Office Of The Fire Commissioner Application For Special Acceptance: Fill & Download for Free

This is a good question, let's enumerate some important laws which came in the newspapers in the past 12 months.We shall make this post crowd-sourced. And we are planning to reward our contributors by giving them credits* -Detailed Well Presented 100 word Explanation - 2000Giving Valid Links and a Small Brief - 1000Giving Names of New Laws - 500Contributors (As of now) - Jai Parimi, Divya Malika, Prasanna, Ashutosh Pandey, Arihant Pawariya (अरिहंत पावङिया), Divya Choudhary (दिव्या चौधरी), Varsha Singh, Priyanka Peeramsetty, User, Gaurav Kumar, Jagannadh, Arpit Pareek, Nikhil Deshmukh, Harshit Ladva1) The National Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2014 and the 99th Constitutional AmendmentA bill to provide for the composition of the Judicial Appointments Commission for the purpose of recommending persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India and other Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices and other Judges of High Courts, its functions, procedure to be followed by it and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.Key Issues and AnalysisThe current method of appointments has been examined by various bodies including the Law Commission and the Parliamentary Standing Committee. They vary in the role of the executive and judiciary in making appointments of judges.The composition of the JAC has not been included in the Constitution, but has been left for Parliament to decide by law. This implies that modifying the composition of the JAC would not require a constitutional amendment, but may be altered by a simple majority in Parliament.The Standing Committee examining the JAC Bill has recommended that (i) the JAC be composed of three eminent persons, (ii) the broad parameters for short listing of candidates for HC appointments be laid down in the Bill, and (iii) the center also consider the setting up of state level appointments commissions comprising the Chief Minister, the Chief Justice of HC and the Leader of Opposition.2) Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Reservation Act, 2013Objective - The principle objective of the new bill is fair compensation, thorough resettlement and rehabilitation of those affected, adequate safeguards for their well-being and complete transparency in the process of land acquisition. The title has been amended to reflect this.Need - There is unanimity of opinion across the social and political spectrum that the Old Law (The Land Acquisition Act 1894) suffers from various shortcomings and is outdated. Some of these include Forced acquisitions, No safeguards, Silent on resettlement and rehabilitation of those displaced, Urgency clause, Low rates of compensation, Litigation. To say the least, the Old Act needs to be replaced at the earliest by fair, reasonable and rational enactment in tune with the constitutional provisions, particularly, Article 300A of the Constitution.Link - Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 20133) Companies Act, 2013 (CSR Pref)Objective - Effective from financial year 2014-15, every company, private limited or public limited, which either has a net worth of Rs 500 crore or a turnover of Rs 1,000 crore or net profit of Rs 5 crore, needs to spend at least 2% of its average net profit for the immediately preceding three financial years on corporate social responsibility activities.Impact - The CSR activities undertaken by the companies will benefit hunger and poverty eradication, promoting preventive healthcare, promoting education and promoting gender equality, setting up homes for women, orphans and the senior citizens, measures for reducing inequalities faced by socially and economically backward groups, ensuring environmental sustainability and ecological balance, animal welfare, protection of national heritage and art and culture and many more.Link - Companies Act, 2013, Companies - It's a good articlePRSIndia– This describes the whole of companies act – Checkpoint 135 for CSR4) Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005Objective - Landmark bill, which realized the Right to seek and access Information in line with the interpretation of Art.19(1)(a) of our constitution.Impact - Champion to ensure Transparency and accountability in the governance procedures. it enforces the right of every citizen of India to have an access to the information regarding any money given by the State to any authority, thereby causing such authority to utilize such money reasonably and judiciously and also for keeping a check over their conduct and indulgence in corrupt activities. In 2002, SC’s verdict gave the citizens have a right to know about charges against candidates for elections as well as details of their assets, since they desire to offer themselves for public service and public servants cannot claim exemption from disclosure of charges against them or details of their assets. It is a powerful tool which can be realised in changing social dynamics and needs.Criticism - Debates regarding the ambit of RTI’s scope have been articulated, to be extended, say to the political parties, temples, schools and also privatized public utility companies. Evidences of misusage have come to the limelight, say Naxalites using RTI’s to check the assets of local landlords to loot themGuide to RTI : Page on rti.gov.in5) Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, 2005Objective - The SEZ Act is expected to give a big thrust to exports and consequently to the foreign direct investment (“FDI”) inflows into India, and is considered to be one of the finest pieces of legislation that may well represent the future of the industrial development strategy in India. The new law is aimed at encouraging PPP to develop world-class infrastructure and attract private investment (domestic and foreign), boosting economic growth, exports and employmentImpact - The government gets the capital needed to establish the required infrastructure and also the expertise. SEZ’s with relaxed import tariffs help the Import dependent and export driven industries to flourish. SEZ’s create immense employment opportunities and improve the country’s foreign export.Criticism - Practical implementation witnesses several backlogs ranging from regional disparities, grabbing arable land, labour laws issues and supply chain management which fail to be addressed effectively through the bill6) Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013Objective -The government introduced the Bill to redefine the offence of rape and amend the penal laws in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the National Commission for Women. The government withdrew the previous Bill and Ordinance, and introduced the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2013. The changes wrt the ordinance in the act are:Impact - Popularly known as the Anti-rape bill, this came out of the protests of 2012 Delhi Gang rape case.Criticism - For not including certain suggestions recommended by the Verma Committee Report like, marital rape, reduction of age of consent, amending Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.Some detailed work: http://www.atimysore.gov.in/workshops/wppts/gender_issues/crim_law_amnd_2013_drjagadeesh_jsslaw_college.pdf7) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013Objective - To provide protection against sexual harassment of women at workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. the protection against sexual harassment and the right to work with dignity are universally recognized human rightsImpact - On a broader line, this ensures safe work environment for women against sexual abuse at work place and is capable of garnering a greater female work force and these are the Major features the act provides for.Criticism - It does not cover women in the armed forces and excludes women agricultural workers, "a gross injustice to agricultural workers. The burden of proof is on the women who complain of harassment. If found guilty of making a false complaint or giving false evidence, she could be prosecuted, which has raised concerns about women being even more afraid of reporting offences. Furthermore, the law requires a third-party NGO to be involved, which could make employers less comfortable in reporting grievances, due to confidentiality concerns.8) DNA Profiling Bill, 2012Purpose - DNA analysis makes it possible to determine whether the source of origin of one body substance is identical to that of another, and further to establish the biological relationship, if any, between two individuals, living or dead without any doubt.Tip - Lawful purposes of establishing identity in criminal or civil proceedings.Impact - It will be essential to establish standards for laboratories, staff qualifications, training, proficiency testing, collection of body substances, custody trail from collection to reporting and a Data Bank with policies of use and access to information therein, its retention and deletion.DNA Data Bank Manager will supervise, execute and maintain this system and a DNA Profiling Board of eminent scientists, administrators and Law enforcement officers will administer and carry out other functions assigned to it under this Act.Link - DNA Profiling Bill - PDF9) Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011Purpose - So far, India has excellent record in nuclear safety and radiation safety; but the Central Government intends to promote nuclear energy to meet shortfall in total energy requirement of the country; and whereas such excellent safety record in nuclear safety and radiation safety is required to be sustained for growth in the nuclear energy sector.Impact - Now, therefore, it has been considered necessary and expedient to establish regulators to ensure continued excellence in nuclear safety and radiation safety in all applications of radiation and atomic energy on a large scale.10) Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010Purpose - As the name itself indicates that it is an Act to provide for civil liability for nuclear damage and prompt compensation to the victims of a nuclear incident through a no-fault liability regime channeling liability to the operator.Impact - Appointment of Claims Commissioner, establishment of Nuclear Damage Claims Commission connected there with.11) IT Act, 2000 and IT (Amendment) Bill, 2006Purpose - It is an Act to provide legal recognition for the transactions carried out by means of electronic data interchange and other means of electronic communication, commonly referred to as "Electronic Commerce", which involve the use of alternatives to paper based methods of communication and storage of information, to facilitate electronic filings of documents with the Government and other related agencies.Tip - It is renamed as the Information Technology Act, 2008Impact - To promote efficient delivery of Government services by means of reliable electronic records.12) National Green Tribunal Bill, 2009Purpose - For the effective disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal rights relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property.Impact - National Green Tribunal law is enacted in view of the involvement of multi-disciplinary issues relating to the environment and also to implement the decisions taken at Rio de Janeiro and Stockholm Conferences.Link - NGT Bill - PDF13) Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969Objective - It is designed to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in concentration of the economic power to the common detriment.The act also provides for probation of monopolistic, unfair and restrictive trade practices.Impact - The MRTP Commission if on enquiry concludes that the practice under consideration is of restrictive or unfair in nature , it may:Order discontinuation of the practice and restrict its repetition (cease and desist order ), the agreement shall be void and shall stand modified as may specified in the order. It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.Link - MRTP Act, 196914) Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2008(Coal scam and SC verdict, so important)Objective - To develop and regulate mining & mineral industries and bring it under the control of one union by setting up mineral funds on National level, granting concessions, share benefit schemes while preventing illegal mining.Impact - Safeguards on regulating and safe disposal of waste in consonance with environmental norms will be incorporated. Through implementation of proper taxing and speedy approvals on action against violations illegal mining will be preventedLink - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill 200815) Whistleblower Protection Bill, 2011It seeks to establish a mechanism to register complaints on any allegations of corruption or wilful misuse of power against a public servant. The Bill also provides safeguards against victimisation of the person who makes the complaint.Highlights of the BillThe Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.The Vigilance Commission shall not disclose the identity of the complainant except to the head of the department if he deems it necessary. The Bill penalises any person who has disclosed the identity of the complainant.Key Issues and AnalysisThe Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimizing a complainant.16) Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Bill 2014Objectives: The Bill seeks to achieve the objectives of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Children. It specifies procedural safeguards in cases of children in conflict with law. It seeks to address challenges in the existing Act such as delays in adoption processes, high pendency of cases, accountability of institutions, etc. The Bill further seeks to address children in the 16-18 age group, in conflict with law, as an increased incidence of crimes committed by them have been reported over the past few years.Coverage: The Bill defines a child as anyone less than 18 years of age. However, a special provision has been inserted for the possibility of trying 16-18 year old committing heinous offenses, as adults. A heinous offense is defined as one for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code is seven years.17) Citizens Charters & Grievance Redressal Bill, 2011. (CCGR)The Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011 also known as The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 or Citizens Charter Bill was a proposed in Lok Sabha in December 2011. The bill lapsed due to dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha.The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 lays down obligations of every public authority towards citizens, specifying delivery of goods and services in a time-bound manner and providing for a grievance redressal mechanism for non-compliance of citizens charter.Highlights :The Bill makes it mandatory for every public authority to publish a Citizen’s Charter within six months of the commencement of the Act.The Citizen’s Charter shall list the details of the goods and services provided by a public authority; the name of the person or agency responsible for providing the goods or services; the time frame within which such goods or services have to be provided; the category of people entitled to the goods and services; and details of the complaint redressal mechanism.Grievance redress officer : It requires every public authority to designate grievance redress officers in all public offices to enquire into and redress any complaints from citizens in a timeframe not exceeding 30 days from the date of receipt of the complaint.Public Grievance Redressal Commissions : The Bill provides for constitution of the state public grievance redressal commission and the central public grievance redressal commission consisting of chief commissioners and other commissioners.Penalty : DA and Commission can impose fine of Max. Rs 50000 to concerned officials/GRO. The penalty shall be recovered from the salary of the official. Such penalty may be awarded as compensation to the appellant.Corruption Prevention : The Designated Authority and the Commissions may refer a matter to the appropriate authorities if there is prima facie evidence of a corrupt act under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An appeal against the decision of the Central Commission shall be filed before the Lokpal. An appeal against the decision of the State Commission shall be filed before the Lokayukta.Criticism :Against federal Spirit : Citizens’ charter bill provides for GRO and Grievances Commission at state and central level, but Parliament doesn’t not have jurisdiction to enact such law. Only State legislature has jurisdiction to make laws regarding state public services.More than ten states have already enacted a Citizen Charter Act or Public Services Guarantee Act in their respective states. Many of these state laws have provisions that are much better than the proposed Bill.Lack of Autonomy : According to the bill, the commissioners may be removed without judicial inquiry.Duplication of work : Several states have their own grievance redressal laws, The mechanism provided under these laws is different from that provided under the Bill. This will lead to duplication of work and organizations.MNREGA Act, RTE Act, National Food Security Bill, and the Public Procurement Bill also have their own grievances redressal forums. This will again lead to more duplication.Sources :Copy of Bill : Page on prsindia.orgSummery of Bill : Page on prsindia.orgWiki Page : Citizen's Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011Mrual Page : Citizens Charter Bill 2011: Salient Features, Issues, CriticismRediff Page : All you need to know about the Citizen's Charter Bill18) Right to Education Act, 2009The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education Act (RTE), was enacted on 4 August 2009, which describes the rules and regulations for free and compulsory education of children between 6 and 14 under Article 21A of Constitution. India became one of 135 countries to make education a fundamental right of every child when the act came into force on 1 April 2010.Highlights :The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act 2009 stipulates that private schools reserve 25 per cent of seats at the entry level for children belonging to ‘disadvantaged groups’ and ‘weaker sections’.The Act also provides that no child shall be held back, expelled, or required to pass a board examination until the completion of elementary education. There is also a provision for special training of school drop-outs to bring them up to par with students of the same age.Mentally and physically challenged children, entitled to free education in special schools, were included in the definition through an amendment in 2012.It also prohibits all unrecognised schools from practice, and makes provisions for no donation or capitation fees and no interview of the child or parent for admissions.Criticism :The act has been criticised for being hastily-drafted, not consulting many groups active in education, not considering the quality of education, infringing on the rights of private and religious minority schools to administer their system, and for excluding children under six years of age.Problems faced :Poor Response : Lack of awareness about the Act, inability to meet the distance criteria and difficulty in obtaining necessary certificates from government authorities could be some of the reasons for this.The Act provides for admission of children without any certification. However, several states have continued pre-existing procedures insisting that children produce income and caste certificates, BPL cards and birth certificates.The Act is not applicable to private minority schools and boarding schools.Report on the status of implementation of the Act released by the Ministry of Human Resource Development admits that 8.1 million children in the age group six-14 remain out of school and there’s a shortage of 508,000 teachers country-wide.Conclusion :For all its flaws, the RTE Act is a progressive piece of legislation that aims to take education to the masses and fill the gaps in the social system.Sources :Copy of Act : Page on ssa.nic.inWiki page : Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education ActHindu Article : Advantages and disadvantages of RTE Act19) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2013 (POSCO)Objective – The act aims at ensuring protection of children from sexual abuse.Pros –1. Gender Neutral bill. 53% victims of children are victims.2. Stringent punishment (upto life imprisonment)3. Covers broad range of sexual crimes such as non-penetrative sexual assault, sexual harassment, and the use of children for pornography4. Includes special procedures to prevent the re-victimisation of children at the hands of an insensitive justice delivery system5. Protects victims identity and provides assisting legal, medical and psychological facilitiesCons –1. Criminalises all consensual sexual contact below 18 years age.2. The age provision is not in consonance with other acts.3. Regressive and draconian considering today’s social realities. Children are increasingly aware of each others sexualities at early age.4. Child marriage is prevalent on large scale. The age provision ignores this reality. Liable to bogus and unjustified complaints.Source – The Hindu : Good Act, bad provision20) The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013Objective – The act aims to combat corruption in government agencies and public sector businesses in India.Pros -1. Covers the offence of giving a bribe to a public servant under abetment. Specific provisions related to giving a bribe to a public servant, and giving a bribe by a commercial organisation.2. Redefines criminal misconduct to only cover misappropriation of property and possession of disproportionate assets.3. Modifies the definitions and penalties for offences related totaking a bribe, being a habitual offender and abetting an offence.4. Introduces Powers and procedures for the attachment and forfeiture of property of public servants accused of corruption.5. The Act requires prior sanction to prosecute serving public officials. The Bill extends this protection to former officials.Cons -1. The Bill makes giving a bribe a specific offence. There are diverging views on whether bribe giving under all circumstances must be penalised. Some have argued that a coerced bribe giver must be distinguished from a collusive bribe giver.2. The Bill has deleted the provision that protects a bribe giver from prosecution, for any statement made by him during a corruption trial. This may deter bribe givers from appearing as witnesses in court.3. The Bill has replaced the definition of criminal misconduct. It now requires that the intention to acquire assets disproportionate to income also be proved, in addition to possession of such assets. Thus, the threshold to establish the offence of possession of disproportionate assets has been increased by the Bill.4. By redefining the offence of criminal misconduct, the Bill does not cover circumstances where the public official: (i) uses illegal means, (ii) abuses his position, or (iii) disregards public interest and obtains a valuable thing or reward for himself or another person.5. Under the Act, the guilt of the person is presumed for the offences of taking a bribe, being a habitual offender or abetting an offence. The Bill amends this provision to only cover the offence of taking a bribe.Source - The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 201321) Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) (Regulation) Bill 2010Objective – The bill aims at legalizing (commercial) surrogacy.Pros –1. Offers legal protection to child and surrogate mothers.2. Regulation of IVF/ART clinics and holding them Accountable for ensuring best medical practices.3. Curbs exploitation of mother. Limits number of child births per mother to five.4. Introduces age limit for surrogate mother – 21 to 35.5. Ensures Child’s citizenship to be same as parents.Cons –1. Legal back up will lead to widespread commercialization of surrogacy, posing serious ethical, moral and philosophical questions.2. Mandatory certificate ensuring legality of surrogacy in foreign couple’s home country needed. Impediments in smooth commercial functioning.3. No provision in the bill if parent’s change their mind or die. Child’s responsibility in this case is debatable.4. Plethora of in-genuine clinics in India. Exploitation of poor and illiterate mothers because of their incapability to understand legalities involved.Source - Issues of surrogacy, PIB English Features22) Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013Objective - The Bill sets up an independent authority, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), to regulate organisms and products of modern biotechnology.Pros –1. BRAI will regulate the research, transport, import, containment, environmental release, manufacture, and use of biotechnology products.2. Regulatory approval by BRAI will be granted through a multi-level process of assessment undertaken by scientific experts.3. BRAI will certify that the product developed is safe for its intended use. All other laws governing the product will continue to apply.4. A Biotechnology Regulatory Appellate Tribunal will hear civil cases that involve a substantial question relating to modern biotechnology and hear appeals on the decisions and orders of BRAI.5. Penalties are specified for providing false information to BRAI, conducting unapproved field trials, obstructing or impersonating an officer of BRAI and for contravening any other provisions of the Bill.Cons -1. The Tribunal has jurisdiction over a ‘substantial question relating to modern biotechnology’ – An ambiguous term.2. The Tribunal will consist of one judicial member and five technical members. This is not in conformity with a SC decision that the number of technical members on a bench of a Tribunal cannot exceed the number of judicial members.3. The Tribunal’s technical members shall be eminent scientists or government officials with experience in the field. It is unclear whether the technical expertise of the latter can be equated with the former.4. The Bill does not specify any liability for damage caused by a product of biotechnology. Therefore, it will remain open to the courts to determine liability arising out of any adverse impact of modern biotechnology.5. Tribunal will not accept complaints from civil society, in spite of the fact that the Bill directly or indirectly affects every citizen. No public consultation done.6. Non clarity over Dept of GoI that will service BRAI. No mention of mandatory labelling of GM crops.7. Takes away rights of states to decide on Agriculture, which is state subject.8. The Convener of the Selection Committee for members of BRAI will be from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), which is a vendor of genetic engineering (the technology that BRAI is supposed to regulate) in the country. Conflict of Interest will arise.Source - The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013Unconstitutional, unethical, unscientific23) Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013ObjectiveTo set up an independent regulatory body for the coal sector that shall help in the regulation and conservation of coal resources and will benefit all stakeholders i.e. - coal companies, coal consuming industries such as power, steel, cement and coal bearing States and people, directly or indirectly associated with the coal industry.A fund called ‘The Coal Regulatory Authority Fund” is created to credit all the receipts and fees received.Constituents1 chairperson + 4 members. One each from legal , technical , administrative and financial wings. All to be selected by a committee of Group of Ministers (GoM) headed by Cabinet Secretary.What will it do ?Inject transparency in allocation of coal blocks.Decide and Monitor operational norms and mining closure compliances and such.Determine pricing of the fuel and publishing surveys, information, statistics, etc related to coal sector and coal quality.Adjudicate disputes between entities and between entities and other persons.Advise government on technologies, policy, promotion, investment etc.Ref :- The Coal Regulatory Authority Bill, 2013,Coal Regulatory Authority Bill likely in Winter session24) eWaste (Management and Handling) Act, 2011What is it ?E-waste has beendefined as “waste electrical and electronic equipment, whole or in part or rejects from their manufacturing and repair process, which are intended to be discarded”.AIM :-Reduction in the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment.Specifying threshold for use of hazardous material including lead, mercury and cadmium.Ministry of Environment & Forest (MoEF) thus introduces the concept of "Extended Producer Responsibility".How will it work ?It fixes responsibilities on every producer, seller, consumer or bulk consumer, collection centre, dismantler and recycler of e-waste involved in the manufacture, sale, purchase and processing of electrical and electronic equipment or components.E.g. :Recycling of E-Waste generated during manufacturing and "End of Life" of electronic and electrical equipments.Setting up of collection centres by companies or individuals to collect E-waste and discard them.Setting up of funds by corporate to boost scientific and eco-friendly disposal of E-waste.CritiqueNo accountability set on anyone.E-Industry remains skeptical of the efficacy of this act.No specific targets set.Ref :- @E-waste management rules kick in today@Page on moef.nic.in25) Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence Bill, 2011What is it ?The bill is intended to prevent “any act or series of acts, whether spontaneous or planned, resulting in injury or harm to the person and or property, knowingly directed against any person by virtue of his or her membership of any group."How ?The billAddresses identity-based or targeted crimes and organised mass violence as special offences.Places accountability of public officers with varying penalties for dereliction of duty it.Provides for the creation of a National Authority and the State authorities to ensure justice and reparation.Addresses issues faced by specific communities like economic boycott, denial of public service, forced migration , hostile environment etc.Empowers state and center government to intercept any messages and communication that it feels might lead to communal violence.Sets up district level authorities to assess compensation.CritiquesCurbing freedom of expression by terming it as Hate propaganda.Presumption of guilt and burden of proof on the accused – The accused will have to prove innocence.All the persons acting under this Act will have blanket of protection of action taken in good faith.Brings civil servants in direct line of fire by vaguely defining "dereliction of duty".26) Competition Act, 2002The Competition Act was passed in 2002Competition Commission of India (CCI) was established on March 1, 2009 as an autonomous body comprising of a Chairperson and six members.CCI not only hears and investigates cases based on the information received by it, but it also takes suo moto action wherever it finds that a prima facie violationCommission had taken suo-moto cognizance of the reported manipulation of the bids by manufacturers of LPG cylinders for supplying cylinders to the Indian Oil CorporationMany more such notices have been sent by CCI in the Petroleum sector, Agricuture sector etc. taking cognisance suo-moto.Role of trade associationsCompetition law treats the activities of trade associations much like any other form of cooperation between competitors.decisions or recommendations of trade associations are treated as agreements between its members and law may be breached even when they are not binding on the members.CCI imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 1 lakh each on 27 film producers on charges of colluding through an association to exploit multiplex owners.number of cases involving the associations in the Pharmaceutical sector/Film production etc where CCI has passed orders against the associations and asked them to “cease and desist” from activities that may be anti-competitive in nature.Public Procurement and Competition LawPublic procurement is a contentious issue vis-à-vis application of competition lawpublic enterprises, which are generally the big procurers, are subject to competition assessment.Commission has decided a number of matters, including cartelization in government contracts. Penalties have been imposed on firms to discourage the anti-competitive practices and abuse of dominanceCompetition Commission of India is set to change the rules of the game and play the role of a watchdog to check anti-competitive practices in the markethttp://echoofindia.com/reflex-action/competition-commission-india-4-years-enforcement-competition-law-3216927) Prasar Bharati (Amendment) Bill, 201028) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 200229) Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitaion Act, 2013. (Important, Swachh Bharat Abhiyan)30) Child Labour (Prohibition) Act, 198631) Scheduled Tribes and Recognition of Forest Rights Bill, 200632) Environment Protection Law, 198633) Wildlife Protection Act, 197234) The Electricity Act, 200335) Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act, 199636) Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 199237) Factories Act 1948/Amendment Bill 201438) Apprentice Act 1961/ Amendment Bill 201439) The Pension Fund Regulatory And Development Authority Act, 201340) The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill, 201341) Benami Transaction (Prohibition )Act, 198842) The National Food Security Act, 201343) Pesticides Management Bill, 2008*Maximum Credits per Person - 5000**Contributors earning more than 1000 credits <must> -a) Promote to at least 100 people.b) Share this list everywhere. :P :P LOL !Thank you all. :)Thanks for the A2A Anon. :)

Let’s start by going through what is actually known about all of this. (For the sake of not having to keep repeating footnotes throughout the whole thing, I’m just going to put them all here:) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13] [14]The Clinton campaign and the DNC retained the law firm Perkins Coie for the 2016 election. It is normal to have lawyers specializing in election law working in conjunction with a campaign for a variety of reasons, including campaign finance compliance and preparing for possible litigation around election irregularities.Fusion GPS was started in 2011 as a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm. Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, and Thomas Catan, three former journalists for the Wall Street Journal, founded the company. It does expert research and analysis, often for law firms in litigation. This is legal.Fusion GPS is not a branch of the U.S. government nor any other government. It is a private intelligence-gathering and analysis business. They cultivate sources around the world and hire experts for their business. Again, this is legal.Fusion GPS explicitly uses only publicly available information and does not obtain information from sources such as government operatives or intelligence agencies.Fusion GPS was well-known for this kind of work. The firm conducted opposition research into Mitt Romney in 2012. The firm also investigated undercover videos of Planned Parenthood and determined them to be heavily edited.Fusion GPS originally started doing opposition research into Trump in October of 2015, when the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, hired them for this purpose. When Trump secured the nomination in early May of 2016, the Free Beacon gave up on this.The Free Beacon’s opposition research was largely funded by a couple of wealthy Republican donors and the Rubio campaign.In March of 2016, Fusion GPS approached Marc Elias about continuing to fund the opposition research into Trump when it became apparent that the Free Beacon and Republican sources were likely to stop as Trump gained ground and would secure the Republican nomination. Elias and Perkins Coie agreed to fund the research in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC. The campaign and DNC did not direct Elias or Perkins Coie to do this.Perkins Coie did not know what sources Fusion GPS would use to get information, nor directed them to use any particular sources.The Clinton Campaign and DNC did not know what sources Perkins Coie or Fusion GPS would use to get information.In June 2016, Fusion GPS hired the United Kingdom company Orbis Business Intelligence to help conduct this research. Orbis subcontracted the work to one of its co-founders, Christopher Steele, a former UK intelligence agent now working in the private sector.Steele is not the agent of a foreign nation and does not work on behalf of a foreign nation. He is a private citizen.Steele had worked with Fusion GPS previously and was (and still is) considered a fairly reliable and respectable source.Steele did not know who had hired Fusion GPS for this research, who paid for it, or even for what purpose he was gathering this information.In June 2016, the DNC’s email system was hacked by what would turn out to be a Russian-connected operative using the handle Guccifer 2.0. These documents were released through Wikileaks under the direction of Julian Assange with the intent to disrupt the 2016 election.Assange was also given other detrimental materials about various governments, including Russia, which he did not publish.According to the Mueller Report, Assange knowingly worked with the Russians because he did not like Hillary Clinton personally. He purposefully aided Guccifer 2.0 in hacking the DNC.**allegedly; this is still under indictment.Throughout the 2016 election cycle, beginning in late 2015 and continuing up to the election, an arm of the Russian military intelligence agency known as the Internet Research Agency created thousands of fake social media accounts purporting to be Americans.These accounts were used to distribute disinformation and literal fake news stories and sow distrust and discord into the campaign.The goal of this effort was to boost support for Donald Trump and discourage likely Clinton voters. It also targeted disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters through bolstering the narrative that Clinton had “stolen” the Democratic nomination through party chicanery in an attempt to discourage those voters from remaining with Clinton, either by not voting or voting third-party.Several U.S. allies reported this interference to the U.S., but the U.S. intelligence agencies were slow to respond due to the fact that it is actually quite difficult by law to surveil U.S. citizens with warrants, and they are not that easy to get. It was not until late August of 2016 that intelligence agencies briefed Congress on these developments.Between June and December of 2016, Steele compiled a number of memoranda and gave them to Fusion GPS explicitly as raw, unconfirmed intelligence requiring further analysis and corroboration, and maybe 80% accurate. This is not out of the ordinary for raw, un-analyzed, unvetted intelligence.Fusion GPS turned this information over to Marc Elias, the head election lawyer in Perkins Coie. Elias was deeply alarmed by the allegations in the memoranda. He immediately turned the information over to the FBI. He did not forward the information to the DNC or Clinton campaign.Additionally, Steele himself was so alarmed by some of what he discovered that he personally turned his research over to British and American intelligence agencies. This information was delivered to the FBI for follow-up.The FBI was deeply alarmed by some of what Steele discovered because it corroborated things they were already investigating before Steele had even started his research.Two individuals under surveillance previously were Carter Page and George Papadopoulos.Papadopoulos was under investigation after a tip from the Australian government because Papadopoulos, while drinking heavily, told the Australian High Commissioner to the UK that he knew that Russia had dirt on Clinton.This is because several weeks before, Papadopoulos had been contacted by a Russian operative who stated that the Russian government had incriminating emails about Clinton.Papadopoulos was asked about this contact by federal investigators and lied about it. This is what he pleaded guilty to.Neither Papadopoulos, nor anyone in the Trump campaign, ever alerted any authorities that Papadopoulos had been contacted by a Russian operative.Page had been under surveillance previously due to suspicion that he was being groomed by Russian intelligence operatives as an unknowing asset. Steele’s research suggested much the same thing. The FBI obtained an additional FISA warrant to follow up on this and determine whether Page was still being groomed or being actively used by the Russian government as an asset.Another individual already under investigation was Trump’s campaign manager at the time, Paul Manafort. Steele’s research also suggested that Manafort may have been involved in setting up connections with the Russian government.Manafort would later be indicted and convicted in connection with failure to register as a foreign agent and had substantial connections with the Russian government and pro-Russian Ukrainian individuals.Steele was a well-known source for the FBI, and they considered him to have been reliable in previous matters. This was all disclosed to the FISA court, along with the unverified nature of what Steele had found.At the time of the election, the existence of this dossier of memos was still just rumor. Journalistic outlets were scrambling to confirm their existence.Importantly to note, then, neither the Clinton campaign nor the DNC attempted to use the allegations in the memo or release any of the information publicly. Everyone along the chain of custody of this information had turned that information over to the appropriate authorities instead.After the election, the late Senator John McCain, a Republican representing Arizona, was able to receive a copy of Steele’s work through a colleague and former State Department employee. He was so alarmed by the content that he went to James Comey at the FBI with it, not knowing that the FBI already had this information.The existence of Steele’s work was only finally truly confirmed by really anyone in mid-January of 2017 when the U.S. intelligence agencies released a summary of the memoranda along with their report on Russian cyberattacks with the 2016 election.Shortly after President Trump was inaugurated and began assembling his cabinet, a number of appointees failed to report contacts with Russian individuals, including then-Senator Jeff Sessions, who was being tapped for Attorney General, and retired general Mike Flynn, who was being brought on as National Security Advisor.Acting Attorney General Sally Yates specifically warned then White House Counsel Don McGahn that there was evidence that Flynn was possibly subject to blackmail by Russians and was not truthful with federal agents on his SF86 security clearance form and subsequent interview about contacts with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. It is a felony to lie on these applications.Flynn also lied to Vice-President Pence about these contacts. Shortly after this was made public, Flynn resigned. He later pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators and has not yet been sentenced.The reason that anyone knew that Flynn and others were lying about contacts with Russians is because of the investigation into the election interference and subsequent surveillance of contacts with Russian agents and officials.In early May of 2017, President Trump fired FBI director James Comey after Comey refused to cease investigating the possibility of Russian interference into the 2016 election and whether Americans might have conspired with the Russian government in that process.Trump surrogates and advisors initially tried to claim that Comey was fired for mishandling the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State.Trump then went on nationally broadcast television and undermined his staff’s explanation, stating that he fired Comey because of “that Russia thing.”Trump also told Russian ambassador Kislyak that Comey was a “nut job” and that he fired Comey to relieve political pressure from the investigation.This set off a firestorm of bipartisan criticism leading to the appointment of a special counsel, former FBI director Robert Mueller, to investigate Russian interference into the 2016 election, whether any Americans might have conspired if such interference existed, and whether Trump may have obstructed the already present investigation into these matters.For the next two years, Trump will refer to this repeatedly as a “witch hunt,” and claim that he is being harassed. He repeatedly publicly implies that he might fire the special counsel, and tried to have his staff move to do so several times in private.As part of his narrative, Trump repeatedly claims that the sole origin of this investigation was the Steele dossier and that it was solicited and paid for by the Clinton campaign and DNC to attack him.In late January 2018, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Cal) authors a House Intelligence Committee memorandum alleging abuses of the FISA process and claiming that Steele’s dossier was the sole basis of the investigations. After a week or so of speculation, this memo is partially declassified and released.Nunes’ own memo turns out to actually confirm the sequence of events above with Papadopoulos and that the FBI had disclosed any reliance on Steele’s work to the FISA court, contrary to Nunes’ accusations of FISA abuse to harass or spy on the campaign.In May of 2019, the Mueller Report and subsequent final press conference by the special counsel’s office conclusively and categorically state that the Russian government intentionally interfered with the 2016 election to sow as much discord as possible and undermine confidence in the election, and to elect Trump in that process.This is part of what Steele suggested was happening in his memoranda as of June through the fall of 2016.As of June 13, 2019, nothing in Steele’s work has yet been affirmatively proved to be untrue. Much of it remains unconfirmed. At least seven allegations raised by Steele’s research have been verified to be true. At least eight allegations are partially or somewhat supported. Most of it simply has no evidence either for or against it.Again, Steele himself stated that this was purely raw intelligence and was probably at best 80% accurate.With all of that factually established, did the DNC listen to dirt from the Steele dossier on Trump?No.Neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign ever used the opposition research conducted by Elias and Perkins Coie, did not directly solicit it, and all individuals involved turned the alarming evidence of illegality over to the appropriate authorities. Neither the DNC nor the Clinton campaign published or sought this information. That’s enough to conclusively say that they did not listen to dirt from the Steele dossier on Trump.So, how is that situation different from what Trump said in his ABC interview?Trump said that he might not turn over that kind of information to the appropriate authorities, or even report the contacts with a foreign government offering to provide it.Trump said, "I think you might want to listen, there isn't anything wrong with listening. . . . If somebody called from a country, Norway, [and said] ‘we have information on your opponent' -- oh, I think I'd want to hear it."It is illegal to solicit or accept anything of value from a foreign country as part of a campaign.[15]FBI director Christopher Wray (appointed by Trump) has stated that going to the authorities with this kind of stuff is precisely what someone ought to do. When George Stephanopoulos pointed out that statement to Trump, Trump replied, “The FBI director is wrong, because frankly it doesn't happen like that in life. . . . Now maybe it will start happening, maybe today you'd think differently."Trump disputed the idea that a foreign government offering damaging information to one candidate is even interference in the election in the first place.This is not taken out of context. ABC released a transcript of the full, unedited interview.[16] Trump doubled down on the statement this morning, claiming that he talks with foreign leaders all the time and doesn’t call the FBI, and blaming the media.The President of the United States said in an open interview that he would at least consider breaking federal law so long as it benefited him, because he thinks it is not foreign intervention in an election to do so.These are the times we live in where that statement alone would not be sufficient to warrant immediate impeachment.How is all of this different from the DNC’s involvement in the 2016 election?First, when faced with evidence of illegal conduct, everyone involved in the Steele research turned their evidence over to the proper authorities. Immediately. Without waffling about it. Without wondering if it would be better to hold on to it to damage an opponent.Second, even if the Clinton campaign had directly hired Fusion GPS for this research (which they didn’t, but let’s just even say that for the sake of argument,) nobody was soliciting or accepting information from agents of foreign governments. Fusion GPS is very specific about using only publicly available information or publicly available sources. It does not use government intelligence agencies or agents or individuals who are working in close connection to governments, foreign or domestic, for its work.In contrast, Trump stated that even if he knew that it was directly coming from a foreign and potentially hostile government, he would still take it.Third, the DNC and Clinton campaigns, Perkins Coie, Fusion GPS, and Steele himself have been consistent throughout this whole process, and their story has been backed up repeatedly by disclosures from government agencies reviewing and investigating these events.In contrast, the Trump campaign first denied that the Trump Tower meeting ever happened. Then, when it became abundantly clear that it had happened, they claimed that it was about adoption only and that Clinton never came up. Then, when it became abundantly clear that the reason for the meeting was dirt on Clinton and adoption was what Vesilnitskya actually wanted to talk about, the Trump campaign switched it up to say, “Well, yeah… but… I mean… that’s okay. People get dirt all the time!”The actions of the DNC, Clinton campaign, and even Perkins Coie are substantially different from Trump’s suggestion that he would at least consider accepting damaging information about an opponent from a potentially hostile foreign power and not even reporting the contact.This was long and at best depressing, if not outright horrifying. Here, calm down with a kitten hanging out with some baby ducks.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and BNBR violation and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.Because of the nature of this one, I will probably be quicker to just shut down the comments on this one entirely if it gets out of control.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.Footnotes[1] How a Sensational, Unverified Dossier Became a Crisis for Donald Trump[2] The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It[3] What You Need To Know About The Russia Investigations: The Dossier[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/[5] https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf[6] https://www.justice.gov/file/1007346/download[7] Full text: Nunes memo on FBI surveillance[8] Nunes Memo: What's In It And What's Not[9] Watch Lester Holt's Extended Interview With President Trump[10] British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia[11] A timeline of Yates' warnings to the White House about Mike Flynn[12] Report: Trump Told Russians He Fired 'Nut Job' Comey Because Of Investigation[13] Wikileaks' Julian Assange reportedly turned down a trove of documents related to the Russian government[14] WikiLeaks Turned Down Leaks on Russian Government During U.S. Presidential Campaign[15] Who can and can't contribute - FEC.gov[16] ABC News' Oval Office interview with President Trump

No, evidence going back decades and regarding worse fires confirms that man not nature causes the fires. It is sad that alarmists have focused on one wild fire year claiming it is evidence of climate change. This is impossible just as one cold winter is not evidence of global cooling any more than one swallow doth not a summer make.I submit the greatest error the alarmism crowd is they are too easily fooled by the randomness, complexity and chaotic non-linear climate. Hot weather is climate change and cold weather is ignored, when neither is more than noise unless data of weather is compiled over centuries or more.Climate change is any significant long-term change in the expected patterns of average weather of a region (or the whole Earth) over a significant period of time. Climate change is about abnormal variations to the climate, and the effects of these variations on other parts of the Earth. W.“Climate change is as remote from our experience as the world of atomic movements, and we are just as unable to see or experience it directly in our daily lives. But that is because climate is too large and slow to see, rather than too small and quick…When you look out the window, the weather you see is not climate. As with atoms and molecules, you can only get some idea of it through indirect means. There may be palm trees or their maybe snow outside to give you a clue, but you cannot actually see climate itself with your own eyes. Our knowledge and experience of it is fundamentally indirect, accumulated from years of experience or from the prevailing plant life. We often defer to elders and look at records accumulated over generations to get a sense of it.”Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warmingby Christopher Essex (Author), Ross McKitrick (Author)It is beyond absurd to jump on the wild fires of 2019 as relevant to any trend of the earth’s climate for many reasons including the fact humans are the cause of the fires directly or indirectly.The terrible loss of life from the Black Friday wild fires of 1939 spurred the Australian federal government to commission a royal inquiry to see what caused the ferocious inferno and how to prevent future fires. There is a lot of historical data in the Report relevant to the Quora question.“(f) Immediate Causes.—Almost all fires are caused by man. Lightning.— Infrequent, as generally followed by rain. Of these classes settlers, miners and graziers are the most prolific fire causing agents. The percentage of fires caused by them far exceeds that of any other class. Their firing is generally deliberate. All other firing is, generally, due to carelessness.”[Emphasis added]ref. REPORT of the ROYAL COMMISSION to inquire into The Causes of and Measures Taken to Prevent the Bush Fires of January, 1939, and to Protect Life and Property…It is true that most Australia wild fires are caused by humans directly or indirectly. There is a long history of these natural wild fires and how to overcome the devastation. The fires have been a reality for thousands of years before European settlement and the pre-history proves that controlled burn of the large contiguous accumulation of fuel is the most important action to prevent the kind of fires witness this year.Because history is the touch stone of understanding climate it most relevant to look back of the record of wild fires in Australia.There is a very relevant analysis and answer to your question from the Stretton Royal Commission report after the deadly BLACK FRIDAY BUSH FIRE OF 1939.REF.Don Mooney saved to Australia's Worst BushfiresBushfires: South Australia, Victoria, Western Australia updatesThe study shows INTHE BLACK FRIDAY FIRES humans not climate change are the culprits here, particularly “the amount of burning that was done was ridiculously inadequate” quoting from the final report.INTRODUCTION.—PART I. In the State of Victoria, the month of January of the year 1939 came towards the end of a long drought which had been aggravated by a severe hot, dry summer season. For more than twenty years the State of Victoria had not seen its countryside and forests in such travail. Creeks, and springs ceased to run. Water storages were depleted. Provincial towns were facing the probability of cessation of water supply. In Melbourne more than a million inhabitants were subjected to restrictions upon the use of water. Throughout the countryside, the farmers were carting water, if such was available, for their stock and for themselves. The rich plains, denied their beneficient [sic] rains lay bare and baking, and the forests from the foothills to the alpine­heights, were tinder. The soft carpet of the forest floor was gone; the bone­dry litter crackled underfoot; dry heat and hot dry winds worked upon a land already dry, to suck from it the last, least drop of moisture. Men who had lived their lives in the bush went their ways in the shadow of dread expectancy. But though they felt the imminence of danger they could not tell that it was to be far greater than they could imagine. They had not lived long enough. The experience of the past could not guide them to an understanding of what might, and did, happen. And so it was that, when millions of acres of the forest were invaded by bushfires which were almost State­wide, there happened, because of great loss of life and property, the most disastrous forest calamity the State of Victoria has known. These fires were lit by the hand of man. Seventy­one lives were lost. Sixty­nine mills were burned. Millions of acres of fine forest, of almost incalculable value, were destroyed or badly damaged. Townships were obliterated in a few minutes. Mills, houses, bridges, tramways, machinery, were burned to the ground; men, cattle, horses, sheep, were devoured by the fires or asphyxiated by the scorching debilitated air. Generally, the numerous fires which during December, in many parts of Victoria, had been burning separately, as they do in any summer, either “under control” as it is falsely and dangerously called, or entirely untended, reached the climax of their intensity and joined forces in a devastating confluence of flame on Friday, the 13th of January. On that day it appeared that the whole State was alight. At midday, in many places, it was dark as night. Men carrying hurricane lamps, worked to make safe their families and belongings. Travellers on the highways were trapped by fires or blazing fallen trees, and perished. Throughout the land there was daytime darkness. At one mill, desperate but futile efforts were made to clear of inflammable scrub the borders of the mill and mill settlement. All but one person, at that mill, were burned to death, many of them while trying to burrow to imagined safety in the sawdust heap. Horses were found, still harnessed, in their stalls, dead, their limbs fantastically contorted. The full story of the killing of this small community is one of unpreparedness, because of apathy and ignorance and perhaps of something worse. Steel girders and machinery were twisted by heat as if they had been of fine wire. Sleepers of heavy durable timber, set in the soil, their upper surfaces flush with the ground, were burnt through. Other heavy wood work disappeared, leaving no trace. Where the fire was most intense the soil was burnt and destroyed to such a depth that it may be many years before it shall have been restored by the slow chemistry of Nature. Acres upon acres of the soil itself can be retained only by the effort of man in a fight against natural erosive forces. The speed of the fires was appalling. They leaped from mountain peak to mountain peak, or far out into the lower country, lighting the forests 6 or 7 miles in advance of the main fires. Blown by a wind of great force, they roared as they travelled. Balls of crackling fire sped at a great pace in advance of the fires, consuming with a roaring, explosive noise, all that they touched. Houses of brick were seen and heard to leap into a roar of flame before the fires had reached them. Some men of science hold the view that the fires generated and were preceded by inflammable gases which became alight. Great pieces of burning bark were carried by the wind to set in raging flame regions not yet reached by the fires. Such was the force of the wind hat [sic], in many places, hundreds of trees of great size were blown clear of the earth, tons of soil, with embedded masses of rock, still adhering to the roots; for mile upon mile the former forest monarchs were laid in confusion, burnt, torn from the earth, and piled one upon another as matches strewn by a giant hand. 6 There had been no force to equal these in destructivenessThere had been no force to equal these in destructiveness or intensity in the history of settlement of this State, except perhaps the fires of 1851, which, too, came at the culmination of a long drought. Some impression, then, of the unusual antecedents of the fires and of their extreme and unprecedented severity may be gained. It will, it is hoped, be apparent that the experience of men in Victoria was such as to leave them unprepared for disaster on such a scale. It is with such facts in mind and with the belief that this facile wisdom which comes after an event is not wisdom, but foolishness, that your commissioner proceeds to report upon the matters into which, to his great honour, he has been appointed by Royal Commission to inquire. ————————————————— INTRODUCTION.—PART II. On the 27th day of January, 1939, a Royal Commission was issued and entered in the Register of Patents. Its terms require your Commissioner, thereby appointed, to inquire into and report upon:— 1. The causes and origins of the serious bush fires which burned in various parts of Victoria during the month of January, 1939. 2. The measures taken to prevent the outbreak and spread of such fires and the measures taken to prevent the destruction of life and public property. 3. The measures which are necessary or desirable to be taken by any and what persons, corporations, or bodies to prevent the outbreak of bushfires in Victoria, or to prevent the spreading of such fires; and 4. The measures which are necessary or desirable to be taken by any and what persons, corporations, or bodies to protect life and private and public property in the event of bush fires burning in Victoria. The first sitting of the Commission so constituted was held at Melbourne on the 31st day of January, 1939. The last public sitting was held on the 17th day of April, 1939. Between those dates the Commission sat daily, continuously, except for one or two short intermissions which were granted to meet the convenience of parties. Sittings were held in the country, also, at many places which were thought to be most easily accessible to witnesses from the surrounding district. The Commission did not attempt to sit at every place affected by the fires. It chose for its sittings places which it considered were centres of country which, because of its physical features, its experience of the fires and other circumstances was likely to be typical of much larger areas. The Commission is satisfied that by this method it has heard classes of evidence which are representative in principle of every class of evidence which could have been given. The Commission, further, inspected areas thought to be typical of all the classes of forest country n the State, widely diverse as they are. It was found that although different kinds of country have problems of fire prevention and suppression which differ in some degree, one from the other, nevertheless the general principles which are thought by informed people to govern these matters are of almost universal application and readily admit of modification according to the exigencies of local peculiarities. It will be found that this Report, in the main, is concerned with generalizations. In few cases will it be found to particularize. For instance under paragraph I. of the terms of the Commission (supra) no attempt was made to discover whether Mr. “A” lit a fire which burnt his district, nor was it regarded of paramount importance whether, in another district, the lighting was deliberate or accidental. It was left to the detectives and the coroner to elicit, in their own spheres, such evidence of this sort as they could. Again, it will be noticed that there does not appear in this Report under, for instance, paragraph 4 of the Commission, any suggestion as to the manner in which, for example, Noojee may be best protected or Omeo made safe. Rather it will appear that the Report suggests methods of control and organization of fire fighting forces, of awakening of public appreciation of the danger of the misuse of fire, of deciding upon, effectuating and enforcing fire prevention schemes, of amendment of the law by repeal or alteration where at present it stands in the way of the safeguarding of our property and our people. The principal parties who appeared before the Commission were:— Those classes of the rural population whose work or interests lie in or near forest areas and who consisted chiefly of farmers, graziers, timber­workers, and saw­millers; the Forests Commission; The Victorian Foresters' Association; The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works; The Country Bush Fire Brigades Association; the Lands Department; the Hardwood Millers' Association; the Forests League; expert witnesses from within and without the Public Service; and various persons who desired to express their views upon the matters for inquiry.The truth was hard to find. Accordingly, your Commissioner sometimes sought it (as he was entitled to do) in places other than the witness box. Much of the evidence was coloured by self interest. Much of it was quite false. Little of it was wholly truthful. The timberworkers were afraid that if they gave evidence they would not be given future employment in the mills. It is difficult to imagine a sufficient reason for the absence of representation of these men before the Commission of Inquiry. Some of them, disregarding advice, gave evidence, which was clearly truthful. The Forest Officers were, in the main, youngish men of very good character. Mostly, they were afraid that if they were too outspoken, their future advancement in the Forests Commission’s employ would be endangered. Some of them had become too friendly with the millers; whose activities they were set to direct and check. It was regrettable that some of the saw­millers and some of the Forestry Officers were loud in praise of one another, when, to the knowledge of both each had neglected many obligations in the matter of fire prevention and suppression. Of the Forests Commission, the Chairman, Mr Alfred Vernon Galbraith, alone was called to speak for the Commission. He found himself in the embarrassing position of being the truthful sponsor of what he thought was a bad case. He is a man of moral integrity. If he were freed from the preoccupations attendant upon a life of enforced mendicancy on behalf of his Department, and if his Commission were placed beyond the reach of the sort of political authority to which he and his department have for some time past been subjected, he would be of greater value to the State and would be able to devote himself more closely to (inter alia) what should be the first consideration of every forester, the problems of fire prevention and suppression. Reference has been made to certain of the foregoing matters for the purpose of showing some of the difficulties with which the commission was confronted and to explain why methods a little unorthodox, but sound, were employed in the search for truth. Some of what has already been set down will, when later expanded, serve to explain, if not to excuse entirely, what appears to have been the mistakes and the failures of persons whose past conduct will be later discussed. This Report will be somewhat inconclusive as to many matters which might have been appropriately examined but which, while being technically relevant, upon a consideration of realities fell, for practical purposes, outside the ambit of the Inquiry. The several classes of people who gave evidence pressed for the preferment of their personal or departmental interests. To enable a report of full effect to be made, it would be necessary to inquire into and resolve the preliminary problem of the co­ordination of control of forest lands by, and recognition and preservation of the rights of, the various persons and departments whose interests are rooted in the soil of the forests ; to inquire into the constitution and administration of some of these departments ; to expose and scotch the foolish enmities which mar the management of the forests by public departments, who, being our servants, have become so much our masters that in some respects they lose sight of our interests in the promotion of their mutual animosities. Nevertheless what will be suggested, should it be thought to be of value, can without insuperable difficulty be later fitted to any change of forest lands control. There is one fundamental policy of fire prevention and of protection against fire. There is only one basis upon which that policy can safely rest, namely, the full recognition by each person or department who has dominion over the right to enter the forests of the paramount duty to safeguard the property and rights of others. It would be found in the forests, as it is in all places outside the forests, that such a policy is the surest safeguard of the rights and property of each one concerned. No person or department can be allowed to use the forest in such a way as to create a state of danger to others. If conformity of this rule cannot be brought about, the offender must be put out of the forest, or, in the case of a public department, its authority curtailed or enlarged, so that the rule may be enforced or voluntarily observed as the case may require. Education of children and adults in this matter is vitally necessary. As no scheme of prevention or safeguards can be brought to a state effectiveness in this State without education, goodwill and the expenditure of money and patient labour, the day is yet distant when we may be able to say that we have, not a condition of perfect safety, but at least a working plan and the knowledge that the plan has the approval of the rural populace. Without their approval and goodwill there can be no real plan because it is man who causes the fires in all years, as he caused the fires of 1939. A law which is not acceptable to the many is made to be broken. It is therefore with some misgivings as to immediate betterment that the recommendations of this Report are made. For much that will be suggested will rest, for its effectuation, upon the voluntary co­operation of those whom it is designed to protect. A little of it will rely upon the stern and swift punishment of the few who, failing to be convinced, cannot be cajouled. That punishment, it is suggested, should take the form of deprivation of rights, rather than, but not to the exclusion of, fine or imprisonment.CHAPTER II. THE CAUSES AND ORIGINS OF THE SERIOUS BUSH FIRES WHICH BURNED IN VARIOUS PARTS OF VICTORIA DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1939. The first paragraph of the Commission of Inquiry has been used as the title to this Chapter. It is not intended that what follows under this head should be thoroughly exhaustive. The matter is best restricted to those things which have been found to be of practical and real importance. Except that the summer of 1938­39 was unusually dry and that it followed what already had been a period of drought, the causes of the 1939 bushfires were no different from those of any other summer. There were, as there always have been, immediate and remote causes. Upon examination, which is not now undertaken, it will appear that no one cause may properly be said to have been the sole cause. The major, over­riding cause, which comprises all others, is the indifference with which forest fires, as a menace to the interests of us all, have been regarded. They have been considered to be matters of individual interest, for treatment by individuals. As a great deal of what might be said under this heading will be said expressly or by implication later in this Report, it is thought that this chapter may well be compressed. 11 The causes, of the fires under discussion are set out as follows :—a) Dry Season and Dry Forests.— Further elaboration is unnecessary.(b) The Condition of the Forests.— When the early settlers came to what is now this State, they found for the greater part a clean forest. Apparently for many years before their arrival, the forest had not been scourged by fire. They were in their natural state. Their canopies had prevented the growth of scrub and bracken to any wide extent. They were open and traversible by men, beasts and wagons. Compared with their present condition, they were safe. But the white men introduce fire to the forests. They burned the floor to promote the growth of grass and to clear it of scrub which had grown where, for whatever reason, the balance of nature had broken down. The fire stimulated grass growth, but it encouraged scrub growth far more. Thus was begun the cycle of destruction which can not be arrested in our day. The scrub grew and flourished, fire was used to clear it, the scrub grew faster and thicker, bush fires, caused by the careless or designing hand of man, ravaged the forests; the canopy was impaired, more scrub grew and prospered, and again the cleansing agent, fire, was used. And so to­day, in places where our forefathers rode, driving their herds and flocks before them, the wombat and wallaby are hard put to it to find passage through the bush.(c) Various Interests.—It is in these forests which are in the condition described, that various people have followed their various interests and have been permitted to adopt various and conflicting methods or no methods of fire protection.(d) Land Utilization Control.—It has already been shown by example that the absence of any method of co­ordinating the interests and duties of Public Departments and other forest users has been a contributory cause.(e) Permanent Fire Authority.—There has been none.(f) Immediate Causes.—Almost all fires are caused by man. The experience of the past shows that the persons who caused the 1939 fires are to be found among the following classes which are set forth in a descending scale of frequency of responsibility for fire; the manner in and reason for which they cause fire is shortly indicated:—i) Settlers.—Burning off for growth, clearing or protection.Graziers.—Burning to promote grass growth.Miners and Prospectors.—Clearing to facilitate operations.(ii) Sportsmen.—Neglect of camp­fires, billy fires.Tourists.—Lighted matches for smoking. Campers.—Burning, to facilitate passage through the bush.(iii) Forest Workers.—Misuse of fire used for mill operations and for domestic purposes. (iv) Persons using roads.—Neglect of billyfires ; lighted matches; and burning obstructing logs on roadway.(v) Road and Railway Work Gangs.—Billy and camp fires ; careless burning off on railway property.(vi) Locomotives.—Defective spark arresters.(vii) Lightning.— Infrequent, as generally followed by rain. Of these classes settlers, miners and graziers are the most prolific fire causing agents. The percentage of fires caused by them far exceeds that of any other class. Their firing is generally deliberate. All other firing is, generally, due to carelessness. [Emphasis added](g) Laws Relating to Fire Prevention in Reserved and Protected Forests.—The relevant provisions of law which govern the matters of prevention are not here set out. They are to be found in Section 20, Police Offences Act 1928, and Sections 68, 69 and 70 of the Forests Act 1928. It is a strange fact that the law designed for the prevention of fires has, by the unsuitability of its specific terms and the ill­considered use of the power of proclamation conferred by it been a fruitful cause of bush fires. The reasons for the failure of the law are to be found within the law. (i) It imposes penalties in respect of the lighting of fires (unless by authority of a Forest Officer) during November, December, January, February, and March within any reserved forest or half a mile of its boundary or within any portions of protected forests specified by Order of the Governor­inCouncil. (No areas of protected forests have been so specified.)ii) When the Commission reports to the Minister that there is serious danger of fire in any part or parts of Victoria the Governor­in­Council may declare, by proclamation, any specified period to be a “proclaimed period” and any specified area to be a proclaimed area. (iii) A proclaimed area may include any Crown or private land not situate in a city, town or township of more than one thousand inhabitants. The lighting or permitting of the lighting of any fire in the open air in a proclaimed area and during a proclaimed period is, except under the conditions specified in the proclamation, punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. One of the conditions generally specified in the proclamation is that a permit to light such a fire must be obtained from a Forest Officer. (iv) It has been the practice to make one proclamation covering one period for all parts of Victoria which it has been desired to make “proclaimed areas.” This manner of exercising the power of proclamation has also proved to be unacceptable to the rural populace partly because it is quite inappropriate. (h) Reasons for the Failure of the Law.—It is trite to say that no flat rule can be applied with justice to the activities of all mankind or any large class of people. The law relating to the prevention of fires has failed because it is not fitting for the widely diverse conditions and circumstances which obtain in Victoria. Furthermore, it has failed because the people have neither understood nor been instructed in it; (i) In the reserved and protected forests exists a wide range of topographical and climatic conditions. In many years, in places of high altitude, it may be impossible throughout the whole of a summer or for the greater part of summer to promote fire. In other and lower altitudes the rainfall may be so heavy that the same difficulty of burning may be encountered. Settlers and others find it necessary to burn scrub to keep their land clear that their property may be protected from fire, to promote growth or to clear their land for agricultural and pastoral purposes generally. In many cases, fire being the cheapest agent to hand, they must use it. Both under the Section and the Proclamation it is found impracticable to burn in the permitted periods. (ii) Many settlers have not known that the permission of the Forest Officer may be sought. (iii) Many have found that the permission will not be granted as the Forests Officer frequently shuns the responsibility of granting permission or refuses permission at times when experienced people feel that it is safe to burn. (iv) Acting in this state of ignorance or discouragement the settler decides to burn in defiance of the law and, not wishing to be detected in the act, leaves the fire untended, either to die out or to rage across the countryside. (v) The law is so notoriously unpopular, because it is unreasonable and inflexible, that there is no public opinion to check an intending law­breaker. (vi) There has been no effective system of policing the law. (vii) People have learned from their childhood to treat it with contempt. (viii) Many persons charged with the enforcement of the law are country­bred and feel no special zeal for the task of upholding a law which they feel to be just.You can access this 36 page government report here free - http://www.voltscommissar.net/docs/Leonard_Stretton-1939_Bush_Fires_Royal_Commission_Report.pdfThe Australian Aborigines used control burn going back thousands of years.The Australian soil is enhanced with grass fires from time immemorial and in fact Aborigines have used fire sticks for this purpose. Sometimes controlled burns get out of control.Aboriginal burn practices again used on countryA recent burn conducted at a bush reserve near Wedderburn held significance beyond being a land management tool.Members of the Dja Dja Wurrung community applied the burning practices of their ancestors to Bush Heritage Australia’s Nardoo Hills Reserve, a parcel of land set aside for bush regeneration and conservation.“Our fire management practice, which we call Djandak Wii, is an obligation we have to the land, and we love to see the greater biodiversity it brings, and the gradual return to health it brings to country,” Dja Dja Wurrung Clans Aboriginal Corporation chief executive officer Rodney Carter said.Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-madeByPaul ReadNovember 18, 2019 — 12.00amBUSHFIRESThere are, on average, 62,000 fires in Australia every year. Only a very small number strike far from populated areas and satellite studies tell us that lightning is responsible for only 13 per cent. Not so the current fires threatening to engulf Queensland and NSW. There were no lightning strikes on most of the days when the fires first started in September. Although there have been since, these fires – joining up to create a new form of mega-fire – are almost all man-made.About 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit ... The Hillville fire that destroyed homes last week.CREDIT:NICK MOIRA 2015 satellite analysis of 113,000 fires from 1997-2009 confirmed what we had known for some time – 40 per cent of fires are deliberately lit, another 47 per cent accidental. This generally matches previous data published a decade earlier that about half of all fires were suspected or deliberate arson, and 37 per cent accidental. Combined, they reach the same conclusion: 87 per cent are man-made.Arson, mischief and recklessness: 87 per cent of fires are man-madeToo much fuel causes extreme bush fires, not climate changeWhat was Australia’s Environment Minister thinking?Melissa Price succumbs to pagan witchcraft:“There’s no doubt that there’s many people who have suffered over this summer. We talk about the Victorian bushfires; (in) my home state of Western Australia we’ve also got fires there,” [Melissa Price] told Sky News this morning. “There’s no doubt that climate change is having an impact on us. There’s no denying that.”LWALet’s look at her home state. After 67 years of fire management in the giant, hot, dry state of WA, the trend is clear — the more prescribed area we burn, the less wildfire does. In the graph below the prescribed burns declined for forty years and wildfires increased for thirty. After the Dwelling up Fire in 1961 the state ramped up the preventative burns, and reduced wildfires.As the BushFireFront team say:“We can’t control the weather but we can control the fuel loads“Tough call — what do we do, redesign our energy system, pay billions, change our cars, our houses and our light globes in the hope that bush fires will be nicer, or do we just go back to doing what we used to do that worked?As prescribed fire reduction declined, Wildfires increased in South West Australia.Thanks to Roger Underwood and the BFF team who told us how to prevent megafires in April 2009, fully ten years ago.Avoiding Megafires in AustraliaLarge wildfires can only occur when there is a combination, at the same time, of three things:an ignition source,severe fire weather and,a large contiguous accumulation of fuel.Remove any of these three and you cannot have a large wildfire (= megafire).We obviously can’t control the weather, nor can we hope to eliminate all possible avenues of ignition. The only factor we can control is the large contiguous accumulations of fuel. Therefore, broadscale fuel reduction burning is the only defence we have against large wildfires. This will not prevent fires occurring, but it will ensure fires are less intense, are easier and safer to control and will do less damage.Does it work? Yes it does, as has been shown many times, over many years, by the experience of Western Australian forest managers. The “proof of the pudding” is the incidence of large wildfires in Western Australian forests over the last 50 years.Or we could put up some windmills and solar panels to “stop the flames”.h/t George and PatRating: 9.7/10 (96 votes cast)Too much fuel causes extreme bush fires, not climate change, 9.7 out of 10 based on 96 ratingsThe short killer summary: The Skeptics Handbook. The most deadly point: The Missing Hot Spot.March 6th, 2019 | Tags: Evidence, Fires, Western Australia (WA) | Category: Global Warming |Print This Post |Email This Post |219 comments to Too much fuel causes extreme bush fires, not climate change#JustinMarch 6, 2019 at 5:26 amNo no, they have it all wrong. We CAN control the weather, just give them a few dollars and they will prove it to you!Too much fuel causes extreme bush fires, not climate change