the CEO and Chairman of DaVita. He has played a very important role in making the corporation into what it is in the present day, which includes a turnaround from poor performance…
Read More 10 Things You Didn't Know about DaVita CEO Kent ThiryContinue
10 Things You Didn't Know about Mitt Romney
ByAllen Lee May 7, 2020 May 6, 2020
Earlier this year, Mitt Romney became the sole Republican senator to call for Trump's impeachment. His vote clearly hasn't sat well with the president, at least if his reaction to Romney's negative testing for Coronavirus…
Read More 10 Things You Didn't Know about Mitt RomneyContinue


text:
Benjamin Cannon
Follow Benjamin's Case
Cannon was last seen at his residence in the 12600 block of Weir Street in Omaha, Nebraska sometime in late March 1995. He was involved with the Rainbow Family, a nomadic cult-type religious group, at the time of his disappearance. He has never been heard ...
Last updated: November 5, 2018
Contribute to Benjamin's Case
Overview of Benjamin Cannon
Cannon was last seen at his residence in the 12600 block of Weir Street in Omaha, Nebraska sometime in late March 1995. He was involved with the Rainbow Family, a nomadic cult-type religious group, at the time of his disappearance. He has never been heard from again. Cannon was not reported missing until May 2004, nine years after he went missing; prior to then, the police had refused to accept a report. Few details are available in his case. (Information retrieved from NamUs.gov)
Date Missing:March 1, 1995
NAMUS Number:MP1969