R.G.Menzies above

This document is part of an archive of postings on Australian Politics, a blog hosted by Blogspot who are in turn owned by Google. The index to the archive is available here or here. Indexes to my other blogs can be located here or here. Archives do accompany my original postings but, given the animus towards conservative writing on Google and other internet institutions, their permanence is uncertain. These alternative archives help ensure a more permanent record of what I have written. My Home Page. My Recipes. My alternative Wikipedia. My Blogroll. Email me (John Ray) here. NOTE: The short comments that I have in the side column of the primary site for this blog are now given at the foot of this document.

Two of my ancestors were convicts so my family has been in Australia for a long time. As well as that, all four of my grandparents were born in the State where I was born and still live: Queensland. And I am even a member of the world's second-most condemned minority: WASPs (the most condemned is of course the Jews -- which may be why I tend to like Jews). So I think I am as Australian as you can get. I certainly feel that way. I like all things that are iconically Australian: meat pies, Vegemite, Henry Lawson etc. I particularly pride myself on my familiarity with the great Australian slanguage. I draw the line at Iced Vo-Vos and betting on the neddies, however. So if I cannot comment insightfully on Australian affairs, who could?

****************************************************************************************



30 April 2019

ScoMo could squeak it in with Palmer's support

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has narrowed the gap behind Bill Shorten in the latest Newspoll as support for controversial billionaire Clive Palmer soars.

Labor is leading the two-party preferred vote 51 per cent to 49 per cent ahead of the Coalition with three weeks to go until the federal election.

But both of the major parties have lost votes to Mr Palmer, whose extensive $50million advertising campaign for the United Australia Party has resulted in five per cent of the primary vote.

The result is a marked improvement for the Coalition since March, when Mr Morrison's government was down 54-46 on the same measure.

The poll comes after the first two weeks of the election campaign in which Mr Morrison has campaigned heavily on the economy and attacking Labor's tax plans.

But the Coalition's primary vote has dropped one point to 38 per cent, while Labor's primary is down to 37 per cent.

PRIMARY VOTE NEWSPOLL

Coalition - 38 per cent

Labor - 37 per cent

Greens - 9 per cent

United Australia Party - 5 per cent

One Nation - 4 per cent

Source: The Australian

Support for One Nation has dropped to four per cent, while the Greens remain on nine per cent.

Labor has ruled out negotiating a preference deal with Mr Palmer after making informal approaches.

Malcolm Turnbull needed a primary vote of 42 per cent to win a one-seat majority in 2016.

Despite the drop in primary vote, Newspoll calculates the Coalition has made up ground based on preference flows at recent federal and state elections.

The two-party preferred vote is now back to where it was before Mr Turnbull was forced out of the top job in August 2018.

Mr Shorten has climbed higher in the preferred prime minister stakes, jumping two points to 37 per cent, while Mr Morrison dropped one point to 45 per cent.

The Labor leader has only won one preferred prime minister poll, getting his best result immediately after Mr Turnbull went, before Mr Morrison overtook him.

The two leaders will conduct their first debate of the campaign on Monday night in Perth, before another debate in Brisbane on Friday.

SOURCE






Fabric of democracy fraying under weight of the mob

GERARD HENDERSON

Isaac Butterfield was, until now, a little heard of stand-up comedian — until he included Holocaust material in his gig at the Melbourne International Comedy Festival this month.

According to a report in Melbourne’s Herald Sun, a Jewish woman emailed Butterfield complaining about some of his material. He replied: “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the oven.” The original saying referred to “the kitchen”.

Butterfield’s word usage in this instance is brutally telling, especially when knowingly directed at a Jewish woman. It is an established fact many of the Jews who were murdered by Nazi Germany with poison gas were cremated in ovens. So how did the MICF handle the situation? Well, a spokeswoman said performers were able to express their views, even opinions viewed as offensive. Apart from that, the organisation went into no-comment mode.

This is the same MICF that recently dropped its Barry Award, following comments by comedian Barry Humphries describing transgender as a fashion. Similar comments in recent years have been made by the likes of Julie Burchill and Germaine Greer. The former’s views were removed from the Guardian website.

So, according to the MICF, it is appropriate to strip the name of Australia’s most famous comedian from its key award for making a comment about trans­genderism. But it’s quite OK for Butterfeld to dismiss the views of a Jewish Australian with a tasteless reference to ovens.

In a recent discussion with a young comedian, I asked what remains of humour when so many take offence, often on behalf of somebody else. He replied that it’s still legitimate to make jokes about conservatives. It was a reminder that in the contemporary West it is the Left that is into censorship of thought — and its targets are invariably conservatives.

In his 2019 Keith Murdoch Oration, News Corp chief executive Robert Thomson spoke about “the seemingly powerful global companies that panic and prevaricate at the first mutterings of the … media mob”.

His specific reference was to Google’s decision to surrender when “a mob of Google employees” objected to their employer’s decision to appoint Kay Coles James to an advisory council on artificial intelligence.

The problem was that James is president of the conservative Heritage Foundation. She is also a 69-year-old black American who, as a girl, suffered discrimination when integrated into a white school in Richmond, Virginia.

Thomson commented: “There is no doubt that a mob mentality has taken hold in much of the West and among the most pronounced of the mobs are illiberal liberals, who are roaming the landscape in the seemingly endless, insatiable quest for indignation and umbrage.”

The reference was to the North American use of liberal, meaning Left or left-wing in Australian word usage. He added: “It is vituperation as virtue.”

The latest expression of mob outrage in Australia has been directed at Israel Folau, a rugby union player and committed Christian. His secular “sin” was to post an Instagram warning to drunks, homosexuals, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters that hell awaits them — unless they repent. This was a selection of “the works of the flesh” nominated in St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians.

Now it appears that Folau breached a warning from Rugby Australia not to make homophobic comments. But St Paul’s mes­sage to the Galatians was not confined to those termed gays today. Even if it were, a lifetime ban for a professional footballer is an enormous punishment for an expression of a religious belief.

The pile-on against Folau seems to begin with companies that advertise with Rugby Australia — most particularly Qantas, whose chief executive, Alan Joyce, apparently suffers no conscience pangs due to the fact the public company of which he is an employee has business dealings with some Muslim nations that are not exactly gay-friendly. And it goes all the way down to sneering secularists such as Nine newspapers’ Peter FitzSimons.

On ABC television’s Offsiders program on April 14, presenter Kelli Underwood and panellist Caroline Wilson bagged Folau and talked down fellow panellist John Harms, who, while not agreeing with the footballer’s comments, argued that his “religious position has to be respected”. Underwood accused Folau of attempting to “hide behind religion” to engage in “hate speech”. The inference is that it’s now hate speech for a Christian to quote St Paul and urge repentance.

What Thomson refers to as “a mob mentality” has even reached the doors of the Australian judicial system. In his judgment in the NSW District Court on December 6 last year in R v Philip Edward Wilson, judge Roy Ellis warned about the “potential for media pressure to impact judicial independence” in child sexual abuse cases.

Ellis’s concern was about “perceived pressure for a court to reach a conclusion which seems to be consistent with the direction of pubic opinion, rather than being consistent with the rule of law that requires a court to hand down individual justice in its decision making process”.

This was an important statement by an experienced judge — which appears to have been ignored by the NSW government. This trial did not involve a jury.

In his sentencing judgment in R v George Pell on March 13, Victorian County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd had this to say: “We have witnessed outside of this court and within our community, examples of a ‘witch-hunt’ or ‘lynch mob’ mentality in relation to Cardinal Pell. I utterly condemn such behaviour. That has nothing to do with justice in a civilised society.”

Again, this was a significant statement about the presence of a mob hostile to the defence and defence counsel by a senior Victorian judge — which appears to have been ignored by the Victorian government. This was a trial by jury.

Democracy has succeeded through the decades because its principal institutions — the executive, the legislature and the judicial system — prevailed against mob opinion.

Let’s hope this remains the case, otherwise intolerance and injustice will prevail.

SOURCE  






Teachers claim constant bullying and harassment from parents is forcing them to abandon their profession in droves

Parents objecting to Leftist bias and indoctrination, most likely.  Leftists can dish out the aggression but they can't take it

The number of teachers quitting their jobs is rapidly rising across Australia amid claims angry parents are to blame. 

Teachers say they are being met with bullying, harassment and violence from parents more than ever, and even face the prospect of losing their role if they speak up.

But parents claim they're just being vocal about their concerns. 

A study from Melbourne's La Trobe University found 80 per cent of teachers were subject to student or parent-led bullying in the past year.

A separate report conducted by the Australian Catholic University found that 45 per cent of school principals across the country were threatened with violence in 2018.

In an emotional interview with Channel Nine's 60 Minutes, former teacher George Allertz says that although he was passionate about his job, the constant physical, verbal and electronic abuse he copped pushed him out of the profession.

'You're going home after being abused from a parent because they didn't agree with something that you taught or the way that you taught it,' Mr Allertz says. 'You basically become deflated… I can't do that anymore.'

Mr Allertz says he has witnessed school events during which parents become violent.

The former teacher says parents have opted to fight not only teachers but other parents on school grounds.

He also said he's seen parents use horrific language and come to physical blows before having to be escorted off the grounds.

However, parents have insisted they're just speaking up about their concerns over their children's treatment or the education system.

Kevin Saunders was disciplined for criticising the way his son was being taught at school, causing the angered father to pull him out altogether. Mr Saunders was bewildered that he was disciplined and questioned why he didn't have the right to speak up for his son. 'I spoke the truth and suddenly I'm getting escorted out of there,' he said.

SOURCE   







Election coverage offers a measure of ABC’s decline

So far, the ABC’s election coverage could not be described as scintillating. That much is hardly surprising since the campaign performance of a media organisation seldom outshines that of the candidate it backs, and Bill Shorten has hardly delivered a showstopper.

In naming Shorten as the ABC’s preferred prime minister, we should acknowledge, of course, that the corporation takes no editorial stance as such. But as an editorial guidance note to staff acknowledges, impartiality is in the eye of the beholder. “Everyone regards the world through the prism of their own values,” it reads. “Impartiality is therefore an art rather than a ­science.”

So how are the virtuosos of value neutrality performing on AM, the showpiece of ABC radio news and current affairs, which once stretched the canvas on which the day’s campaign would be painted? Scratchily is probably the kindest response. So much so, that if the aim of Sabra Lane and her team was to make the program utterly extraneous, they are succeeding magnificently.

On Tuesday, April 17, for example, we were treated to an exclusive interview with Richard Di Natale defending the rights of the children of terrorists. Wednesday’s coverage began with the launch of the Greens’ climate policy. On Thursday we learned about the alt-right’s covert plan to adopt Fraser Anning as its zombie.

On day eight we were obliged to wait for 16 minutes for the sole election item. “Experts are calling on the government to do more to protect consumers from aggressive hawkers of funeral insurance,” it started unpromisingly.

Last week the taxpayer-funded program ran a series of reports recommending other things on which taxpayers might care to lavish their money. AM called out “childcare as the missing issue in the campaign” and bemoaned the failure of both major parties to boost payments for Newstart.

Experts told us there was “a genuine fundamental shift away from preference for small government”. It was a response to the Work Choices legislation, Joe Hockey’s 2014 budget and climate change, said expert Jill Sheppard from the Australian National University. Expert Ian McAuley from the Centre for Policy Development agreed, claiming voters were reacting against privatisation.

It was left to the Centre for Independent Studies’ Blaise Joseph to provide a sensible opinion. In doing so, regretfully, he revealed that he was not expert, since an expert by definition cannot dispute “expert opinion”, the nebulous voice called upon whenever the ABC’s preconceptions need shoring up. AM no longer provides the forum for grown-up policy debate it did as recently as the 2007 election. That campaign began with interviews with John Howard and Kevin Rudd, followed the next day by details of the Coalition’s tax package and an interview with Wayne Swan.

On subsequent days Nick Minchin was interviewed about housing policy, Hockey attacked Labor’s union links and Julia Gillard spoke for the defence.

There was a four-story package on the first leaders’ debate, Rudd was attacked by the CFMEU, both sides joined a discussion on pensions, treasurer Peter Costello gave a live interview, Julie Bishop defended the Coalition’s record on university funding, Rudd proclaimed his climate credentials and Malcolm Turnbull, as environment minister, responded.

The decline of AM over the course of just four elections is a symptom of the public broadcaster’s drift towards the periphery of national life. Once the daily electoral cycle began with AM’s keynote interview, was punctuated by the 7.30 Report and ended with ABC TV’s Lateline.

Today, AM is a shadow of its former self, so pale that its features are hard to define. The 7.30 audience that once hovered around a million in the five major metropolitan capitals has sunk below 600,000. In an act of mercy, Lateline has been put to sleep.

That the ABC retains any potency at all is down to the integrity of a dwindling number of presenters who understand the responsibilities that come with the ABC’s privilege. It owes nothing to the institution itself, which is increasingly ill-disciplined and hostage to group think.

Take the ABC’s obsession with “Watergate”, for example, a conspiracy concocted on Twitter about alleged irregularities in the allocation of water licences. Quite what the irregularities were, who was alleging impropriety, or indeed whether any of it mattered a jot has never been explained.

Suffice to say, however, that the ABC’s Virginia Trioli decided it was one of the “big issues of the day” when she interviewed the Prime Minister last week.

Scott Morrison drew on his reserves of patience to explain that water deals are done with the advice of state ministers and public servants, not on the whim of the federal government.

Trioli, however, was not satisfied. “You said on this program on January 14 that you’re ‘a Prime Minister for standards’. So is this the standard that we should then accept from you — rather casual about accountability, casual about transparency and seemingly unaccountable about value for taxpayer money?”

Morrison: “Well, Virginia, I think they’re pretty strong accusations you’ve just made there without providing any foundation for them … I don’t know how you could make those allegations in the way that you have, I’d seem to think that would be a bit over the top from you.”

We can only guess if Trioli’s colleagues slapped her on the back after the show or, like most reasonably minded viewers, thought she’d made a goose of herself.

What is indisputable is that Trioli wasted an opportunity to quiz the Prime Minister about substantial policy issues of vital national importance to embark on a frolic of her own. This was not the ABC as the corporation’s great postwar chairman, Dick Boyer, imagined it, an institute standing “solid and serene in the middle of our national life, running no campaign, seeking to persuade no opinion, but presenting the issues freely and fearlessly for the calm judgment of our people”.

It was the very opposite: a jittery voice from the bottom of the garden, lacking self-awareness, jumping at shadows, fixated on the immaterial and utterly and completely irrelevant.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






29 April 2019

No let-up in Bill’s wobbles

The 2019 election campaign continues to be about give and take: Bill Shorten wants to remind voters what Labor is prepared to give and Scott Morrison wants to remind voters what Labor wants to take.

This remains the essence of the choice between two sides offering diametrically opposed policy and economic approaches based on tax cuts and growth or more tax and redistribution. Essentially the argument is about tax and spending: who gets taxed and who gets the benefit of spending.

The Opposition Leader campaigns on being able to spend more than the Coalition — such as the $600 million announced yesterday to fight domestic violence — and still have bigger budget surpluses and less debt because he is going to raise more tax from the “top end of town”.

“We want to stand up for Australian workers. We want to make sure they get better pay and better quality of work. This government just wants to cut schools and hospitals, cut penalty rates, so they can give tax cuts to the top end of town,” Shorten said this week.

The Prime Minister argues Labor’s new taxes on business, investors and high-income earners will dampen the economy and kill jobs while the Coalition’s tax cuts will create growth and jobs. Morrison says he doesn’t think Shorten “has the faintest clue about how business operates in this country, otherwise he wouldn’t be putting $387 billion worth of higher taxes on the Australian economy. As we found out, he doesn’t even know what those tax policies are.”

Disparate polls suggest although Labor’s lead over the Coalition has narrowed, the ALP and Shorten are still the frontrunners and favoured to win on May 18. But Shorten’s campaign, strong on positive announcements and targeting the “chaos” of the Coalition, has been weakened by a lack of attention to detail in the central tax argument, plus mixed messages.

The Labor leader correctly makes the point that Morrison’s focus on his personal popularity doesn’t matter as much as the policy arguments.

This is because he’s had a longstanding low level of voter satisfaction and he has trailed Morrison as preferred prime minister, yet voters have given Labor, under him, a lead over the Coalition. Besides, supposedly “unpopular” opposition leaders have won elections before.

The problem for Shorten is that he will be seen as incompetent and not across detail if he continues to make mistakes.

This week in Queensland, he was confronted with a tax anomaly and stumbled. It wasn’t a detailed and tricky question about negative gearing, franking credits or superannuation. It was a blue-collar worker with hi-vis stripes on his sleeves who wanted a tax cut for people earning more than $250,000 year.

The reason the worker at the coal export terminal in Gladstone wanted relief for people earning $70,000 more than Labor’s $180,000-a-year limit on tax cuts was that a “lot of people” at the coal port earn more than $250,000.

This is a conundrum for Labor, because a lot of traditional supporters get paid enough to fall within the ALP’s class of high-income earners and get lumped in with the “top end of town”. It is also part of the danger of political parties sending mixed messages during an election campaign. If voters are confused about a party’s policies, they are more inclined to vote for the clear message.

Labor’s central message for more than a year has been about wages and taxes: that “everything is rising except your wages”, and the ALP wants to redistribute tax wealth. Next week there will be even greater concentration on the “living wage” from Labor.

On Tuesday, Shorten, in front of TV cameras, was in his element — surrounded by workers. But rather than directly respond to a friendly unionist’s request for a tax cut with the cold truth that he would raise that worker’s tax, Shorten airily responded: “We’re going to look at that.”

Less than a week after having to backtrack and “take it on the chin” over a claim that Labor had no plans to change superannuation policies, when there are new taxes worth $34bn, Shorten had again answered without thinking.

It is easy to understand why Shorten, trailing as preferred PM and with a negative net satisfaction rating, wouldn’t want to disappoint a unionist asking for tax relief. But it highlighted the difficulty in redistributing tax revenue.

In previous elections Labor has suffered after imposing a cut-off point for income-tax relief that was below what a lot of Labor voters were earning or aspired to earn.

When an arbitrary income threshold is set there is no discrimination based on how people earn their money, where they live or how they vote. As Shorten pointed out, the worker he spoke to was on a good “union contract” that paid him $250,000 a year. But it still meant he was in the “top end of town” with bankers and business, and would have to pay Labor’s restored deficit levy — and increased taxes — for workers earning more than $180,000 a year.

As the man considered most likely to become prime minister next month, Shorten can’t afford to talk about hitting the top end of town to pay for $2.3bn in cancer care or $600m to fight domestic violence when he’s in Melbourne, and then say something different when he’s caught eye-to-eye with a Gladstone worker whose tax is going to rise under Labor.

It was bound to be a challenge for both sides to reconcile vast differences in priorities between voters in Deakin and Higgins in metropolitan Melbourne and those in regional Queensland, but Shorten has found it more difficult.

Tax wasn’t the only mixed message that hurt Shorten’s campaign in Queensland as he stood next to candidates who were saying different things to their leader about the Adani coal development in the Carmichael basin.

As Morrison travelled in Queensland, where the Coalition hopes to pick up seats, he was able to benefit from the cabinet decision just before the election was called to sign off on the Adani development and leave the final approval in the hands of the state Labor government. There is no confusion now from the Coalition, it has done all it can to get under way a new coal development that would create hundreds of jobs in central Queensland.

Morrison bit the bullet on Adani and has the benefit of a clear message in Queensland even if it’s unpopular in inner-city Melbourne and Sydney. But Shorten has no such clarity and was badgered about whether he would review the Adani decision in government, and what such a review might actually mean.

When confronted with comments from Labor’s candidate for Dawson, Belinda Hassan, that the ALP is committed to reviewing the federal approvals for the development, he said: “I have made it clear that we have no plans to review it. Our position is that the deals have to stack up commercially. We’ll be guided by the best science. I’m going to implement the law of the land. No more, no less, and of course we’re not going to engage in sovereign risk”.

When pressed, he had to say there would be no review, “full stop” — and no matter what candidates say, the decision would be up to a Labor cabinet.

At the end of the first week of the campaign, after stumbles over super, electric vehicles and negative gearing, Labor looked forward to a reset over Easter, but the second week of the campaign looked dangerously like more of the same for Shorten’s team.

SOURCE  







Labor can’t explain 20 per cent payrises

Labor does not know how its taxpayer-funded 20 per cent pay increase to childcare workers will be delivered.

Opposition early childhood education spokeswoman Amanda Rishworth said a future Shorten government would consult with the sector on the best way workers can receive an average pay increase of $11,300.

“We will work with the sector and with the educators to work on a mechanism to deliver it. We have said the quantum of 20 per cent over eight years and we will work with the detail and the staging with the sector after that,” Ms Rishworth said.

“We want to have a consultative process about how we do it. We are not going to come on high about how we are going to do it. We want to work with the sector to deliver it over eight years.”

“We have said the commonwealth would fully fund this pay increase.”

When asked if childcare workers could receive a cash top up from the government, Ms Rishworth said: “I’m not going to go through hypotheticals. As I said, the people that we want to work with is the centres, the peak bodies, the educators and their representatives on how best we can deliver this.”

Opposition employment spokesman Brendan O’Connor said it was critical workers in the low-paid sector receive a pay rise.

“We will negotiate with the sector. All stakeholders will be involved in making sure we implement this,” Mr O’Connor said.

“But it is critical that if we are going to take preschool eduction seriously in this country, if we are going to attract and retain dedicated staff, then we need to remunerate them properly.”

SOURCE  





GetUp has dropped the mask.  They are a well-funded far-Left group whose whole aim is to destroy opponents by hook or by crook

GetUp is an organisation that seeks to destroy. It does not run candidates itself. Its operating method is to damage and destroy its opponents, whom it blackens through a combination of personal character assassination and political critique. It boasts about its influence at the 2016 election and its ability to terminate at this election Coalition MPs of what it calls the “hard right”. Its agenda now is ambitious in the extreme. It seeks, in effect, the partial political beheading of the Liberal Party. It targets Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton, followed by a line of others — Kevin Andrews, Greg Hunt, Josh Frydenberg, Christian Porter and Nicolle Flint.

Its method is an Australian version of the US brand of political action committees that are getting stronger at each election and are basic to the disrepute of US politics. PACs are formed by like-minded people, raise money and run campaigns to elect or defeat candidates, some being constructive but many viciously negative.

GetUp is a highly sophisticated operation, feared by the Liberals, trading on the idea of a “flourishing and fair” Australia. But it has been caught in its own hubris this election and risks being exposed as an extremist organisation of the Left fighting its declared extremists on the Right.

This was not supposed to happen. GetUp is a study in the extremism of progressive politics and its self-righteous belief any tactic is justified to crush its enemies. GetUp has peddled falsehoods about Andrews and Frydenberg and its universally condemned lifesaver advertisement against Abbott reveals GetUp as engaged in toxic tactics of the hard Left.

John Wanna, professor of public administration at the ANU, tells Inquirer: “They present themselves as being of the people but they are a restrictive, non-democratic organisation. It’s not an elected democratic model. They present themselves as being very nice but they operate like the PACs in America — their main purpose is to damage the other side. I think the danger for GetUp and the paradox may be that the more momentum it generates the more it might damage itself if it is seen to be subverting democracy. Its influence in that case may wane.

Asked about the withdrawn lifesaver advertisement, Abbott said: “There’s no doubt GetUp seek to mock their opponents. They have no sense of respect for service if their opponent doesn’t share their views. “They operate as a left-wing political mafia determined to rub out their opponents with campaigns based on prejudice.”

In his grassroots report about the GetUp campaign to destroy Abbott, Mike Seccombe in The Saturday Paper describes how its group leaders effectively worked a large crowd of volunteers with the sole aim of defeating Abbott: they tell people who to vote against, not who to vote for. Of course, the effect is to support the independent, Zali Steggall. The point, however, is that waging a campaign to destroy somebody is far easier than waging a campaign to get somebody elected. This is the distinctive point about GetUp. Unlike Scott Morrison or Bill Shorten or Pauline Hanson or even Palmer, who are trying to get themselves elected, GetUp exists solely to get people unelected.

The mentality this generates is destructive in the community but also seems to be self-corrupting. In the scripts it was using to turn voters against Andrews, GetUp accused Andrews of supporting gay conversion therapy. “This was a false and defamatory claim,” Andrews tells Inquirer. “I have never spoken about this issue in my life.”

Two branches in Andrews’s electorate put motions along these lines to the Liberal state council. Andrews was unaware of this until a newspaper report was published. He worked with Liberal state president Michael Kroger to have the motions withdrawn. When he discovered the GetUp script being used against him in its “conversation guides”, Andrews wrote to GetUp warning it was false and asking for the material to be withdrawn.

The point is obvious: when you create a demonised culture around a politician like Andrews on the grounds that he is an intolerable conservative, you can readily believe almost anything. A supporter of gay conversion therapy? Of course, why not?

The GetUp campaign against Frydenberg is purely opportunistic. The idea the Treasurer is part of the “hard right” is ludicrous. The justification, evidently, is that GetUp members wanted to target Frydenberg and claiming such a scalp would be an extraordinary triumph.

The “conversation guide” against Frydenberg says he “was part of the coup that removed Malcolm Turnbull as prime minister”. This is a lie, as anybody familiar with the leadership crisis knows. Is GetUp incompetent or unscrupulous, or both?

The script continued that Frydenberg “failed to get any real action on climate change” and was “part of the chaos in Canberra”.

This was a puerile justification for its effort to destroy him. GetUp seems ready to fabricate any excuse for its priorities. Frydenberg is under real pressure with multiple challenges in Kooyong, notably from Julian Burnside on behalf of the Greens.

But there was a comic aspect to this situation when GetUp national director Paul Oosting was put through the wringer by the ABC’s Jon Faine. It was a brilliant insight into GetUp’s real character and will become one of the moments of the campaign. Oosting refused to admit his organisation’s dishonesty: “I don’t think it’s misleading, Jon. I think that as I’ve outlined to you — I think there was a leadership coup in the Liberal Party … Josh Frydenberg was clearly the key beneficiary of that … I don’t think he became deputy prime minister by accident, did he?”

Oosting had to be corrected twice by Faine. Frydenberg is deputy prime minister? Wrong. Michael McCormack is the Deputy Prime Minister. Then he said Frydenberg is the finance minister. Wrong. Mathias Cormann has that job.

But Oosting refused to concede his script was inaccurate or unfair. He defended it by talking about climate change, an irrelevant point. Faine went to the essence. GetUp says it stands for a “different kind of politics”, so would Oosting in the cause of more integrity in politics concede his mistake? No way.

We learnt a lot. We learnt from Oosting’s own mouth that GetUp is as dodgy and deceptive as any of the major parties. On second thoughts, it’s worse — neither Morrison nor Shorten would have been stupid enough to defend such dishonesty. The next time anyone from GetUp tries to spin the line they want a better or more moral politics, you can either laugh or shut the door.

What is obvious is the cavalier irresponsibility with which GetUp makes its claims. It supposedly has seven priority targets in this campaign and it engaged in dishonesty about two of them. The evidence from Andrews and Frydenberg is that GetUp trades in deception.

The denigration of Abbott was even worse and even more revealing. In the ad Abbott is depicted as a lifesaver who refuses to save a drowning person by repeating lines supposed to reveal climate change denialism, and then laughs at the apparent drowning.

Shorten said the ad was “grossly disrespectful” to lifesavers. He said it was wrong to denigrate Abbott for his volunteer work as a lifesaver and the ad was “well out of line”. John Howard said it was “outrageous to suggest a man who has given years of his life to volunteer organisations would allow somebody to drown while he sat there and sneered at it”. Former Labor minister Stephen Conroy said GetUp “deserve all the condemnation they get”.

The ad was pulled by GetUp only after complaints by the 150,000-strong Royal Life Saving Society. GetUp said it had the greatest respect for the lifesaving movement. There was no sign of regret about the way Abbott was depicted. If ever there was a forked-tongue apology this was it. Only a fool would think it genuine. Abbott, for the record, has a long history as a volunteer firefighter and lifesaver where, in fact, he has actually saved people.

What does this ad reveal about GetUp and its culture? The ad had to be created, produced and authorised. It was not an accident. This was intended. The implication is that Abbott was prepared to see people die because of his attitude on climate change. It is the best example so far of how the self-righteous moralism of GetUp leads to the debasement of our politics because of a willingness to demonise an individual without any sense of restraint or decency. This is a warped culture on display — accept Labor or Liberal at any time but don’t accept this.

This is nothing but fermentation of hatred on the assumption that because it is Abbott it is justified. This is what many progressives assert with a passion that borders on hysteria. And once you cross this threshold for one person, you will cross it whenever it is convenient for anybody else that suits your purpose. This is what GetUp represents. Will any of this hurt GetUp? Its activists will be unaffected. Perhaps a few of its volunteers from middle Australia might think twice. No responsible board of directors would tolerate this performance, and if the directors take no action, that will confirm the nature of this group and the hypocrisy of its claims.

This goes to the point made by Wanna: “If you join GetUp you join as a supporter but you are not a member. This is a non-democratic model many not-for-profits use where the executive directors have the power and can operate as a cohesive group.” So far it has been successful.

The supporters are happy volunteers, convinced they are doing democracy a service. What happens if GetUp, despite its tactics, succeeds in beheading an echelon of senior Liberals? Fundamental to the operation of PACs in the US is that they must be “independent” of parties or candidates, yet they exist to support or oppose parties or candidates. Sound familiar?

As for Clive Palmer, he has nothing constructive to offer our political system. Palmer’s ads say he aims to form a government. He does not campaign, offer policies, subject himself to the media or the public. He just buys ads and his real purpose is to win Senate places and attempt to gain the balance of power on the Senate crossbench.

Such a prospect has only one consequence — more dysfunction and chaos in parliament. There is no precedent in Australia’s history for what Palmer is doing. Consider the public vindication if Palmer spends $50m and gets nothing — if the lot is wasted. That would be a sweet moment, or would it?

The downside is that One Nation would get more Senate seats. Every sign post-election is that Australia needs action to salvage the mechanics and culture of its democracy. But didn’t we know that?

SOURCE  







Pro coal and anti coal groups face off in Queensland coal town

A police spokeswoman said an emergency call was made before midnight on Saturday after reports a loud noise was heard near the camp of protesters at Clermont. Police it was suspected the noise could have been a firecracker and no one had reported seeing the source of the noise.

Stop Adani convoy organiser and former Greens leader Bob Brown said demonstrators were having a great day in the town after a hostile reception yesterday. ‘‘There were a few firecrackers over the fence in the middle of the night, but everybody had a cracker of a night,” Mr Brown said.

However, anti-Adani protesters complained that rocks had been hurled at cars in the convoy and women were “abused and threatened”.

An additional 100 anti-mining protesters were due to arrive to join a Stop Adani rally in the town on Sunday.

Clermont’s three pubs refused to serve convoy participants yesterday and a sign was hung from a hotel which read, “go home and turn off your power and walk”. Another read, “Mr Brown and ‘Stop Adani’ protesters, you may have travelled far and wide but you won’t get food inside”.

The publican of the Grand Hotel in Clermont, Kel Appleton, said the town had been brought together by going toe-to-toe with the Stop Adani group.

“We’re just normal people, we don’t go pushing our rhetoric on anyone else like they do to us.” Mr Appleton said.

Mr Appleton said having United Australia Party leader and senate hopeful Clive Palmer, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson and LNP MP Michelle Landry under the same balcony at his pub on Saturday was a surprise. The politicians arrived to show support for locals yesterday.

He said he understood locals would now leave the anti-Adani protesters alone in the town’s showgrounds as they held today’s rally.  “We still get treated we’re like a bunch of hooligans but we’re not, like I’m half proud of being called a redneck, we probably are, we live out west, there’s graziers, there’s cotton farmers,” he said. “People have driven up from Toowoomba (nine hours away) to stand on our side. “That’s what brought everyone together, just being all good people, you know.”

Mr Brown said some impartial business owners had “expressed regret” at the hostility and he thanked Queensland police for keeping the peace. “This is about every Australian child’s future security in a rapidly heating planet,” Mr Brown said in the statement. “You can back your children or you can back Gautam Adani’s mine but you can’t have both.”

The anti-Adani convoy to stop Adani’s Galilee Basin mine is trying to convince the coal-reliant Queensland town it would be better off without the industry.

But the 400-strong convoy was greeted by jeering Clermont residents lining the main street of the central Queensland mining town on Saturday.

Mr Brown has accused the counterprotesters of “thuggery”.

The former Australian Greens leader, said his “law-abiding and peaceful” convoy would be welcomed in the town, but for a “gaggle” of right-wing politicians including Matt Canavan, Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer, who spent yesterday afternoon rallying the “start Adani” group.

“It’s a complete fabrication that people in central Queensland aren’t worried about this mine,” Mr Brown said. “I was braced for a hostile reception in Mackay and it turned out it was mega-friendly.

“We should all be committed to putting the aggression to one side and talking about the issues, the key issue being the future of our children.”

However, Mr Brown said pro-Adani supporters had threatened local restaurants, forcing them to cancel reservations for members of his convoy, describing an “air of thuggery” about the group.

Police redirected the convoy to an alternate road, away from the main street, in a bid to avoid violent clashes, he said.

“Some of them came up to us, surrounding cars and tearing off flags and stickers,” he said.

State shadow mining minister Dale Last, also in Clermont, said residents were “very angry that this group’s coming out here to tell them what they should and shouldn’t be doing.” “I think these protesters will be left in no doubt they’ve walked into a hornet’s nest in this country,” he said. “They’re going to get a very, very hostile reception, I can assure you of that.”

Adani Australia thanked its supporters in a tweet on Saturday: “Amazing turnout with hundreds in Mackay showing up to support the coal industry.”

An anti-Adani rally on Sunday is expected to include speeches and singing.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here








28 April, 2019

Senate could become Bill Shorten’s best friend

Peter van Onselen is the token Leftist at "The Australian" but he says below what I have been thinking:  Shorten is all hot air when you reflect how unlikely it is that his destructive policies will get through the Senate.  In both Australia and the USA, Senates are a great force for stability and obstructing change of all sorts. 

Van Onselen however adds a speculation about voters being devious, which I think is far-fetched.  He seems to think everybody else is  a professor of politics.  I think the Senate will be Shorten's best friend because it will prevent him from legislating great and impoverishing follies


The Senate could become Bill Shorten’s best friend. With the opposition leader’s tax agenda under significant scrutiny — even though most of it has been publicly known for years — the role of the house of review just might save Shorten from himself.

Australians vote more intelligently than they often get credit for. We know our electoral system and understand that governments don’t always get their way. Not in the upper house where the balance of power is held by minor parties.

Even if Labor wins the election, it can squeal all it likes about the mandate won, yet minor parties in the senate will claim the support they got in the senate is also a mandate to follow their policy scripts — which in the case of a number of the minor parties involves disagreeing with Labor’s plans on negative gearing and franking credits.

If voters think that Shorten’s tax agenda will be blocked then they can use their lower house vote to punish the Coalition for a mix of failures in government — doubling the deficit, changing prime ministers not once but twice, having no serious policy for addressing climate change, you name it.

SOURCE  





Shorten wages a laughable battle

He has no idea of what is needed to achieve real growth in the national income

Let’s face it, this election campaign is not exactly a comedy festival. The ratio of groans to laughs emanating from my office is very high indeed.

But I did get a good chuckle last week when Bill Shorten declared he was going to get really, really good lawyers to argue his government’s case to raise minimum wages before the Fair Work Commission.

In the Opposition Leader’s world, the reason we have had low wage growth is dud lawyers. Here’s a tip, Bill: even the best lawyer in the world — I wonder if Amal Clooney is available? — can’t alter the course of wages growth in this country.

Here’s how it works: wage growth is related to productivity growth and inflationary expectations. Productivity growth has been sluggish for some time, so it’s no surprise that wage growth has also been sluggish — around the 2 per cent per year mark. But inflationary expectations are also low. Recall this week’s CPI figure of zero for the March quarter and only 1.3 per cent for the year ending in the March quarter.

In point of fact, real wage growth is actually close to being respectable, seeing that the most recent figures on the Wage Price Index are showing annual growth of 2.3 per cent. It’s the equivalent of wages rising by 4 per cent and prices rising by 3 per cent: it might feel different but it’s the same, at least pre-tax.

And here’s another point to consider. The WPI is calculated for a given job, while ignoring promotions, bonuses and the like. The lived experience for many workers is automatic pay increments (often specified in an enterprise agreement) and the possibility of promotion.

According to Professor Mark Wooden of the University of Melbourne, wages have been growing for many workers at around 3 to 4 per cent per year, rather than the number indicated by the WPI, which is a substantial real gain given the very low rate of inflation.

Let me return to Bill’s howler. Actually, the arguments being put to the FWC have been doing their job in the sense that the last two annual increases in the national minimum wage were 3.3 and 3.5 per cent, respectively. These figures have been well above the rate of inflation as measured by the CPI.

And recall that these increases not only apply to the lowest-paid workers but also to the more than 2.5 million award-dependent workers. (The number of employees covered just by awards has been rising.)

But note also that the decision-makers at the FWC do understand a bit of economics. Last year, the point was made that a much higher wage increase would be detrimental to the employment prospects of the low-skilled, in particular. Nothing Amal Clooney can say will alter this.

In the meantime, we need to acknowledge that real wages are now growing at a reasonable pace but in the context of a very low inflationary environment. It’s not a bad outcome.

SOURCE  






Palmer sides with Liberals on preferences over economy fears

This is a great coup. Polls suggest Palmer will get about 5% of the vote.  Redirecting that many votes to the Liberals could well swing the election

Clive Palmer is expected to confirm a national preference deal with the Liberal Party on Monday over personal concerns that Bill Shorten’s tax agenda would damage the economy.

The Australian understands the deal will be sealed after Mr Palmer rejected last-ditch attempts by senior Labor powerbrokers to win support from his United Australia Party, which is on track to decide key seats across the country.

Mr Palmer will also direct preferences to the Nationals in NSW on his UAP how-to-vote-cards in return for Senate preferences, which could deliver him seats in NSW and Queensland.

Asked about the preferences deal, a spokesman for Mr Palmer said yesterday there would be an announcement on Monday.

The Australian can reveal that Queensland Labor senator ­Anthony Chisholm, a right-wing powerbroker, phoned Mr Palmer twice in the past fortnight to discuss preferences. The last call was on Wednesday, the same day Mr Shorten launched a public attack on the Queensland mining magnate and former federal MP.

Mr Palmer is believed to have ended the calls promptly and would not enter into specifics about his preference intentions.

This followed approaches from Shorten ally and union leader ­Michael O’Connor, who met Mr Palmer on the Gold Coast last week on the ALP’s behalf to seek a preference deal with Labor despite Mr Shorten’s animosity towards Mr Palmer. A spokeswoman for Mr Shorten denied he had been with Senator Chisholm when he had called Mr Palmer ­because they had been in different ­cities.

Labor sources said the party was more interested in finding out what arrangements Mr Palmer had come to with the LNP, and the Coalition more broadly, than doing an ALP-UAP deal.

The source said Labor would secure a preference swap deal with the Greens, which meant it would have been unable to accommodate any UAP call for a general deal. “The bigger question is what deal has Scott Morrison done with Clive Palmer? If he has done a deal, it is a deal to get Clive Palmer at least, and possibly one of two of his friends, into the parliament,” the Labor source said.

A Coalition-UAP deal would make it difficult for Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Queensland candidate, Malcolm Roberts, to secure a Senate seat.

Glenn Druery, the so-called preference whisperer, said he believed the race for the sixth Queensland Senate seat would be between Mr Palmer and Mr Roberts, with the former’s massive advertising spending and an LNP preference deal giving him the edge.

The Australian can also reveal the federal Liberal Party deal will include a preference arrangement for the NSW Nationals in most seats, potentially delivering the UAP a Senate seat in that state. One Nation is running in only one NSW seat that the Nationals are also contesting, Hunter. A Nationals source said they would preference One Nation ahead of Labor in that seat.

One Nation NSW leader Mark Latham said Senator Hanson was in charge of preference arrangements. But he said he could not understand how the Coalition could do a preference deal with Mr Palmer and be reluctant to do one with One Nation. “The One Nation (preferences issue) is a hangover from 25 years ago,” Mr Latham said. “In most (policy) areas, Palmer’s beyond the pale.”

Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman backed the Liberal Party’s decision to preference UAP ahead of Labor and said the Coalition should not be scared of adverse public reaction to the move.

Mr Newman, who had a bitter falling out with Mr Palmer shortly after coming to power in 2012, said he believed the UAP leader was on track to win a Senate spot and was likely motivated to do a preference deal with the Coalition to prevent Mr Shorten from forming government.

Animosity between the pair was aired as recently as last week when the UAP leader alleged in court documents that the 2012 fallout had fuelled a federal government vendetta against him. Mr Palmer said the court action against him was partly motivated by his push for a Senate inquiry into the Newman government in 2014, shortly before the Liberal National Party was voted out.

Mr Newman, who admitted Mr Palmer’s campaigning against him had contributed to his government’s demise, yesterday scoffed at the allegations and said a preference deal with the UAP was a smart move for the Coalition.

SOURCE  






GREENIE ROUNDUP

Three current articles below

Warmists in government won’t save the planet but will destroy our economy

Herald readers, be independent, always, and please reconsider the false equivalence you read a week ago in a column by your esteemed scribe, Peter Hartch­er. He was tackling what is not only one of the most crucial issues for this nation’s economic and environmental future but also a central policy battleground in the federal election campaign.

Yes, it is climate change. And we are going to ventilate some fundamental facts that might be confronting for Herald loyalists. I wouldn’t question your love for Earth — it is the best planet we have observed so far and the only one of much use to us. It is useful to assume everyone in this debate cares about the planet because self-destruction is not a wise motive to ascribe to your political opponents. But the hard truth is that even if you accept the most alarming claims about the planet being in peril, it is not within the remit of you or your nation to save it. Those Earth Hour dinners, where you drive the Range Rover to the Hunter to eat Coffin Bay oysters by the light of red gum embers, may or may not be carbon-negative but they can’t help the planet.

Virtue signalling is fine to the extent that it encourages virtue but you wouldn’t want a sense of moral superiority to overwhelm awareness of futility. You need to know that global carbon emissions will increase this year by more than a billion tonnes, or more than double the total annual emissions of this country. You need to know that if we made the ultimate sacrifice and shut down this country in January, any benefit to the planet would disappear by July. For all the goodwill in the world, try to imagine how much good your Pious, I mean Prius, or subsidised solar roof panels are doing for the global environment. You need to keep all this in mind when Labor leader Bill Shorten tells you his uncosted plan to double the nation’s renewable energy target and emissions reductions goals will save us money by cooling our “angry” summers and reducing our natural disasters.

Logic reveals an entirely oppos­ite reality — that whatever the costs and complications of Labor’s dramatically more ambitious plans, they cannot and will not lead to any improvement in the climate because global carbon emissions will continue to rise.

So let us get back to Hartcher’s column, which I fear might have prompted sage nodding from some. Here is the main thrust of his argument uncut:

“When Tony Abbott was prime minister, he ordered more Australian strike aircraft and troops into Iraq. Not because Australia was big enough to turn the tide of battle against the barbarians of Daesh, so-called Islamic State or ISIS. But because he believed in the fight.

“ ‘It’s absolutely vital that the world sees and sees quickly that the ISIS death cult can be beaten,’ he said in 2014. Australia’s commitment ultimately made up less than 1 per cent of the combined effort against the terrorist thugs but it was early and firm. Abbott described it as ‘an important global concern’ and he was right. And, with more than 60 countries co-operating, it was a success. When it came to another important global concern, Abbott argued a very different case. He and like-minded Coalition conservatives have long maintained that Australian action against climate change was futile: ‘Even if carbon dioxide, a naturally occurring trace gas that’s necessary for life, really is the main climate change villain, Australia’s contribution to mankind’s emissions is scarcely more than 1 per cent,’ Abbott said last year.

“On terrorism, Abbott argued for Australian leadership. On climate change, he argued for wilful helplessness. Australia is a 1 per cent contributor in both cases. In one case, it used its 1 per cent to show leadership and effective action. On the other, it used its 1 per cent as an excuse for inaction.”


Let’s start at the end. Inaction? Under the Coalition’s target, agreed when Abbott was prime minister, Australia is committed to the Paris Agreement and emissions reductions of 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. This, while China, India and a range of smaller nations increase emissions on a business-as-usual basis. The US bailed from Paris and, counterintuitively, its fixed power carbon emissions have decreased. Paris is clearly better at signalling virtue than reducing emissions.

Given the way the renewable energy target and other interventions have corrupted our electricity market, drained taxpayers’ funds, undermined power supplies, increased prices and forced job losses in steelmaking, aluminium manufacturing and other industries, it is impossible to cite a country doing more on climate at a higher cost than Australia. Power prices have doubled, coal-fired power stations have closed and carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced, taking jobs and economic growth with them.

Yet Hartcher calls this “inaction"

But let’s go to this insulting false equivalence between action on terrorism and climate change. First, terrorism is unequivocally bad; there is no possible benefit or justification for the murder of innocents in a political, religious or cultural cause. Climate change, on the other hand, is a complex and nuanced phenomenon that brings benefits such as higher crop yields and lower rates of death from severe cold. Even the most strident alarmists concede global warming produces winners and losers.

Just as the two dilemmas differ in their ambiguity, or lack thereof, so too do the prospects for overcoming them. If the US tackles Islamist terrorism we can expect some success, especially when it takes military action to eliminate a self-styled caliphate and expel Islamic State from seized land in the Middle East. If Australia contributes 1 per cent to US-led anti-terrorism efforts it is aligning itself with successful efforts by powerful actors who unarguably improve the world.

On climate, if Australia contributes 1 per cent to global efforts our costs disappear in futile gestures. Worldwide action is producing dramatic increases in global carbon emissions, so Australia’s costly actions manifestly are doing us economic harm but are not helping the environment or anyone. However much we may want to change the world, these are the facts. Hartcher and others may seek to disguise the benefits of the war against terrorism and hide the futility of climate virtue signalling but they can’t change the facts. Yet this sort of deception characterises much of the climate debate.

Shorten is allowed to dodge questions about policy costs with glib lines about the cost of inaction exceeding the cost of action. Activists get away with suggesting a ban on the Adani coalmine will save the Great Barrier Reef despite the reality that India will burn coal regardless of where it is sourced and, to the extent the reef is harmed by a warming planet, only global greenhouse emissions matter.

The defining difference between the terrorism and climate debates is the willingness to embrace reality and confront alarmism in one and the desire to shun reality and heighten alarmism in the other. Where Australia has suffered terribly from terrorism but has contributed materially to global improvements, Hartcher raises questions. But where the nation is yet definitively to suffer any setbacks from global warming and has caused itself serious economic pain through remedial efforts that cannot deliver improvements, Hartcher urges more action.

He is not alone, of course. Why are these arguments put? The reason cannot be for practical outcomes. Additional Australian efforts cannot, as Shorten would have it, cool our “angry” summers. The only possible reason for proposing additional and accelerated action before global emissions plateau is political posturing. And inflicting more economic self-harm for gestures ought to be called out.

Before people shout “denier” or question abandoning international responsibilities, none of the above is an argument for doing nothing — although intellectually coherent cases can be made for that approach. For all sorts of practical reasons including sensible environmental caution (giving the planet the benefit of the doubt), responsible global citizenship and adjusting to possible worldwide technological shifts, Australia needs to play a role.

By any reasonable assessment Australia has already done its fair share. And given the primacy of the Paris Agreement and the free ride given to many developing nations, any country that delivers emissions reductions in line with those commitments is doing some heavy lifting. The idea this nation would almost double its carbon cuts from what was agreed at Paris while global emissions continue to rise dramatically is about as stark an example of pointless self-harm as is possible. It would be as reckless as refusing to tackle terrorism.

SOURCE  






No logic in our nuclear allergy

How depressing to see Scott Morrison having to backtrack after making the obvious and sensible remark that nuclear power shouldn’t be off the agenda if it stacks up economically.

Labor environment spokesman Tony Burke bristled at the idea that the most reliable and clean form of energy the world knows should even be discussed. “Nuclear power is against the law in Australia,” he chirped, as if being the only G20 nation to have such a ban were a good idea.

It’s embarrassing to tell people in the US that nuclear energy is banned in Australia. “But don’t you export uranium?” “Umm, yes,” I say, “but flower power has more adherents than nuclear among Australia’s political class.”

In the scramble to lift the share of renewables in the energy mix, the whole point is forgotten: to curb carbon emissions, not erect wind turbines or acres of solar panels for their own sake.

Thankfully, US leaders have moved on from Woodstock. The US government provides grants and research support for US businesses to build better reactors and bolster the country’s scientific edge. Jordi Roglans Ribas, a senior nuclear scientist at Argonne ­laboratory, one of the US’s top research institutions, says developments in small — even micro — nuclear reactors look set to bring down the cost of nuclear power.

“There’s been a lot of recent technical work on making nuclear more economically attractive, including by being able to manufacture components of plants in factories and ship them to where you need a reactor,” he tells The Australian.

As part of its “carbon-free power project”, Oregon-based Nuscale is already building a set of small modular reactors for the state of Utah, which should be operational by the mid-2020s. “Our advanced SMR design eliminates two-thirds of previously required safety systems and components found in today’s large reactors,” the company says. Three of these, at about $US250 million ($350m) each, would provide more energy — and reliably — than Australia’s biggest wind farm, according to the Minerals Council.

California-based Kairos Power is working on “fluoride salt-cooled, high-temperature reactors” that can be shut down far more safely than traditional water-cooled reactors. HolosGen, based in Virginia, expects its reactors will produce electricity at a lower “levelised cost” than wind or solar can.

With almost a third of the world’s known uranium reserves, you’d think we might try to develop a comparative advantage in nuclear energy. Instead, we’d put these scientists in jail for breaking the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, which outlaws nuclear power here.

Memo to the world: Australia, with a population smaller than Texas, doesn’t approve of nuclear energy (though we’re quite happy to take the cash from those who do). How silly we look, eschewing 20 years of research. China, also at the forefront of the electric car rollout, has about 30 nuclear reactors under construction.

Ribas says nuclear power should be a natural complement to wind and solar as the world moves away from fossil fuels. “The development of massive storage capacity at low cost is of benefit to nuclear too, because when there is abundant wind, for example, you don’t need all (of a) nuclear plant’s production, so you can store it and release it later,” he says.

Replacing coal and gas with renewables entirely is an absurd idea even assuming further large falls in the cost of batteries. That would take about 10,000 giant batteries costing more than $300 billion to ensure enough storage to ensure a reliable power supply, according to recent estimates by respected economist Geoffrey Carmody.

For all the harrumphing about the “cost” of nuclear, power is cheaper in jurisdictions that have dared try it. Illinois, with just under 13 million people, has six nuclear power stations. In Chicago the average price of electricity in January was around US12c a kW/H. Energy Australia charges me 29.4c a kW/H for electricity in Sydney.

In nearby Ontario, where nuclear energy provides 60 per cent of the electricity needs of Canada’s biggest province, it was less than C13c a kW/h.

“It has two major benefits — low operating costs and virtually none of the emissions that lead to smog, acid rain or global warming,” says Ontario Power Generation. “These benefits make nuclear a very attractive option for meeting the province’s electricity needs well into the future.”

Ribas says, “Canada is very interested to evaluate small modular reactors in some remote areas.” Better not tell them what Tony Burke thinks!

Once upon a time, the Left stressed the importance of progress through advances in science and technology, mandating state funding for schools and universities. Today it’s more akin to the religious Right it once despised, vainly dismissing for ideological reasons an entire field.

The Greens want to see “a world free of nuclear power”. Yet there are about 450 nuclear reactors in operation in the world and another 60 under construction.

“There is a strong link between the mining and export of uranium and nuclear weapons proliferation,” the Greens say. Yet more than 30 countries have nuclear power stations and many more, such as Italy and Denmark, import electricity from them. About 10 countries have nuclear weapons — far from a “strong link”.

“The use of nuclear weapons, nuclear accidents or attacks on reactors pose unacceptable risk of catastrophic consequences,” they go on. In more than 70 years of nuclear power there have only been three nuclear accidents, the most recent of which, the Fukushima disaster of 2011, incurred no fatalities. Meanwhile, wind turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds every year.

Fukushima was built in the 1960s and hit by a tsunami. Australia offers a safer geography for nuclear power. As the closure of the giant Liddell coal power station nears in 2022, small modular imported nuclear reactors might be one option worth investigating, providing reliable, carbon-free power cheaply — and without killing animals.

SOURCE  






Labor pledges to terminate half-a-billion-dollar Great Barrier Reef Foundation grant

This payment was a totally useless Turnbull brain fart that should never have happened.  Shorten is right to claw it back

Labor has vowed to strip the Great Barrier Reef Foundation of its half-a-billion-dollar grant if elected on May 18.

Labor added that it would redistribute that cash amongst public agencies, but is yet to detail specifics ahead of Opposition Leader Bill Shorten's first election-period Queensland visit this week.

Last August, a $443 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation by Malcolm Turnbull's government was criticised for lacking an open tender process, and for burdening an organisation that had six full time staff with a grant of such a size.

Labor wrote to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation at the time to warn them that if the party won government, it could withdraw from the existing contract.

But this marks the first time they have determined to rip up the agreement.

"Every dollar returned will be invested back in the reef and we will seek advice on the most effective way to allocate the funding," Mr Shorten said, adding that his government would consult with the Department of Environment on its reef strategy.

Mr Shorten mentioned peak science body CSIRO, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences as possible alternatives.

While the Great Barrier Reef Foundation has had all $443 million of the grant in its accounts for months, Labor environment spokesman Tony Burke has previously pointed to a contract clause that allows the agreement to be terminated if there was "a material change in Australian Government policy that is inconsistent with the continued operation of this agreement''.

In the letter warning the foundation that funding could be withdrawn, Labor advised it not to spend a disproportionate amount before the election, noting that the funds were set aside for a six-year period.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






26 April, 2019

Anzac Day 2019: Peter Cosgrove’s parting message to next generation

Governor-general Peter Cosgrove has sought to reintroduce the Anzac legend to a new generation in his last Anzac Day address as the Queen’s representative in Australia.

Sir Peter, who will retire from public life in June, used his commemorative address at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra to explain why Australians gather every April to commemorate veterans and the fallen to young people and new arrivals.

“For some here attending this moment in the national capital, and others like this elsewhere around the nation, this will be your first Anzac Day service,” he said in Canberra.

“Some of you are youngsters, some are new to this nation. From all of those newly come to this national ritual, we expect that you will all be eager to understand what it is that draws us, as a nation, to gather so solemnly.

“For those who wonder why communities assemble on this day every year at dawn and later in the morning, as Governor-general I say that in the gamut of motives from the profoundly philosophical to simple curiosity, there is a fundamental reason.

“It is by our presence to say to the shades of those countless men and women who did not come home or who made it back but who have now passed and to say to their modern representatives, the ones around the nation who today march behind their banners ‘You matter. What you did matters. You are in our hearts. Let it be always thus’.”

The crowd in Canberra burst into applause when the National Anzac Ceremony’s master of ceremonies, journalist Scott Bevan, thanked Sir Peter for his service and wished him well for his upcoming retirement.

The march at the national ceremony was led by Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith, who is currently suing the Sydney Morning Herald over allegations of war crimes and domestic violence, which the Afghanistan war hero strenuously denies.

Fellow VC recipient Corporal Mark Donaldson earlier gave the dawn service address in Canberra, where he called on young Australians to learn more about those who died.

Sir Peter will leave public life after five years as Governor-general and previous service as the Chief of the Australian Defence Forces. He will be replaced later this year by NSW Governor David Hurley.

SOURCE  





What we are seeing at The Drum is cultural cleansing

Do you ever wonder if there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Sorry, let me rephrase that: do you ever wonder if there is intelligent life in the universe? No doubt you too are curious about what it would make of us and our primitive attempts to make contact.

If we are to succeed in that endeavour, let us hope it is not through the Pioneer 10 and 11 space probes, which were launched in the early 1970s. Both bear a 15 x 23 gold-anodised plaque depicting a naked Caucasian couple, which was a blatant attempt to reinforce a racist, heteronormative, and binary hegemony under the guise of interstellar harmony. Nice going, NASA, you cultural and biological fascists.

Fortunately in these more enlightened times we are more woke to attempts to marginalise the wretched. And should we make contact with extra-terrestrials, it is more likely to be through the radio waves we have been transmitting for over a century. What they will first see is anyone’s guess. Imagine, for example, the impression we could convey through documentaries such as David Attenborough’s Planet Earth or When We Were Kings, the inspiring story of boxer Muhammad Ali’s triumph over George Foreman to reclaim his title as World Heavyweight Champion. But Murphy’s Law being what it is, I fear the aliens’ first impression of us will be gleaned from the self-centred, partisan and victimhood drivel which passes as informed comment today.

Which brings me to The Drum. According to the ABC website, the show, which is hosted alternately by Ellen Fanning and Julia Baird, features a “diverse, respectful and robust discussion” on “the key issues gripping or confounding Australia,” Australia being the areas within a five kilometre radius of the ABC studios at Ultimo, Sydney and Southbank, Melbourne.

An alien anthropologist would conclude from watching this show that the key issues gripping and confounding Australia were an impending climate apocalypse, as well as rampant misogyny, racism, and cruelty towards asylum-seekers. And naturally the anthropologist would also conclude the chief beneficiaries of this dystopian hierarchy are heterosexual and cisgender white males.

As with many of today’s public institutions, The Drum’s definition of diversity is taken from a social justice dictionary. Consider, for example, the program’s treatment of the Institute of Public Affairs, a public policy think tank which espouses principles such as limited government, individual autonomy, and freedom of speech — all oppressive and hateful concepts admittedly. Until April last year IPA representatives featured on The Drum at an average of once a month.

Its prolonged absence from the program is not of the IPA’s doing. As revealed by Sky News host and The Australian Associate Editor Chris Kenny on Monday, its representatives have effectively been blacklisted from The Drum, despite the ABC insisting otherwise.

This followed an aggressive social media disinformation campaign last year by leftist activists who claimed the show disproportionately featured IPA panellists. As Baird noted last year, one activist estimated the IPA had notched up 50 appearances on the show in the period between January and July in 2018, when the organisation had in fact appeared only three times. “But it is only the IPA that is shouted down when they appear on air,” she wrote last July. “So much so that it has become disproportionate and irrational.”

Kudos to Baird for admitting this, but unfortunately she herself has seemingly acquiesced in these demands. In the following months the IPA was politely rebuffed or ignored whenever its representatives volunteered to appear on the program. Last October the IPA’s media and communications manager, Evan Mulholland, emailed Baird to ask her whether the show had vetoed the appearance of the think tank’s staff. He was referred to the show’s executive producer, Annie White, who denied this, stating “We’ve had a very busy year and more than 500 people on our panel books.”

Who knew getting a gig on the show was so competitive? Let’s recap some statistics that Kenny on Media outlined concerning certain panellists from The Drum in the 12 months since an IPA representative last appeared. We begin with Per Capita, a think tank which espouses “shared prosperity, community and social justice”. It featured 10 times. The Diversity Council of Australia scored six appearances, as did Human Rights Watch and Change.org. As for the far-left activist group GetUp!, it featured eight times.

Muslim entrepreneur Aisha Novakovich and founder of Modest Fashion has appeared five times. Cross-cultural consultant and fellow Muslim Tasneem Chopra secured nine appearances. Presumably it is coincidence the IPA missed out all this time while these progressive interest groups and individuals were given a free run.

When a lone gunman and terrorist murdered 50 New Zealanders in two Christchurch mosques in March, The Drum was quick to analyse the atrocity through a familiar prism. “What role has Australian media and politics played in fomenting the rise of white supremacy?” it tweeted:

What role has Australian media and politics played in fomenting the rise of white supremacy? Tonight in a special episode of #TheDrum a panel of all Muslim women will discuss the social, cultural and political influences leading up to the Christchurch terror attack

The next weekday after the attack it featured an all Muslim women panel to discuss this theme. One of them was GetUp! board member Sara Saleh. In addition to saying former prime minister Tony Abbott’s “existence” was “offensive”, she said he, together with Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton, had “emboldened neo-Nazis and white supremacists,” declaring all three “have blood on their hands”. For good measure The Drum tweeted Saleh’s outrageous diatribe.

Now compare that with the show’s reaction to the terrorist bombings of three churches and luxury hotels on Easter Sunday in Sri Lanka, allegedly by Islamic State, which resulted in the deaths of 359 people. This would have been an ideal time for The Drum to discuss the very real dangers that Christians face from Islamists in the developing world. So what was the show’s response? Put it this way, in the three episodes that have aired since the attack, none of them featured an all-Christian panel to canvas this.

When the show this month discussed the concept of masculinity, even seasoned cynical viewers were surprised at the unabashed misandry. “We need to do the hard work and for all men to put their hands up and acknowledge their misogyny, acknowledge the fact that they are profiting from toxic masculinity in some way, even if they are not violent,” said panellist and co-founder of HIV advocacy group The Institute of Many, Nic Holas.

To claim all men are guilty of misogyny and that masculinity is an original sin is a contemptible slur, yet this remark was not challenged by host John Barron. Guest Jacqui Watt, CEO of No to Violence, added in response to Holas that she “echoed everything he said”. Not surprisingly Twitter exploded, with many men expressing anger at being stigmatised, which prompted The Drum to tweet an admonishment. “Some of the comments below clearly breach the boundaries of civil language,” it read. “So a reminder: be respectful.”

I am certain even the most mild-mannered of men who saw that episode were tempted to give their televisions the full Elvis treatment. It takes a special kind of narcissistic dissonance on one hand to facilitate and condone the demonisation of 50 per cent of the population, yet on the other to take offence when being on the receiving end of a few choice words from that provoked demographic.

Just imagine the reaction if a men’s rights activist was invited on the panel and expressed similar views about feminism. “All fourth wave feminists need to put their hands up and acknowledge their misandry, acknowledge they are entitled harpies who profit from toxic feminism,” he would say. After pulling the plug for a brief period, The Drum would resume with a live shot of said man being hurled off the roof of ABC head office, along with any male who added that he “echoed everything he said”.

What we are seeing at The Drum is cultural cleansing, a gradual removal of all conservative commentary in accordance with ABC’s unspoken ethos and the militant demands of unrelenting social media activists. The ABC’s doing so is a total abrogation of its statutory charter, yet its staff continue to deny the organisation’s bias despite the abundant evidence. In a statement released Monday, the ABC said “The Drum draws on a database of more than 500 people for its panels; it aims for a diversity of guests and viewpoints from a range of sources. IPA representatives continue to be a part of this mix as they have previously.”

How appropriate the show is named after a percussion instrument. As they say, empty vessels make the most noise.

SOURCE   






"Code of conduct". That’s code for ‘conduct yourself as we tell you’

A code of conduct is becoming an employer’s power trip

Ever since the ruling classes of East Germany shamelessly nicknamed the Berlin Wall the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall, the anti-fascist protection wall, it pays to check how those with power use words, pretending to protect us by restricting basic freedoms.

Those wielding power today favour deliberately innocuous labels to describe new institutional ramparts that limit basic freedoms. And nothing sounds more innocuous than a code of conduct.

Most read like bad poetry, sweet-sounding words linking lofty aspirations about how people should treat one another in a workplace. Codes of conduct have become a neat way to virtue-signal your political correctness too. No socially progressive word or phrase is left out, usually highly contestable, offering no great guidance for the reader or the employee.

Drawn up by ever-expanding human resources departments, these slick instruments are found inside just about every company, organisation, government body, sporting club or other group made up of more than a dozen people. Codes of conduct are sprouting like weeds, rarely trimmed for meaning, only ever augmented by more and more prose pickled in sugary sentiments.

But don’t be fooled by the vanilla label. Increasingly, a code of conduct is becoming an employer’s power trip, their weapon of choice in the workplace to limit the basic freedoms of employees. And these deliberately vague terms become expensive legal battles for sacked employees. Two examples in the past two weeks. Last week, Peter Ridd, the highly respected professor of physics, won his court case against James Cook University after he was sacked for offending the univer­sity’s code of conduct.

JCU used its code of conduct to full effect. When Ridd raised doubts about the quality of science claiming the Great Barrier Reef was being damaged, he was accused of misconduct, not acting in a collegial way, disparaging fellow academics, not upholding the integrity and good reputation of JCU. It made no difference to the code’s enforcers that Ridd raised his concerns in a polite and measured manner, making clear that fellow academics were honest, though mistaken, in their work.

When Ridd raised funds online to help pay for his expensive legal battle with JCU, the university accused him of breaching the code of conduct. When Ridd sent an email to a student, attaching a newspaper article headed “for your amusement”, the physics professor of 30 years’ standing was censured for acting contrary to an earlier “no satire direction” when JCU told Ridd not to trivialise, satirise or parody the univer­sity’s disciplinary action against him. When Ridd mentioned JCU’s “Orwellian” attitude to free speech in an email to another supportive student, JCU censured him for another breach of the code of conduct.

Note that JCU discovered the offending email by trawling through Ridd’s correspondence in a distinctly Orwellian manner.

On it went. Actions and words parsed and censured, secrecy sought under JCU’s code of conduct to protect the university, not Ridd.

Last week, the Federal Court rejected JCU’s 17 claims against Ridd under the university’s code of conduct. Federal Court judge Salvatore Vasta made clear that JCU’s fundamental error was to assume its code of conduct “is the lens through which all behaviour must be viewed”. Rather than starting from the principle of intellectual freedom set out in clause 14 of JCU’s enterprise agreement with academics, a core value that goes to the mission of a university, JCU used its lengthy and loquacious code of conduct to restrain Ridd. Therefore, it did not occur to JCU, or to academics who complained about Ridd, that the best response was to provide evidence Ridd’s claims were wrong. The enforcers chose censure and sacking over debate.

Rejecting JCU’s position, Vasta found the intellectual freedom clause is “the lens through which the behaviour of Professor Ridd must be viewed”. The judge said intellectual freedom allows people to express opinions without fear of reprisal. That is how Charles Darwin broke free from the constraints of creationism and how Albert Einstein challenged the constraints of Newtonian physics.

JCU will surely appeal this decision. Other universities will also be hoping for a favourable legal determination that upholds their codes of conduct as the final word, trumping even an intellectual freedom clause in an enterprise agreement with academics.

All things considered then, we have reached a shameful state of affairs: university leaders spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to uphold coercive powers they have given themselves under codes of conduct but expending no intellectual effort in considering the need for a truly liberating charter of intellectual freedom such as that drawn up by the University of Chicago and adopted by dozens of other American colleges.

This augurs poorly for Wallabies star Israel Folau, sacked last week by Rugby Australia using its code of conduct. Folau’s sacking was, in many ways, inevitable. If a university cannot uphold basic freedoms for academics to express honestly held views, what hope for a sporting code?

Folau’s contract with RA does not include a freedom of expression clause, but neither does it include a clause telling him to stop posting offensive views on social media. In another messy, expensive and protracted legal battle, the basic right to free speech will depend on whether RA’s code of conduct is the final legal word on Folau’s future.

RA could have left it to us in civil society to exercise our powers of condemnation against Folau for his ignorant and divisive comments. We could have enlightened Folau that gay people do not deserve to be in hell for their sexuality. Instead, RA became the enforcer, turning a goose into a martyr by using the same clumsy stick JCU used against Ridd.

What grates, more generally, is the selective approach to who gets hung, drawn and quartered these days. The Australian is aware that senior ABC staff have raised concerns with ABC management about divisive statements made by some of their so-called “talent”. Fairfax writer, ABC host and gay rights activist Benjamin Law happily tweeted during the same-sex marriage debate that he was “wondering if I’d hate-f..k all the anti-gay MPs in parliament if it meant they got the homophobia out of their system”. A few years ago, Josh Szeps, now an ABC host, expressed his view during a YouTube chat with Joe Rogan that it should be legal for a woman to kill her unborn baby right up to nine months’ gestation, and sometimes after birth. Are these statements any less abhorrent than Folau’s views?

Vaguely drafted codes of conduct are a conduit for double standards. And that is why they are bogus legal instruments. Every law student is taught that contracts can be voided for uncertainty. A boss should only ever have power to adversely affect a person’s employment in the clearest and most precise circumstances. It is high time that proliferating codes of conduct are exposed as dangerously vague virtue-signalling instruments with a nasty kick to them, allowing bosses to terminate an employee at will.

SOURCE  





Shorten all tip and no iceberg on living costs

Yesterday’s recorded consumer price index movement for the March quarter of this year was a big fat zero. That’s right: according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, consumer prices on balance were flat.

I wouldn’t like my chances of persuading the people walking alongside the river close to my office that this is the case. Doubtless, many of the responses would be unprintable.

According to the figures, vegetables, secondary education and motor vehicles went up in price but automotive fuel and domestic and international holidays went down.

Bear in mind that the CPI doesn’t record the cost of living, in part because the CPI is based on an average basket of goods and services, and different groups consume different baskets of goods and services. Consider, for instance, the different consumption patterns of young families compared with retirees.

The key distinction is between the price of unavoidable purchases — electricity, health, education, childcare and the like — and discretionary or luxury purchases.

Adam Creighton, economics editor of The Australian, has discussed this topic over the years. He has noted that “luxuries have fallen in price, while those of many essentials — which tend to make up a bigger share of poorer households’ budgets — have increased. Purchases that can be put off have been falling while those that can’t, such as university fees (up 53 per cent), have tended to surge.

“The entry of China and more recently India into the global economy has slashed the cost of goods that can be traded, while the costs of services ... have risen.”

He further illustrates the point by noting that “the price of holidays has grown only half as fast as the CPI since 2007 (overseas stays even more slowly). But electricity has shot up 114 per cent, water bills and gas prices about 90 per cent and medical services 84 per cent.”

Do these CPI figures steal Bill Shorten’s electioneering thunder, given his ongoing emphasis during the campaign on the cost of living pressures felt by voters and Labor’s intention to alleviate them?

The first thing to note is that, in a technical sense, the low inflation figure recorded — only 1.3 per cent over the year ending in the March quarter — will feed into the decision-making of the Fair Work Commission when deciding on the appropriate change to the national minimum wage this year. The increase will apply from July 1. Note also that a number of welfare payments are indexed by the CPI and so only very low increases will apply.

The second issue is that it’s not clear how Labor can really address the inflationary pressures in the non-traded goods sectors, which are very often exacerbated by faulty government intervention.

The ongoing increases in cost of childcare, for instance, simply mirror the large increases in government outlays on childcare subsidies. The benefits are essentially captured by the centre owners and not the parents.

There is also a real danger that Shorten’s pledges in relation to cancer will just lead to higher incomes for providers, particularly medical imaging firms, radiologists and oncologists.

As for electricity prices, it’s a brave call to think Labor’s target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030 will lead to lower prices given that the increasing penetration of renewables that has already occurred has led to a doubling in the real price of electricity in a decade.

The truth is that Shorten is all tip and no iceberg when it comes to the cost of living. He may be able to identify the problem but he has no sustainable solutions, and some of Labor’s policies will make the cost of living pressures even worse. No doubt he will keep talking the talk.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here





25 April 2019

The Ridd affair is a debacle for JCU -- and its council should look into it

Physicist Prof. Ridd blew the whistle on scientific fraud at JCU and the Warmist fraudsters hate him for it. He showed that their statements about the "endangered" Great Barrier Reef depended on very selective evidence.  They had no defence against his accusations so they played the man, not the ball.  The Federal court has just overturned their attempt to fire him. 

They were relying on the taxpayers' deep pockets to ensure that Ridd could not afford to challenge them in court.  But Ridd's treatment was so palpably wrong that many people rallied to his defence by contributing to his fighting fund

The unrepentant academics at JCU have said they will appeal the finding.  They may be encouraged by the fact that judge Vasta has been overturned a few times lately.  They should not get their hopes up. He has been overturned on appeal at least 15 times but he has heard more than 1000 cases.  That's not good odds for them


Thank God for the National Tertiary Education Union. Sacked professor Peter Ridd won his Federal Court action against James Cook University this month ­entirely because the university’s enterprise bargaining agreement, negotiated by the union, included a lengthy and carefully worded protection for intellectual freedom.

And that is the simple fact. Ridd’s win (he was found to have been wrongly dismissed) was a big victory for intellectual freedom in academia, and its legal foundation is in the commitment of the tertiary union to free speech.

Why is last week’s decision, from judge Salvatore Vasta, so important? It helps to look back at the history of this dispute.

First of all, Ridd is a respected scientist. He was head of physics at JCU from 2009 to 2016, and he managed the university’s marine geophysical laboratory for 15 years. He has expertise in studies of the Great Barrier Reef.

But he held concerns about the methodology used by some colleagues who said that coral bleaching on the reef was a recent phenomenon and linked to global warming.

Ridd also questioned the methodology behind findings that sediment in run-off was damaging the reef.

Ridd spoke to journalists and made public statements about these concerns. He questioned the judgments of colleagues and called on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as well as the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies to “check their facts before they spin their story”.

But the point about this is that Ridd was arguing about scientific judgments. His views may be right or wrong. But they are testable in the way all scientific assertions should be tested — by observation and experiment. Scientific controversies are a staple of the history of science and, eventually, truth outs.

But the university, offended by Ridd’s contrarian views and possibly fearing the impact it would have on its relations with other bodies such as the GBRMPA and the ARC Centre of Excellence, went after Ridd personally, saying that he had breached the university’s code of conduct by not upholding “the integrity and good reputation of the university”.

The university also trawled through Ridd’s work emails and came up with things that reflected on the organisation and some of Ridd’s colleagues.

There was this statement by Ridd: “ … our whole university system pretends to value free debate, but in fact it crushes it whenever the ‘wrong’ ideas are spoken. They are truly an Orwellian in nature.” And this, referring to some colleagues: “Needless to say I have certainly offended some sensitive but powerful and ruthless egos.”

Such statements, in the view of the university, were again not upholding the university’s good integrity and good reputation.

Sensibly, [judge] Vasta took the view that Ridd was just exercising his right, contained in the enterprise agreement, to “express opinions about the operations of JCU” and “express disagreement with university decisions and with the processes used to make those decisions”.

Naturally the university doesn’t agree. In a statement last week, issued after the decision, it stood by its view that Ridd “engaged in serious misconduct, including denigrating the university and its employees and breaching confidentiality directions regarding the disciplinary processes”.

“We are a university,” JCU also proclaimed in the statement. “Within our very DNA is the importance of promoting academic views and collegiate debate.”

With respect, it is exactly the lack of commitment to academic and collegiate debate that is the problem.

If the university had taken Ridd’s scientific objections to findings about damage to the Barrier Reef seriously, it’s very unlikely that this debacle — which is highly damaging to the university — would have occurred.

There is another point that needs to be made. The science at issue here is not about whether or not global warming is occurring, or whether or not such warming is caused by humans. What Ridd questioned is whether recent bleaching (which nobody disputes occurred) is itself evidence of warming. Ridd presented evidence — which should have been ­investigated, not summarily dismissed — that bleaching is a recurring phenomenon not specifically linked to warming.

In the court decision, Vasta offered his own defence of intellectual freedom and an implicit rebuke of JCU.

“It (intellectual freedom) allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focused academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer,” the judge said.

The Ridd affair should be of major concern to the JCU council — the university’s governing body — and its chancellor, former diplomat Bill Tweddell. If the council doesn’t look into why the university sacked a professor whose honestly held scientific views happened to be unpopular, then it’s failing in its duty.

SOURCE  






Fraser Anning speaks following Sri Lankan bombings

What the senator says seems simply factual to me.  What has he said that is not true?  There are fashions about things that must not be said but that is all the more reason to say them, it seems to me

Senator Fraser Anning has claimed he was “right all along” in an  anti-Muslim Twitter rant following the Sri Lankan bombings.

The Sri Lankan Government has blamed the attacks on Islamic extremist group National Thowheeth Jama’ath.

Senator Anning wasted little time using the attacks to announce he was “right all along” about the connection between Islam and violence.

“I was right all along. Islamic populations do indeed create violence.”

The Queensland senator went on to call out New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern who was pictured donning a hijab out of respect following the Christchurch mosque shootings last month.

“Where is all the condemnation around the world on extreme radical Islam,” Senator Anning wrote. “Our politicians are quiet. What about the New Zealand PM who is now wearing a hijab, embracing Islam and playing the Islamic call to prayer?”

 Where is the world coming together for Christianity after almost 300 are dead and churches bombed in Sri Lanka?

This is one of the largest Islamic terrorist attacks ever, and yet the mainstream media is far less outraged compared to during the Christchurch shootings.

The media were next in the firing line, with Senator Anning claiming mainstream news outlets have been giving less attention to the Sri Lankan bombings than they gave to the Christchurch massacre.

He then took a swipe at “egg boy”, also known as Will Connolly, who gained the nickname after cracking an egg on Senator Anning’s head in the wake of his controversial comments about Christchurch.

“Almost 300 dead due to Islamic terrorists in Sri Lanka. Where is egg boy now?” the tweet read.

 What I said and has been proven completely true is that Islamic populations when they increase in number will result in an increase in violence.

I also said during Christchurch, that whilst Muslims had been the victims, Muslims are usually the perpetrators in terrorist attacks.

The Islamophobic comments Senator Anning made following the Christchurch shootings were slammed by Prime Minister Scott Morrison as “disgusting”.

But the widespread backlash didn’t deter the senator from last night reiterating and standing by what he said.

“I also said during Christchurch, that whilst Muslims had been the victims, Muslims are usually the perpetrators in terrorist attacks,” he tweeted.

Senator Anning finished off his rant by warning Australians there will be more terrorist attacks here if the government continued to allow Muslims to enter the country.

He even went as far as telling people they would “face death” if they didn’t heed his advice.

Senator Anning’s controversial posts have racked up thousands of comments, both from people condemning the senator’s actions and from people praising him.

SOURCE  






Labor’s carbon knockout for top companies

Australia’s top companies — including food manufacturers, miners and retailers — will be hit with carbon bills ranging from several millions dollars to up to $1.6 billion each to meet Labor’s emissions-­reduction targets by 2030, according to a government analysis of the policy based on a future inter­national carbon price of $62 a tonne.

Resources giant Chevron is estimated to be facing a $1.6bn liability under a phased-in target, while Alcoa could be forced to buy $867 million in credits if it is unable to reduce its emissions by 2030.

Retail food group Woolworths could be up for $77m in credits, which industry experts have warned could affect the price of food, while BlueScope steel’s liability could be as high as $890m over the 10-year horizon.

The Australian revealed last week that the cost to business to meet Labor’s targets of a 45 per cent reduction in 2005 emission levels could be as high as $25bn based on a future international carbon price of $50 a tonne.

Bill Shorten has disputed the numbers but has not said what Labor’s policy forecasts on costs will be.

The dispute hinges on Labor’s plans to reduce the current safeguard mechanism that imposes penalties on companies that produce more than 100,000 tonnes a year of carbon emissions, to 25,000 tonnes a year.

The policy claimed this would capture 250 of Australia’s top companies which would be forced to reduce their emissions or buy offsets, including international carbon credits.

The current 100,000-tonne safeguard covers 140 companies but is rarely, if ever, triggered by the government, which shifts the baseline to avoid having to heavily penalise companies that go over it.

The government has been accused of watering down the safeguard by allowing companies to claim exemptions for a range of reasons, including the expansion of their business.

Labor’s policy will lower the threshold capturing more companies but will more aggressively police the safeguard to ensure compliance.

The Opposition Leader has dismissed suggestions an inter­national carbon price will be above $60 a tonne by 2030 — despite the figure being regarded as a conservative estimate in modelling by former government scientist and contributing author to the International Panel on Climate Change Brian Fisher.

Josh Frydenberg yesterday said analysis done by his policy team confirmed the bill over the decade could be between $13bn and $26bn for businesses’ obligations triggered under Labor’s policy.

The figures for individual companies are based on their annual emissions as recorded by the Clean Energy Regulator and working on an assumption that they would have to purchase international credits to meet their obligations under Labor’s 25,000-tonne safeguard.

Scott Morrison yesterday continued his climate attack on Mr Shorten, warning voters that the Labor leader could not “explain his emissions-reduction policies”.

“There’s the cost he won’t explain on his emissions-reduction policies, particularly up there in Queensland … where GetUp is going around trying to take away people’s jobs,” the Prime Minister said.

“Bill Shorten — who is the godfather of GetUp — needs to explain why he cannot tell people what the cost of his emissions-­reduction policies are,” he said.

Mr Shorten said economist Warwick McKibbin, on whom he was relying to defend his emissions policy, had this week made it clear that the “debate about cost … isn’t the main game”.

“What he said to do is you have got to compare the cost of not taking action on climate change in 2030 with the cost of taking climate action,” Mr Shorten said. “And what he said is have a look at the detailed policies. Labor’s got policies. So let’s once and for all … put a stake into that argument.”

Greens leader Richard Di ­Natale said Labor wasn’t “serious about tackling dangerous climate change”, attacking Mr Shorten’s $1.5bn plan to unlock gas reserves in northern Australia.

“We are in the middle of a climate emergency and we can’t be opening up any more coal, oil or gas fields if we are going to hand over a sustainable environment to our children and grandchildren,” he said.

“Australia’s fastest-growing source of emissions is leaking methane from gas projects.

“Labor’s plan will simply add to Australia’s growing emissions when they need to be going the other way.”

SOURCE  






Bill Shorten taking a risk with millennial pitch

The corporate world is watching with fascination the risks Bill Shorten and the ALP are taking in putting a significant portion of their 2019 election campaign eggs in the millennial basket.

The focus on the millennials starts on the positive side, with policies that 18-37years olds find attractive on climate change, lower house prices, and higher wages including higher shift allowances.

Naturally the ALP is hoping to also to attract people in Generation X with these policies.

At the same time, Labor is attacking the baby boomers aged between 58 and 77 (and those aged above 50 thinking of retiring), as well as the older pre-boomers, with a ferocity rarely deployed against one segment of a community in an election.

Early this week I catalogued ten blows that the ALP is landing on the parents and grandparents of the millennials.

If it works, then marketing in Australia will require a very different approach and the concept of marketing to the whole population will be in tatters.

Also writing in The Australian, Bernard Salt set out why the ALP millennial strategy could work. It’s because together, millennials are the biggest single population group in the country, with 7.3 million people or 36. per cent of the total voting population. If all the generations united against them of course they will lose, but that is not likely.

But the danger the ALP faces in this strategy is highlighted by some fascinating findings by Morgan Research. They show that in Sydney and Melbourne — our two most populous cities — close to one in three millennials (31 per cent) were born in Asia. Asian-born people represent a much larger proportion of the 18-37 age group than they do in older age brackets.

Morgan says that Asian born millennials are much more likely to hold socially conservative views and values, despite their youth. They contrast starkly with Australian-born millennials. For example, four in ten Australian born millennials are married (41 per cent) compared to seven in ten Asian born millennials (74 per cent), and that particularly applies to those from India.

One in five millennials born in China own their own homes outright, compared one in eight Australian-born millennials. Religion is more prominent to Asian born millennials with one in four regularly attending a place of worship compared to 14 per cent of their Australian-born peers. Just how these Asian born millennials will view the attack on their parents and grandparents is of course completely unknown. It is possible they will not know the extent of the attacks.

However millennials, whether they be Asian or Australian born, have a number of features in common in particular they are very tech savvy and very big users of social media which is how they get much of their information. Many of their parents do not speak English well and again may not be aware of how the ALP is preparing to attack them, although they will be aware of the negative gearing measures which will adversely affect many in the Chinese community.

But they certainly would not have read Bill Shorten’s budget reply speech, where the ALP set out is aim with great clarity. Shorten declared: “We are going to stop intergenerational unfairness in our tax system”.

That is shorthand for declaring that the parents and grandparents of the millennials are going to be a lot poorer. The ALP crafted its 10-pronged attack to minimise the blows on the rich and poor, although some pensioners get caught up in hits delivered to the baby boomers.

However against that, the ALP is very skilled in the way it uses social media and relates to tech savvy people. And in particular it is likely that the views of the Asian-born millennials on climate change and wages will be very similar to their Australian-born peers.

But the fact that the segment of the community to whom the ALP is looking to win is in fact divided into two very separate groups increases the risk of the ALP strategy. As for the Coalition, it needs to bring around it younger people from migrant communities who know how to relate to the young people in their group. In particular, the Coalition must emphasise the ten taxation blows being directed at their parents and grandparents.

At the same time many in the migrant community run small businesses. As I described on Tuesday, both parties are coming together with small business policies but all small businesses employing low cost labour will not be pleased at Bill Shorten’s plan to increase shift allowances.

But of course their children may have a different view.

SOURCE  






March and a quiet beer in store for VC hero Ben Roberts-Smith

The accusation of war crimes against one of our bravest and most distinguished soldiers is just the usual attempt by little people to tear down men better than themselves

It’s hard to keep Anzac Day low key when you’re a 2m tall former SAS trooper with a bronze Victoria Cross pinned to your chest, but this year Ben Roberts-Smith is going to give it a go.

Since leaving the army in 2013, the 40-year-old has been on a ­carousel of public and corporate obligations: chairman of the Australia Day Council, Father of the Year, general manager of Seven Queensland.

This year, he is hoping to keep it simple. “The Canberra RSL has asked me to lead the march, which is a great honour,’’ he said. “After that, I’ll catch up with my friends and colleagues and we’ll probably have a beer.’’

It’s no secret Mr Roberts-Smith has had a torrid year. He is embroiled in a defamation action against Nine over a series of articles that he says portrayed him as a war criminal, a bully and a domestic abuser. A long-running inquiry into possible war crimes committed by the SASR and the commandos will soon hand down its findings.

Mr Roberts-Smith is reluctant to talk about the events of the past year. Not, he said, because he had anything to hide — he fiercely maintains his innocence — but on a day given over to the service of all veterans, he is loath to focus on his own woes.

“My family and I have been under a lot of undue and unfair scrutiny of late,’’ he said. “My opinion is that I won’t let any media outlet dictate when and where I support veterans. This Anzac Day, I’ll do what I can to ensure all veterans are recognised, the ones that have gone before me and the contemporary ones.’’

The ACT RSL’s decision to tap Mr Roberts-Smith to lead out the march represents something of a generational shift for an ­organisation founded in 1916, at a time when support services for ­returning veterans were non-existent. “They’re trying to connect with younger veterans, so this is a good opportunity to help them do that,’’ Mr Roberts-Smith said.

Some of those younger veterans are doing it pretty tough. A 2017 study by the National Mental Health Commission found the suicide rate for serving members of the Australian Defence Force is lower than the nat­ional average but higher for those who’ve left.

The danger zone seems to be in the period of transition when veterans must learn to live with the burdens of their service without the support services laid on by the military.

Mr Roberts-Smith doesn’t think his generation of veterans is doing it any tougher than previous ones — in fact, he’s full of praise for the way Australians have embraced newer veterans — but he worries that as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down, there is a danger we could lose focus.

“We shouldn’t forget that some of these guys are just in their 20s,” he said. “They can’t just be thrown back into society and told to deal with it.’’

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






24 April 2019

'White males' should be BANNED from speaking during university classes so women and transgender students are more willing to contribute to discussions - seminar suggests

A workshop at one of Australia's top universities discussed banning white male students who look like Liberal Party voters from speaking in class.

The seminar titled How Privilege Manifests in Tutorials was held last week by the University of Melbourne Student Union.

Attendees discussed ways to make tutorials and lectures more inclusive by encouraging women, transgender, foreign and gay people to speak up more.

One proposal was to ban 'white, male students' and 'students resembling Liberal voters' from speaking.

This caused outrage among members of the student Liberal Club.  Thomas Carlyle-James, 21, said it was unfair to paint this stereotype of Liberal voters. 'There's generally this sort of idea that Liberals are all racist, rich, white kids,' he told The Australian.

'I know plenty of Liberals and none of them are racists and they aren't as wealthy as people think and are also from all different ­nationalities.'

The workshop was one of many held last week during the Student Union's annual event titled Radical Education Week.

Other workshops were titled Feminist History of Capitalism; Burn the Prisons Down & Tear Apart the Walls; and Climate vs Capitalism: Eco-socialism as an Alternative.

Student Union president Molly Willmott defended the workshop. 'This is not about stopping people from speaking,' she said. 'We're a university that encourages free speech.

'It's about giving space to people who don't feel included on university campuses because of things like gender, language (and) queerness.'

A University of Melbourne spokeswoman said: 'This is a workshop run by UMSU.' 'What is discussed is not university policy.'

SOURCE  







Expecting truth from Shorten is a fool’s game

Bill Shorten is bidding to be prime minister but perhaps he has been seduced by the opinion polls because he has forgotten a golden rule of life and politics and sport.

If you don’t do the homework, you have no hope of passing the exam. At the end of the first full week, Shorten has to be given a massive F for fail.

You mean to say that a potential prime minister announces a policy about electric cars and he does not know how long it takes to charge the battery but pretends to know and finishes up about eight hours out.

Then in his budget reply speech he played the emotional card Labor do so well — cancer treatment would be free. Except it is now clear if that policy were implemented, it would cost $6 billion more than Mr Shorten offered.

Never mind, Labor will subsidise MRI scans. How much will that cost? Don’t know. They don’t know how many MRI machines there are in the country.

Stand negative gearing on its head. Why? Well only 7 per cent of those investing in housing, and negatively gearing, are investing in new homes. So the negative gearing tax breaks don’t assist the building of new housing stock.

Sounds OK. Except the Bureau of Statistics entered the field of play. They said there was no such figure. Yet Chris Bowen had said in January: “The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows 93 per cent of new investment loans go to people purchasing existing housing stock.”

Not a bad mistake. A 93 per cent mistake.

Bowen and his leader have said for months, unapologetically, that Labor would be raising $200bn in extra taxes.

Remember he said if you don’t like it, don’t vote for us.

A massive hand in our pockets. Except that Treasury in the first week of the election said the figure was $387bn.

No wonder by week’s end, with the Labor Party swimming in mistakes and made-up figures, they deleted a whole heap of detail about tax from their website.

There were previously almost 100 paragraphs with charts and dia­grams explaining their housing policy and negative gearing. Well, the Bureau of Statistics blew them out of the water so approximately 90 policy paragraphs were deleted.

Signature policies. But hang on. You cannot make this stuff up. We are only in the first week.

Shorten said there would be no new taxes on superannuation.

Not bad except Labor has already announced a $34bn tax on super. So Labor have scrapped their superannuation tax change policy from their online manifesto.

And what about that brave young Network Ten reporter Jonathan Lea, who sought to ask Shorten a few questions on how much Labor’s climate change policy would cost the economy. He asked over and over again. No ­answer. Couldn’t answer.

The one thing Shorten cannot abide is a question on the economy. He won’t front radio or television programs that ask the tough questions.

But back to the question about energy costs. Presumably Shorten thought he was playing a trump card when he argued that the report on which his climate change policies were based was authored by Australian National Univer­sity’s Warwick McKibbin.

Except Professor McKibbin said he was surprised Labor had not spoken to him despite arguing they were relying on his report.

McKibbin soon smacked Shorten down, being quoted as saying his climate change policy would cost the economy at least $60bn more than the ­Coalition by 2030.

Now this is a climate change policy according to Labor, based on carbon dioxide being evil. But when I asked Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek how much carbon dioxide was in the atmosphere, she was honest enough to say she did not know. On most policy issues, they do not seem to know.

Expect the voter to say if you don’t know, we vote no.

SOURCE  






Australia's Prime Minister is an authentic Christian

If you are old enough to remember a budget surplus then you will remember countless interviews with Kevin Rudd outside church. Before and after his election the Labor leader was ever willing to advertise his claimed conservatism by giving Sunday press conferences with spires as a backdrop.

It was smart politics and from what we know of Rudd it was an authentic depiction of his faith, even if it was used to create an entirely fictitious impression of his general political/economic disposition. Most successful politicians draw a character dividend of inferred stability and conservatism by associating themselves with mainstream religion. This is why Scott Morrison’s appearance at his Pentecostal church on the weekend was fascinating. I don’t know his media minders or their religious affiliations but I can guarantee they would have been reluctant and wary about letting cameras in on this event. This “happy clapping” version of Christianity is a growing part of the nation’s religious make-up but it is not the norm.

Morrison’s minders would have worried that pictures of the Prime Minister singing with his arms in the air praising Jesus and eyes closed in devotion would make voters uncomfortable. But they had no choice.

There was an election campaign running over Easter, he leads the nation and goes to church — the minders had to allow cameras in and share this experience with voters. After all, the alternative prime minister, Bill Shorten, was going to be at a more mainstream church and wouldn’t be shunning attention.

Morrison has worn some online abuse and mocking for his overt show of faith. But you get the sense most Australians respect his choice and his authenticity. He didn’t appear contrived or uncomfortable.

Aside from competence and authority, authenticity is the critical ingredient for politicians. And like the others, you can’t fake it. Morrison comes across as a daggy dad because he is one; and he is comfortable enough in his happy-clapper skin to allow the world to see it. Voters are likely to respect him for that.

Yesterday he likened our multicultural society to being greater than the sum of all its parts in the same way that his homemade curries weave culinary magic from a variety of ingredients. He seems relaxed on the campaign trail and the country is getting to know him.

Shorten is a canny campaigner. As I have pointed out before he never misses the right political point in his media appearances. He dodges difficult questions and pivots to his attack points masterfully. But he is having a bad campaign so far, caught out on factual errors, refusing to answer questions and lashing out at the media. He will need to turn it around and get onto the front foot.

Morrison and his team still need to do much more to highlight Labor’s weaknesses and convince voters they have learned from the dysfunction of the past. The electoral degree of difficulty is astronomical. But there is an early sense that he is winning people over as an authentic figure who seems at ease with voters and all the carry-on of campaigning.

SOURCE  







Australia’s new battlefield: insiders vs outsiders: As in Brexit Britain and Trump’s America, it’s the elite vs the people.

Shorten's electric car fantasy is totally inappropriate for the  Australian people and the policy could yet be his undoing

If you trust the polls, Labor leader Bill Shorten will win next month’s Australian federal election, as surely as the British voted to remain in Europe and Hillary Clinton won the US presidency in 2016.

Shorten has been the consistent frontrunner for more than two years and faces a centre-right coalition with weakened authority after five years of internal division and two changes of leader.

Yet there is good reason to suspect that polling may be as reliable as it was in 2016.

Like Britain, the US and much of the democratic Western world, Australia is undergoing a transition from the politics of left and right to a contest between conformist insiders and woefully disobedient outsiders.

Shorten and the prime minister Scott Morrison feel obliged to tread cautiously across a treacherous cultural landscape. One false move could trip the next political explosion, as Shorten did two weeks ago when he announced a bold policy on electric vehicles.

Australia was lagging behind the rest of the world, he said. A Shorten government would ensure that by 2030, 50 per cent of vehicles sold on the market would be powered by batteries.

Had Shorten sought advice from anyone living more than five kilometres outside the Canberra political triangle, the thought bubble would never have been released.

Australians love their cars with the passionate intensity mid-America displays towards guns. The backlash was immediate. Alan Jones, the country’s most popular talkback radio host, declared that the issue would lose Shorten the election.

Shorten compounded his problems two days later when he was asked by a breakfast radio presenter how long the batteries took to charge. ‘Oh, it can take, umm … it depends on what your original charge is, but it can take, err, eight to 10 minutes depending on your charge’, Shorten ventured.

A more accurate answer would have been eight to 10 hours.

Few Australians would be embarrassed by Shorten’s accusation that they are behind the rest of the world in the quality of the exhaust emitted from their tailpipes. They live in a country of vast distances and rough terrain with the third-lowest fuel taxes in the developed world. Miles per hour still counts for more in the Australian car market than miles per gallon.

Others are welcome to drive Ford Fiestas, VW Golfs and Vauxhall Corsa, the three top-selling vehicles in Britain. But they’re a little squashy for four grown men even without their fishing rods.

Which is why Australians prefer the Toyota HiLux, Ford Territory and Mitsubishi Triton, the current top-selling vehicles, which emit almost twice the CO2 of the Fiesta but are far better suited for rounding up sheep in a wet paddock.

Few nations could rival Australia in its unsuitability for electric vehicles. The challenge of installing chargers at convenient intervals along Australia’s 7.6million kilometres of roads is hard enough. It is considerably more difficult than in the UK, for example, where there are 77 cars per square kilometre, compared to Australia’s 2.5.

Utility vehicles, or ‘utes’ in the local vernacular, SUVs and four-wheel-drives account for more than 60 per cent of the small vehicle market in Australia and their popularity is growing.

There is no electrical equivalent of these vehicles on the market. We’re told that the Hyundai Kona could be on sale by Christmas, but at $60,000 – $20,000 more than the petrol version – you can forget it.

The global mania driving the introduction of electric vehicles seems puzzling viewed through Australian eyes. If Norway chooses to spend billions of krone earned by selling oil on subsidies to bribe its citizens to drive electric cars, then let them. Unlike the Norwegians, Australians do not have 31 billion watts of hydro-generated electricity at their disposal.

Yet the technological obstacles and investment challenges are treated with little regard by the elite, where anxiety about the predicted effects of global warming are keenly felt. Support for electric cars, like enthusiasm for renewable energy, is strongest in well-to-do suburbs close the city, frequently close to the beach, where they drive cars the least and are soothed by maritime breezes on stinking-hot summer days.

The hostility to electric vehicles is not helped by the performance of the political and policy elites who have a track record of policy disasters in energy. The last Labor government used draconian cross-subsidies to force investment in wind and solar power with unfortunate results.

Australians once enjoyed among the cheapest electricity in the world. Now it vies to be the most expensive. The intermittent supply from renewable energy has made the grid unstable. There have been lengthy blackouts in South Australia and Victoria, where coal-fired power stations have been forced out of the market.

The intellectual elites who created this mess still struggle to see where they went wrong. If it worked for Denmark, why wouldn’t it work here?

But Australia is a very different country. Like other net exporters of energy, the relatively high level of emissions per-capita does not reflect local habits.

It exports some of the world’s cleanest coal, thus contributing to a reduction of emissions in some countries. And if coal is considered too dirty, there’s always gas, in which Australia leads the world in exports.

Agriculture, of which Australia is also a net exporter, contributes 16 per cent to national emissions, most of which comes from enteric fermentation in ruminant livestock – a polite way of saying belching and farting, for which there is no known antidote.

These peculiar national characteristics help to explain why climate policy is Australia’s Brexit: the issue that divides the intellectual elites with their grand theories from the rest of Australia with its no-nonsense practical outlook. It is the touchstone issue on which the nation divides along non-party lines, and could once break up a barbie in those innocent days when the two tribes grilled their steaks together and parked their six-cylinder Holdens in the same drive.

Like Brexit, leaders would prefer if they didn’t have to take sides, for fear of causing offence and disunity within their own party. Like Brexit, however, there is no fence to sit on. Shorten, the leader of the party that pays increasingly little attention to the workers that once defined it, is siding with the intellectuals, promising to abate roughly three times the amount of greenhouse gas by 2030 than Australia is obliged to do under the Paris Commitment.

If he thinks such virtue-seeking will go unquestioned by hoi polloi beyond the beltway, he will be disappointed. It is proving to be an electoral disadvantage in the outer suburbs and in regional Australia where a Trump-like revolt, if it ever happened in Australia, would be likely to break out.

It is here that Morrison is discovering surprise middle ground on the continuous issue of climate policy. Like Shorten, he promises action to reduce emissions, which 70 per cent of Australians favour. His appeal, however, is toward practical, measured policy, rather than one that seems intellectually pure.

‘You don’t have to choose between the economy and the environment’, Morrison says. ‘You don’t have to choose between your job and the environment.’

Any predictions about the result next month must be heavily qualified. The political duopoly that has been in place since the end of the Second World War is fraying. Populist independents and pop-up parties are strengthening and will almost certainly hold the balance of power in the next parliament, as they have for the past 12 years. They may also increase their presence in the lower house, increasing the chances of a hung parliament.

The Liberal/National Coalition, which has been in government for 18 of the past 24 years, comes to the poll as a weakened force, despite an exceptionally strong economy and low unemployment. PM Scott Morrison, who has been in office for less than eight months, has gone some way to restoring the government’s fortunes and repair the internal disunity, but time was never on his side.

The weekend polls still put Labor ahead by 52 per cent to 48 per cent. Yet if Morrison can manage to tap the well of discontent against the outlandish climate policy pursued by much of the political class, the coalition may yet confound those who have written them off.

SOURCE  






When is a scorcher not a scorcher?

When it is in Australia.  A summer afternoon temperature indoors in Brisbane is usually 34C.  God knows what that would be called in  Britain.  A recent temperature 10 degrees cooler than 34 is a "scorcher" there

Brits have been hitting the beaches and parks to bask in a record-breaking 24C Easter weekend scorcher.

Brits have been hitting the beaches and parks today to bask in a record-breaking 24C Easter Sunday scorcher.

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have already hit their highest temperatures ever registered for Easter, with a chance that England could follow suit too.

The mercury reached 23C in Trawsgoed, Wales, 22.8C in Edinburgh, Scotland, and 20.7C in Helen’s Bay, Northern Ireland, by 2pm.

Met Office meteorologist Dean Hall said the UK Easter Sunday record was 25.3C.

Heathrow airport recorded a steaming 24.6C to fall just short of the record, and parts of West Sussex hit 24.3C.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






23 April, 2019

‘We are in a crisis’: Australia’s recycling nightmare

For some reason, plastic is a great Greenie demon and there is a big imperative to recycle it.  Dropping it down a hole is apparently not good enough any more. A lot of Australia's playing fields and parks were once dumps but that is no longer wise, apparently.

But most plastic cannot economically be recycled so the little we do recycle requires government subsidies and support of various kinds. It costs money to recyle.  Making something useful out of rubbish is difficult. The fantasy that recycled rubbish can pay for itself is long gone. And the great bulk that we do not recycle we send overseas where they mostly burn it. But now other countries don't want it either, even if we pay them

If the Greenies had a brain they would be pushing for a total ban on plastic food and drink containers.  Many drink containers are already made of glass, steel or aluminium, which are fully and easily recylable. One's shopping would get slightly heavier as plastic bottles are lighter than steel or glass ones and aluminium containers do not work well in the larger sizes.  But I guess that glass, steel and aluminium are just boring old stuff that you cannot get a virtue claim out of


As our plastic waste piles up at overstretched facilities or is dumped in Malaysia and Indonesia, the crisis is getting too big to ignore.

Australia has catapulted headfirst into a crisis that’s been building for a long time.

The nation is trapped under a mountain of its own waste, lacking the resources to even begin to deal with it — and plastic is our biggest demon.

While Aussie households have gradually become accustomed to sorting rubbish for recycling, the illusion of success was shattered when China abruptly stopped accepting our refuse in 2017.

The country had been processing 60-70 per cent of the world’s recycling, but when it realised the negative impact on its environment, it suddenly shut the door. India has cut us off, too.

Australia has only a few dozen processing plants compared with China’s thousands. So our bottles, containers and coffee cups have been piling up at overstretched facilities, or shipped off to be illegally burned or buried in Southeast Asia.

“Nobody’s built any infrastructure,” Plastic Forests founder and owner David Hodge told news.com.au. “The Federal Government is a basket case.

“Just imagine there’s no garbage trucks coming down the street any more to pick up rubbish. That’s the situation we’re in. “We are in a crisis.”

After 20 years of relying on China, Australia is suddenly facing a visceral nightmare, as we start to drown in our own materialism.

While we have made some steps towards reducing single-use plastic, we still use around 3.3 billion plastic bags, 2.6 billion coffee cups, 2.4 billion plastic straws and 1.3 billion plastic bottles each year.

Soft plastics cannot be recycled, and when households dump plastic bags in the recycling bin, it acts “like chewing gum going through the machine”, which may have to be stopped and decontaminated.

“When we put it in our recycling bin, where does it go?” asks Mr Hodge. “It’s taken almost a generation to train Australians to recycle.

“It needs this — almost emergency powers to step in and address it.”

NSW is the only state or territory without at least a commitment to ban single-use bags. Major retailers have already cut them out, with Coles and Woolworths driving an 80 per cent drop in the consumption of plastic bags nationwide by December last year.

Many want to see federal action, with Labor promising to ban single-use bags and microbeads by 2021 if it wins the election as part of a $290 million plan to cut waste and clean up the oceans. But the solution to our self-made hell will not be easy.

Australians are becoming aware of their impact, with the ABC’s War on Waste having a huge impact in 2017 after it exposed that we were ranked fifth in the world for generating the most municipal waste. A video of supermarkets dumping edible bananas helped it become the broadcaster’s most successful social media campaign.

Nine’s 60 Minutes this week tackled how recyclable rubbish is being dumped in Indonesia, Vietnam and, in particular, Malaysia, which received more than 71,000 tonnes of our plastic in the last year alone.

But the wake-up call has come late in the day, and answers are desperately needed.

Suggested solutions include replacing our plastics with biodegradable versions, taxing non-recyclable or “virgin” plastics, stockpiling the rubbish while we improve our recycling capabilities or burning plastic to create energy.

All of these ideas come with their own costs and challenges. Mr Hodge says he’s concerned the Government will rush headlong into burning plastic for electricity — a hugely expensive energy source — when it could focus on investing in the “circular economy” and creating jobs in the process.

We are living in what he calls a “DUD economy” — Dig it up, Use it, Dispose of it. Most things don’t work like that: more often, water, food and materials are part of a cycle.

“Everybody’s trying to do everything as cheaply as possible, it’s not long-term sustainability,” warns Mr Hodge. “It’s just an enormously expensive fuel.

“We want to keep plastic as plastic.”

Companies are now manufacturing garden furniture, bollards, park benches and cable insulation from recycled plastic. Plastic Forests has found a way to create a mini wheel stop from plastic film using a grant from NSW Environmental Protection Agency’s “Waste Less Recycle More” $802 million initiative.

Australia needs smart investment, clear thinking and innovative ideas to deal with the monumental challenge. This catastrophe may be the wake-up call we need.

SOURCE  






Concern about Labor party wage dictates

Weekend work is a major avenue that poor people use to get ahead but Labour policy on "penalty" rates will keep a lot of businesses closed on the weekend that could otherwise open.  Larger cafes, for instance, may have to close, leaving small family-run ethnic businesses to provide the services and take the customers' money -- and they rarely hire outside the family.  I already use such services a lot. The Vietnamese are particularly good. 

As usual, the Labor party never looks further ahead than the length of its nose.  Their ideas hurt the poor rather than helping them.  But I guess that it is elite concerrns that move them these days, not the interests of the workers.  It is being able to dictate to people that gives them their kicks


One of Australia's leading business lobby groups is urging crossbench senators not to pass any industrial relations changes if Parliament sits before the Senate changes over.

The Australian Industry Group fears the possibility that the next government, particularly if Labor wins the election, may try to hurry industrial relations changes through the existing Senate before senators elected in the May 18 vote take their places on July 1.

The possibility arises because while members of Parliament are sworn in once results are officially declared new senators will only commence their terms on July 1.

This means there may be a short period in June during which there is a new government in control of the House of Representatives while the current Senate remains in place.

"Many of the changes that have been proposed by one or both of the major parties would have major adverse impacts on businesses, employees and the broader labour market."

Ai Group wants penalty rate cuts to stay

One key issue of concern to the Ai Group is Labor's proposal to wind back Sunday and public holiday penalty rate cuts instituted by a ruling of the Fair Work Commission (FWC).

A recent analysis by the Australia Institute's Centre for Future Work found that the changes would cost employees in the affected retail, hospitality, accommodation and pharmacy sectors about $8 million on Sundays and $16 million on public holidays.

Wage cut could backfire

Businesses are hoping to profit from the Sunday penalty rate cut, but their workers are also ultimately their customers.

The centre said that, for example, affected employees working over the 10-day Easter-Anzac Day period — which many took off — were $80 million worse off than they would have been before the cut to penalty rates.

Mr Willox said he believed that Labor's commitment to rolling back the penalty rate cut within 100 days of taking office involved putting forward the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Take-home Pay) Bill 2017, which would limit the FWC's ability to make any changes to awards likely to reduce the take-home pay of employees.

"What is the point in having an independent umpire if the umpire is only able to rule in favour of one of the parties?" Mr Willox asked rhetorically. "The bill makes a mockery of the notion of having an independent tribunal to maintain awards."

The Ai Group has also expressed concerns about a number of changes recommended by the Government's Migrant Workers' Taskforce being considered by both the Coalition and Labor.

These include a national labour hire licensing scheme to regulate companies that provide workers, particularly in the horticulture, cleaning, security and meat processing industries.

Labor is proposing additional regulation that would require labour hire companies to provide wages and conditions no less favourable than the wages and conditions provided by the firms that are using their services to their own in-house employees.

"Taking away the flexibility that labour hire businesses and their clients need would reduce productivity, competitiveness and employment," Mr Willox warned the crossbench senators.

Criminal penalties 'would discourage investment'

The Ai Group is also arguing against another recommendation of the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, that criminal penalties should be introduced for serious and deliberate breaches of workplace laws.

Mr Willox warned that criminal proceedings would slow down the compensation of employees for back-pay they were owed and that there had already been a substantial increase in financial penalties for workplace law breaches.

"Implementing criminal penalties for wage underpayments would discourage investment, entrepreneurship and employment growth," he added.

The Ai Group has also expressed concerns about Labor's policy proposals to raise the minimum wage to a "living wage", tighten the definition of a casual employee, abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, make it more difficult for employers to unilaterally apply to terminate an expired enterprise agreement and introduce some degree of industry-wide bargaining in certain sectors.

Mr Willox said all of these significant industrial relations changes should first be considered by the relevant Senate committee, a ministerial consultative council with industry and unions, as well as discussed with state and territory governments.

SOURCE  






'A free ride for billionaires': Luxury cars including Maseratis and Rolls-Royces are among those set to AVOID Bill Shorten's $5,000 tax plan to slash emissions

More Leftist idiocy

Luxury cars such as Maseratis, Rolls-Royces, and Lamborghinis would avoid a price hike under Bill Shorten's plan to dramatically increase the number of electric vehicles on the road.

However, the price tag of popular family cars such as the Ford Ranger, Holden Commodore, Toyota Carolla, and Mazda CX-5 could see an increase of up to $5,000 as manufacturers try to meet Labor's emissions targets.

If elected into power next month, Labor vows that electric cars will make up half of all new vehicle purchases by 2030, a huge increase from the 0.2 per cent share they have now.

Manufacturers would be forced to push sales of electric cars while high emissions vehicles would be taxed. 

The proposal has been slammed as a 'free ride' for the rich, with manufacturers that sell less than 2,500 cars a year in Australia ruled exempt from the policy under Climate Change Authority advice.

Companies that sold fewer than 2,500 cars last year include Alfa Romeo with 1,279 purchased, followed by 642 Maseratis, 241 Ferraris, and 208 Bentleys.

Aston Martin sold 167 cars, followed by 134 Lamborghinis, 88 McLarens, and 40 Rolls-Royces.

To increase the sale of electric cars, Labor is also considering special transit lanes, waiving registration fees, and parking benefits.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor said Labor's electric vehicle policy is unfairly targeting families and tradies who would be taxed extra for buying popular car models.

'Labor wants to give a free ride to billionaires whose high-end sports cars and ultra-luxury vehicles won't be hit by Bill Shorten's new car tax,' Mr Taylor said.

'Bill Shorten and Labor would force Australian families and tradies to pay up to $5000 more for a new Mazda and HiLux, but would give those who can afford high-end sports cars and ultra-luxury vehicles a break. It doesn't make sense,' he said. 

Labor argues that while there may be some upfront costs, motorists could save up to $500 a year in petrol expenses.

'Labor's policy saves motorist hundreds of dollars a year in petrol costs. It's not just Labor saying that — the government's own report says that,' Opposition climate change spokesperson Mark Butler said last week.

Climate change and emissions targets are becoming a focus of the election campaign with Australian going to the polling booths on May 18.

SOURCE  






Invisible Shorten gets brush from campaign flyers

Bill Shorten has been airbrushed from campaign material in at least 27 federal seats, about half of them hotly contested marginals, as Labor works to counter the Opposition Leader's poor personal rating among voters.

Campaign material distributed by Labor candidates in nine Queensland seats — including letters, flyers and postal voting applications — does not contain a single mention or photograph of Mr Shorten.

They include the ultra-marginal seat of Capricornia, held by assistant minister and Nationals MP Michelle Landry with a margin of 0.6 per cent; Petrie, held by Liberal MP Luke Howarth (1.6 per cent); and Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton’s seat of Dickson, (1.7 per cent). Mr Shorten is not mentioned in material being circulated by Labor’s candidate for the seat of Dawson, Belinda Hassan, held by embattled Nationals MP George Christensen with a margin of 3.4 per cent. Or in Bonner, Brisbane, Lilley or Moreton.

Instead, candidates are opting for stock images of doctors, tradies and themselves in the local area.

Mr Shorten has also apparently been shunned by his own frontbench, not rating a mention by deputy leader Tanya Plibersek in Sydney, Linda Burney in Barton or Terri Butler in the marginal seat of Griffith (1.4 per cent).

A Labor source told The Australian that all content had to be approved by the party's national campaign headquarters before being distributed.

The source hinted that distributing material that did not mention Mr Shorten was a deliberate strategy directly related to his ­unpopularity.

The latest Newspoll has Mr Shorten sitting on a net satisfaction rating of minus 14 with 37 per cent of those surveyed satisfied with his performance and 51 per cent dissatisfied.

In NSW, the Labor leader isn't featured in campaign material from at least seven electorates, including marginals Gilmore, Lindsay and Robertson.

Despite handpicking neurosurgeon Brian Owler, Mr Shorten does not appear in Labor’s Bennelong flyers.

A letter from Labor Senate leader Penny Wong to voters in the South Australian seat of Boothby, a Liberal seat with a margin of 2.7 per cent, references the “united, stable Labor team” but not Mr Shorten. Instead, it has a picture of Senator Wong alongside Labor’s South Australian Senate candidates.

In Victoria, Mr Shorten has been left out of six Labor campaigns, including in outgoing Jobs Minister Kelly O’Dwyer's seat of Higgins, which is expected to see swings away from the Coalition and could be picked up by Labor.

In the neighbouring seat of Dunkley, held by Liberal Chris Crewther but notionally a marginal Labor seat on a 1 per cent margin after redistributions, there is also no hint of the Labor leader.

Justine Keay, Labor’s candidate for Braddon in Tasmania who holds her seat with a margin of 1.7 per cent, has opted for a photograph of herself alongside Labor deputy Ms Plibersek.

Labor candidate for the safe Greens seat of Melbourne Luke Creasey has not one but two photographs of himself with Ms Plibersek alongside the quote: “If you want a better and fairer future, vote Labor for a change of government.”

Even Mr Shorten’s closest friends have left him off their campaign material. His Victorian factional ally Rob Mitchell doesn’t have a single mention or picture of him on his flyers. The backbencher who holds the seat of McEwen by a 6 per cent margin only mentions a “Labor government” and the party’s “Fair go for Australia”.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here




22 April 2019

Qld govt slaps ban on junk food ads

Leftist authoritarianism again.  NO food is junk.  They all contain nutrients but vary in which ones. Salt, sugar and fat are all good for you

A ban on advertising of junk food on billboards and spaces owned by the Queensland government will be enforced in a bid to help people make healthier choices.

Junk food advertising will be banned from billboards, train stations and transport owned by the Queensland government.

In a move aimed at helping Queenslanders make healthier choices, the ban will apply to outdoor spaces and other sites, excluding stadiums.

Queensland Health Minister Steven Miles says change won't be seen in big sporting venues for a number of years due to complexities with contracts.

Foods will be ruled in or out based on their salt, sugar and fat content.

The move is part of the state government's program aimed at increasing the number of Queenslanders with a healthy body weight by 10 per cent by 2026.

"This is really about the government saying were going to lead by example," Mr Miles said on Sunday. "And this is one way we can do that."

Mr Miles said the ban would apply to about 2000 billboards, which rake in millions of dollars each year for the government.

Lyn Hamill from Diabetes Queensland says reducing children's exposure to bright and colourful packaging of unhealthy foods will mean they will want them less often.

But the state opposition says the ban is a distraction from an emergency department crisis. "We think the government should be focusing on hospital beds not billboards," Liberal National Party deputy leader Tim Mander said. "We want the Palaszczuk government to get its priorities right.

SOURCE  






Australian chefs pledge to no longer serve unsustainable seafood

Keeping fish stocks healthy is a laudable goal but very large areas of Australian waters are national parks in which fishing is prohibited so the panic is unfounded.  The restaurateurs will end up giving their business to some of our many Vietnamese restaurants if they are not careful.  Viets are brilliant cooks -- including seafood

Chefs from 40 leading restaurants across Australia have pledged to no longer serve unsustainable seafood as part of the Australian Marine Conservation Society’s (AMCS) new GoodFish Project launched today.

All the restaurants have agreed not to source or serve seafood that is red-listed as “Say No” in Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide - an independent scientific analysis of seafood production researched and published by AMCS.

World-renowned Australian chef Ben Shewry, owner of Attica in Melbourne, is also announced today as the project’s official GoodFish Ambassador. Attica is currently ranked the 20th best restaurant in the world.

Chef and GoodFish manager Sascha Rust said: “Chefs have an incredible ability to talk to people through food. We are trusted guides for society on how we eat and what we eat.

“Chefs that are coming onboard with GoodFish are sending a very clear message. This community does not want to support practices that are damaging our oceans and putting the long-term sustainability of the oceans and food they love at risk. Instead, they want to be able to celebrate great seafood that’s sustainable.”

Shewry’s restaurant Attica was ranked 20th in “The World’s 50 Best Restaurants” awards for 2018 - the only Australian restaurant to make the list, independently judged by chefs, restaurateurs and critics.

Shewry said he was "absolutely thrilled and honoured" to be asked to be the GoodFish ambassador having first started using Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide some 10 years ago to guide his sourcing.

He said: "The GoodFish project aims to build a community of chefs in Australia to come together to work on this problem. We have a moral responsibility. We need to understand the ingredients that we are cooking with, and no more so than what comes from the oceans."

"In my position as a chef, I have a big influence on what people eat and what other people cook because our restaurant is well known.  If I don't have have what I would call a clean menu - if I don't have best practice, the most sustainable menu I can have in terms of shellfish and seafood - then I am contributing to the problem."

So far 40 restaurants across the country have signed up to GoodFish, including Alanna Sapwell (Arc Dining, Brisbane), Alejandro Saravia (Pastuso, Melbourne; Uma, Perth), Ben Devlin (Pipit, Pottsville), Thi Li (Anchovy, Melbourne), Jacqui Challinor (NOMAD, Sydney) and the team behind Three Blue Ducks (Byron Bay, Sydney and Brisbane).

Rust added: “Our aim here is to bring together a strong community of voices to protect our oceans so they can continue to provide joy, and food, for generations to come.”

Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide, which celebrates its 15th birthday in 2019, covers some 92 per cent of all the seafood consumed by Australians, including locally-produced and imported species.

The guide has three colour-coded classifications, where consumers and chefs are advised on green-listed “Better Choice” species, and to “Say No” to red-listed species and “Eat Less” from an amber list.

Adrian Meder, AMCS Sustainable Seafood Program Manager, said the guide assesses fisheries and aquaculture operators on a range of practices, such as the stock status of the species, the methods used to catch or farm them, and impacts on other marine wildlife and habitats.

He said: “Chefs are real arbiters of our seafood choices and the best chefs are closely connected to the supply chains from the ocean to the plate. That so many of them are now using Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide to make sure their customers get the best seafood choices is not just a testament to the guide, but to them as guardians of the future of food.”

The guide assesses some 160 wild caught and farmed fish choices covering more than 92 per cent of the seafood consumed by Australians. Some 50 fish choices are green-listed, 53 are amber and 57 are coded red for “Say No”.

Because Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide is fully independent of government and industry, Meder said it remains the most used and trusted source of information for the seafood-loving Australian public.

Via email from media@amcs.org.au






Antisemitic Labor Party candidate believes Palestinian falsifications

Such falsifications are as old as the hills.  You would have to be naive to believe them

Star Labor candidate for Curtin Melissa Parke has quit after a controversial speech which outraged the Jewish community.

Speaking to pro-Palestinian activists last month, Ms Parke described the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 'worse than the South African system of apartheid'. 

Ms Parke also claimed she 'remembered vividly' when 'a pregnant refugee woman was ordered at a checkpoint in Gaza to drink a bottle of bleach', The Herald Sun reported.

She made the comments at first-ever meeting of the Western Australian Labor for Palestine group in March and stepped down on Friday night.

The bleach burned the woman's throat and insides but her baby was saved, according to Ms Parke. 

Ms Parke is a former lawyer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees and has worked in the Gaza Strip.

She said she did not want her views on the Middle East to distract from electing a Labor government.

Her speech was called 'nothing more than a laundry list of slanders, including discredited conspiracy theories and downright falsification' by Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council executive director Colin Rubenstein.

Ms Parke withdrew from the race for the Perth seat of Curtin, which was vacated by former foreign minister Julie Bishop.

It is considered a safe Liberal seat because it has been held by the party since 1998.

The former Fremantle MP resigned from her seat in 2016 after nine years to spend more time with family.

SOURCE  







Bill Shorten’s entourage hints at a female-voter problem

Does Bill Shorten have a problem with female voters? Will they have a problem voting for him, as prime minister?

Put your ear to the ground, there’s a bit of chat out there — on the hustings, around the place — that women don’t much like the Opposition Leader, and the reason he is so rarely seen in public without a woman by his side is that the ALP knows it. This is despite the ALP proudly being the more feminist of the two parties.

Chat is one thing. What do the polls say? Well, there was a bit of a leak from Liberal Party headquarters about nine months ago that suggested Shorten was particularly unpopular with young women (his rating was -77 with female voters under 35).

Presumably the ALP’s own internal polling says much the same.

But that was nine months ago, and a lot has changed since then, not least those that occupy The Lodge: the Turnbulls have been replaced by the Morrisons.

The woman with the highest profile, and the greatest success to date — first female foreign minister, first female deputy leader — in the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, has quit, as has Kelly O’Dwyer. Julia Banks has turned on her own, describing Liberal colleagues as bullies. So maybe Shorten’s position has improved?

The best polls — Galaxy and Newspoll — detect ambivalence about the Labor leader, but it’s not gender-based. David Briggs, managing director of YouGov, says women prefer Morrison to Shorten, but so do men, and by a greater margin. “There’s a seven-point gap between Morrison and Shorten among women voters,” Briggs says. “With men, it’s nine points. So there isn’t really a gender story in the polls.”

And yet there absolutely is a gender story on the hustings.

Shorten has surrounded himself with women, from day one. Sometimes it’s his wife, Chloe; sometimes it’s his deputy, Tanya Plibersek; sometimes it’s his “bus captain” Kristina Keneally. Yesterday, in Boothby, he was with candidates Nadia Clancy and Emily Gore, and health spokeswoman Catherine King; in the marginal seat of Reid last week, he had King, Penny Wong, Jenny McAllister and Julie Collins by his side. What’s he playing at?

It’s in part a reflection of electoral reality: you’re seeing a lot of Labor women on the hustings because the ALP is committed to running a lot of women.

For example, it’s running four women in the four seats the Coalition unquestionably needs to hold in WA: Melita Markey, Kim Travers, Hannah Beazley (daughter of former federal Labor leader, now WA Governor Kim Beazley) and Mellisa Teede are contesting Pearce (3.7 per cent), Swan (3.6 per cent), Stirling (6.2 per cent) and Canning (6.8 per cent) respectively.

All their opponents are men: Attorney-General Christian Porter is defending Pearce, Andrew Hastie is defending Canning; Steve Irons is the incumbent in the marginal seat of Swan; and Vince Connelly was preselected to contest the seat of Stirling ahead of four women.

So there’s reality, and then there’s perception. There is a perception that the Coalition is a sexist party. It isn’t committed to gender parity among candidates; it won’t entertain quotas (Morrison has appointed more women to cabinet than there have ever been in cabinet but that hasn’t seemed to have cut through).

The perception that the ALP treats women with respect, and the Coalition treats them with contempt, is a clear point of difference between the parties, and Shorten’s working it for whatever it might be worth. He’s announced his intention to appoint a female governor-general if elected (fun fact: the last woman in that role was his mother-in-law).

He’s also made much of the fact that Australia will have a female deputy prime minister if he’s elected. In fact, Pilbersek is running less like a deputy, more like a vice, as in president, as if this were a US-style campaign. She’s at least as high-profile, and as personally popular, as Julia Gillard was under Kevin Rudd, circa 2007, but maybe not let’s not go there.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






21 April, 2019

Meet Janice Fiamengo

Bettina Arndt

Well, I finally managed to interview Janice Fiamengo this week after various attempts in the past which floundered over internet problems. I’m sure she will need no introduction for many of you who are familiar with her YouTube channel, The Fiamengo Files.

But for those of you who haven’t come across this fabulous woman, I’ll just tell you a few of the reasons I was so keen on talking to her.

Janice is a professor of English at the University of Ottawa and for years now she has been speaking out about the appallingly anti-male culture developing on university campuses. This really hit home to her when she found herself on academic committees making decisions about jobs and promotions and noticed very able men were constantly being overlooked, with  positions being offered to far less impressive women who had nothing like the same experience or qualifications. You will hear in our interview about the hostile reactions she encountered when she started to speak out about this.

This simply made her more determined to voice her concern about what was happening and she’s spent the last few years making YouTube videos exposing what is going on in Canadian Universities.  Like the dreadful cases of eminent academics being targeted by #MeToo accusations and other males being hung out to dry in all sorts of ways. Then there’s the promotion of the campus rape scare campaign. Like me, Janice has been subjected to protests from feminist activists and has had some of her talks shut down. It’s pretty funny seeing the feminists chanting the same slogans at us both, two women on opposite sides of the world, taking on the same crazy nonsense.

Janice also hears constantly from men in trouble and some years ago decided to put together a book of personal stories from men about how they cope in this feminised world. Sons of Feminism is an amazing collection, including tales from young men about school years where they were constantly in strife for normal boyish behaviour, nerdy men who have never dared risk going near women, frightening stories from professionals in all sorts of work environments where men are being demonised and tales of men given unfair treatment in the courts. It really gives an overview of where we are now and why we must all get active to try to find ways to change the culture. Here’s links for ordering the book: paperback -

https://amzn.to/2UE1DJ3 and on kindle: https://amzn.to/2UJWorm

So here’s the complete video. It’s pretty long – we have so much in common it was very hard to stop talking! : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpVDpoK_4_E

But we have also done a shorter version of highlights, for those who’d like a taste of what we discussed : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KUuv5cSo48

It would be great if you could help promote both of these.

Meet us in Chicago next August at ICMI 19

I’ll be excited to meet Janice at the International Conference on Men’s Issues in Chicago next August and hope some of you might be able to join us. Many of the leading lights from the men’s rights movement will be speaking, including Karen Straughan, Diana Davison, Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad), Paul Elam and Mike Buchanan. To buy a ticket use this link: http://icmi2019.icmi.info/  (Use promo code: bettina sent me )

Email from Tina: bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au




Shorten’s climate claim dismissed

The Labor Party is caught with the arrogance of being the election favourite for too long. The economist whose research Labor belatedly invoked this week has dismissed Bill Shorten’s assertion that Labor and Coalition climate change policies “cost the same”.

Interviewed by The Weekend Australian, internationally recognised economist Warwick McKibbin criticises both sides for inadequate emissions reduction policies — but he says the Opposition Leader’s pledge to use international carbon permits to ensure there is no economic cost differential with the government is “completely uncertain” as a proposition. This knocks out the core justification used by Shorten this week to defend the economic cost of his climate change policies.

Labor has not done the analysis or the modelling of the economic impact of its 45 per cent 2030 emissions reduction target, announced three years ago.

The upshot is that it has relied on the 2015 McKibbin analysis commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, with the economist telling The Weekend Australian he is “surprised” Labor has not spoken to him despite relying on his work, now four years old and subject to substantial price changes in the marketplace since then.

McKibbin, who is based at the Australian National University, calls out the pathetic nature of Australia’s flawed climate change response. He brands Labor’s recently released policy using the current safeguard mechanism to cut pollution as “a third-best response but better than nothing”. He says the Morrison government’s hasty revamp of the Abbott government’s Emissions Reduc­tion Fund is “not very effective” and while “it will have an impact at the margins, if you are looking at long-term cuts in emissions then it becomes very expensive”.

Asked this week how he could justify his claim that Labor and Coalition climate change policies will cost the same — given Labor’s target is a 45 per cent reduction as opposed to the government’s 26 per cent — Shorten said: “Because we are costing our 45 per cent reduction with international offsets, so in fact it does cost the same.” The international permits become the vital factor in Shorten’s policy. In releasing his mechanism on April 1, Shorten said Labor would “open up access to international carbon markets that allow businesses to trade in those markets” — a policy widely welcomed by the business sector.

Questioned about this and the rising cost of international permits since his 2015 analysis, McKibbin says it is “extremely difficult” to estimate the future cost of buying permits. “This depends upon the relative cost of abatement in the future; that is, the domestic cost versus the cost of international permits. And this is completely uncertain,” he says.

Shorten’s claim was based on the modelling assumptions, McKibbin adds. His problem, however, is “if the price of international credits (is) higher than the abatement costs in Australia then there will be no international credits available because they will be too expensive.”

Slight problem? No, major problem. Hence, Shorten’s assertion about the “same” climate change cost is “completely uncertain”. The moral here is that if you are invoking the work of a prominent economist to justify a central election claim — because you have no other evidence — then it helps to have spoken to him.

Labor’s arrogance as an election frontrunner is extraordinary. Shorten’s initial denial on superannuation taxes was more such evidence. Shorten presumably thinks the government cannot touch him on the costs of respective climate change policies. Yet he sounded rattled replying to journalists during his main doorstop on Thursday.

“You keep going on cost,” he said. “I want to say to you, let’s get this straight. What is the cost of taking no action? … You know, these News Corp climate change deniers and, of course, their ally, the Prime Minister, a coal-wielding, climate-denying, cave-dweller on this issue. They all say ‘look at the cost’. Well, they never mention the cost of extreme weather events, do they?”

McKibbin, significantly, holds no brief for the government. Asked which side has the more credible policies, he says: “I would say it is a line ball. It really depends upon the policies implemented. Having said that, Labor appears to be more committed and more ambitious to deal with the climate issue, and that is an important part of the policy design.”

McKibbin warns it is “enormously important (to have) a bipartisan and flexible policy in order to generate fresh investment and benefit from new technology”. Yet this campaign reveals no end to the domestic culture war over climate change, with the grief this will bring to households and business.

It is noteworthy the Greens say they will oppose having international permits in any Labor scheme, with spokesman Adam Bandt saying the ALP must “give up” on such permits — suggesting more trouble in the Senate if Shorten forms a government.

Scott Morrison’s campaign argument is that Labor’s targets will damage the economy, thereby reinforcing the Prime Minister’s overarching attack on Shorten’s tax, economic, spending and industrial relations policies. But Shorten has a powerful pitch — he campaigns as the only major party leader prepared to take decisive action on climate change.

The McKibbin 2015 analysis came in two reports — the first on international action and the second on Australian action under different scenarios. Labor has a problem but it can also take heart from the conclusion: its higher targets have a higher economic cost but the difference is manageable.

McKibbin modelled four scenarios with emissions reduction targets by 2030 of 13, 26, 35 and 45 per cent. The report says: “A post-2020 target will cause a small slowing of economic growth. By 2030, all impacts are no more than 1 per cent of GDP.”

He found that under all four scenarios average annual GDP growth would be above 2 per cent.

The conclusion was that the government’s 26 per cent target saw the cost to GDP of 0.58 per cent by 2030, compared with a 1 per cent GDP cost under the 45 per cent Labor target.

“The difference in GDP between the 1 per cent and 0.6 per cent is about $60 billion,” McKibbin says. “And that $60bn figure is not a major impost on a $2 trillion economy.” It is not a major impost, but it is an impost.

The point is that the cost difference between the Coalition and Labor targets is material and is upwards of twice as large under Labor. Having endorsed the McKibbin model, Shorten has to live with the consequences. Did he know what he was doing? Surely not.

McKibbin says: “If you use international permits then it is possible to reduce the cost by 50 per cent” — the proposition Shorten has seized upon. But the McKibbin qualification — and it is a big qualification — comes at this point: “That depends upon the price of such permits” — and McKibbin warns that enters the zone of never-never-land uncertainty, to borrow a Labor phrase.

There are three other fundamental features that arise from the McKibbin analysis. First, McKibbin found what most other studies have also concluded, namely that “Australia and Canada face larger economic impacts than other developed economies, including the US and EU, in achieving similar emissions reductions relative to a historical base year”.

That is, climate change action has a greater cost for Australia, which, by implication, raises the question: what is the justification for those politicians in demanding high Australian targets or asking the Australian people to carry a greater burden than people in most other developed nations?

Second, McKibbin says the economic harm to Australia arises mainly from what the rest of the world does — not what Australia does. He said in 2015: “The impact on Australia from the Paris Agreement largely depends on the actions of the rest of the world in reducing their demand for our fossil fuels and our carbon-intensive exports. Around 80 per cent of the loss in GDP in Australia is caused by the policies of other countries.”

This assessment comes in McKibbon’s first 2015 report on the international system, and this finding of the GDP damage to Australia is separate from his second report, which looks at the GDP damage arising solely from various scenarios that Australia adopts.

In a recent opinion piece McKibbin warns that the GDP damage from global restructuring could be significant for Australia. He suggests a reduction in real wages relative to trend of about 2-3 per cent by 2030. He says GDP by 2030 is estimated “to be 2 per cent lower than otherwise, of which 0.4 per cent of that is due to Australia’s policy”. In short, the climate change impact on this country from the rest of world will be serious. Our economy is exposed because of its fossil fuel nature.

Third, McKibbin says, looking at Australian decision-making, that policies are probably more important than the targets. “What matters are the policies that both parties use to reach their targets,” he says.

By implication, this is a critique of the Coalition for the past five years, given its chronic inability to agree on policy.

Morrison, who has campaigned strongly during the past week, tried to make a virtue of such chaos. Campaigning in Tasmania, he said: “See, we’re not going to have an emissions intensity scheme. We’re not going to have a carbon tax. We’re not going to have a carbon price. That’s not what we’re proposing.”

The government is left with its re-funded and renamed Emissions Reduction Fund with its $3.5bn budget to purchase emissions reductions with taxpayer funds. Labor, with its range of policies, looks far better equipped to deal with climate change but that’s essential given its higher 45 per cent target.

Whenever possible the government refers to the climate change report from BAEconomics led by Brian Fisher, former head of the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, whose recent analysis contrasted the government and Labor targets.

The report found the government’s 26-28 per cent target would result in the economy growing at 2.8 per cent a year over the decade, compared with the trend of 2.9 per cent. It found cumulative GDP losses at $69bn, with the average real yearly income for a full-time worker to be about $2000 lower than trend and about 78,000 fewer jobs.

By contrast, it found under Labor’s 45 per cent target that the economy would grow at 2.3 per cent over the decade compared with the 2.9 per cent trend. This meant cumulative GDP losses of $472bn, and a fall in real annual wages of about $9000 a year by 2030, with job losses at 336,000.

Morrison rejected the report’s findings for the government but accepted them for Labor. He said the Fisher report was based on an economy-wide carbon price and this was not government policy.

Given the discrepancies between the McKibbin and Fisher results, it is timely to take heed of McKibbin’s warning: “There needs to be a healthy debate on the economics of climate policy and not an attack on the credibility of any model builder. Yes, the models will disagree — but a bad model with transparent assumptions is better than arbitrary analysis based on wishful thinking.”

Shorten was right when he said the climate change debate in Australia over the decade “has been dysfunctional and dishonest and divisive”. Labor has had the courage to run on ambitious targets but it has an obligation to put the economic consequences of its policies to the public.

The Opposition Leader said that “in climate change there will never be enough figures to satisfy the climate sceptics”. Forget the sceptics. This election is not about the sceptics. Labor proposes a radical policy change certain to have a far-reaching impact. It needs to satisfy the public. Voters are entitled to know the economic impact of Labor’s policies, and to not be treated as fools.

The government has done an impressive job treating them as fools with its own policy gyrations during the past four years.

“I don’t think either side of politics has the necessary
long-term policy to effectively make deeper cuts beyond 2030, if this is what is required,” McKibbin says.

SOURCE  






Why we still need NAPLAN

When Julia Gillard defied the odds in 2008 to introduce NAPLAN successfully, it may have been the most significant achievement by an Australian federal education minister in decades.

Australia finally had an objective, standardised measure of student achievement in the vital areas of literacy and numeracy, which could be used to track progress over time from the national level all the way down to individual children.

You wouldn’t know it from the chorus of NAPLAN naysayers, but the 2018 report released this week shows that results have improved significantly in some areas since the tests were introduced, such as in Years 3 and 5 reading. We want more consistent improvement in results across subjects, but there are a few good signs.

Nevertheless, some stakeholders and education unions want NAPLAN scrapped. But in response to student results that should be better, both sides of politics must resist the easy option of simply stopping the measurement of results.

More than $50 billion of taxpayer money is currently spent each year on schools. And in election news that won’t surprise anybody, the Coalition promises a substantial school spending increase, while Labor promises an even larger one.

But pork-barrelling aside, at the very least, both major parties should guarantee that basic accountability and transparency for school NAPLAN results will be kept, as an indicator of the return on additional taxpayer investments.

And recent opinion polls indicate the public is generally supportive of NAPLAN and the national focus on literacy and numeracy. The clear majority of parents support NAPLAN and the MySchool website, and 75% of Australians think schools should prioritise maths and english.

Furthermore, many principals and teachers find NAPLAN data useful. When I interviewed principals for research on high-achieving disadvantaged schools, they were generally positive about NAPLAN and find the data useful to track student progress.

If we want to help disadvantaged students thrive at school, then we need to have an objective benchmark against which their progress can be measured, so that we can identify the most effective and efficient ways of assisting them.

It’s not just taxpayers who will be let down if NAPLAN is abandoned; it’s students too.

SOURCE  







Qld: Manufacturing sector sheds 18,000 jobs under Palaszczuk Government

MORE than 18,000 manufacturing jobs have been wiped out under the Palaszczuk Government with the sector now employing its lowest number of workers since the 1990s recession.

Analysis of official jobs data has revealed the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs has been offset by an explosion in publicly-funded positions over the last four years.

The figures show that despite efforts to diversify the state’s economy, the traditional strongholds of mining and agriculture have grown while manufacturing and professional jobs have disappeared.

The manufacturing sector is in serious decline in Queensland.
While the Government credits its training schemes for creating new jobs, more than two-thirds of the 173,400 positions created over the four years to February were in health and education.

Most of these would have come courtesy of the Palaszczuk Government’s public service hiring-spree and the Federally-funded National Disability Insurance Scheme.

Meanwhile, Queensland’s manufacturing workforce of the 150,000 is now the smallest it has been since Paul Keating declared Australia was experiencing the recession it “had to have”.

Professional, scientific and technical jobs shrunk by 9000 positions while Queensland’s arts, recreation and real estate workforce experience steep declines.

Economist Gene Tunny warned the figures exposed the sluggish nature of Queensland’s domestic economy and the risk of undermining the state’s key job-generating sectors of mining and agriculture.

“Our comparative advantage is being able to dig stuff out of the ground and grow stuff out of the ground,” he said. “We would be silly not to act on that.”

Mr Tunny said the Palaszczuk Government was going the wrong way about creating the private sector jobs needed to pay for an ageing population.

“They are doing things through payroll like discounts for movie studios and breweries,” he said.

“Yet the way to do it is through the education system.

“We need to encourage young people to be innovative because they are the ones that are going to create the new industries.”

Construction jobs have flourished by 31,000. However, there are fears for the sector with house prices declining.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






19 April, 2019

The term 'disabled' is insulting and should be replaced by 'Access Inclusion Seekers'

Mark Tonga is a tetraplegic as a result of a football accident

Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore is considering a plan to normalise the term 'Access Inclusion Seekers' when referring to disabled people. 

The City Council is revamping their disability policies, with the council's inclusion expert advisory panel now claiming the 'd' word may soon be as offensive as the 'n' word.  

One on the panel, Mark Tonga, said using the term 'disabled' portrays people as having 'less capacity and less ability,' The Daily Telegraph reports. [Because they do]

'Disability is a subliminal pejorative for many. It's negative. Perhaps sooner than you think, the "d" work will be as offensive as the "n" word is now,' he said. 

But Dr Jeremy Sammut, Centre for Independent Studies research fellow, disagreed. He claimed that policing the language people used was unnecessary and argued issues about inclusion had been dealt with in the past.

'Social attitudes to disability have already changed and almost no one stigmatises and diminishes what people with disability can and should achieve,' Dr Sammut said.

'This is the reason why there is national support for the NDIS... the term "Access Inclusion Seekers" would be very patronising surely when these people think of someone "disabled" as being someone like... Dylan Alcott,' he said.

A council spokeswoman said Mr Tonga was a valuable member of the advisory panel and that they would consider his submission.

SOURCE  





How the wheels have suddenly fallen off "shifty" Bill Shorten's campaign after a series of embarrassing stumbles

The man who is the overwhelming favourite to become Australia's next prime minister has had a horror 24 hours on the election campaign trail.

Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, whose Labor Party is ahead in the polls, badly tripped up when it came to explaining his climate change and superannuation tax policies.

The Labor Party has also removed from its website detailed explanations around its plans to wind back negative gearing tax breaks for landlords and deprive share-owning retirees of tax refunds.

Mr Shorten had testy exchanges with not one, but two, reporters on Tuesday as he campaigned in the marginal Liberal-held electorate of Boothby, in Adelaide's southern suburbs.

The Labor leader repeatedly refused to rule out raising taxes on superannuation contributions, despite being asked the same question twice by Sky News journalist James O'Doherty. 'We have no plans to increase taxes,' Mr Shorten told reporters.

When asked again if he could guarantee there would be no tax increases, the Labor leader repeated what he had just said. 'We have no plans to introduce any new taxes in superannuation,' he said.

Finance Minister Matthias Cormann exploited the exchange to accuse Mr Shorten of telling fibs when it came to raising taxes. 'Bill Shorten yesterday lied to the Australian people,' he told Sky News on Wednesday morning.

Hours later, Mr Shorten admitted in Perth had he failed to answer O'Doherty's question.

'I was answering a question which I thought I'd been asked and I accept that it was a different question asked,' he told reporters on Wednesday, before clarifying the winding back of a tax concession on super was not the same as increasing taxes.

In the same Tuesday media conference at Bedford Park, 10 News First reporter Jonathan Lea became frustrated when Mr Shorten declined to provide detail on how Labor's plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 45 per cent within 11 years would affect the economy.

'When can voters expect to learn more about Labor's emission reduction target, how you're going to get there and the cost to the economy?' Lea asked.

Lea said Mr Shorten's reply to Prime Minister Scott Morrison's budget was 'focused exclusively on health', a claim Mr Shorten took exception to.

'First of all I haven't spoken exclusively about health... I don't know what private conversations you have with people or what you want to reveal, but let me go to the record,' Mr Shorten said.

Adding to Labor's woes, the party was accused of hiding its policies from voters after its website removed details of plans to scrap negative gearing tax breaks for future purchases of existing properties, and halve the capital gains discount from 50 per cent to 25 per cent.

Labor is also proposing to stop share-owning retirees, who don't pay income tax, from receiving tax refunds, also known as franking credits.

A brief fact sheet about this policy, unveiled last year, was still on the party website, as of Wednesday afternoon.

The Opposition initially released its negative gearing policy in early 2016, ahead of the previous federal election.

It had earlier argued its plan to scale back of franking credits and wind back negative gearing would save almost $80billion during the next decade, but Labor argued it needed to update its costings.

When the subject of the website was raised on Wednesday, at another media conference in Perth, Mr Shorten deferred to shadow treasurer Chris Bowen.

Mr Bowen explained the party's national secretary Noah Carroll was updating the online content. 'All the policies will be put there which hasn't been the case in every other election that all the polices are outlined on the website,' he told reporters.

'Some of them were taken down to be updated some time ago. 'They are being updated, they will be on the website, all our policies.'

Mr Bowen, who previously served as treasurer in 2013 when Labor was last in government, said details of the Opposition's three-year old policies needed to be updated. 'Some of the policies we announced in 2016, this is the 2019 election, those pages need to be updated and it will happen,' he said.

A Newspoll released this week had Labor leading the Coalition Government 52 to 48 per cent, after preferences.

If replicated at the May 18 election, the government would lose 12 seats to Labor, with a swing of 2.4 per cent against them.

Sportsbet still had Labor as the favourite to win the election, with short odds of $1.18 compared with $4.75 for Mr Morrison's Liberal-National Coalition.

SOURCE  







Shorten’s carbon costs to hit $25bn

All in pursuit of a chimera

Australian businesses could be forced to spend more than $25 billion on international carbon credits to meet Labor’s 45 per cent emissions reduction targets by 2030, jeopardising one of Bill Shorten’s fundamental election pillars, which he declared would have no cost to the economy.

Threatening a repeat of their 2010 scuttling of Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading scheme, the Greens yesterday warned they could block Labor’s use of international carbon permits in the Senate over concerns that the policy was overly reliant on international permits to meet the 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon abatement needed in the next 10 years.

The Labor leader yesterday came under fire after being unable to explain what the cost of the ­policy would be, given carbon permits are set to play a key role in meeting the target.

Experts believe the price of international carbon offsets could hit $62 a tonne over the decade but, allowing for an average of $50 a tonne, the hit on businesses would be about $25bn to meet Labor’s target.

This is based on an assumption that more than 500 million tonnes of abatement would have to come through either the purchase of international carbon credits or further land-clearing controls and reforestation, which would prove politically explosive in the bush.

A day after refusing to answer questions on the cost to the economy of Labor’s climate policy, Mr Shorten yesterday declared a 2015 report by economist Warwick McKibbin showed “our 45 per cent reduction, including international offsets, has the same economic ­impact as the Liberals’ 26 per cent”.

Mr Shorten seized on the McKibbin report’s forecast that economic growth would continue at more than 2 per cent under ­either scenario through the 2020s to dismiss suggestions Labor’s policy would be a hit to the economy.

“I don’t accept the characterisation that it is a cost,” the Opposition Leader said. “We’re going to grow. And we’re going to grow ­because we are going to move to a lower carbon pollution economy.”

The McKibbin study, conducted for the Abbott government, showed that a 45 per cent carbon emissions cut on 2005 levels — the same as proposed by Labor — would strip about 1 per cent of GDP by 2030, compared with 0.6 per cent under the Coalition’s 26 per cent cut.

By offsetting nearly half the necessary cuts with international carbon offsets, which Labor has committed to doing, the McKibbin study found the GDP hit from a 45 per cent emissions reduction could be slashed to 0.6 per cent — the same cost as under the ­Coalition.

The study did not factor in the government’s use of carried-over credits from over-achievement in the Kyoto climate agreement, which Labor had elected not to use — a move that will further push up the cost of its policy.

Professor McKibbin cautioned that the modelling assumed a carbon price mandated by the government at the time of $US5 a tonne in 2020, rising to $US10 in 2030. “If the price of offsets in the world is higher than we assume, that effect is gone,” he told The Australian yesterday. “We don’t know what the price of offsets will be in 2030. These numbers are not precise in any sense.”

The price of carbon permits on the EU market has more than tripled in the past year due to reforms to curb oversupply. Permits for delivery in December traded at €26.86 ($42.22) per metric ton on Tuesday. Modelling by former government scientist Brian Fisher, an author on the Inter­governmental Panel on Climate Change and now head of BAEconomics, has estimated the international carbon price will be $62 a tonne by 2030.

A Labor campaign spokeswoman said yesterday the party was yet to determine how much of its 45 per cent in emissions cuts would be delivered through purchasing international permits.

Greens climate change spokesman Adam Bandt said the minority party would resist the use of international permits in any Labor scheme, threatening a Senate showdown with a future Shorten government.

“International offsets are like paying someone to go on a diet for you while you stay at home eating burgers and pizzas,” Mr Bandt said.

“I’m confident climate laws can pass the new Senate, but Labor is going to have to give up on international offsets and accept a plan to quit coal. Greens and Labor worked together and compromised in 2011 to get real climate ­action and we can do so again.”

The Greens under Bob Brown sank Mr Rudd’s carbon pollution reduction scheme, arguing it wasn’t ambitious enough. The party backed Julia Gillard’s carbon tax the following year.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor said yesterday Labor needed to tell voters and the business community how much would have to be paid to international carbon offset brokers under its policy. “Australians need to be informed about the amount of money that is going to be paid to other countries as part of this scheme,” Mr Taylor said. “If international credits average $50 over the decade, if they have to achieve 500 million tonnes, that’s $25bn going offshore.”

He said Labor was also yet to explain what emissions target ­industry would face, how fast would emissions be brought down, how its emissions trading scheme would work, and how it would treat emissions from the heavy transport fleet.

Under its policy, the Coalition has to cut 328 million tonnes of carbon emissions to meet its 26 per cent reduction under the Paris target by 2030. Labor has to cut about 1.3 billion tonnes. Government analysis of Labor’s policy suggests it will deliver just 815 million tonnes of abatement by 2030 without significant controls on land clearing and the purchase of international carbon credits. The 45 per cent reductions in the energy sector would lead to a reduction of 247 million tonnes, while emissions controls on cars would ­deliver a reduction of 59 million tonnes, according to the former Climate Change Authority.

Agriculture is exempt from Labor’s policy. The expansion of the safeguard mechanism on the business sector, which will cap carbon emissions for companies that produce more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon a year, is estimated to lead to a reduction of 509 million tonnes. This leaves 511 million tonnes still to be taken out of the economy that would have to be largely met through the purchase of international carbon permits.

The debate yesterday came amid new evidence of a surge in employment in the renewable energy industry, with new ABS figures showing 17,740 renewables jobs in 2017-18, up by 28 per cent on the previous year.

SOURCE  






Is the Budget really sexist?

Apparently, the women of Australia were short-changed by the federal budget last week — as it contained “no strategy or vision” for the advancement of Australian women.

Indeed, one article even claimed the budget process is clearly “failing” Australian women and lacks a ‘gender lens’ — and what Australia needs is a ‘women’s budget’.
But these assertions are ridiculous for two reasons.

First, women are stakeholders in the economy just as much as men. Women work hard, pay their taxes, run their own businesses, and invest in assets. Women are also consumers in the economy just like men: they are affected by house prices, power bills and transport congestion.

So it seems bizarre, if not downright condescending, to pretend that women don’t care — or have no reason to care — about a healthy economy, more efficient taxes, better infrastructure, or good fiscal management.

After all, millions of women will benefit significantly from the government’s tax cuts announced in the budget (if the tax cuts are ever legislated, that is) – including more than two million women who earn above the median income. Why do women’s advocates ignore or downplay this?

Secondly, using a ‘gender lens’ is a reductionist way to evaluate the Budget. We should be cognisant of the impact of government policies on women. But equally, that should apply to policies that are more likely to affect men, children, the elderly, disabled — or any other demographic group.

Regardless, public calls for the budget to focus more on women often prove to be a thinly disguised call for more government spending. This not only undermines the credibility of the idea but sits at direct odds with many Australian women who believe in responsible government.

And that relates to a further point: women are not a homogenous group when it comes to their views on policies. They are free-thinking individuals. Women have different values, political opinions and priorities, which will inform their opinions on the budget.

Clearly, the budget isn’t sexist. But suggesting that women should only care about a pre-defined set of ‘women’s issues’ certainly is.

SOURCE  





Vegemite helps prevent miscarriages and birth defects

Like it or loathe it, but marmite [and Vegemite] could help prevent millions of miscarriages and birth defects around the world.

A landmark study in Australia has found Vitamin B3, a lot of which is found in the divisive yeast extract spread, can treat critical molecular deficiencies in pregnant women.

The ground-breaking results were announced after 12 years of research by scientists at Sydney's Victor Chang Cardia Research Institute.

“The ramifications are likely to be huge. This has the potential to significantly reduce the number of miscarriages and birth defects around the world and I do not say those words lightly,” lead researcher Professor Sally Dunwoodie said on Thursday.

Every year 7.9 million babies are born with a birth defect worldwide and in the UK, it's estimated that one in six pregnancies end in a miscarriage.

Greg Hunt, Australia's Health Minister, hailed the study as a "historic medical breakthrough".

"Today's announcement provides new hope to the one in four pregnant women who suffer a miscarriage," Mr Hunt said Thursday, citing Australian data."

The scientists used genetic sequencing on families suffering from miscarriages and birth defects and found gene mutations that affected production of the molecule, NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide).

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found a deficiency in that important molecule can harm the development of the baby and its organs in the womb.

“Now after 12 years of research, our team has also discovered that this deficiency can be cured and miscarriages and birth defects prevented by taking a common vitamin,” Prof Dunwoodie said.

This supplement is vitamin B3, also known as niacin, which is found in various meats and green vegetables - as well as marmite and its Australian equivalent, Vegemite. A single serving of the black stuff contains 36pc of your recommended daily allowance of of B3.

Scientists made the breakthrough after investigating the effect of vitamin B3 on mice embryos that had the same genetic mutations as families that had experienced multiple congenital malformations.

Those mothers who were not given additional vitamin B3 went on to have a miscarriage or the babies were born with birth defects.

After adding the dietary supplement, however, all the offspring were born healthy.

Prof Robert Graham, Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute executive director, compared the "profound" breakthough to the discovery in the previous century that found folic acid supplementation can prevent spina bifida and other neural tube defects in babies.

"This will change the way pregnant women are cared for around the world," he said.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here




18 April 2019

Critical Australian academic’s firing was ‘unlawful’, court finds

He dared ridicule the Global Warming messiahs in his university who said that climate change was devastating Australia's Great Barrier Reef.  He showed clear evidence that they were deceptive.  So his university was out to "get" him by hook or by crook, mostly crook.  They are now more furious  with him than ever. Liars hate being exposed


A Federal Court judge has ruled James Cook University acted unlawfully when it sacked physics professor Peter Ridd after he publicly criticised the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the global warming impact on the Great Barrier Reef.

Professor Ridd last night welcomed the decision and called on the university’s council, its governing body, to make vice-chancellor Sandra Harding accountable for the legal defeat. “The university has broken the law. What is the university council going to do about this? The vice-chancellor has brought the university into disrepute,” he said.

In his verdict, judge Salvatore Vasta said the university’s grounds for dismissing Professor Ridd — that he breached the university’s code of conduct — were improper. He found that all 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.

Judge Vasta found that a clause in the university’s enterprise agreement, which upholds academic freedom, justified Professor Ridd’s conduct. “This trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement,” he said.

Judge Vasta also said the university had misunderstood “the whole concept of intellectual freedom”. “In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset,” he said.

A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.

At a three-day hearing last month, barrister Chris Murdoch, representing the university, argued Professor Ridd went beyond his right to intellectual freedom by personally attacking his colleagues, threatening to “hurt” the university and breaching confidentiality directions.

In 2016, Professor Ridd emailed a journalist to allege images given to the media by university colleagues were misleading because they showed poorly affected corals, which were selected over nearby healthy coral and used to show “broadscale decline” of reef health.

Professor Ridd claimed the use of the images was “a dramatic example of how scientific organisations are happy to spin a story for their own purposes”.

He also said his colleague Professor Terry Hughes, the head of JCU’s Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, would “wriggle and squirm” when asked to explain discrepancies in the images.

Professor Ridd was censured again in 2017 when he repeated the claims on Sky News.

After a third alleged violation of the code of conduct, including allegedly leaking confidential university information, Professor Ridd was sacked in April 2018.

James Cook University last night challenged Judge Vasta’s ruling in a lengthy statement from its provost, Chris Cocklin, which accused the media of inaccurate reporting on the case.

“We disagree with the judgment and maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd’s nor any other employee’s rights to academic freedom,” Professor Cocklin said.

Professor Cocklin, who was involved in Professor Ridd’s disciplinary process, said the university was “considering its options” on the matter.

“We disagree with the judge’s comments and are also troubled by the fact he fails to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement, or academic freedom in Australian employment law,” he said.

Professor Ridd’s legal action was partially funded by conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs and a GoFundMe web page which raised $260,000 from 2500 donors.

IPA policy director Gideon Rozner said the judgment was proof that Australian universities were confronted by a “free speech crisis”.

“This judgment should rightly send shockwaves through Australian universities regarding their commitment to academic freedom and how they deal with academics who hold a contrary view to established group think,” Mr Rozner said.

SOURCE  






Militant vegans are charged with trespassing and drug offences after they 'stormed an abattoir and a feedlot' on a national day of action

A group of militant vegans have been charged with trespassing and drug offences after they allegedly stormed an abattoir and a feedlot on a national day of action. 

A total of 11 animal rights campaigners have been accused of staging protests at the Yangan abattoir and a Millmerran feedlot in Queensland in March and early April.

The activists, who were arrested on Tuesday, are facing 18 charges.

Detective Superintendent Jon Wacker said the charges followed formal complaints from the owners of properties targeted by unauthorised protests.

'The Queensland Police Service respects the right of people to protest in a peaceful manner, however we have a duty to ensure the safety of protesters, farm workers and property owners,' he said.

'Unauthorised protests in and around farmlands and industrial areas create significant personal and workplace safety risks.'

'We will take enforcement action whenever necessary to ensure the safety of the community and to protect the rights of people to feel safe in their homes and at their place of work.'

The protests were part of a national campaign by vegans against the treatment of animals.

In March, about 150 activists stormed the Millmerran Lemontree Feedlot in March as a distressed farmer looked on. Lot feeder David McNamee later told Daily Mail Australia the vegans were threatening the safety of his livestock and family. 

About 20 animal activists allegedly chained themselves at the Yangan abattoir in early April. 

SOURCE  






African gangs in Sydney too now

A gang of African teenagers who stormed an Optus store and tried to steal a mobile phone display knocked an elderly woman unconscious as they fled the store.

CCTV footage captured the group of up to 15 boys entering the store during the alleged attempted robbery at Casula Mall in Sydney's south-west last Friday.

The woman, 81, remains in hospital with a broken pelvis after she was bowled over by one of the boys as he sprinted towards the shopping centre exit. 

Police said Optus staff members confronted the boys after members of the group began pulling on items attached to the display by security cables.

The teenagers initially ignored staff directions to leave but were eventually ushered from the store.

Staff told police one teenager allegedly stole a watch while another attempted to steal a mobile phone but dropped it as he left.

CCTV released by NSW Police shows the group entering the shopping centre and fleeing shortly afterwards, as confused shoppers watch on and scramble to get out of their way.

It's understood the teenager who attempted to steal a mobile was caught in an altercation with a staff member and is the last to flee the centre, knocking over the innocent elderly lady in the process as shocked bystanders rush to her aid.

The teen appears to drop something as he flees the centre.

Liverpool Police are investigating the incident. 

SOURCE  






A gusher of money for education

Mostly wrong-headed.  Expanding pre-school education, for instance, has no lasting benefit.  And both sides want "Enquiries" to find out what works.  But there is already a mountain of evidence on that.  It is just a way of kicking the can down the road

A rare breakout of peace between public and private school has changed the election outlook and shifted the campaign focus from schools to skills and training, where the choice will be between a business-based system or one focused on public TAFEs.

The spectacular $4.6 billion funding injection by the government into Catholic schools in September silenced the education sector's most powerful lobby group, and defused a long running conflict between state and independent schools.

Jennifer Buckingham said the country is at a point where there is no sector war between private and public schools. Lauren Shay

"We've reached a point where this no sector war going on," said senior research fellow at the Centre for Independent studies, Jennifer Buckingham.

"At this point we haven't got public schools squaring off against the catholic and private. That's been a feature of past campaigns. It's light-on this time."

In this election the major parties actually agree on two priorities for school education: lifting teacher performance and using evidence to change classroom practice. They’ve been out bidding each other to establish an evidence institute.

Last week’s surprise NAPLAN improvement in reading standards among year 3 and 5 students was attributed to the feedback teachers are getting in the classroom.

Businessman David Gonski, in his second review of schools, recommended an evidence institute be established and the Coalition made an extra $20 billion it was offering conditional on schools agreeing to ‘‘to drive improvements in teaching practice’’.

Labor said it will spend $280 million on an evidence institute.

In one policy difference on improving teacher performance Labor is planning to restrict entry to university teaching courses to the top 30 per cent of students. [Which will get it precisely Zero aplicants.  Smart people would not be seen dead in an Australian State school] It said it will use caps on funding if the sector does not take action quickly enough.

It will also rejuvenate the Highly Accomplished and Lead Teacher program and fund extra professional development for teachers. ‘‘Teacher education is really important and it’s the one area where the federal government can act,’’ said Dr Buckingham. ‘‘I’d like to see what the Coalition has in mind. They have talked about boosting teachers in remote locations.

‘‘We want rigour in terms of teaching courses and in the quality of teaching candidates. We want people going into schools to teach who are bright and able to keep up with research on effective teaching standards."

The Grattan Institute, which will publish a comparison of school education policy this week, said raising teacher standards and an evidence institute are two of its top three priorities.

Its third priority is getting all schools to a consistent level of funding under the Schooling Resource Standard (SRS). This is a reference to state government funding of public schools. Economist and school education fellow at the institute, Julie Sonnemann, said the Commonwealth needs to push state governments to lift their side of the bargain.

The Coalition said under its ‘‘Quality Schools Program’’ which consolidates the reforms of businessman David Gonski’s second review, recurrent funding for schools will grow from $17.5 billion in 2017 to $32.4 billion in 2029. That will take total funding over a decade to $307 billion, which Labor said it will beat with $322 billion.

Labor said overall in this election it will outspend the government by $10 billion, as it reinstates the ‘‘lost Gonski money’’ from the first Gonski review.

Not only has the sector reached a rare state of peace funding has reached eye-watering levels.

Labor's big education pitch is a review of the entire post-secondary education sector. The review announcement by education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek more than a year ago allowed the party to sidestep awkward questions about what it would do with trouble-plagued state-based TAFE systems.

Meanwhile the coalition struggled on for 12 months fighting criticism of falling TAFE enrolments, bad publicity about training providers and the overhang of the VET-Fee Help debacle, until it rushed out the Joyce review late last year.

Labor's Tanya Plibersek committed the party to a review of post-secondary education if it wins government. Eamon Gallagher

Labor's proposed review is meant to reset the balance between universities and TAFE which is heavily biased to universities through fee assistance for students; stabilise the erratic contribution of the states to skills training, and turn around enrolments which have been falling since 2012.

In the budget the Coalition promised more than half a billion dollars on skills and 80,000 new apprentices. "There hasn't been new investment in the vocational education and training sector for 10 years," the chief executive of TAFE directors Australia, Craig Robertson, said.

"We've had major population growth and a restructuring of the economy but we haven't had a big investment in skilling."

Labor is promising to inject $1.73 billion into skills, TAFE and apprentices. This would include $200 million to refurbish TAFE campuses plus money for 150,000 apprenticeships and 100,000 free places for TAFE students. The cost would be spread out with $1 billion in the medium term and $730 million over the forward estimates.

Ms Plibersek said she wants TAFE to be an independent system, distinct from the university sector. This disappointed some education reformers who argue the future of the tertiary sector is to bring skills the skills sector and universities closer together especially on funding for students.

Labor's post-secondary review plans have very little to say about private TAFE providers, which have taken an increasingly important role in service delivery. Private providers are not mentioned once in the review's terms of reference, although they do more 60 per cent of the teaching.

Labor's $1.73 billion goes almost entirely on the public providers. It will rely on the TAFE system to do the lifting whereas the Joyce review of training, released by the Coalition on budget night, relies on industry to take the lead.

Mr Joyce said training development and qualifications should be reshaped with input from business and a new National Skills Commission should co-ordinate the different interests of Canberra and the states.

Apart from $525 million to finance new apprenticeships the Coalition has not put money on the table for the skills sector.

The Australian Council for Private Education and Training said only $54 million of the $525 million is actually new money, which it found "very disappointing". The rest is re purposed from the Skilling Australians Fund.

Chairman of the Council Alexis Watt said Mr Joyce had a "better vision" for the sector and said Labor's 100,000 free TAFE places spread over four years was not a lot given 4 million people were enrolled in a training course last year.

On universities Labor is promising to outspend the Coalition. Tanya Plibersek has made an explicit promise to reinstate the demand-driven system to the value of $10 billion over 10 years.

The Coalition froze funding for new students in 2017 to save more than $2 billion for the federal budget. It said when the freeze ended new funding would be based on a performance driven system.

The probable new mechanism (it was due to be announced in June) would measure student attrition rates, graduate outcomes and socio-economic enrolments to set a new rate for commonwealth support. But the baseline for increases would be population growth which is running at just over 1 per cent.

Labor would return the demand-driven system to inflation indexation which the higher education program director at the Grattan Institute, Andrew Norton, predicted would give the universities 4 or 5 per cent more money for students than the coalition's performance-related cap.

There was no fundamental disagreement on the demand driven system, only on the rate of increase and how it was achieved.

"Under the Coalition the unis will get the lower of what they would get under Labor, but they will get something. The Coalition is putting fiscal concerns ahead of higher education. Labor puts higher education ahead."

"Higher education has had a good run in the last decade.  Total revenues have been strong,"

He said income from overseas students was an important contributor.

"I think any spending priorities will be around TAFE. Universities are in a stable period after a good run."

Universities' biggest criticism of the Coalition is on cuts to research funding. On budget night the Coalition finally killed the promise of a $3.9 billion research infrastructure fund which has been dangling in front of the universities since 2013.

Universities say that's on top of a Coalition cut of more than $328 million in Research Block Grants last year and falling government spending on R&D, which is now just 0.5 per cent of GDP.

Labor has promised a review of research funding and a prime minister's science and innovation council, although Leader Bill Shorten did not put a cost on these.

Labor will spend $300 million on a university infrastructure fund.

Mr Norton said both major parties are relying  on the fact research funding from the private sector is going up.

Apart from differences on the skills the big election difference is in early education.

The Australian Early Childhood Development census 2018 reported that one in five children is starting school developmentally behind their peers.

The Labor Party said it will introduce preschool education for three and four-year-olds and will fund it with $1.75 billion over four years. By contrast, the Coalition renewed funding for four-year-olds only, for one year, at a cost of $453 million.

In the weeks before the election the Early Learning and Care Council of Australia initiated a campaign to lobby for 15 hours a week of education for three and four-year-olds, fully subsidised.

The campaign was launched by the director of the Gonski Institute for Education at the University of New South Wales, Adrian Piccoli, a former education minister and National Party deputy leader.

Mr Piccoli told The Australian Financial Review two years of early childhood education should be on the election agenda.

"It's an issue of cost. It's significant for families in the 25 to 40-year age group."

"Pre-school is subsidised for children from disadvantaged families. But not for middle-income families. I would have thought there were some marginal seats in Sydney and Melbourne where cost is an issue, especially for women swinging voters."

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here





17 April 2019

Barry Award no more: Humphries dumped from MICF award over transgender comments

Comedians are split on the Melbourne International Comedy Festival’s move to dump the Barry Award from its honour roll following controversy over the prize’s namesake, iconic funnyman Barry Humphries.

Humphries made headlines last year over his comments to The Spectator, which were interpreted as transphobic.

Transgender comedian Cassie Workman is hot favourite to take out the award formerly known as the Barry.

“I don’t think the name of the Barry Award should be changed,” he said

“I don’t think what he said was right and I don’t think he was trying to be provocative, I honestly believe that’s what he thinks. It’s not a very now thing to say but he’s not very now.”

“Humphries has been doing pretty much the same thing since the ’70s. Think of the UK comedians, Benny Hill was out of control but he’s revered as an icon now. Barry Humphries has probably had more impact here and internationally than anybody else.”

But Drag Queen performer Dolly Diamond agreed with the Comedy Festival’s bold move. “It was time ... when you’re becoming far more known as a transphobic than a comedian, you’ve got to go.

“I’ve definitely modelled Dolly Diamond on (Dame) Edna to a degree and the way he pioneered the genre will never change. I haven’t lost all respect for the man, I just don’t agree with his views.”

“I’m playing a character and I’m respectful of everyone in the community. I treat people in the transgender community with the same respect as everyone else, maybe more so until there’s more acceptance.”

The Barry, which honoured the festival’s best show, will be renamed the Melbourne International Comedy Festival Award.

“Melbourne International Comedy Festival is one of the world’s greatest comedy festivals and it is time for the award for most outstanding show to be in our name to celebrate the city that inspired the growth of our festival and its outstanding artists,” festival director Susan Provan said.

Best known worldwide for his popular drag character Dame Edna Everage, Humphries said transgender issues, were a “fashion,” adding: “How many different kinds of lavatory can you have?”

He added: “And it’s pretty evil when it’s preached to children by crazy teachers.”

After his comments were published, former Barry Award winners Hannah Gadsby and Zoe Coombs-Marr said Barry’s name should be dumped from the MICF’s top award.

In 2016, Humphries described gender reassignment surgery as “self-mutilation”.

He also criticised Caitlyn Jenner as a “publicity-seeking ratbag for wanting to “steal the limelight” from the other famous women in her family.

SOURCE  






Kim Carr’s ‘electric mythology’ line defies party goal

Kim Carr, Bill Shorten’s industry spokesman, last year warned that electric vehicles posed serious ­social ­issues and would require a one-third expansion in electricity ­production.

Senator Carr, who has a long history of supporting the domestic auto industry dominated by traditional carmakers Ford, Holden and Toyota, urged a Senate committee to consider “the reality versus the mythology” of electric vehicles, just six months before standing alongside Mr Shorten to launch Labor’s signature electric car policy.

The left-wing powerbroker has also strongly argued against “pumping up the tyres” of imported electric vehicles, batting away calls from the Electric Vehicle Council last year for up to $7000 worth of subsidies for every EV sold.

Senator Carr, who will head Labor’s electric vehicle-led bid to rejuvenate Australia’s car industry, last year expressed scepticism over the suitability of the cars outside major cities, and questioned whether they could be used as “batteries on wheels” — as claimed by advocates — to manage peaks in energy use.

The Victorian senator told the Senate’s electric vehicle inquiry, chaired by independent senator Tim Storer, that the high cost of electric vehicles would put them beyond everyday drivers. “The electrification issue does pose really serious social (issues). There’s an in-built demographic question there about people who can afford the Tesla, versus some of these smaller vehicles,” he told the committee last September.

“And if you’re away from a ­regional centre of any size then the capacity to actually use these vehicles is somewhat limited. So I think that needs to be clear when we’re talking about the reality versus the mythology.”

Senator Carr tackled the head of the Fast Cities consortium during the inquiry, questioning his suggestion that electric vehicles would stabilise the energy network without the need for a one-third expansion in energy output. “What evidence do you have for this?” he asked Fast Cities head of corporate development Paul Fox. “No one else is telling us that this is going to be able to be done without an expansion in the capacity of the grid.”

Senator Carr said more batteries were “not the answer to our ­energy problems”, declaring: “If you put a one-third increase in ­demand on the energy system, we’re going to actually need to ­increase our generation capacity.”

He said yesterday he stood by his comments, arguing regulatory changes were needed before electric car batteries could be used to feed back energy into the grid to ensure car warranties were not voided. “We have to change the regulations, we have to change the building codes,” he said. “This is one of the theories that is constantly put forward, but it needs to be put into context with the regulatory changes that are required.”

He said the government had offered “no policy direction” on the introduction of electric vehicles, which Labor wants to increase to 50 per cent of new vehicles sold by 2030. The government estimates they will make up 25 per cent to ­­50 per cent of new car sales by 2030.

Labor plans to offer assistance to electric vehicle carmakers in Australia through its proposed $1 billion advanced manufacturing fund. “I would like to see us make electric cars in Australia because Australians are top-class manufacturers when you have a government who supports them,” Mr Shorten said last week.

Senator Carr’s comments came as a photograph emerged on social media of Josh Frydenberg’s ­election campaign vehicle, a plug-in hybrid Mitsubishi Outlander.

The Treasurer is a big supporter of rechargeable cars, declaring last year there would be a million on Australian roads, up from about 8500, by 2030.

The Senate’s electric vehicle inquiry found electric vehicle uptake in Australia lagged behind comparable countries due to “a relative absence of overarching policy direction” from the government.

“In the committee’s view, widespread use of EVs in the Australian transportation fleet would deliver significant economic, environmental and health benefits to Australian consumers and society,” the inquiry found.

“It would also create new opportunities for Australian industry.”

Energy Minister Angus Taylor said the Coalition was concerned that Labor’s plan to cut carbon emissions from transport would hit everyday voters.

SOURCE  






Polling goes Coalition’s way, Newspoll data shows

The first Newspoll survey of the 2019 election campaign has the Coalition in the same position as the past five governments: ­behind in two-party preferred support when the election was called, and that includes three that went on to win.

The Coalition has also started the campaign as all previous Coalitions have in the past five elections: a rise in primary support in Newspoll, and, despite losing two elections, the Coalition’s primary vote has always risen through the election campaign.

Scott Morrison’s successful ­appeal to disaffected Coalition voters who moved to One Nation since the 2016 election, compared with Malcolm Turnbull, was also revealed.

It was Turnbull’s weakness in drawing back lost conservative voters that was a large part of why he was removed as Liberal leader after losing 30 consecutive Newspoll surveys to Labor on a two-party preferred basis.

The latest Newspoll survey shows the ALP ahead of the ­Coalition on a two-party preferred basis, 52 to 48 per cent, the ­Coalition and Labor’s primary vote both rising to 39 per cent and One Nation’s falling from 6 per cent to 4 per cent.

SOURCE  






Ban drongo drivers



Apparently no one warned them a 2.9m-high truck wouldn’t fit under a 2.8m-high bridge in Indooroopilly on Saturday.

While it’s a mistake they will probably only make once, there are some people who believe they should automatically lose their licence for up to six months after a first offence.

Do it a second time and they should be banned for life, according to Robert Dow of transport lobby group Rail Back on Track.
The hire truck firmly wedged under a rail bridge in Allwood St, Indooroopilly, on Saturday.

Mr Dow first made the call last month after bridge strikes in Buranda and Dutton Park.

After Saturday’s incident in Allwood St, Indooroopilly, he says it’s time authorities got serious. “Bridge strikes are a serious issue and fatalities and injuries have occurred in the past,” Mr Dow said. “And the bridge/beam strikes are of course very disruptive to our transport networks.

“There needs to be more focus on education campaigns, enforcement and sanctions.”

Mr Dow said that while protection beams at some sites saved bridges from serious damage, there was serious disruption to traffic.

“The beams protect the actual bridges but there are still very serious risks to other road users and bystanders when struck,” he said.

“We suggest that steps need to be taken now before there is a serious bridge strike. It is only a matter of time before we have a disaster unless urgent action is taken.”

He has suggested a three-phase plan for authorities.

1. Tougher penalties: A three to six-month automatic licence suspension and a fine for the first offence, along with cost recovery. Automatic life-time ban for second offence.

2. Education campaigns: Transport companies, including hire companies, be responsible for ensuring drivers have designated safe routes as well as drivers acknowledging their height and the documented route selection.

3. Warning devices: The installation of in-cab warning devices which sound an alarm if the vehicle approaches a low level bridge.

“Queensland Rail does take bridge strike protection very seriously,” Mr Dow said. “But there needs to be more support from government, police and the road transport authorities to get rid of this scourge.”

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here





16 April, 2019

The Lion Helmet has had his chips



Former senator David Leyonhjelm's state political career is over before it even began, with the NSW Electoral Commission's final count revealing the Liberal Democrats did not win an Upper House seat.

Two weeks ago Mr Leyonhjelm prematurely claimed victory when he published a blog post titled "a manifesto for a crossbencher" and announced it was "evident" he had been elected.

After preferences were distributed this morning, it was confirmed he had not made the cut.

He also changed his Twitter bio, which had read "NSW MLC for the Liberal Democrats" to "former senator for the Liberal Democrats".

The Coalition won eight seats, Labor seven, two each for the Greens and One Nation, and one each for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and Animal Justice Party.

Mr Leyonhjelm quit federal politics in January this year to contest the NSW election as he wanted to work on "nanny-state issues"

The final results for the Upper House end a three-way race between Christian Democrat MLC Paul Green, One Nation's second candidate Rod Roberts and Mr Leyonhjelm.

The Liberal Democrats secured 0.46 of a quota, or just under half the votes they needed to win a seat in the Upper House.

That meant Mr Leyonhjelm was relying on preferences to make up a full quota.

The Animal Justice Party's Emma Hurst was the surprise winner, securing an Upper House seat on preferences.

The party received just under half of the votes needed to secure a seat before the final count.

It is likely the Sydney-born animal advocate party will side with the two Greens MPs in an unofficial progressive voting bloc.

The Coalition gained an eighth seat with the re-election of NSW National Wes Fang.

Labor's seventh seat went to Electrical Trade Union organiser and former Sutherland Shire Councillor Mark Buttigieg.

One Nation won a second seat on preferences, electing the party's number two candidate Rod Roberts.

Former federal Labor leader Mark Latham was first on One Nation's ticket, and had been assured of a spot for weeks.

Fred Nile's Christian Democratic Party failed to secure a seat — although he was not up for election this time and will now be the party's only Upper House representative.

SOURCE  






Recycling:  Another failed Greenie idea

It costs money to make something useful out of rubbish -- so most of it is just burnt.  But they are not allowed to burn it at home -- so it is shipped overseas for that.  We pay them to burn it

We all think we’re doing something decent for the environment when we recycle — but the truth about where it ends up might shock you.

Most of Australia’s plastic rubbish ends up being stockpiled in warehouses or shipped to South-East Asia to be illegally burned.

This means that, instead of being recycled, mountains of it is being dumped, buried or burned in illegal processing facilities and junkyards in Southeast Asia.

Sunday’s night’s episode of 60 Minutes explores the contentious practice and it argues it began when China closed its doors to Australia’s plastic waste just over a year ago.

It argues that, for more than two decades, our plastic recycling industry was reliant on China — who we sold our mixed and often contaminated plastic waste, and they melted it down into new plastic goods to sell back to us and the rest of the world.

However, much of it is now just stacking up in the yards and warehouses of Australian recycling companies — as we don’t have the facilities to reprocess it ourselves.

“I think most people in Australia feel lied to, I think they feel disappointed,” Plastic Forests founder and owner David Hodge told 60 Minutes. “Ninety per cent of people do want to recycle, and they need to be enabled to be able to do that.”

Since China stopped buying our rubbish, India — which was the fourth biggest import for Australia’s waste — followed suit last December.

As a result, Australia’s recyclable rubbish is now being dumped in Indonesia, Vietnam and, in particular, Malaysia, which received more than 71,000 tonnes of our plastic in the last year alone.

Mr Hodge told the program the worrying trend has come about as a result of a lack of planning in Australia. “We haven’t built the infrastructure. We haven’t thought ahead,” he tells Bartlett. “Now we’re here and we’re drowning in plastic.”

Analysis of our waste exports commissioned by the Department of the Environment and Energy stated that several Asian countries, including Malaysia have proposed crackdowns on waste imports.

“If Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand enacted waste import bans similar to China’s, Australia would need to find substitute domestic or export markets for approximately 1.29 million tonnes (or $530 million) of waste a year, based on 2017-18 export amounts,” the analysis warned.

The Waste Management and Resource Recovery Association of Australia (WMRR) chief executive officer, Gayle Sloan, has taken aim at the Federal Government — saying it has done “done nothing” since China shut us off.

She told ABC, the 1.2 million tonnes of recyclable materials households are producing could be turned into jobs and investment if the circular economy can only take off. “We’ve had meetings, we had more meetings, and then we’ve had more talk, and we had no action,” she said. [In other words it costs money to recycle]

Now, Mr Hodge’s company is hoping the exposure of mainstream media coverage will make the government and the public take notice.  “Recycling only works when people, corporates and government buy products made with recycled content,” the company wrote on its Facebook page this week.

“As we know, the options to send our waste or a misallocated resource overseas will come to an end.”

SOURCE  






European and English-speaking migrants back immigration cuts and fear Australia is losing its identity

European and English-speaking migrants are more likely to back immigration cuts as they fear Australia is losing its cultural identity.

Migrants from these nations are less likely to support those born in other countries, with 58 per cent agreeing immigration should be cut, a survey by the Australian Population Research Institute has found.

However, two-thirds of Asian migrants favour an increase in migrant numbers and disagree with the idea that Australia's identity is disappearing.

Report authors Dr Bob Birrell and Dr Katharine Betts also found non-graduates are more likely to support the cuts compared to university graduates.

There were 67 per cent of graduates who supported an increase in immigration.

Dr Birrell and Dr Betts told the Herald Sun that second-generation migrants are more skeptical about immigration. 'These migrants have become an important part of a voter base worried about immigration,' they said.

However the survey also found that 58 per cent of Australian-born individuals agreed Australia was in danger of losing its identity and 47 per cent of voters supported 'a partial ban' on Muslim immigration.

SOURCE  






Thinker Mark Bauerlein:  An academic who approves of Western Civilization

Where to start with Mark Bauerlein? He is a thinker whose time has come. He recently wrote that the boxing gym is the most civil and courteous place he has been. The 60-year-old professor of English plays Fortnite with his son, the game Prince Harry wants banned. And he is in Australia this week as a guest of the Institute of Public Affairs, to tell us why the great books of Western civilisation matter. And why the Left won’t cede an inch of control over campus.

He made a splash with his 2008 book, The Dumbest Generation, decrying the digital age for producing a society of know-nothings. During lunch on a warm autumn day in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, I suggest he’s too hard on millennials; mine at home don’t fit his thesis. Happily, he is more curious than querulous. And he laughs a lot. Bauerlein was a Left-liberal for most of his life; a secular, militant atheist, too. He grew up in California, after all.

Then he looked around at the people, the ideas, the predictability and grew bored. So he read other stuff, found the locus of freedom in conservative thought. Now he is a Catholic and writes for First Things, a leading American conservative magazine.

He defends Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump, and thinks Bernie Sanders is a much bigger threat than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He has worn a Make America Great Again T-shirt under his buttoned-up shirt on campus at Emory University where, for decades, he taught.

His English students learned the greats: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Emily Dickinson, Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, Hen­ry James, TS Eliot, Ezra Pound, Wallace Stevens. And Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Heideg­ger, Derrida and Foucault featured in his philosophy lessons. He retired from teaching a few months ago and is back working in Washington, DC.

Outside the boxing ring, Bauerlein packs a punch, too. Here’s a snapshot from a two-hour rumination over why Western civilisation matters and why the Left is a place for misery guts.

The perfect segue, then, into the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation. “Ramsay asked for this little tiny piece of ground in this big university, just a little sliver for us to do our Western civ thing. Uhhh. No, said the activists. We’ve got 100 acres and we’re not going to give you a square foot. We don’t want you around.

“They know where these kids are going if they have the choice between a course on queer theory and cross-dressing or a course on Macbeth or King Lear.

“Kids know they are entering into the adult world, into the monumental, the historic, the sublime, the great books. Here we have Lady Macbeth walking up and down the hallway rubbing her hands clean, saying: ‘Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?’

“They want moments like when Dido piles up all the furniture that she and Aeneas make love on, and Aeneas has taken off with his buddies in the night, and she has this moment of great rejection and kills herself.

“It’s flattering to be told: ‘We’re teaching you the epic, the grand, the momentous occasions.’ ”

Why identity politicians are uninspiring. “They have trans­lated the campus into their own strange therapeutic method. In the identity politics classroom, you can act on your resentment because your father was a jerk or life hasn’t turned out so good. They know they can’t compete with the colossus of civilisation, so they’re not gonna give you anything. These are not pluralistic souls, these are minor league totalitar­ians.”

But understand the temptation. “Identity politics produces a very emotionally satisfying moral drama. In a chaotic world, you know who the good guys and the bad guys are. You have a whole script about the past and the present, about politics. Everything lines up very nicely. It is a place to put resentment, disappointment, struggle, victimhood.”

Beware young revolutionaries: “They are much more dangerous than old revolutionaries. The strongest accusers in the Cambodian revolution were the young.

“Before I arrived in Sydney, I watched a YouTube clip of a panel on your (ABC) Q&A show. A young girl in the audience, about 21 years old, announces she is a young socialist, and she goes on this rant, first about Tony Abbott, she called him a toxic racist, or something, then she rails against Western civilisation for its col­onialism, its racism.

“All the panellists were passive. She had all the force in the room, the rage, the indigna­tion. Identity politics has given her power and confidence to berate them, unfettered by knowledge.”

The loss of humanities is a terrible thing. “History is a permanent instruction in original sin. But kids don’t get that instruction.

“A 21-year-old social justice warrior hasn’t read (those essays by ex-communists in) The God That Failed, or Whittaker Chambers’s Witness, they don’t know what Stalinists did in the Spanish civil war, they don’t know about the assassination of Trotsky or what happened in the French Revolution.

“That’s the advantage of being young, you haven’t seen this happen yet and that’s the advantage of not knowing any history. They don’t know the fate of Robes­pierre. One day you’re leading the charge, next day your head is in the guillotine.”

Why learn the classics? “The great books give you standards of judgment that enable you to filter the good from the bad, the relevant from the irrelevant, the significant from the insignificant.

“It’s really good to have read Plutarch or listen to Mark Antony’s speech over the death of Caesar, or to know the great orators of the past; they give you standards of how to judge the orators of the present, how bad they are. This is what humanistic learning does, it gives you a critical yardstick.”

Why identity politicians don’t believe in greatness: “They suffer from this condition that Nietzsche brilliantly identified as ressentiment, the French term for resentment. Not ‘I resent this or that’. Ressentiment is a general attitude towards the world. They resent great things. Greatness makes them feel their own mediocrity. They don’t believe in heroes because heroes remind them of their inferiority.”

Or heroes. “People with ressentiment want to tear down heroes and statues. They look at a hero like Thomas Jefferson and say: ‘He’s a slave owner.’ But if you don’t suffer from ressentiment, you look at Jefferson and say: ‘Don’t you understand, Jefferson grows up in a slave society, his family owned slaves, his plantation depends on slaves, his material wellbeing depends upon slaves, everything conditions him to be a full-on supporter of slavery.

“Jefferson, in spite of all his conditioning, was able to write the Declaration of Independence that becomes an inspiration for Frederick Douglass, the abolitionists, Martin Luther King, all these oppressed groups. In Europe, European revolutionaries in 1848 loved the Declaration of Independence. If you have ressentiment, you choose slavery guilt over giving Jefferson any credit.”

Why the Left hates Trump: “Guilt is the strongest sociopolitical weapon the Left has had for 50 years. And it didn’t work on Trump. He has no male guilt, no white guilt, no Christian guilt, no American guilt, he’s not going to apologise for anything because he doesn’t feel guilty.”

Why the Left hates Milo: “The Left has a long history of provocateurs, comedians, performers who trash the Right. That kind of ribald humour directed at conservatives did a lot of damage, making them out as old-fashioned curmudgeons. Milo did the same. Only he aimed at the Left. He made people laugh at the feminists, at Hillary (Clinton). He took their weapon and they couldn’t bear to lose it. Now they are the boring puritans.”

Bauerlein returns to where he started, with the Ramsay Centre and how to teach the big touchstones of Western civilisation.

“They are wasting their money,” he says. “I have seen efforts like this in the US for 20 years, trying to establish a beachhead on a college campus. These programs have done nothing to change the ideological climate or the wider curriculum of the campus. Political correctness is worse now than it has ever been.”

But there is hunger among students to learn about our colossus civilisation. Bauerlein mentions other platforms, podcasts, YouTube, new ways for teachers to reach kids about the strength of our great ideas.

Then a final lesson for the afternoon. “Freedom? This is an unusual idea,” he says slowly, with deliberate intonation. “Do you think it came out of thin air? Someone had to develop these ideas. Cultures had to say this is a good idea, and there weren’t many that did that. One of them was Athens. Another was Rome under the republic before the emperors took over. Someone did this. And it can be undone very easily.”

This is not academic chitchat. For years now, the Lowy Institute has polled attitudes to democracy in Australia, finding that about half of Australians aged 18 to 24 do not think democracy is the most preferable form of government. Those dismal numbers tell us that you are not likely to defend what you do not understand. That means we need many more Bauerleins teaching the epic history of liberal democracy.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






15 April, 2019

The Bible and vegans

Australia is having a lot of troubles with militant vegans lately, Leftist ones presumably. So what should conservatives think about veganism and vegans?

I cannot improve on the wisdom of our culture's holy book, the Bible. Yes.  The Bible even tells us about vegans.  Vegans might not like to hear it but veganism was also a religious discipline among holy men in Biblical times. In Romans chapter 14 we read:

For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables.  Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him

Short and to the point. Going vegan is a personal matter and we should be tolerant of that weakness.  BUT they should be tolerant of us too -- which they certainly are NOT at the moment.  So it's the best advice for all of us.  But Leftist arrogance is not much prone to seeking advice and even less prone to taking it.






Israel Folau could SUE Rugby Australia for religious discrimination if they terminate his contract

Israel Folau could sue Rugby Australia on the grounds of religious discrimination if his current contract is terminated, an expert has claimed.

Yesterday it was revealed that the Wallabies player would fight the attempts of Rugby Australia and the New South Wales Waratahs to sack him over the contents of a social media post.

Folau made an Instagram post on Thursday which said gay people - and other perceived sinners - would go to hell unless they repented.

The 30-year-old, who holds strong Christian views, was warned last year for making similar comments on social media but escaped disciplinary action.

On this occasion, however, RA announced it would cancel the lucrative four-year deal he signed in January. 

 But one legal expert has said Folau could make a claim against the organisation on the basis of his religion under the Fair Work Act.

 Mark Fowler, an adjunct associate professor of law the University of Notre Dame, told  The Sydney Morning Herald that RA would have to prove they were not terminating Folau's contract because of his religion.

'On what is publicly reported, it would seem hard to say that the action Rugby Australia is proposing is not because of his religious belief.'  

If Folau successfully sued Rugby Australia for the millions of dollars remaining on his contract, it would be a serious blow for the already financially-stretched organisation.

On Friday a meeting was held at the union's headquarters in Moore Park and while the RA's position is unchanged, the Wallabies face the prospect of entering this autumn's World Cup without one of the game's most gifted players.

'As the meeting was held in confidence between the player and his employers, Rugby Australia and the NSW Rugby Union will not comment on the discussions at the meeting,' a statement read.

 The Rugby Union Players' Association accompanied Folau to the talks and revealed in a statement that he intends to honour his contract, adding that the RA's code of conduct must be followed during any disciplinary action.

There has been widespread condemnation of Folau's remarks, including from former Wallabies team-mate Drew Mitchell and New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern.

But former Wallabies coach and prominent media commentator Alan Jones defended Folau's controversial comments - saying the rugby star had a right to freedom of speech.

Jones said Rugby Australia was acting against Folau to shore up the continued support of major sponsor Qantas, whose chief executive Alan Joyce is gay.

Rugby Australia has reprimanded Folau in the past for targeting the LGBTQI community in his social media posts.

He came under fire in 2017 during the marriage equality vote, when he publicly announced he wouldn't be supporting gay marriage.

SOURCE  






Stan Grant says moving Australia Day would be pointless because some Aboriginal people are 'wedded to grievance

Prominent journalist Stan Grant has said that moving the date of Australia Day would be pointless because some of his fellow indigenous people are 'wedded to grievance'.

There have been calls to move the public holiday away from January 26, the day the British First Fleet arrived to create a penal settlement that became Sydney.

Critics have argued that this day marked the beginning of great suffering and torment for indigenous people and should not be celebrated.

Grant, an award-winning journalist of Aboriginal heritage, debated the issue in a piece published in The Weekend Australian magazine on Saturday.

He argued that changing the date of Australia Day might leave January 26 as a day honoured by white chauvinists and risked making the national day more divisive.

Grant added that some Aboriginals would not be satisfied with the date change either because resentment was part of their 'identities'.

'I fear moving the date would only hand it to those who would reclaim it as a day of white pride, turning it into a bombastic day of division,' he writes.

'There are also those indigenous people who cling to Nietzsche's ''politics of ressentiment'', whose identities are so wedded to grievance that to relinquish their anger would be to lose their sense of themselves: moving the date would not satisfy them.' 

Grant also argued that abolishing or moving the date did not change the identity of the nation.

Instead, Grant said the history of the day, and what has come since, is inherently tied to where we are now.  

'Australia is more than a day, it is more than a date - whatever that date may be. Moving the date or abolishing Australia Day does not answer the question, who are we?' Grant writes.

Grant said Australia Day was not a day to be at war with himself as he says he identifies as neither black or white but rather a 'synthesis' of the two. 

The journalist's father Stan Grant Sr, was awarded a special Australia Day honour as a respected elder of the Wiradjuri people.

He was recognised for helping to revive the Wiradjuri language to share it with all Australians, as he believes his heritage is everyone's heritage.

Grant said his father has lived a life of 'brutality' and 'bigotry' but is proud to be an Australian.

Grant admitted to wrestling with questions about Australia Day as says he is torn between pride in the country and his family's legacy of suffering.

He also called for a new declaration, a Declaration of Country, as the current founding document does not recognise indigenous people.

Before going into the media, Grant experienced a troubled youth and was sent to 13 different primary schools, while struggling with his heritage.

Grant says he still has a strong connection to his hometown Griffith, in central western New South Wales, despite a difficult upbringing.

'My great-grandmother lived here and out the back was a broken-down Model T Ford. My parents called it 'the honeymoon suite' because when they first got together that's where they lived – in a broken-down car,' Grant said on ABC/s Home Delivery in 2016.

'I was born a year later and we were all here. This was it, in the back of a car in the back of my great-grandmother's house.'

A month before the Sydney Olympics in 2000, Stan Grant resigned as the host of Today Tonight after leaving his wife Karla Grant for Seven Network colleague Tracey Holmes.

Grant, then 36, was at the centre of a love scandal - eight years after becoming the first indigenous host of an Australian prime-time commercial television show.

The breakdown of his 16-year marriage to Karla, an Aboriginal SBS presenter who was also the mother of his three children, was front page news.

Grant and Holmes went on to marry and have a son together, before also living in Abu Dhabi and Beijing.

SOURCE  






Tax skirmish sets up election campaign

Campaign 2019 has begun with a bid by Scott Morrison to smash Bill Shorten’s polling ascendancy, his credibility and his policy strategy — while Shorten’s immediate response is to stay cool, keep his nerve and refuse to be intimidated.

On the opening day, the Prime Minister released data documenting the price of the Opposition Leader’s change-of-direction audacity. Labor will levy an extra $387 billion in tax by the end of the decade, equating to an average extra $5400 for households annually, prompting the Labor leader to condemn this as a “bucket of lies”.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said: “Bill Shorten is proposing a dangerous experiment on a scale that has never been conducted before.” Despite the government-Labor brawl over the status of Treasury’s costing, the $387bn figure is essentially accurate.

The figure itself has not been challenged by Labor. It is so high partly because Labor — to display its rival priorities — refuses to put on the table any medium-term tax package. While numbers will shift with new announcements, these numbers testify to a fork-in-road election choice for Australians.

The $387bn, however, also equates to Labor’s war chest that it will utilise over the next five weeks to try to keep its entrenched polling lead.

The government extended its attack yesterday saying that by 2022-23, the end of the next parliament, people earning above $45,000 will be worse off under Labor’s tax policy.

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann, told Inquirer: “Bill Shorten may run rhetoric targeting the rich for political effect. But in truth he will pursue anyone earning more than $45,000 per annum from 2022-23 with higher income taxes. Someone earning $45,000 is not rich. Yet they will be forced to pay more tax under Labor, putting more pressure on them with their cost of living.”

This opens up a new dispute. A spokesman for Labor’s Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen rejected Cormann’s claim last night, saying the threshold that mattered was $90,000. “Labor will keep an enhanced low and middle income tax offset for the decade,” the spokesman said. “This means in 2022-23 for all income earners below $90,000, people are equal or better off under Labor.”

Cormann’s analysis rests on stage two of the government’s plan when the low and middle income tax offset is replaced by a lift in the threshold for the 19 per cent tax bracket to $45,000, providing benefits that flow through to income earners above this level.

Cormann said families on more than $45,000 who would be adversely impacted “should always read the fine print” in what Shorten says.

Shorten was unforgiving yesterday. He stood squarely behind Labor’s strategy. He said Labor’s priority was not tax cuts but shutting tax loopholes in the cause of funding schools, Medicare and cancer treatment costs. He tried to argue closing tax loopholes did not constitute tax increases.

Labor Senate leader Penny Wong reflected her party’s “not for turning” stance: “Labor chooses better schools, better hospitals, not bigger tax loopholes, and we have been consistent with that for years.” Bowen has said the government’s income tax cuts are “fiscal recklessness on an unprecedented scale” — but the test is whether Labor can hold its nerve or it cracks under this assault and spells out more income tax policy during the campaign.

Shorten is running on an election agenda that would have been inconceivable a few years ago. His assumption is that Australia has changed.

Labor has gone radical in the belief that people, seized by concerns about inequality, climate change and services, will accept a decisive shift to the Left and embrace a more progressive economic and social program.

In this sense the 2019 election is a watershed. The test is whether the public will repudiate conventional Liberal economics along with its distaste for the government’s five years of internal brawling. The heart of Labor policy is a major tax redistribution that punishes many categories of people and its belief the public will value social spending on health and education before income tax cuts.

The crux of this battle centres around the three commitments that define Labor’s strategy — it is pledged to repeal the bulk of the legislated $144bn tax cuts from last year’s budget; it opposes the bulk of the $158bn tax cuts from this year’s budget; and it proposes a range of tax increases and closing of tax loopholes affecting investors, retirees and higher income earners, from changes to negative gearing, capital gains, superannuation, franking credits, trusts and the deficit levy tax.

Government figures show over the decade Labor’s extra tax revenue will be $230bn from opposing the Coalition’s income tax cuts (Bowen says $226bn) and $157bn from its list of tax redistribution measures.

The immediate lesson is that Morrison is no Malcolm Turnbull. Not only is he not afraid to run a negative campaign, his aim is to ­fatally damage Labor at the start.

The Morrison government is playing straight to the hip-pocket nerve. The government is assaulting the tax policy framework Labor has developed over recent years and months that have underpinned its polling lead. The Liberals believe the public has not focused on what Labor’s tax policy actually means, no doubt diverted by internal brawling among the Liberals themselves.

Explaining his $45,000 threshold figure, Cormann says: “Under our plan from 1 July 2022 we increase the top income tax level of the 19 per cent tax bracket from $37,000 to $45,000, replacing the low and middle income tax offset, while preserving the tax relief which will also flow through to anyone earning more than $45,000 per annum.

“The effect of that income tax relief, which is quarantined to low and middle-income tax earners through the tax offset for the first four years of our plan (2018-19 to 2012-22), will start flowing through to those earning above $45,000 from 2022-23 onwards. Everyone earning more than $45,000 per annum is worse off under Bill Shorten and Labor because they have to pay more tax. His higher income taxes would not only harm the economy but would also put jobs at risk.”

Labor rejects Cormann’s claim but even Labor’s $90,000 threshold means that the number of losers will be significant.

Asked about Cormann’s claims, a Labor spokesperson said: “No one believes him. This is unlegislated and off in the never-never. You would have to vote for Morrison two more times. Labor is offering a better tax cut this year, not a fantasy in the future.”

The government’s hip-pocket assault on Shorten’s policies focuses on his refusal to respond to stages two and three of the government’s tax cuts. Shorten lashed out at the government, saying: “The Liberals are lying about taxes. Let’s just call it as it is.”

Shorten said the government is defending “unsustainable subsidies and rorts” and then claiming when Labor tackled these issues that it was “increasing taxes”.

He said the government is defending the “super wealthy” when “we have got waiting lists in our hospitals” and massive out-of-pocket costs for people diagnosed with cancer. Trying to change the tone, he said: “I don’t see the government as the enemy. I see cancer has my enemy.”

Morrison left no doubt he intends to hang the tax issue around Labor’s neck.

“The more Labor spends, the more they tax,” he said. “The more they tax, the more they hurt the economy, which means the less money there is for all Australians.

“Higher taxes hold all Australians back. Higher taxes make it harder for families, for small businesses, for those saying for the ­future, for retirees.”

Frydenberg said: “Despite Chris Bowen’s desperate attempts at distraction, none of his frontbench colleagues have disputed that Labor’s new taxes total $387bn, the equivalent of an extra yearly tax bill of $5400 per household.” The $5400 does not relate to an income level. It is calculated by dividing the total extra Labor tax take by the number of households.

Frydenberg confirmed yesterday the government asked Treasury for the analysis. “The Australian people deserve to know the true cost of Labor’s policies,” he said.

Bowen wrote to Treasury secretary Phil Gaetjens yesterday, expressing concern at the government’s claims its figures came from Treasury modelling and analysis. He reminded Gaetjens “it has been a longstanding position by the Treasury that it does not cost opposition policies”.

In his reply, Gaetjens told Bowen “no breach of conduct or impartiality has occurred”. He said in this case Treasury received requests from Frydenberg’s office that a number of policies be costed — but no reference was made to the opposition. The costing was done and completed before the caretaker period began.

The secretary said his department was not asked to cost “another party’s policies” and it would not do so if such a request was ­received.

The core point about this entire dispute is that a Labor government would decide on future tax cuts according to its discretion. Labor is pledged in the immediate 2019-20 year to match the government’s tax rebates across the income range $48,000 to $125,000. But it refuses to be drawn beyond that. However, any notion a Labor government would not cut income tax before the end of the decade is fanciful. Of course it would.

The point is that Labor refuses to engage in this debate because it has other priorities. This is a substantial gamble that reflects Labor’s high confidence about the election. Labor calculated it could tolerate the sort of government attack now under way. Time will tell whether that judgment was valid.

Morrison’s intention is to use the tax issue to destroy Labor’s electoral strategy.

Frydenberg released a detailed breakdown on the cost of Labor’s policies with Treasury as the source. The medium-term impact to 2029-30 is as follows: abolition of refunds on franking credits, $57bn; the crackdown on family trusts, $27bn; changes to housing tax arrangements, $31bn; higher superannuation taxes, $34bn; and imposing a 2 per cent deficit repair levy on high-income earners to 2022-23, estimated at $6.5bn.

The total cost of all these associated measures is estimated at $157bn over 10 years.

The government calculates that under Labor — on its current policies — the tax-to-GDP ratio at the end of 10 years will be a high 25.9 per cent compared with the Morrison government’s cap of 23.9 per cent. Once again, this will not happen because any Labor government would cut tax during this period. But because Labor refuses to produce a medium-term tax policy, the government can generate such a figure.

Bowen has used KPMG analysis to say the tax take under Labor at the end of the four-year forward estimates would be 24.2 per cent. He says this is lower than under the Howard era.

“Under a Labor government, Australia would have a lower tax take than Japan, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Netherlands and most other OECD economies,” he says.

The logic is apparent: Shorten and Bowen are determined to resist the Morrison government’s tax assault. What will Labor do with its immense war chest? It will reinforce its strategy with more funding for education and health and it will deliver on Bowen’s pledge to have bigger surplus figures across the forward estimates. That is, some of Labor’s extra revenue will deliver superior fiscal ­accountability.

The moral is that beyond the posturing this election constitutes a decisive choice of future direction. Morrison is probably correct to say it will shape the next decade. That choice is between the Liberal economic orthodoxy of Morrison and Frydenberg as reflected in the recent budget and an emboldened Labor that has discarded the “small target” model and, convinced that Australia wants a ­radical shift, runs on more social spen­ding, higher taxation, ­redis­t­ri­­bution and climate change targets that must cause economic pain.

For Morrison, the politics are obvious — he cannot just rely on the government’s economic credentials. He must document and try to destroy Shorten’s agenda. The test is how Shorten performs under pressure.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here





14 April, 2019

Bill Shorten’s war against ‘accountant tax rorts’ and real estate industry is really a war against business generally

He's in a war on the costs of doing business. He wants to treat costs as profit. First it was "excessive" mortgage interest payments, which will be disallowed under the attack on "negative gearing"; now it is the cost of having accountants do your tax return and also now the cost of paying commissions to real estate agents.

The attack on negative gearing was the start.  Negative gearing simply treats all costs of doing business as costs, without exception -- be they costs of paying mortgage interest or whatever.  But the attack on "negative gearing" in effect treats some mortgage interest payments as not a cost!  But because some  amounts are held not to be a cost, those amounts become profits and are taxed as such.  It's just a brain-dead tax grab.

A lot of business activity will wind down at that rate and take lots of jobs with it. Levying tax on costs is insane.  Everywhere else in the world, they only tax profits, as far as I am aware

The only consolation is that such an extreme change will probably need new legislation and the change is so mad that any such legislation is unlikely to get through the Senate.  And if the change is via regulation, the High Court could knock it back on various grounds -- not the least of which is denial of natural justice

It seems to be Shorten's modus operandi to promise things  that he most probably will not be able to enact.  His threat to raise the minimum wage is also a con.  All he can do is make submissions to the Fair Work Commission and they are perfectly capable of denying him what he asks in either whole or in part, most likely in part.

But his big talk will look good to some unwary voters.  So he gains credit for intentions only.  He will not have to deliver anything


Bill Shorten has doubled down on his plan to stop wealthy people claiming high accountants’ fees on tax and has taken a swipe at real estate agents.

In a sign of a fierce “class warfare” campaign ahead, the Opposition Leader today said he was sticking with a cap of $3000 on exempting accountancy fees despite scepticism his plan will raise the $1.8bn he predicts it will.

“I’m 100 per cent confident that Labor is right, to stop allowing people deduct hundreds of thousands of dollars off their tax for what they pay their accountant,” he said in the Liberal electorate of Bennelong.

“I’m 100 per cent confident that what we can do is make sure that this is a fairer system.

“Why should someone who pays $1 million to their accountant to minimise their tax for millions more, why should we pay for the double dip?

“I mean, it’s a sweet deal. It’s not illegal, but enough’s enough.”

Last month, Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan said he was sceptical the savings claimed from Labor’s policy were all sourced from managing tax affairs instead of other exemptions.

“When people see a quick headline, ‘millionaires paying millions not to pay tax’, there might well be some other reason entirely, like GIC (general interest charges) and I think we’re trying to break that box down now,” he told the Tax Institute in March.

“If you’ve got all that GIC and you’ve paid an enormous settlement, you can claim the GIC as a tax deduction so yes you might have millions of dollars of income but I can’t see any rational or even irrational person, spending over a million to not pay tax on a million.”

Mr Shorten refused to answer questions on whether the difference pointed out by Mr Jordan would affect the revenue raised by his policy.

But he did hit back at a national campaign led by real estate agents against his negative gearing policies. “Well, the real estate agents, it’s obviously in their financial interest to keep taxpayer money flowing to their business model?” he said.

“You’ve gotta ask yourself, why are they campaigning? They’re campaigning because they like to have people bidding for houses who are getting a taxpayer subsidy. “Because the more people they have bidding for houses, the more they can charge their percentage on the sale.”

The Real Estate Institute of Australia, which represents about 95 per cent of the 36,000 businesses that employ about 120,000 people, is leading the push to coincide with the election campaign.

The industry-backed campaign will harness social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to promote key attack lines against the Labor policy, arguing that it will reduce property prices in a cooling market, fail to raise the forecast revenue and pose a danger to the Australian economy.

SOURCE  





Electric car natural disaster warning: Families could be left stranded if charging stations are shut down during dangerous storms

Australians who lose power during heatwaves, floods, cyclones, and hail storms could be left stranded as the energy market operator seeks to ban charging electric vehicles.

The charging of electric vehicles would be one of the first things The Australian Energy Market Operator would look at shutting off as a non-essential function, according to The Courier Mail.

AEMO is responsible for ensuring a stable supply of electricity to services such as hospitals when the grid is struggling due to network issues or natural disasters.

It can accomplish this by asking households to switch off energy draining appliances such as air-conditioners.

However, it can also direct power companies to shut off supply to certain areas.

There is concern the extra load on the power grid from electric vehicles may cause power shortages.

A Shorten government would impose new emissions standards on vehicle manufacturers - dramatically increasing the number of electric vehicles on the road.

Energy Minister Angus Taylor said he is concerned about Mr Shorten's plan to 'force the most popular vehicles off the road to meet Labor's damaging 50 per cent electric vehicle target and 105g CO2/km vehicle emissions standard.'  

'Our favourite vehicles are on Bill's hit list. Seventeen of the top 20 most popular models in Australia don't meet Labor's vehicle emissions standard.

'As usual, Bill Shorten has not done his homework. If you don't understand Labor's new car tax, don't vote for it.'

SOURCE  






Broadcaster defends Israel Folau's free speech, attacks Rugby Australia’s decision to terminate $4m contract

Alan Jones has defended Israel Folau and says Rugby Australia has corrupted free speech in Australia.

Alan Jones has hit out at Rugby Australia’s decision to terminate high-profile rugby player Israel Folau’s contract saying the decision has “completely corrupted” free speech in Australia.

It comes as the sport star’s $4 million contract with Rugby Australia is set to be scrapped following a homophobic social media post condemning homosexuals, drunks and liars where Folau says “Hell awaits you”.

“It’s got nothing to do with Israel, or rugby, or religion, or homosexuals. Where are we in this country on free speech?” Jones said on his 2GB radio show this morning. “It has completely corrupted free speech in this country.

“It wouldn’t be the first time, in my opinion, that Rugby Australia have got it completely wrong and I think if they have signed this contract or demanded of Israel certain matters outside the playing of the game … then that, I believe, is outside the ambit of what they are able to do,” he went on.

“We’ve got an issue here because we’re going down a very, very narrow road here. “This has gone on and on and on this crap. Out there, people now are terrified of saying anything, they don’t know what they can say.”

Folau posted his religious views to Twitter and Instagram on Wednesday warning people to “repent” their sins. “Those that are living in sin will end up in Hell unless you repent. Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him,” his post said.

Rugby Australia Chief Raelene Castle and NSW Rugby Union CEO Andrew Hore yesterday announced their intention to terminate Folau’s contract and a string of sponsors including Qantas, have distanced themselves from the player.

Sport Australia boss Kate Palmer commended Rugby Australia’s commended the announcement and urged all sports to follow suit.

“Discrimination is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated in any sport or recreation environment, at whatever level,” she said.

“Everyone is entitled to their own views but expressing divisive and discriminatory beliefs is harmful to sport and the broader Australian community.”

Folau is yet to respond to by Rugby Australia and has not returned their calls.

Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce also condemned Rugby Australia’s decision. “He (Folau) is a rugby player with a well known very Christian conservative worldview. They employed him and they knew that how can they sack him?” he said on Twitter.

`New video has also emerged of the rugby player giving a controversial sermon on how celebrating Christmas and Easter is wrong, just two days after he posted other contentious religious comments online.

The video obtained by The Daily Telegraph, was taken last month and shows Folau preaching on a church altar during a Sunday mass.

“Christmas and Easter, that’s man-made,” Folau tells worshippers, before attacking Christians who do not devoutly read the bible.

“For so many years we were caught up in the world thinking that celebrating Christmas was biblical, but when you read this passage you can see what God says about it.”

Folau proceeds to read a verse from the Bible and tells worshippers that Jesus’ mother Mary shouldn’t be held up to the church as an idol.

“If we don’t go back to the scriptures and see what God says, we can easily fall into the tradition of man, thinking we’re doing the right thing.

“There’s a whole lot of people that go to church, but they’re not following the doctrine of Christ.

Scott Morrison criticised Folau for making a “terribly insensitive comment” about gay people.

“It was a terribly insensitive comment and they have taken action as a result,” Mr Morrison told the ABC this morning.

“It is important that people act with love, care and compassion to their fellow citizens and to speak sensitively to their fellow Australians. That’s what I believe.”

SOURCE  






Toxic American student culture of safetyism poses threats in Australia too

In 2017, a group of angry students at a liberal arts college on America’s west coast took over the school in protest, holding some administrators hostage and even denying them the freedom to use the toilet.

The students were mad about what they perceived as racism on behalf of some faculty staff. The protesters briefly occupied the president’s office to press their complaints.

In one recorded exchange, they demanded he didn’t use hand gestures when he spoke to them because they might be considered threatening. He quickly obliged.

When the story began trickling out, making national headlines, it was confirmation that something strange was taking hold on university campuses in parts of the country.

One professor at the college, Bret Weinstein, who called for open debate about the issues being raised by the students, had to stay away from campus for his own safety and move his family into hiding because they didn’t agree with that suggestion.

He has since left with a payout from the university, and has become the face of a group of educators (there is a growing list) who have been shouted down and forced out of their job by a small group of aggrieved students.

To some, as strange as it sounds, he is a martyr for reasoned debate in the face of aggressive identity politics which dictates ideas must be safe, and never harmful or offensive. This is the age of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and deplatforming those you disagree with.

Jonathan Haidt is an American social psychologist and Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He has had a front-row seat to what he views as a very problematic cultural shift happening on US university campuses.

“This took us all by surprise in 2014 and 2015, we could not understand what our students meant when they said they don’t feel safe, but now this is common language on our campuses,” he says.

It’s a trend he links to the use of social media among early teens, and the rise in anxiety and depression that it helps breed.

“As this more anxious generation began entering university … we found that many students were acting as though words, books and speakers were not just offensive to them but dangerous, physically dangerous. Leading to requests and demands that authorities protect them.”

Prof Haidt is heading to Australia for the first time in July, where he will be attending academic conferences and giving public talks in Sydney and Melbourne.

While few political cultures are as polarised as the United States, he suspects Australia is downwind of his country when it comes to this rise of so-called safetyism among a minority of Generation Z.

“I know these trends are beginning in Australia, although they’re not as severe as they are in the United States,” he says.

“In part I am coming as the ghost of Christmas future, warning Australians: Don’t end up like us, don’t make the mistakes that we made.

“Our democracy and our universities are in big trouble now. We have a new moral culture that gives us constant outrage and makes its much more difficult to talk openly or make jokes. I hope this doesn’t happen in Australia.”

He understands it as a combination of a new political idea often referred to as safetyism, higher rates of anxiety, and very weak leadership at the upper levels on universities.

“You put that together and you get these explosions,” he says.

Prof Haidt is well known for his work in psychology and morality as the author of popular books, The Happiness Hypothesis and The Righteous Mind.

When his friend and fellow academic Greg Lukianoff came to him about five years ago worried about student behaviour, it soon became clear there was something that needed exploring.

Lukianoff had used cognitive therapy to treat his depression, and saw this group of students engaging in a way of thinking that he believed would lead them to become increasingly unhappy.

“If students are learning to think in this distorted way, if students are doing catastrophising, overgeneralising, black and white thinking, then it’s going to make them depressed,” Prof Lukianoff warned his colleague.

The pair wrote an article in The Atlantic which struck a chord and became the title of their new book: The Coddling of the American Mind — a play on the title of a 1987 book by the philosopher Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind.

The subheading for the book gives you the thrust of the problem it hopes to address: “How good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure”.

While it is only a small minority of students that engage in this type of political posturing, tactics of public shaming and “callout culture” means they are often successful in silencing dissenters.

“These new moral values have incentivised a young generation to link everybody’s words to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia or islamaphobia,” he says. Those who don’t tow the party line are at risk of being called out.

“If 1 per cent of people in your town are muggers and they mug 10 people a day, then everyone is going to be careful, and that is the situation we have.”

When discussing the consequences of what he sees as the erosion of robust debate on sensitive topics in the name of student protection, Prof Haidt is fond of quoting John Stuart Mill: “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






12 April, 2019

Oz Conservative:  An Australian traditionalist conservative site

It's now a number of years since I have linked to the above site so I thought it was time for me to give blogger Mark Richardson a shout-out.  I write from Brisbane and he writes from Melbourne so we have different priorities in writing about State matters but we both move far beyond geographical concerns.  I don't think there any major differences between us in our attitudes but I may be a bit further towards the libertarian end of conservatism.

And I occasionally mention topics that are completely forbidden even to conservatives -- like IQ, race and social class.  All three are immensely powerful influences on what people say, think and do, so that may be the reason why any mention of them is taboo.  We must not understand too much.  But I am an academic  psychologist with a research background in all three topics so I foolishly think that understanding and explaining such influences lies within my remit

Mark has up at the moment an excellent interview with a black Cardinal in which the Cardinal asserts the importance of national identity






Some stupid b*tch in charge of the Navy's Air Arm has banned the men from marching on Anzac day in case they trip over!

Stupid female coddling attitude.  She should be in charge of a kindergarten, not a armed force.  Maybe she will want to take those nasty firearms away from them next

Royal Australian Navy personnel have been told they cannot march at an ANZAC Day dawn service amid fears they could trip in the dark.

The Greenwell Point Anzac Day march near Nowra on the New South Wales south coast has been deemed an occupational health and safety risk due to lighting issues.

Personnel from HMAS Albatross will attend the dawn service in other positions, including as guest speakers and flag-bearers, a Defence spokesman said.

'The instruction to HMAS Albatross personnel, while different to what may have occurred in the past, has been provided cognisant of procedures traditionally observed by service personnel attending dawn services,' the spokesperson said.

He said the particular physical and environmental conditions that are expected at Greenwell Point on Anzac Day were also contributing factors.

'Local commanders are responsible to ensure that risks to members on duty are reduced as reasonably practicable for dawn services across Australia.'

But Nowra RSL sub-president Fred Dawson was staggered by the ruling.

'It's beyond belief, we are talking about armed forces, men trained to fight and look after themselves in very risky circumstances - marching down Greenwell Point Road under street lights has minimal risk factors involved,' he told ABC News.

'So from my perspective, sailors will be on parade in the nearby park waiting for the diggers to arrive, schools children will also be marching in the dark, but not serving personnel.'

The break in tradition will be the first time in 30 years the RAN hasn't marched at this specific location.

Instead, the personnel will be formed and waiting for those involved in the march to reach them.

Captain Fiona Sneath from HMAS Albatross defended the decision, but said she may be open to reviewing the matter.

'It might mean just having some more people to observe what is going on and are around to observe what is going on and make others who are marching in the squad aware that there is perhaps a pothole or obstacle,' she said.

'I can understand the community concerns, and we do put our people in danger at times, but we do have an obligation that we reduce any risk as much as practicable.'

SOURCE  






Rugby Australia slams Israel Folau for his controversial post declaring homosexuals will go to hell – as his career hangs in the balance

What he says is straight from Romans chapter 1 so maybe they should ban the Bible too?  And it's another wimpy woman crying over it.  Why can't they have a man in charge of a man's game?



Rugby Australia have slammed Israel Folau for his latest homophobic social media post - as the scandal threatens to derail the star player's career.

Folau, 30, shared a 'warning' to 'drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters' to Instagram on Wednesday, saying 'hell awaits' them.

The devout Christian has shared similar sentiments in the past and was previously warned by Rugby Australia boss Raelene Castle.

A Rugby Australia spokesman said Folau's post was 'unacceptable' and that the organisation's integrity unit was 'engaged on the matter'.

'Rugby Australia is aware of a post made by Israel on his Instagram account this afternoon,' the spokesman said. 'The content within the post is unacceptable. It does not represent the values of the sport and is disrespectful to members of the Rugby community. 'The Rugby Australia integrity unit has been engaged on the matter tonight.'

In February, Folau signed a multi-million dollar contract extension with the New South Wales Waratahs and Rugby Australia until the end of 2022.

Widely considered as one of the game's best players, Folau became Super Rugby's all-time leading try scorer on Saturday.

His post on Wednesday warned that those 'living in sin will end up in Hell unless you repent'. 'Jesus Christ loves you and is giving you time to turn away from your sin and come to him,' Folau posted alongside two bible verses.

The star fullback also retweeted a story about Tasmania allowing gender to be optional on birth certificates.

'The devil has blinded so many people in this world, REPENT and turn away from your evil ways. Turn to Jesus Christ who will set you free,' Folau tweeted.

In April 2018, Folau said gay people deserved to go to 'HELL... unless they repent of their sins and turn to God'.

Folau made the comment on Instagram in reply to a question about God's plan for gay people.

His comments forced a meeting with Ms Castle and Waratahs chief executive Andrew Hore, after major Wallabies sponsor Qantas said Folau's statements were 'very disappointing'.

Ms Castle acknowledged Folau had caused 'grief to some people'. 'Israel has presented his situation to us, where his views are, where his beliefs are,' Ms Castle said.

'But at the same time Rugby Australia has also got a policy and a position of inclusion and using social media with respect.

'Now both of us are going to go away and continue that dialogue, and work through how we continue to use how our social media platforms in a way that can ensure that all of our stakeholders are respected in the use of social media.'

During 2017's same sex-marriage vote, Folau tweeted that he would not be supporting any change to the existing law.

'I love and respect all people for who they are and their opinions, but personally, I will not support gay marriage,' he said.

Folau married New Zealand netball star Maria Tutaia in 2017. He was raised as a Mormon and switched to the Australian Christian Churches with his family in 2011.

SOURCE  






Chris Bowen caught out on negative gearing numbers

Josh Frydenberg has accused Labor of “lying” about inaccurate figures behind its negative gearing reforms, and warns there could be “a big black hole” in their election costings as a result.

The Australian ­Bureau of Statistics has denied claims it had produced data showing that only 7 per cent of property invest­ors bought new homes, despite opposition treasury spokesman Chris Bowen using those figures repeatedly to back his housing policy.

The Treasurer said Mr Bowen had been “caught out” over the ABS revelations and had to “come clean” about Labor’s sums in his budget reply speech later today.

“Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen have been tripping over their shoe laces and the election hasn’t even begun,” the Treasurer told Sydney’s 2GB radio this morning.

“The Labor Party in reality may see a big black hole in them because they have underestimated the number of negative gearers who use new homes.

“Clearly they are (lying) and clearly there is a black hole in their costings ... they have overstated the amount of savings they will get from this policy, and this is a $35bn slug on the taxpayer. “Chris Bowen needs to come clean about the data.”

Mr Bowen’s use of ABS data has also been challenged by the Grattan Institute, a ­public policy think tank, which has argued that 14 per cent of ­investors buy new properties rather than existing ones — an estim­ate that is double what Labor has claimed.

Mr Bowen, Labor’s chief economic salesman, has repeatedly referred to ABS figures purportedly showing that negative gearing has failed to promote construction in new housing and create jobs.

“The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that 93 per cent of new investment loans go to people purchasing ­existing housing stock,” he said as recently as January.

“This means that the vast bulk of investment does not increase supply or boost jobs. “All it does is increase demand and the price of the existing homes, allowing investors to use tax subsidies to outbid owner-occupiers and first-home buyers.”

Mr Bowen took to Twitter today to defend his negative gearing costings and said the PBO had re-affirmed his numbers. “You are just plain wrong I am afraid Josh (Frydenberg). Independent Parliamentary Budget Office costs Labor’s policies including negative gearing and they have re-affirmed they stand by their costing. Nice try,” he tweeted this morning.

You are just plain wrong I am afraid Josh. Independent Parliamentary Budget Office costs Labor’s policies including negative gearing and they have re-affirmed they stand by their costing. Nice try.

But ABS financial statistics analyst Tony Mitchell said the agency did not collate the figures Mr Bowen had been referring to since 2016. “If you wanted to have those numbers you wouldn’t be able to get them from our statistics ­because we don’t collect them,” Mr Mitchell told The Australian.

“We’ve got a little bit about construction, but it is to do with lending to businesses for construction of investment dwellings. It is not to do with lending to households for construction of ­investment dwellings.

“There is nothing about lending­ for newly constructed dwellings. That is included in other statistics, but you can’t break it out.”

Mr Bowen was forced to clarify his costings with the Parliamentary Budget Office after the property industry claimed his numbers were wrong and that could impact on the claimed savings from Labor’s policy.

The PBO has estimated that Labor’s policies to reform negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount will raise $2.9 billion over the forward estimates and $35.1bn over the decade.

“The PBO stands by the costing,” Mr Bowen said. “The PBO consulted with the ABS, the RBA and major banks in order to estim­ate the proportion of investor lending for the purpose of existing housing.

“The PBO costing has relied on ABS data on owner-occupier lending with other data sources, including unpublished data by the RBA regarding lending to households for residential property investmen­t, and other surveys of investor lending.”

Housing Industry of Australia principal economist Tim Reardon said anecdotal evidence suggest­ed that the number of investors who bought new properties was at least 30 per cent.

“We know intuitively that 7 per cent number that Bowen is ­quoting is wrong,” Mr Reardon said.

“Last year there were 70,000 apartments sold in Australia and we know from talking to developers that at least half of those went to investors, possibly as high as 60 per cent.”

Grattan Institute director Danielle Wood said the independent think tank had estimated that more investors bought new properties than Labor was claiming.

“It is right that you can’t ­directly calculate it from the ABS data because some of the finance is going into homes that are newly constructed and you can’t see the split between­ investors and owner-occupiers for that ­category,” Ms Wood said.

She said there would be a budget­ impact if the PBO based its ­assumptions on the figures Labor was claiming, as more investors would be eligible to receive the tax subsidy.

“It would have an impact on the costing but I can’t imagine that it is going to be very large in the scheme of things,” Ms Wood said.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here







11 April, 2019

Royal Australian Air Force pilots are taught to think of women and take a 'gender perspective' during bombing operations

This is extreme nonsense. Pilots are assigned a target and it is their job to hit it -- not to philosophize about it

The 'Gender in Air Operations' doctrine informs pilots what they should do before dropping bombs in war zones to ensure women aren't placed in danger.

It gives the example of how destroying a bridge used by enemy troops could force local women to walk further to fetch water or wood.

'Although destroying this target may provide a military advantage against the enemy, the second order effect may mean that, due to the gendered social roles, women need to travel further afield, on unfamiliar and less secure, well-known or well-lit routes to gather water and firewood,' the doctrine said.

The program has been designed to encourage a 'new way of thinking' in which vulnerable woman aren't at an increased risk of violence or threat. 

Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association NSW/ACT president Bruce Relph said the program will also protect pilots.  

'This is going to make the pilot hesitate, afraid he might be charged with war crimes, and that puts his life in danger because the enemy will not be hesitating to shoot him down,' he told The Daily Telegraph.

However former army officer Bernard Gaynor said: 'We need our Defence Force to train combat warriors, not social justice warriors. The sooner Defence returns to its core business the better.' 

SOURCE  






Electric vehicles can be risky, just ask Keneally

Bill Shorten’s electric vehicle policy troubleshooter Kristina Keneally knows more than most the dangers of pinning too much hope on the rapid rise of electric cars — her husband Ben Keneally was chief Australian strategist and marketer of failed EV venture Better Place.

The Israeli-founded company, which filed for bankruptcy in 2013, was an early mover in the EV business, developing a battery-charging and switching service that it planned to roll out across Australia.

Mr Keneally worked with the head of the company’s Australian arm, dot.com millionaire and one-time Victorian Labor MP Evan Thornley.

The company was named one of the world’s “top-50 green game-changers” in 2011, with Mr Thornley predicting EVs would arrive in Australia “in mass volumes” by 2012.

The business model was built around cars with interchangeable batteries. Senator Keneally told The Australian yesterday that Better Place had picked the wrong technology. “Better Place promoted battery-swap stations, which people didn’t want,” she said.

“Better Place’s main global competitor, Tesla, and its main Australian competitor, Brisbane-based Tritium, focused on ultra-fast charging stations and are going from strength to strength.”

She said the fast-charging technology that ultimately beat Better Place was “precisely” the technology that Energy Minister Angus Taylor endorsed last year with a $6 million taxpayer-funded investment.

Labor has been under pressure over its pledge last week to set a target for EVs to make up half of all new vehicle sales by 2030, and implement a tough new carbon emissions standard for light vehicles of 105gCO2/km.

Senator Keneally leapt into the role of EV policy defender, getting a Department of Environment official to confirm in Senate estimates committee hearings this week that the government’s carbon abatement policies assume a 25-50 per cent EV uptake by 2030.

She also dug up pictures of Liberal MPs in EVs, and articles by Josh Frydenberg expressing his admiration for the technology. Scott Morrison has claimed Labor’s EV policy would “end the weekend” by pushing Australians out of four-wheel-drive vehicles into cars that couldn’t tow boats or caravans.

“Here he is, Joshy hanging out with some electric vehicles,” Senator Keneally said on Monday, waving a photograph of the Treasurer in an electric car.

Mr Keneally worked for Better Place from 2009 to until March 2013. The company filed for bankruptcy in Israel in May 2013, and was liquidated in November that year.

When Senator Keneally was NSW premier, Better Place was reportedly invited to exclusively bid for a recharging network by the state-owned EnergyAustralia, which ultimately did not proceed.

The then premier said at the time that she absented herself from cabinet discussions whenever electric cars were discussed.

SOURCE  






Morrison: Vegan activists who target the homes of farmers could face a year behind bars

Vegan protesters who target farmers’ homes could face a year in jail under new laws proposed by Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
If re-elected in May, Mr Morrison plans to change the laws to prevent vegan activists from using private information about farmers to harass them.

“They are being targeted in the most mercenary way by an organisation that can only think of itself and not think of the real damage that is being done to the livelihoods of these hardworking Australians,” Mr Morrison told reporters in Launceston on Wednesday.

He promised to introduce laws banning people from inciting criminal activity against farmers, with jail terms up to 12 months.

The Aussie Farms website publishes an interactive map of farms across the country, which the organisation says exposes animal exploitation in a secretive industry.

Vegan protesters on Monday launched a cross-border campaign targeting a busy Melbourne street, plus abattoirs and farms in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. It resulted in scores of arrests, criminal charges and a renewed call for farmers to take action, with the federal government committing to underwrite legal claims.

Privacy laws were changed last Friday to potentially expose Aussie Farms’ website to significant penalties for publishing farmers’ addresses and contact details.

SOURCE  






Shorten to kill 4WD fun: claims PM Morrison

Scott Morrison has accused Bill Shorten of wanting to “end the weekend” by forcing Australians out of 4WDs, as the Opposition Leader sought to clarify his claim that electric vehicles could be charged in eight minutes.

The Prime Minister yesterday pressed his attack on Labor’s electric vehicle policy, declaring Mr Shorten would slash the options available for Australian car buyers, forcing them to “say see you later to the SUV”.

“The cheapest car you can currently buy, as an electric vehicle … including all on-road costs and the rest of it, is about $45,000 to $50,000,” Mr Morrison said in Sydney. “That’s the cheapest car Bill Shorten wants to make available to you to buy in the future, and I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to tow your trailer. It’s not going to tow your boat. It’s not going to get you out to your favourite camping spot with your family.

“Bill Shorten wants to end the weekend when it comes to his policy on electric ­vehicles where you’ve got Australians who love being out there in their four-wheel-drives.’’

But Mr Shorten said yesterday Labor would not dictate to Australians what vehicles they should buy.

“What Labor has said is that by 2030, we would like to see half of new car sales are electric vehicles,” he said.

“That doesn’t mean the government is going to go around in 2030 and confiscate someone’s ute. Let’s skip the scare campaigns.”

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






10 April, 2019

Killing the economy, one industry at a time

Everything is wrong, according to the Green/Left

Like many Melbourne workers, my productivity was diminished yesterday as I couldn’t get past vegan militants making sure Flinders Street had no animal products to hand.

Elsewhere in the country, even wackier Green criminals, as Scott Morrison calls them, were invading the properties of innocent ­cattle farmers, people who actually live close to the land and care deeply for animals.

It all provoked this sombre ­reflection: the provisional wing of the Green-Left army is on the rise in Australian politics and increasingly influencing real-world outcomes. Here’s the rub: if we followed their self-righteous diktats and banned all the industries they have declared immoral, unethical, polluting, carbon-emitting, gender-offensive, identity unsatisfactory or whatever, how on earth would we earn a living?

The Greens, only slightly less militant than the vegan nuts chaining themselves to vehicles in Melbourne or cutting cattle fences in rural Australia, have declared that coal is losing its “social licence” and is on the way out.

But coal is this nation’s biggest export. We have earned nearly $70 billion in export income from coal this year. Our No 2 export, iron ore, can only be used with coal, so it’s apparently on the nose too.

And, of course, according to the Greens, and significant parts of the ALP, we shouldn’t export uranium. Bauxite is no good, as well, because it needs a lot of coal power to turn it into aluminium.

It is perfectly insane that the Morrison government is still dilly dallying over approvals for the Adani coalmine in Queensland. If it is too cowardly even to approve this mine it will surrender to the green madness, but just a little more slowly than the other side of politics.

Now we not only can’t have live cattle exports, apparently the whole of the cattle industry is to be demonised. Just as this same movement destroyed so much good, perfectly sustainable timber industry all over Australia, so now it is going after agricultural industries one by one.

Very often, when the broad front of the Green/vegan/Labor-Left anti-development coalition kills a mine or a rural industry, it tells the locals they can make a living in tourism. But then the same forces turn around and oppose every proposed tourism development.

And let’s not even talk about gas. In much of Australia you can’t even explore for conventional gas, much less coal-seam gas or anything involving fracking. Yet the US has reduced its carbon emissions by moving from coal-fired power stations to gas-fired power stations. So one of our cleanest, greenest and most profitable sources of energy has to stay in the ground because our politics is nuts.

Everyone serious about curbing greenhouse gas emissions understands nuclear energy will take a big share of energy generation in the future. But in Australia we can’t do anything nuclear at all.

Adam Smith remarked that there is a lot of ruin in a nation.

But every amenity which Australians like, and which even the progressives approve of, from Medicare to education to disability insurance schemes to affirmative action for indigenous Australians to computers to hospitals and all the rest, ultimately costs money.

Just where on earth are we going to earn this money if every profitable thing that we do is first attacked, then demonised, then outlawed?

SOURCE  






Outrage as primary school bans students from handing out birthday invitations because it could hurt the feelings of those who miss out

Are kids supposed to think that everyone likes them? A strange life lesson

A bizarre new ban on birthday party invitations being handed out in the playground at a primary school on Sydney's north shore has sparked outrage.

Parents at Mosman Public School now have to send party invitations to their children's classmates via email to avoid anyone not invited from getting upset or offended.

They were also advised by the school via email to discourage their children from discussing planned festivities while at school, The Daily Telegraph reported.

It's understood the school implemented the new ban after a child became upset when they weren't invited to a classmate's party.

'It's going too far, we have to build resilient kids,' one outraged parent told the publication.

'You can't give birthday invitations by paper (at the school), only by email and you must tell your children not to talk about the party.'

Mosman isn't the first school in NSW to impose a bizarre birthday-related ban.

Birthday candles are banned at Seven Hills West Public School in western Sydney, where only small individual cakes are allowed to brought to school to celebrate.

'We welcome small individual cakes or the like if your child wishes to share his/her birthday with the class. Candles ARE NOT permitted and teachers are UNABLE to cut cakes,' a school newsletter from February this year states.

Bardia Public School in Sydney south-west has also banned teachers from cutting cakes.

Birthday cakes have been banned at Wamberal Public School on the Central Coast since 2017.

St Thomas More Catholic Primary School near Campbelltown in Sydney's south-west followed suit earlier this year.

SOURCE  






Forget A Woman Scorned, There's No Fury Like Vegan Fury

Is this rise in militant veganism actually counterproductive to the cause?

The recent terrorism, by what Prime Minister Scott Morrison has dubbed, “green collar criminals,” has set the noble cause of veganism, backwards and only exacerbated its image problem.

Vegan activists have a decent story to tell, but they need a better, less confrontational, way to sell it. Victimising farmers off the back of the worst drought in a century is a dud move, as is, I don’t know, frustrating thousands of Australians by making their Monday morning worse than it needed to be.

As Dr Tyler Paytas, a research fellow in moral philosophy at ACU’s Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry told IMPACT, “Given how pervasive meat-eating is in the culture, and given the strong anti-vegan sentiment that I’ve found both in the United States and here in Australia, I think it's very easy for people to dismiss vegans as crazy, self-righteous social justice warriors that don’t need to be taken seriously.

“I am not someone who endorses this anti-vegan view, but because it’s so prevalent, I think we should be very careful about doing things like occupying restaurants and vandalising butcher shops, things that will make the anti-vegan sentiment even stronger.”

These extreme methods, like harassment, vandalising and intimidation, can’t progress the cause, but only harm it. Yet, when this story gets posted to social media undoubtedly it will be the subject of militant vegan trolling.

I know this from spending years working on a health magazine, where the most vitriol we received was for labelling a recipe vegan, when it in fact, used honey. We copped the kind of outrage typically reserved for murderers and kiddy abusers. Let me remind you, this was for a muffin recipe.

And it’s not just me. My husband who works in corporate social responsibility has been slammed for wearing leather shoes to his office job, by a self-righteous judgey vegan colleague. If you were to label us, we’re flexitarian, only eating meat once a week, yet rather than congratulating us on seeing the plant-based light, the vegan moral hypocrites would rather us choke on our mung bean burger.

But just like the hashtag, #NotAllMen, it’s in moments like these we must remember #NotAllVegans.

As with everything else, there is undeniably a very small minority of holier-than-thou vegans, but the vast majority just want to be left alone to eat their tofu in peace. Vegans are just people. Like carnivores, some suck and some don’t.

In my work reporting on health, I’ve found a lot of good reasons to argue for plant-based eating, including serious data about preventing chronic diseases and slowing the melting of the world. In good news for our health and the planet, Australia has the third-fastest growing vegan population worldwide.

In fact, it’s estimated that more than two million Australians now avoid eating meat, and the figure appears to be rising. While not everyone will join the crusade, create commuter chaos, or storm a farm, surely something is better than nothing? Vegan, carnivore, vegetarian, whatever, can’t we all just eat – and live – in peace?

SOURCE  






Federal government gives green light to new coalmine

The federal environment minister has given the green light to the controversial Adani Carmichael mine’s groundwater plan, taking it a step closer to construction.

But left leaning lobby group GetUp’s climate campaigner Sam Regester is already warning the decision will cost the Government seats.

“Make no mistake, they will feel the backlash,” he said. “This will cost them seats. The Coalition can expect to lose a swath of seats around Australia for their capitulation to a single coal company at the expense of the community.

“We’re talking about a company who has shown a complete inability to follow the law and Scott Morrison has rushed through a dangerous approval maybe just hours before his Government goes into caretaker mode.”

He said GetUp now plans to make an extra 100,000 calls into Health Minister Greg Hunt’s electorate of Flinders and 80,000 calls into Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg’s electorate of Kooyong.

Environment Minister Melissa Price confirmed today she had signed off on the final plan that Adani needs from the Federal Government for its Carmichael mine. Further approvals are needed from the Queensland Government.

She said science agencies CSIRO and Geoscience Australia had confirmed the company’s revised plans met strict scientific requirements.

“Following this independent assessment and the Department of Environment and Energy’s recommendation for approval, I have accepted the scientific advice and therefore approved the groundwater management plans for the Carmichael coal mine and rail Infrastructure project under Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999,” she said in a statement.

The mine still needs approval from the Queensland Government for its groundwaters plans and its black-throated finch management plan.

“To date, only 16 of 25 environmental plans have been finalised or approved by the commonwealth and Queensland governments with a further nine to be finalised,” Ms Price said. “It must meet further stringent conditions of approval from the commonwealth before it can begin producing coal.”

She said the company had accepted a number of actions including better monitoring of the Doongmabulla Springs, tighter corrective action triggers if there are any groundwater impacts and more scientific modelling within two years of the start of mining.

The federal government is not providing any financial support to the mine or to its rail project, she said.

Ms Price’s approval comes as environmental groups warned of legal challenges if the minister was pushed into signing off on the project.

Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Christian Slattery said Australians were right to be deeply sceptical about the process that led to this decision.

Queensland coalition MPs have been agitating for the minister to make her decision before Prime Minister Scott Morrison goes to the polls, expected on May 18.

Mr Morrison told reporters on Tuesday the decision would be made by “ministers listening to scientists, not senators listening to themselves”.

Resources Minister Matt Canavan earlier attended a shed meeting in central Queensland on Tuesday with Dawson MP George Christensen to reiterate the government’s support for coal mining.

“This isn’t just about one project or one mine — the Labor party wants to get rid of all coal mines and all coal mining jobs,” Senator Canavan said in a statement afterwards.

“The Liberal-Nationals coalition government backs Queensland resources workers and Queensland’s coal mining communities.”

Adani’s proposed Carmichael coal mine in Queensland’s Galilee Basin is a contentious project that has sparked mass protests around Australia.

In contrast to Queensland electorates — where many are keen for the jobs the mine is hoped to create — many residents in city areas oppose the mine because of potential impacts to climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, as well as concerns over groundwater use and threatened species.

The Coalition is not the only party split over Adani’s plan, with reports Labor is also divided over the coal mine.

Labor leader Bill Shorten is reportedly sceptical about the mine but has not said he would block it from going ahead.

Environmental groups have previously slammed the mine’s plan, which they say is not properly assessed and puts water resources at risk.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






9 April, 2019

Vegan protests block busy Melbourne intersection, target Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart

Militant vegan protesters have been dragged kicking and screaming from the Melbourne CBD by police in heated scenes.

Melbourne’s busiest intersection has been completely blocked off by vegans conducting a “peaceful” peak-hour protest.

Hundreds of animal activists from all over Victoria gathered at 5.30am outside Flinders St station holding signs and blocking cars and trams from passing through.

Animal rights protesters are slowly being arrested and dragged into police vans after blocking a major Melbourne CBD intersection.

More than 100 activists are chanting “What do we want? Animal liberation — now!” with some sitting on tram tracks near the Flinders-Swanston street intersection.

Protesters are holding signs that say “This is a peaceful protest” and “SOS animal emergency climate emergency”.

One man started jumping up and down before being detained by five police officers.

At the scene, news.com.au saw protesters sitting in a tight circle in the intersection as police officers physically lifted them and carried them away.

Cops arrested one woman in her 40s and another woman aged in her 70s.

A large crowd cheered as the pair were handcuffed and led into the back of a waiting police van.

More than 10 protesters were lifted from the intersection by Victoria Police’s Public Order Response Team. Others, who were not willing to face arrest for their cause, quietly took their signs and walked away.

Four rental vans, covered with signage for a documentary, were parked at all four corners of the intersection before tow trucks were called in to move them.

As the intersection cleared, protesters moved to Melbourne’s Sea Life Aquarium, where they chained themselves together in front of the doors, blocking entry to parents and children on day one of school holidays.

The protests are part of a wave of action that includes activists blocking the entrance to the MC Herd abattoir in Geelong and chaining themselves to a truck in Pakenham, southeast of Melbourne.

Protests are also being planned for Sydney, Brisbane and Hobart, but the exact locations are closely guarded secrets.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison admonished the animal activists as “un-Australian” on 2GB radio this morning.

“It is shameful, it is un-Australian,” he said. “This is just another form of activism that I think runs against the national interest, and the national interest is being able to farm their own land.”

The PM isn’t the only one frustrated. Commuters were turned away from tram stops and told to find alternative options. Traffic was diverted around the CBD.

One man, with a toddler in a pram, confronted the protesters and called them “absolutely pathetic” for blocking the Melbourne CBD.

Angry tradesmen were also seen yelling at the vegans.

Victorian Liberal MP Tim Smith tweeted that the “militant vegans” should be “arrested or moved on”. Then he blamed the Daniel Andrews-led government for watering down laws “for these types of self-indulgent nutters”.

However, vegans on the ground say their aims are “hard to argue with”.

Paediatric neuropsychology doctor Helen Jeges held a sign above her head at this morning’s protest on Flinders St. It read: “I am a doctor. Vegan: 5 years.”

“We want to open people’s eyes to what they’re really paying for,” Dr Jeges told news.com.au.

She said many Aussies weren’t aware that male chicks were killed in farms because they do not lay eggs.

They are killed via a process known as “quick maceration” — where chicks are dropped into a grinding machine alive. The RSPCA considers this the “more humane” option because chicks are killed within a second.

“A lot of people don’t know that if you buy eggs, male chicks are ground up alive. It’s to raise awareness,” Dr Jeges said.

She said the protests had not been met by hostility, but commuters were frustrated this morning when trying to catch trams through the CBD.

“The response has been really great,” Dr Jeges said. “We don’t expect any antagonism. We represent kindness, equality, nonviolence, and so it’s hard to argue against that.”

The activists are trying to bring attention to the documentary Dominion on the one-year anniversary of the film’s release. It shows footage inside Australia’s abattoirs.

Farmers across NSW and Queensland have also been placed on high alert as a number of groups plan to carry out a series of co-ordinated raids, which they say is “the biggest animal rights direct action the world has ever seen”.

In Goulburn, in the NSW Southern Tablelands, nine people were arrested after chaining themselves to a conveyor and refusing to move on, police say.

“Three women refused to walk from the abattoir and had to be carried to the police vehicle,” a police spokesman said.

This morning, police also broke up a protest at a Queensland abattoir.

About 20 animal rights campaigners descended on the Warwick abattoir and chained themselves to equipment before police were called to remove them.

The Queensland Government is increasing powers to stop animal rights protesters invading farms for protests that are putting stress on farmers already struggling after floods and drought.

New laws are being drafted to allow police and agricultural officers to fine vegan activists whose activities risk the lives of farmers, workers and animals, says Mark Furner, Minister for Agricultural Industry Development and Fisheries.

“Everyone has the right to protest, but nobody has the right to break the law,” Mr Furner said in a statement yesterday.

Queensland farmers deserved respect and needed to be protected, he said.

“Many of our farmers are already under great stress following years of drought and more recently the floods, and we are standing side-by-side with them,” Mr Furner said.

SOURCE  






Family-friendly goat café is forced to close its doors after it's subjected to 'four months' worth of constant harassment, vile statements and threats from abusive vegan activists'

The Left have found a new excuse to harass ordinary people

A family-owned cafe has been forced to close its doors and leave staff jobless after they were relentlessly abused by vegan animal activists for months on end.

The Gippy Goat Café in the small Victorian town of Yarragon, about 110km south-east of Melbourne, closed its doors for the final time on Sunday, claiming they could no longer stand the abuse.

Owners John and Penny Gommans said they have been targeted for months.

They claim tensions have only gotten worse since activists broke into their farm and stole three goats last December.

'For the sake of our health and safety and that of our families and staff we feel that [closing] is regrettably the best option,' they said in a statement on Sunday.

'Our staff and customers have been subjected to nearly four months of constant harassment, vile statements and threats from the abusive vegan activists.

'We have personally been subjected to an appalling stream of threats of extreme violence against ourselves, our family, our staff and even their families.

'Our staff have been subjected to daily threats and harassment by phone, and we cannot in good conscience ask them to continue working under such a condition.'

The cafe offered a full menu and encouraged customers to feed the on-site goats and watch them get milked.

They prided themselves on being a local, family-friendly venue with a great relationship with many of their patrons.

Those patrons have expressed outrage over Mr and Mrs Gommans' experience. Many described the activists involved - who have not been named - as 'utterly disgusting'.

'For a business to feel like they must close their doors because of harassment is unacceptable. This is where our police and justice system needs a review.'

The couple also noted their business' name had been dragged through the mud by the same activists, who falsified negative reviews on Facebook.

'The courts have proven to be ineffectual, the enforcement agencies declined to prosecute to the full extent, so, to the thieves, trespassers and activists; you have won,' they said.

Meanwhile, the Queensland government has recently announced they will be implementing a crackdown against activists of this nature.

Police and agricultural officers will be entitled to hand out 'hefty fines' to offenders who are caught.

Deputy Opposition Leader Tim Mander went a step further, stating they should be jailed, The Courier Mail reported. 

'These are well-organised, well-funded animal extremists who will stop at nothing to get their way,' Mr Mander said. 'These people need to be fined heavily if they break the law and they need to face the risk of jail as well.'     

'Please know that your ignorant indignation, lust for outrage and the false reality you inhabit through your social media streams will prevent you from effecting any positive societal change - only harm to real human beings - and you only have yourselves to thank.'

Nationals MP for the Eastern Victoria Region Melina Bath said she would 'fight in parliament to stop this atrocious behaviour.  

'Good people, innocent people working lawfully targeted in such a way is totally unacceptable and unAustralian. 'I and my Nationals colleges will work to strengthen penalties, create real deterrents and stop this type of harassment.'

SOURCE  






Coal mine protesters have stormed the stage while Prime Minister Scott Morrison addressed the Valley Chamber of Commerce in Brisbane today, before another group stood up chanting as he tried to continue

The usual Leftist authoritarianism.  They are Stalin's kin

TWO Adani protesters have stormed the stage while Prime Minister Scott Morrison addressed the Valley Chamber of Commerce in Brisbane today.

Mr Morrison began his speech asking “how good is Trevor Evans?” when a protester ran onto the stage holding a “stop Adani” poster.

Security removed the woman and the Prime Minister tried to continue his speech but was interrupted by a second protester also storming the stage.

Mr Morrison laughed off the incident, asking if there were any contestants for round three.

A third protester stood up in the crowd saying the Prime Minister was forgetting about climate change.

Mr Morrison said he “would get to climate change” before the man was escorted out by security.

A fourth group stood up, this time chanting, before also being escorted out.

The protests followed the entire lockdown of the building after Adani protesters gathered outside the building, chanting against the Government.

It comes after the PM blasted vegan activists as “green-collared criminals” for targeting farmers and causing traffic chaos today.

A farm in Queensland’s Darling Downs was one of several properties targeted, while in Melbourne nearly 40 activists were arrested.

PRIME Minister Scott Morrison has reignited his election campaign in southeast Queensland today, saying Opposition Leader Bill Shorten “doesn’t get how Australians like to live” and has slammed Labor’s plans to increase electric vehicles.

Visiting GCI Group, a laser cutting service at Yatala, Mr Morrison said Shorten was taking away the choices of the nation’s people.

“Bill Shorten is not going to give people a choice in the future — electric vehicles currently make 0.2 per cent of the vehicle market in Australia and he wants to take it to 50 per cent but it’s not just that, it’s also the carbon emissions per kilometre that he’s imposing on the economy,” he said.

“What Bill Shorten wants to corral people into as part of his plan is out of the sort of lifestyle that are supported by the vehicles that people are currently buying.

“So I think it just shows he doesn’t get how Australians like to live. We’re leaving the choice in the hands of Australians — Bill Shorten wants to take that choice away.”

Regarding Adani, the Prime Minister said the Government would be taking advice from scientists.

“We’re taking the advice from scientists like we have on all the approvals of both the state and commonwealth … we’re following the normal administrative process on that … I don’t think there is anything particularly unique about these remaining matters — they’re quite minor matters,” he said.

“In the scheme of the broader approvals that have already been provided, and like in all the other cases, we will be relying on the scientific evidence that is provided to the Government when making that decision.”

Mr Morrison made no confirmation of the election date and simply said it would be in May.

SOURCE  






'Why is mum portrayed as weak?' Westpac is slammed for its 'sexist' ad featuring a 'struggling' single mother

A Westpac advertising campaign has come under fire by online critics who have labelled it sexist for its portrayal of a family in the midst of separation.

The ad, which was released last month as part of the company's 'help' series, is intended to advertise a source of support for families going through a split.

The commercial features a storyline from the point of view of a young boy as his parents go through a divorce.

The video shows the mother, a black woman, struggling with her separation looking downcast and relying on her son for support.

The young boy is seen being protective of his mum, helping her out with household duties, reading her a bedtime story, and at one point even shading her from the sun at the beach. 

The tune of the advert changes, however, when the boy's father comes into the picture and he is seen as the supportive figure for his son, reassuring him.

The seemingly poignant ad then concludes with a line from Westpac saying: 'If you're separating, there's help.' 

But critics have claimed the message behind the ad is sexist by portraying the mum as helpless while also 'reinforcing' negative stereotyping of black families.  

'Why does the ad show the little boy taking care of his mother - putting up fairy lights for her, shading her on the beach, catching a spider for her (he becomes 'the man of the house') - but the little boy doesn't have to look after the dad. Shameful stereotyping. This ad rates F for FAIL,' one user said in a Facebook comment.

The comment was met with support from another user who replied: 'Absolutely agree with what you've just said. Why is the mother portrayed as weak, requiring the son to care for her yet the father is portrayed as the carer. Fail Westpac Fail.'

SOURCE  





Bush schools are increasing in Australia and teachers say they're achieving amazing results

Intensive programs like this need a high degree of teacher committment, which is not always available.  So it is makes sense  that committed Christians like the Adventists are doing it

Each week, students at a small regional school on the New South Wales mid-north coast spend a day in the bush, exploring, experimenting, creating and getting dirty.

Some Australian primary schools are now full bush schools, where children spent the majority of their time learning outdoors
Among those who get to create games around the gum trees is nine-year-old student Chelsey.

"I like that we don't have to do work on a piece of paper and we can just explore nature," she said.

The students are part of a new bush school program at the Manning Adventist School, outside Taree, one of the latest Australian schools to embrace outdoor learning.

The concept has its origins in Europe where 'forest schools' have been popular for decades.

Manning Adventist School teacher Dianne Hillsdon has obtained a UK Forest School teaching accreditation and leads the program.

"Because children these days are stuck inside a classroom for a long time they are fairly inactive," she said. "We come out here not only to give them physical activity but to teach them things like resilience, to develop confidence.

"They get to exercise choice, they get to exercise freedom. A lot of them play in the mud which they've never done before. "We have a group of boys interested in geology at the moment so they are finding rocks to dig around in, so it's very child-directed. "The children lead us and tell us what things they're interested in and then we support their learning."

Eleven-year-old student Tasman said he loved bush school. "I love that everyone gets to be free about what they choose — whether it's mud kitchen, base camp, going on bush walks or walking on a tight rope," he said.

'Anxiety of being in the classroom vanishes'

Ms Hillsdon said even just one day a week in the bush was resulting in positive changes in the students. "General wellbeing has improved. They are more calm in class. They listen better, and I have seen academics improve as the result of just one day a week in the bush," she said.

Before relocating to the Manning, Ms Hillsdon successfully implemented a bush school program at a Melbourne school. "Parents just came to me and said 'whatever you are doing with our children, please keep doing it, because they are just amazing at home'.  "It's about looking after the whole child."

Ms Hillsdon said there had also been a noticeable drop in children's anxiety. "Children these days tend to have a higher level of anxiety than probably they've ever had before, so getting children out of the classroom situation is important," she said.

"Sometimes I've seen children who choose not to speak when they come into the classroom, but I bring them into the outdoors and all of the sudden they find their voice. "So obviously the anxiety of being in the classroom vanishes when they come into the outdoors."

Full bush schools offer alternative to mainstream

Elsewhere in Australia, some primary schools have taken the outdoor learning model a step further by becoming full bush schools, where students spend the majority of their time learning outdoors every day.

They are also reporting positive changes in their students and strong demand for places.

In South Australia, the Upper Sturt Primary has steadily grown since it started as a full bush school in 2014.

Principal Barbara Jones said it was the first school of its kind in Australia and has steadily grown as parents looked for alternatives to mainstream schooling.

"Our school just grew. Six years ago we had 27 students. We have 120 children now and about 50 per cent of our children come from outside the local area," she said. "We wanted children to be in a learning environment that was about children.

"We have found enormous benefit from the children being outside and learning outside and having unstructured time for play … and by allowing children to experiment and use natural things to answer their wonderings. "We've adapted our curriculum to be nature based because that's the children's world. It's so obvious and tangible to them.

"So if we are learning about the wind we can incorporate our maths and writing and science experiments. All those things associated with the wind. And it's just so easy for the children to understand and engage."

Ms Jones said she has also noticed how much nature had helped calm the children. "Children today are often highly anxious because their lives are fairly well structured," she said. "For some, [it's] from the time they wake up in the morning until they go to bed.

"So we were noticing high levels of anxiety among children, and the first thing we noticed when we went outside was how they relaxed and became calm."

On the NSW mid-north coast, Nature School Primary in Port Macquarie is also a full bush school which offers places for kindergarten to year 3, with plans to add a grade level each year.

2018 was the school's first year and head teacher Catherine Oehlman said students achieved beyond their years.

"It hasn't been a question of 'have children learned enough?', it's 'look at all the things they've learned beyond what we expected, beyond the curriculum expectations for their age'," she said.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






8 April, 2019

Telling the truth about Aboriginal family dysfunction is still under attack

The Left have been trying everything to get at Channel 7.  This feeble claim is their latest attempt

Seven West Media is being sued over a controversial segment on its Sunrise breakfast program which aired last year.

In March 2018 Sunrise broadcast a segment on non-Indigenous families caring for Aboriginal children who have been subjected or exposed to abuse, reports the ABC.

Residents from the small Aboriginal community Yirrkala, approximately 700 kilometres east of Darwin, have filed a lawsuit alleging the program defamed 15 applicants by broadcasting slightly blurred background footage of them during the panel discussion.

Lawyer Peter O’Brien said even though a blurring filter had been used, the adults and children were still easily identifiable.

“Our clients are extremely unhappy with being recklessly depicted in such a negative manner,’ said Mr O’Brien, principal solicitor of O’Brien Criminal and Civil Solicitors.

“The plaintiffs assert that the segment about child sexual abuse and the forced removal of children while showing identifiable images of innocent people is defamatory.”

The footage was originally shot with the resident’s permission who understood it was to illustrate a story on a positive health initiative in the small community.

The controversial chat on Channel 7 breakfast show, which was later found to have breached the commercial television industry code of practice, came after children’s minister David Gillespie’s proposal white families should be able to adopt indigenous children to save them from rape, assault and neglect.

Sunrise host Samantha Armytage introduced the segment by saying: “Post-Stolen Generation, there’s been a huge move to leave Aboriginal children where they are, even if they’re being neglected in their own families, wrongly claiming indigenous children could not be fostered by white families.

The segment sparked a massive protest in Martin Place which provides the backdrop for the morning show. But as the crowd grew, producers went to great lengths to hide it from their audience, closing soundproof blinds in the studio and broadcasting stock exterior footage behind the hosts.

In a statement, Mr O’Brien’s law firm said it will be argued in the Federal Court that the context of the commentary resulted in defamatory imputations that the people featured in the footage had been abused, assaulted or neglected children.

“The plaintiffs are Leftist lawyers Aboriginal people from a remote part of Australia, they should not be depicted in this manner in the context of this program, just because they are Aboriginal,” said Mr O’Brien in the statement.

SOURCE  







University cheats in Australia face jail and huge fines

Cheats who take exams or write essays on behalf of university students could be jailed for two years if the Morrison government wins the next election.

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan is also threatening university cheats with fines of up to $210,000.

Mr Tehan does not want hardworking students to have to compete with swindlers and frauds. "It's simply not good enough," he told reporters in Canberra on Sunday.

"It's not fair for those students who are doing the hard yards, for those students who are doing all the work, for those students who put hours into studying."

The minister is especially wary of highly sophisticated cheating services based offshore.

"If you're a cheating service, understand now you are going to face the full force of the law if you provide those services to students here in Australia," he said.

"For those services based overseas, we are going to use blocking to make sure that they cannot provide those services.

"For those who are here and operating in Australia, understand that we will come after you."

SOURCE  







`Shock, concern' at new laws

Australian media and technology companies say they are shocked and concerned by the federal parliament's bipartisan backing for rushed new laws preventing violent footage appearing on social media platforms.

NewsMediaWorks chief executive, Peter Miller, told The Australian he was very surprised by the "risky" decision to pass the legislation, when the government had been advised by a number of media businesses to "take a deep breath".

"There was so much coverage in the press this morning saying settle down, and they haven't done so. It seems very risky. We'll be talking to our members to understand their position," Mr Miller said.

NewsMediaWorks is the industry body for news publishers, News Corp, Nine and Seven West Media.

The legislation has united small and large publishers in opposition after they were caught up in regulation aimed at the tech titans such as Facebook and Google that live streamed and enabled sharing of footage of the Christchurch massacre with a global audience.

This morning the Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material bill passed through the House of Representatives with the support of Labor, despite the opposition's legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus noting eight issues with the legislation. The Bill passed the Senate on Wednesday evening.

Free TV chief executive Bridget Fair, who represents commercial free-to-air television broadcasters, said the body remained concerned with the news legislation.

"We would welcome an opportunity to work with the Government to consider these issues in more detail," Ms Fair said.

"There is a fundamental difference between reporting the news and the streaming of unedited live terrorist footage with no editorial decision making process. FreeTV does not believe that criminal sanctions are an appropriate mechanism in relation to public interest news reports by legitimate Australian news providers."

"While we support the intention of the legislation and welcome the Government's measures to limit the exposure of news reporting, we remain concerned by any attempt to criminalise public interest journalism which serves an important role in a healthy democracy," a Nine spokeswoman added.

Chris Wirasinha, co-founder of Pedestrian Group, which runs Pedestrian TV, Business Insider and Gizmodo, said while the move to legislation was a step in the right direction, the rushed approach raised strong concerns.

"The ability for news organisations to publish often difficult or challenging material in the public interest is an important part of the news media's role in society. This effect will be felt particularly strongly by journalists from smaller and independent organisations without access to legal teams," Mr Wirasinha said.

SOURCE  




         

Second interim report on freedom of religion or belief in Australia

Australia’s laws must change to align with international conventions

The report was tabled today by Chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Kevin Andrews.

Mr Andrews says the report makes two recommendations as to how Australia can strengthen its commitment to protecting the human right of all citizens to freely practice their faith, follow the belief system they choose, or choose to have no beliefs at all.

“The right of individuals to believe in, and a society’s tolerance towards, differing religions or beliefs is a fundamental component of any healthy democracy,” Mr Andrews said.

“Striking the balance between these human rights and giving everyone the opportunity to pursue their faith whilst respecting the human rights of others in society is not an easy task for societies to accommodate, but the importance of doing so is self-evident.”

The report recommends that Australian law be reformed to fully align with Articles 18 of both Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights and  recommends that the states, territories and Commonwealth governments work together to achieve this.

Mr Kevin Andrews MP (Menzies, Victoria), Chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Contact: Cristy Elliott on (03) 9848 9900 or mobile: 0422 291 454.

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






7 April, 2019

Tasmania set to be first in Australia to allow birth certificate gender change

Your birth certificate should surely record what you were born as.  What happens later should be a separate matter

Tasmania is poised to become the first Australian jurisdiction to make gender optional on birth certificates after landmark legislation passed an upper-house milestone.

Amendments to the controversial bill were finalised after a marathon three-day debate concluded on Thursday night.

The legislation allows 16-year-olds to change their registered gender via a statutory declaration without permission of their parents.

It also removes the requirement for transgender people to have sexual reassignment surgery in order to have their new gender recognised. The reforms were attached to legislation bringing Tasmania into line with national same-sex laws.

“I congratulate those upper-house members who put people before politics and who stood up for equality and inclusion,” Tasmanian transgender rights activist Martine Delaney said.

“When historians come to write about how Tasmania adopted the best transgender laws in the nation, and the world, they will say the quietest voices spoke the loudest.” The legislation won’t become law until a third reading in the upper house next week.

The bill will then return to Tasmania’s lower house for the final tick of approval.

The reforms, brought forward by the state’s Labor opposition and Greens, passed the lower house late last year when rogue Liberal Speaker Sue Hickey crossed the floor.

The state government has labelled the legislation “deeply flawed” and lacking in consultation.

“(We) have strong concerns about the unintended legal consequences of the amendments,” Liberal MLC (Member of Legislative Council) Leonie Hiscutt said.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison last year labelled the push to remove gender from birth certificates as “ridiculous”, while the Australian Christian Lobby has said the removal of gender on birth certificates was ignoring biological truths.

SOURCE  





‘Phallic’ slur on teaching methods by two Australian feminists

They are so full of hate

A row has erupted in education circles over a push for rigorous scientific research to inform classroom teaching practices, after a prominent education academic described it as a “masculinist fantasy” that would create a workforce of “phallic teachers” obsessed with “data, tools and … probes”.

Lucinda McKnight, who educates trainee teachers at Melbourne’s Deakin University, has called for “an urgent halt to the imposition of evidence-based education”, arguing that “pretending teachers are doctors … leaves students consigned to boring, standardised and ineffective cookbook teaching”.

The extraordinary claim, which follows bipartisan political support for the establishment of an independent national evidence institute to evaluate best practice in Australian schools, has provoked a swift backlash. Academics and teachers described it as “deeply flawed”, “bizarre” and “insulting”.

In an article on the Australian Association for Research in Education website, Dr McKnight and her co-author, Monash University academic and doctor Andy Morgan, takes aim at the push for education to embrace randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which are used in medicine to test the efficacy of a new drug or health intervention.

According to the article, encouraging teachers to be like doctors seems like a good idea but is “problematic” and ignores the fact evidence-based medicine is itself in “crisis”.

“Teaching is a feminised profession, with a much lower status than medicine,” the authors wrote. “It is easy for science to exert a masculinist authority over teachers, who are required to be ever more scientific to seem professional.

“They are called on to be phallic teachers, using data, tools, tests, rubrics, standards, benchmarks, probes and scientific trials, rather than ‘soft’ skills of listening, empathising, reflecting and sharing.” The article, based on a paper in the latest Journal of Education Policy, has been shared widely on social media and has sparked robust debate.

Pamela Snow, an expert in language and literacy at La Trobe University, described as “insulting” the assumption that “poor feeble women … would not be able to cope with the rigours of science’s analytic tools”.

“There is no connection ­between genitalia and the tools of scientific inquiry,” she said.

Dr Snow said teachers had an obligation to be aware of the latest research studies. “No one is pretending teachers are doctors but if they want to be afforded at least some professional autonomy then they have to accept professional accountability.”

Teacher and education blogger Greg Ashman, who has published a book about evidence-informed teaching practice, said the authors had taken legitimate criticism to launch an attack on the “entire concerto of evidence-based education”.

“Clearly, not all evidence is equal. Some randomised controlled trials are better than others. Some correlational studies are better than others,” he said.

“As teachers, it is time to build the expertise to evaluate these claims ourselves.”

Dr McKnight declined to speak to The Weekend Australian. On social media she claimed she had been “misrepresented”.

“I would like to emphasise that we are calling for scrutiny, not for ­rejecting scientific evidence.”

Dr Morgan said the medical industry had learned hard lessons about the application of evidence, including that an approach proven effective in a large population group might still be unsuitable for a particular patient, that should be heeded by educators.

SOURCE  






Sex offenders, armed robbers and a murderer are among more than 30 foreign-born criminals allowed to stay in Australia after their visa cancellations are overturned

More than 30 criminals ranging from a wife murderer and sex offenders to armed robbers and drug traffickers have been allowed to stay in Australia, despite having their visas cancelled.

Over the last 10 months, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) has overturned 34 decisions made by delegates for the Home Affairs and Immigration ministers involving serious offenders.

Most were facing deportation but were then given a lifeline by the AAT to stay in the country.

Of the new cases — 16 of the criminals live in Melbourne, another 16 reside in Sydney, The Herald Sun reported.

Perth and Adelaide are each home to one convicted offender. 

Among those given the green light, are Kenyan-born killer Paul Jason Margach, who was jailed after he repeatedly stabbed his wife Tina in front of one of their young children at their Melbourne home in 2004.

Convicted African-born sex offender Malipo Muyobe also had his visa cancellation overruled, as did an unnamed Chinese triad organised crime gang member jailed for 13 years for trafficking a commercial quality of ecstasy and possession of ice. 

Mauritian stalker Jean Marie Amoorthum, who was convicted of stalking and threatening a young female with a knife, also had his cancellation overturned.

Statistics from AAT's latest annual report show that the tribunal only affirmed 35 per cent, or 4,432, of the migration visa decisions made by ministerial delegates in 2017-18.

The latest cases are on top of 164 criminals saved from deportation by the Administrative Appeals ­Tribunal between 2010 and 2018.

Out of the previous cases, eight were convicted of murder, 23 were found guilty of armed robbery, 33 were drug dealers, 17 were rapists and eight were convicted of murder.

Last April's revelations prompted Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton to request a Joint Standing Committee on Migration to inquire and report on the AAT review processes regarding visa cancellations made on criminal grounds.

The committee's findings aimed at making it more difficult for the AAT to save criminals from deportation are now being examined by the federal government. 'I have made my concerns about the outcomes of some AAT reviews very clear in the past,' Mr Dutton told the Herald Sun in February.

Immigration Minister David Coleman reiterated he has no tolerance for those who put Australians in danger. 'Non-citizens who commit abhorrent crimes should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia,' Mr Coleman said on Wednesday night. 'The safety of Australian's must always come first.'

SOURCE  







Almost 30 per cent of Australia's population was born overseas – with the majority of migrants hailing from the UK and China

Nearly one third of all Australians were born overseas, according to new data released on Wednesday.

More than 7 million Australians, nearly 30 per cent of the total population, are foreign-born, with the majority originating from the United Kingdom and China. 

The figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics reveal key insights into the make-up of the Australian population, which reached the 25 million mark in August 2018.

Almost one million migrants, or 4 per cent of the population, hail from the UK.

Trailing behind is China, with more than 650,000 migrants living in Australia.

India is a close third with more than 590,000 people, or a sunburnt 2.4 per cent of the nation calling the sunburnt country home. 

However, the number of British migrants has dropped from more than one million in 2014 to 992,000, he said. 

'Australia's multicultural society is made up of migrants born in every country around the world,' he said.

'Although almost 18 million Australians were born here, our society is continuing to become more culturally diverse over time.'

From June 2017 until June 2018, more than 520,000 people moved to Australia, while almost 290,000 people left to live overseas.

Roughly 62 per cent of those who arrived here during that time frame were temporary visa holders, 30 per cent of which were international students.

Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia CEO, Mohammad Al-Khafaji, told SBS News the 'figures run counter to the narrative of far-right anti-immigration groups and commentators who are highly critical of immigration from Asia and the Middle East.'

'In fact, Middle Eastern nations don't even figure in the top 10 countries of origin.'

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here







5 April, 2019

Couples with kids top budget tax winners

Since they are bringing up future taxpayers, they deserve it

Australian couples with children earning mid-range or high incomes would be the biggest winners from tax changes in the latest federal budget.

Five metropolitan electorates based in Sydney will also receive the greatest overall benefit when the staged reforms are complete.

The findings come from the University of Canberra’s National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM).

Under its analysis, a single person with a mid-range income would have an extra $405 in disposable income in 2019, $413 more in 2022 and $505 extra in 2024. A couple with children, in the same income bracket, would have $513 more in disposable cash in 2019, $650 in 2022 and $1714 in 2024.

The highest-earning couples with children would have $4573 extra to spend each year by 2024.

Men are broadly set to get more benefit from the tax relief than women. By age group, Australians aged between 26 and 35 and set to be the biggest beneficiaries.

A man in that age group will have $245 in extra disposable income per year once the 2019 changes kick in, while a woman will have $213.

For people aged 65 or older, that benefit drops down to $83 for men and $81 for women.

By 2024, the electorates set to benefit most from the changes will be Wentworth, North Sydney, Warringah, Sydney and Grayndler — all in metropolitan Sydney. Those to benefit least would be Spence in Adelaide’s outer north, Hinkler in Queensland, Page and Lyne in NSW and Lyons in Tasmania.

Ultimately, the tax and transfer measures in the budget will lead to a 0.2 per cent drop in Australia’s poverty rate, NATSEM has found. But it says a $75 a week increase to Newstart would reduce poverty by 0.8 per cent.

In Treasurer Josh Frydenberg’s first budget, released on Tuesday, the government has promised to more than double a tax offset for Australians earning up to $126,000. They say that means a single-income family will keep an extra $1000 from tax time this year.

The government also wants to lower the 32.5 per cent tax rate to 30 per cent from mid-2024.

SOURCE  






Shorten’s magic pudding on tax and surplus

Bill Shorten will promise to extend personal tax cuts to three million more low-­income workers, pledge bigger budget surpluses and chart a course to end government debt, in a bid to neutralise Scott Morrison’s key election strategy painting Labor as an economic wrecking ball.

The leaders faced off yesterday in an aggressive precursor to a pitched electoral battle to win the hearts and minds of middle Australia. With an election expected to be called within days, the Opposition Leader faces a Coalition ­attack depicting Labor’s election platform as a socialist redistribution of wealth that would burden the economy with $200 billion in new taxes.

In a pre-emptive strike ahead of Mr Shorten’s budget reply speech tonight, Josh Frydenberg will today unveil a 16-page brochure ­titled Labor’s Tax Bill. It targets the so-called “retiree tax”, crackdowns on negative gearing, capital gains tax and discretionary trusts, Labor’s “electricity tax” and higher income taxes. “Bill Shorten poses the greatest risk to Australia’s economy in a generation. Labor would put at risk Australia’s 27 years of consec­utive economic growth,” the Treasurer said.

The heightening of the political contest comes as Labor staffers make plans to move to the party’s campaign headquarters in Sydney’s Parramatta this weekend. The Coalition is also setting up its federal campaign headquarters, with 130 staff at a base in Brisbane.

Putting essential services at the centre of his budget-in-reply speech tonight, Mr Shorten will launch a campaign to shift the battle­lines to a fight over universal healthcare.

Labor is also poised to revive the Medicare scare campaign that almost won it the 2016 election on the back of false claims that the Liberal Party planned to privatise the ­national health scheme.

He will also seek to up the ante in the contest over competing ­income tax plans following Mr Frydenberg’s unveiling of a $302bn tax cut agenda in Tuesday’s budget.

With both major parties poised to move swiftly to a campaign footing over the weekend — with the expectation that a May 11 or May 18 poll will be called as early as Sunday — the Labor leader will offer to match the government’s income tax plans for about 10 million people.

But he will also go further and announce deeper cuts for workers on less than $40,000. Labor says there are about 2.9 million taxpayers earning less than $40,000 and 57 per cent of them are women, including part-time working mums.

Mr Shorten argues that a retail worker on $35,000 a year would get a tax cut of $255 a year under the Liberal plan, but $350 under Labor’s original plan. “Make no mistake, this is a Liberal Party tax on working mums,” he said.

“Families are already dealing with cuts to childcare and no funding certainty for kindergarten under the Liberals, the last thing they need is higher taxes under the Liberals. Whether it’s lower taxes, better super or universal preschool, Labor is the party for working mums and working families.”

Mr Frydenberg rejected the claim that the government had left behind low-income earners. He also moved to counter a Labor scare campaign on health, pledging­ that a re-elected Morrison government would “continue to guarantee Medicare”.

Ahead of Mr Shorten’s speech today, Mr Frydenberg said Australians faced a “very clear choice at this election, a choice between Bill Shorten and his $200bn of higher taxes or the Morrison government and our lower taxes”.

“Bill Shorten will talk a big game, but he can’t deliver it. He will give with one hand, and take with the other,” he said.

Speaking to the National Press Club in Canberra yesterday, Mr Frydenberg pointed to the second element of the government’s plan to introduce a flatter tax rate of 30 per cent for those earning ­between $45,000 and $200,000 from July 1, 2024.

“That’s going to create a fairer, simpler tax system,” he said. “And the people at the lower end of the income scale will actually get a higher proportion of their tax bill reduced as a result of the policies that we have put in place.”

He also said that Labor had not supported the government’s legislation — which passed last year — abolishing the 37 per cent tax rate and implementing a flat rate of 32.5 per cent for those earning between­ $41,000 and $200,000 from July 2024.

This week’s budget has further reduced that 32.5 per cent rate to a 30 per cent rate, with Mr Frydenberg saying the system would remain highly progressive, with the top 5 per cent of taxpayers paying a third of all income tax collected.

“Labor talks the big game when it comes to taxes but they deliver very little because, in fact, they are … giving with one hand and taking with the other,” he said.

He also set up the election as a contest over trust on economic management, with the government yesterday framing its budget pitch around the key themes of tax cuts, service delivery and surpluses. Mr Frydenberg used his address­ to home in on essential services in a bid to challenge Labor in its traditional areas of strength, including on health and education, and pitch the Coalition’s policy agenda in a more compassionate light.

Mr Frydenberg said the listing of more than 2000 new drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, at a cost of more than $10bn, was one of the government’s “proudest achievements”, and talked up $730m flowing through to mental health to address­ suicide rates.

Labor also sought to make mileage out of a post-budget decis­ion made by Mr Frydenberg, Mr Morrison and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann to extend a one-off energy payment to people on the dole, adding one million people and $80m to the measure.

Initially only applying to people­ on the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, single-parent payment and a range of veterans’ allowances, the legislation now includes an additional 11 payment categories.

More than 720,000 people on the Newstart Allowance and almos­t 300,000 on other payments will receive the one-off $75 payment for singles and $125 for couples, with Labor Treasury spokesman Chris Bowen saying the last-minute change was “just chaotic”. “It just shows that this government doesn’t get it and that vulnerable Australians are an afterthoug­ht,” he said.

SOURCE  






`Incapable of telling the truth'

Bill Shorten opens up the last Question Time of the 45th parliament asking about "cuts" to schools and hospitals in the budget, and why Malcolm Turnbull is not prime minister.

Scott Morrison responds that the Opposition Leader is "incapable of telling the truth."

"Under our government over the last five years, funding from the Commonwealth for hospitals has increased by 63.2 per cent," the Prime Minister says.

"Under our government, when it comes to public schools, it's state schools, those funding over the last five years, that funding is up by 62 per cent.

"So the Labor Party, they will go to the Australian people and they won't tell them the truth, Mr Speaker, about what the Government has done, but I tell you what they will do - they'll tax Australians and they'll tax them hard."

SOURCE  






Feeble defence is still our nation’s shame

GREG SHERIDAN points out that nearly all of our new defence equipment is pie in the sky

Once again we have embarked on a federal budget and an election campaign without the single most important issue — the defence of Australia — playing the slightest role. Speaking technically, that’s completely nuts.

But every element in our strategic circumstances is getting worse, yet we are doing effectively nothing to produce a defence force that might deter our enemies, bolster our friends and defend our nation.

How can this be, with $50 billion for 12 new submarines, $38bn for nine new frigates and $17bn for 72 Joint Strike Fighters?

All of these programs are going to take so long to deliver that we will have passed through the strategic challenge of our time before they arrive. Also, a lot of the money is fictional in that it exists only as a concept long beyond the forward estimates. Nothing is easier for a government to cut than defence money beyond the forward estimates.

On budget night my email inbox, like that of all journalists, pinged relentlessly like a sonar in a nest of enemy ships, with endless emails demanding more social spending. Left-handed hockey trainers beyond the Blue Mountains — neglected in the budget! Inner-city Esperanto therapy — shamelessly ignored!

Most of the causes were worthy but, while we are very wealthy, we are paying ourselves more than we can afford and promising ourselves more than we can deliver, and neglecting basic defence. Our defence strategy is still simply to rely on the Americans.

Our boutique forces are not designed to generate war-fighting capability or any independent strategic effect.

They are designed to slide into the US order of battle in the hope that in return the Americans will always look after us.

Our forces are too small and will be delivered too late. I have written about the new submarines before, but it’s worth recapping the dereliction they represent.

The 2009 defence white paper identified the urgent national priority to double our submarine fleet from six to 12 and make sure these were regionally superior, long-range submarines.

Both governments then made an absolute mess of the project.

The Abbott government announced we would get the first replacement subs by the mid-2020s. That has now slipped a decade and the first of the new subs, if everything goes according to plan, will be fully deployable by 2034 or 2035, according to Defence planning. If we get a new one every two years after that we get our full fleet by 2057. This could conceivably happen a bit earlier or a bit later.

For the sake of rounding, say we get our full fleet by 2059. That means we identified an urgent national priority in 2009 and took about 50 years to address it — 10 years longer than the time from the start of World War I to the end of World War II.

That is not a sign of a nation that takes its own security remotely seriously.

The poor old Collins will be serving antiques, living museums, relics of a bygone era before they are all replaced. And 12 are not enough anyway.

When the Russians rudely and somewhat bizarrely sent a warship to sit menacingly off the Brisbane coast during the G20 meeting we hosted there in 2014, we couldn’t even send a single submarine to shadow it.

They were all — or those of them that were serviceable at the time — on the other side of Australia. If only the Russians had done the polite thing and given us proper advance notice.

A more realistic number for subs would be 18, with nine based on one side of the continent and nine on the other.

The second biggest defence project is the new anti-submarine warfare frigates, a $38bn commitment. We are increasing from eight to nine, though the new frigates will be much bigger and more powerful than the old. This is part of our recognition of our advancing maritime challenge.

So when do we get all nine? Not before 2042-43. We don’t get the first one until 2030. If everything goes to schedule, a huge if, we will be able to retire the last Anzac frigate and replace it after the Anzac has been in service 36 years. And the frigates, though simpler than the subs, will have huge complexities associated with them.

As usual, we chose a design that does not yet exist in a physical ship. BAE, the company involved, makes very good ships and will do a good job for us. But it will only just have built the first of its new design when it is building the first of ours.

As defence analyst Marcus Hellyer has pointed out, our ships will use a different helicopter, different weapons, different radar, a different combat management system. Any chance of a time slippage do you think?

The most on time of the big projects is the 72 Joint Strike Fighter F-35s we are buying. Despite the nonsense you’ll read here and there, these are superb planes and will be regionally superior.

Their delivery date has already slipped a great deal but theoretically, if everything goes right from here, we get all 72 by 2023.

That’s more or less the good news. The JSFs are meant to replace the Hornets, the Super Hornets and the Growlers. But ask yourself this — can we really defend and secure in all circumstances an area the size of the continental US with 70-odd aircraft?

After six years of Coalition government, defence spending, including all operations and the Signals Directorate, comes in at 1.9 per cent of GDP. Defence preparedness is the best way to promote peace. We are not a serious nation. Let’s hope the Americans never tire of defending us.

SOURCE  







Principals at some of Australia's most exclusive private schools are paid MORE than the prime minister - with some earning well over half a million dollars a year

The lucrative salaries of principals at Australia's elite private schools have been revealed - with some earning more than the prime minister.

Financial reports of eight top Queensland schools were tabled in the state parliament on Monday, showing parents were paying tens of millions of dollars in fees for their children.

Toowoomba Grammar School headmaster Peter Hauser topped the list in Queensland, making $537,000 in 2018 - a pay rise of $34,000 compared to the previous year.

Mr Hauser's salary pales in comparison to that of some principals in other states.

Former Kambala Girls High School principal Debra Kelliher was earning $650,000 per year before she resigned in 2017, the ABC reported. The school, at Rose Bay in Sydney's affluent eastern suburbs, charges up to $35,000 per year for each student's tuition.

Brisbane Grammar School headmaster Anthony Micallef's pay dropped from 2017 but he still pulled in $513,000, while Brisbane Girls Grammar School principal Jacinda Euler made $509,326 in 2018.

The school leaders each make more than Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk's annual salary of $399,955, and they are just behind Prime Minister Scott Morrison's yearly remuneration of $538,000. 

State school principals with the highest salaries make about $171,000 per year.

According to the report tabled in parliament, Toowoomba Grammar School had a decline in enrolments in 2018. The shrinking roll meant income from fees dropped from $22.6million in 2017 to $22.3million in 2018.

The school was first opened more than 150 years ago and has 1180 students.

Brisbane Grammar School's 1700 students brought in $45million in school fees in 2018, while Brisbane Girls Grammar School had 1360 students paying $32million in contributions.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






4 April, 2019

Exclusive interview with senior Australian ex-cop about the misuse of Domestic Violence restraining orders

Bettina Arndt

Last October, Augusto Zimmermann, a law professor and former WA law reform commissioner, was asked to speak to the Police Union about his concerns about the misuse of domestic violence restraining orders. Augusto has been a brave campaigner against West Australia’s greatly expanded domestic violence laws which give enormous power to women to ruin men’s lives with false accusations.

But when the time came to give the speech, the organisers had lost courage and he was slated to talk about free speech. He still took the opportunity to talk to the police officers about domestic violence, explaining how free speech on this topic is being muzzled. Having had prior experience teaching police officers in Rio de Janeiro, Augusto was well-equipped to speak about the role of police as enforcers of rights in a community. He explained our police are currently being placed in an invidious position, denied their rightful role as protectors of the innocent and punishers of the guilty and instead, used as instruments of oppression in a corrupt system.

Tough words which clearly resonated with the boys in blue, who are doing the dirty work for the feminist-led campaign using domestic violence laws to empower women and demonise men.

I’ve made a number of videos about the abuse of domestic violence restraining orders, including an interview with Augusto last year. I’ve heard from police across the country who are uncomfortable with what is happening but are not able to speak out because they are fearful of losing their jobs.

But now, finally, we have a terrific interview with a retired NSW chief inspector who contacted me because he is horrified by where this is all heading. We have kept his identity hidden and disguised his voice to protect this brave man who is blowing the lid on this huge scandal corrupting our legal system.

Please help me promote it as widely as possible. Here’s the actual video:



And here’s a short version you can use for promotion on social media:

https://www.facebook.com/thebettinaarndt/videos/425979181545851/

Email from Bettina: bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au






Senator Fraser Anning is 'censured' by Australian politicians for linking the Christchurch terror attacks to Muslim immigration

What Anning initially tweeted which provoked the uproar was:

“Does anyone still dispute the link between Muslim immigration and violence?”

“As always, leftwing politicians and the media will rush to claim that the causes of today’s shootings lie with gun laws or those who hold nationalist views, but this is all cliched nonsense."

“The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.”

I am not sure what the Senator said that is wrong.  Without Muslim immigration to New Zealand there could have been no massacre of Muslims in New Zealand.  What is wrong with that logic? 

And without the frequent incidence of Muslim immigrants going on Jihad and massacring Westerners, the Christchurch gunman would have had no motivation for his attack.  Tarrant certainly did fear the way Musim immigration was going and said that he was hitting back at them. He felt that if Muslims can  massacre innocent Western men, women and children then it was only fair for him to massacre innocent Muslim men, women and children.  It's an Old Testament conception of justice but still a common one

It seems to me that Senator Anning was simply stating the facts.  But, as we know, stating facts these days can be "incorrect".


Independent senator Fraser Anning has been censured by parliament for his 'shameful and pathetic' comments which linked the Christchurch terror attacks to Muslim immigration.

The Queenslander was rebuked by his colleagues on Wednesday for blaming Muslim migrants for the horrific attack in which a white supremacist killed 50 worshippers at mosques last month.

'Senator Anning's comments were ugly and divisive. They were dangerous and unacceptable from anyone, let alone a member of this place,' government Senate leader Mathias Cormann told parliament.

Labor's Senate leader Penny Wong said while scores of injured people were being treated for gunshot wounds, Senator Anning fanned the flames of division.

The censure motion, moved by Mr Cormann and Ms Wong, was passed unanimously after Mr Anning left the chamber.

Mr Anning denied blaming victims for the attack and described reasoning's of the motion as attack 'barely coherent', SBS reported.

'This censure motion against me is a blatant attack on free speech,' he said. 'The claim that this someone blames the victims is absurd, my real crime is that I simply told the truth. '

Senator Anning then took to social media, writing: 'The left wing outrage was on show today!' 'But no matter how many times they tried to condemn me, they could not refute that what I said is 100 per cent true.'

Following the Christchurch terror attack on March 15, Senator Anning released a statement linking Muslim migration to the shooting. 

He said while any form of violence could never be justified, the growing fear of the 'increasing Muslim presence' was behind the massacre.

'The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program that allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place.'

In a follow-up statement, he said he opposed to any form of violence within our community and totally condemned the actions of the gunman.

'What it highlights is the growing fear within our community, both in Australia and New Zealand, of the increasing Muslim presence,' he said.

SOURCE  






Australian academics are going down the Communist road

MAURICE NEWMAN

With Anzac Day near, self-loathing academics are back. Anything that undermines our national pride, besmirches our military achievements and questions our values will be prosecuted.

Rewriting Australia’s proud military record is important to revisionists. They want us to see brave, selfless service as being nothing more than the projection of white supremacy.

Murdoch University history lecturer Dean Aszkielowicz is the latest to demonstrate contempt for our national heritage. He mocks a section of the Australian War Memorial website that states “Australians continue­ to invoke the Anzac spirit, including the concept of egalitarianism, a sardonic sense of humour and a contempt for danger, in times of hardship”.

Aszkielowicz tells his students that “very few things the Aust­ralian War Memorial claims on its website about Anzac Day are true”.

How is it that only 74 years after the end of World War II, a young academic, filled with resentment and lack of appreciation for the world he has inherited, could be so ignorant of its values and have such disdain for the bravery of those who saved this country from tyranny?

Yet he and many of his academic cohort share this obsession to rewrite history and deny the real­ity that distant wars fought to preserve freedom also helped shape our national identity.

Murdoch University defends Aszkielowicz, saying “students are encouraged to draw on arguments and views from across the political and ­ academic spectrum”. “In the context of these lectures­, our academics provided ­informed but challenging comment respectfully — this is academic freedom in action,” it says.

Academic freedom? At so many universities these words have assumed Orwellian qualities. Today, freedom in the classroom and on the campus means conformity and alignment with the approved dogma. Refusal to toe the line can mean exclusion, expulsion and failure for students.

Take Bjorn Lomborg’s attempts to establish the Australian Consensus Centre, along with a $4 million endowment, at the University of Western Australia. He was rejected because, as UWA student guild president Lizzy O’Shea observed: “Many believe his (Dr Lomborg’s) ‘research’ downplays the effects of climate change and calls for inaction.” At least three other universities agreed and also turned him down.

Heretical teaching clearly has its limits. Those limits terminated the careers of Peter Ridd and Bob Carter, each having served for 30 years at James Cook University. Both differed with their colleagues over climate change, with Ridd criticising his colleagues’ “deficient” and “misleading” environmental research. He also called into question claims the Great Barrier Reef was being wrecked by global warming.

This was heresy on a grand scale and, rather than investigate his claims, the university simply fired him. It seems at JCU some academics have more freedom than others.

This politicisation of our universities also can be seen in the number of rejections experienced by the Ramsay Centre, which is seeking to establish liberal arts courses leading to a Western civilisation degree.

The centre offers a handsome endowment and numerous scholarships, but University of Queensland antagonists reflect the general academic view the courses are “trying to undermine critical analyses of ‘the West’ in favour of an anti-intellectual celebration of Western civilisation, something which is impossible to defend in a modern university”. In other words, we won’t have the virtues of Western civilisation taught at our “modern” universities.

This is now a pattern. Students at the University of NSW are told James Cook was an invader rather than a discoverer.

The rewritten history of governor Arthur Phillip portrays him as genocidal, notwithstanding his demands Aborigines be well treated. He abolished slavery 20 years before Britain. Yet better to depict him as a white supremacist than someone doing his best with what he had.

Likewise, governor Lachlan Macquarie must be remembered for his tit-for-tat violence towards Aborigines than his role in the social, economic and architectural development of the colony.

There is a growing movement to have the statues of all three removed and their names erased from public places.

Winston Churchill understood “a nation that forgets its past has no future”. French histor­ian Ernest Renan said “forgetting … is a crucial factor in the creation of the nation”.

Louisa Lim, author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited, writes: “National amnesia has become what Chinese writer Yan Lianke calls a ‘state-sponsored sport’. And as Beijing’s global influence rises, its controlling instincts — to tame, corral, shape, prune, expurgate history and historical memory — are increasingly exported. At home, Beijing’s tightening grip on history designs not only what can be remembered but also the manner in which it can be marked.”

China’s latest official version of history has the force of law. It venerates Chinese patriotism and military sacrifices. As well as uniting the country behind common beliefs, Beijing will conveniently use this history to press territorial claims over the entire South China Sea.

In Australia, we have yet to hear the vision splendid our universities and academics, such as Aszkielowicz, envisage will arise from the ashes of our best-forgotten past. Perhaps, like the Chinese, it is a socialist utopia where censorship, not academic freedom, is clinically enforced and where complying academics can win an exalted place in history.

SOURCE  






'Major distraction': school dumps iPads, returns to paper textbooks

As classrooms across the country embrace digital textbooks, one Sydney school has declared the e-book era over and returned to the old-fashioned hard copy version because it improves comprehension and reduces distraction.

For the past five years, Reddam House's primary and junior high school classes have used e-textbooks on iPads. But the consistent feedback from the students has been that they preferred pages to screens.

Teachers also found the iPads were distracting and did not contribute to students' technology skills, prompting the school to announce that students should no longer use digital textbooks, and must revert to hard-copy versions instead.

"We hadn't completely gone away from hard copy," said principal Dave Pitcairn. "We kept year 11 and 12 hard copy. When [students] got to year 11, and now had the comparison between digital and hard copy, they preferred the hard copy.

"The ease of navigation through the textbook was easier with the hard copy. I believe they learn better the more faculties they use, the more senses they use in research and reading and making notes."

Teachers at the eastern suburbs private school, which regularly appears on the HSC top-ten honours list, reported that iPads were hindering learning.

"[Students] could have messages popping up and all sorts of other alerts," said Mr Pitcairn. "Also, kids being kids, they could jump between screens quite easily, so would look awfully busy and not be busy at all."

The school will also phase out iPads and begin a bring-your-own device policy with a preference for laptops.

Dr Margaret Merga, a senior lecturer in education at Edith Cowan University, said an analysis of all the research into differences in book formats has found that understanding improves when information is read in a paper rather than a digital format.

Research into why young people prefer hard-copy textbooks "points to greater perceived comfort, comprehension, and also retention of what's been read," she said. "Some have found that there's less immersive involvement [in digital text]."

A University of Maryland study in 2017 found there was little difference in the two formats when students were asked about the general themes of a text, but the printed version made them better able to answer specific questions.

The study's authors suggested print be preferred when an assignment demands more engagement or deeper comprehension, or if students - primary, secondary or tertiary - were required to read more than one page or 500 words.

As for the weight of the textbooks in backpacks, Mr Pitcairn said students could leave them in their lockers or use a digital version at home. "I've noticed that students prefer their textbook in both places," he said.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here



3 April, 2019

Another one of our lovely Somali refugees

A 'sadistic' and 'cruel' father smeared chilli sauce in the eyes and mouths of his two young sons after beating them with a stick for misbehaving at school.  

Abdiwali Ahmed Aden, 44, bruised and potentially scarred his sons, eight and 10, after hitting them with a stick in Western Australia in 2016.

Aden was sentenced to two years and nine months jail for 'extreme violence' last week, according to a report by The West Australian.

The court heard now Aden came to Australia as a refugee from Somalia in 2007. He was previously found guilty of stamping on his wife's head until she passed out in a jealous rage in 2013.

 Rubbing chilli sauce in his boys' faces 'went so far beyond what might be regarded as punishment for misbehaviour as to be sadistic cruelty' District Court Judge Gillian Braddock said.

Aden left his children with injuries that were still visible when doctors examined the pair 10 days later because of 'excessive beating' to their arms, legs and backs. 

He found out his children were in trouble at school before thrashing them with a stick and rubbing chilli in their eyes.  

Aden's wife urged her husband to stop but he continued. She went to police to report the abuse the following week.

'To subject anybody, but especially a young child, to assault by applying chilli sauce to the vulnerable part of the face ... is so remarkable and cruel, it is hard to believe that any father would do such a thing,' Judge Braddock said.

Aden admitted using a stick to discipline his boys but insisted he only hit their hands and arms during a trial in December. 

The father whacked his eldest son's ankle so hard that he struggled to walk from swelling in a previous fit of rage.

Aden watched his mother be murdered in Somalia and had a traumatic upbringing before arriving as a refugee to Australia in 2007, the court heard.

He wanted his sons to have an education and was angry when he found out they were misbehaving at school.  

'What was required perhaps of you for these boys was stern advice, perhaps encouragement,' Judge Braddock said. 'Even a smack in some circumstances would not put you in the place where you are now.'

SOURCE  






Labor looks to Norway to drive electric car sales

Bill Shorten wants Australia to match the electric vehicle penetration of Norway, where taxpayers fork out a $3400 annual subsidy for every EV on the road, but has refused to say when Labor would introduce tough new ­vehicle standards to drive his transport revolution.

The Opposition Leader, who has set a target of 50 per cent of new car sales to be electric by 2030, yesterday declared Labor would transform the nation’s car market to drive the uptake of more fuel-­efficient vehicles in the same way the market for rooftop solar had changed over the past decade.

Delivering on the pledge will mean pushing electric car sales from the current 2500 a year to about 600,000 within a decade.

Mr Shorten unveiled a $100 million commitment towards the rollout of 200 fast-charging stations across the country, a 50 per cent electric target for government vehicle purchases, and new tax incentives for fleet buyers to purchase EVs rather than internal combustion engines.

“What we’re going to do is create a market, a market for vehicles which are more fuel efficient, which are more friendly to the ­environment,” Mr Shorten said. “It’ll take time. But remember back in 2007, only about 7000 households had solar rooftop.”

Mr Shorten has promised a new vehicle emissions standard of 105gCO2 per kilometre to help meet his promised 45 per cent carbon emissions cut, but Labor is putting off providing further details until after the election.

Four of the five top-selling vehicles in Australia last year — the Toyota Hilux (186-277gCO2/km), Ford Ranger (169-265gCO2/km), Mazda 3 (129-153gCO2/km) and Hyundai i30 (119-176gCO2/km) — all produce emissions well above Labor’s threshold. Only the Toyota Corolla (96-159gCO2/km) comes close to Labor’s 105gCO2/km limit.

The Australian Automobile Association, which represents eight million drivers through state motoring organisations, said voters deserved more detail on the plan before they cast their ballots.

“A poorly designed standard will drive up the cost of cars, the cost of petrol, and significantly curtail the availability of popular vehicle makes and classes, which is why the AAA expects both sides of politics to clearly articulate their vehicle emissions targets and timelines ahead of the election,” AAA chief executive Michael Bradley said.

Carmakers also warned car buyers would be hit hard if the new standard was rushed in too soon. “The 105g/km target would be extremely difficult by 2030,” Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries CEO Tony Weber said. “If you push too hard, you are unlikely to get there without restricting consumer choice.”

The Labor policy points to Norway — where EVs already make up half of new car sales — as an example for Australia to follow, citing a PwC study showing “if Australia achieved an EV take-up rate similar to that of Norway by 2030 it would inject $2.9 billion into the economy and lift net ­employment by 13,400”.

However, Labor has stopped well short of providing Norway-like incentives to encourage EV sales.

The same PwC study, undertaken for the Electric Vehicle Council, sets out the subsidies offered by Norwegian taxpayers to boost EV uptake, noting “indirect incentives are estimated at approximately $3400 per year for a battery electric vehicle owner”.

Scott Morrison, who has pledged an EV strategy under a re-elected Coalition government, demanded to know how Labor would meet its ambitious target and said EV drivers already enjoyed a significant benefit by avoiding the 41c-a-litre fuel excise.

SOURCE  






Upper house mavericks on a lockout law mission

These laws save lives

Gladys Berejiklian faces a new assault on Sydney’s controversial lockout laws, with two men expected to be part of the crossbench that will hold the balance of power in the state’s upper house set to press the Premier to repeal the restrictions.

Liberal Democrat David Leyonjhelm and Keep Sydney Open’s Tyson Koh are expected to be elected to the Legislative Council when preferences are finally distributed on April 12.

They told The Australian yesterday their priority would be to try to convince the government to get rid of the laws — which require patrons in CBD and Kings Cross venues to be in the venue before 1.30am and leave at 3am.

A change to the laws could now become an important bargaining chip with the government in terms of it getting other legislation through, with two Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MPs also opposing them.

As Mr Koh pointed out to The Australian yesterday, the favourite to be elected Labor leader when a ballot is held after the federal election, Chris Minns, had said when he ran for the Labor leadership last year he wanted to repeal the laws, indicating Keep Sydney Open may be able to get the state opposition onside.

Mr Leyonjhelm said he believed he could use his position on the crossbench to push for the laws, which he said were “killing the city”, to be changed.

Mr Koh, 37, a former producer of the ABC’s overnight music show Rage, said he started the Keep Sydney Open movement a couple of years ago with the intention of pressuring former premier Mike Baird to reverse the laws.

His political party has existed for only a year and now he’s on the cusp of being elected to the state’s upper house.

Mr Koh, a DJ, said he had seen a trial of 2am lockout laws introduced in Melbourne in 2008. It was quickly reversed after protests and he believed this could also happen in Sydney.

But politicians had resisted the change, despite a protest featuring thousands of people in 2016. Apart from Mr Baird relaxing the laws for music venues by half an hour in 2016, there has been no change.

With 18.8 per cent of the vote counted, both Mr Leyonjhelm and Mr Koh’s parties have 2.7 per cent of the vote and are expected to get a member elected with the help of preferences. Ms Berejiklian will need five crossbenchers to pass legislation.

The lockout laws were introduced in 2014 by former premier Barry O’Farrell after the one-punch killings of teenagers Thomas Kelly and Daniel Christie and other violent incidents in the city and Kings Cross.

Francesco Turrini, 37, manager at the dimly lit cocktail bar Eau De Vie in the inner-city suburb of Darlinghurst told The Australian yesterday “severe” lockout restrictions on licensed venues had been “devastating” for the hospitality industry and its workers.

Despite sitting just 100m from the Kings Cross precinct in what was once a hive of nightlife, Mr Turrini said Eau De Vie had managed to withstand the economic impact of the lockout laws: “We’ve remained busy where others have closed and owners lost their livelihoods and in some cases their homes. Overnight we saw revenue at our Sydney venues drop by 25 per cent.”

Mr Turrini said this was in contrast to their sister bars in Melbourne, where revenue figures were almost “triple” those operating in the Harbour City.

SOURCE  






Principal of prestigious girls’ school says students should be able to use Google during their HSC exams

The principal from a prestigious Sydney private girls’ school has suggested a radical new idea to add more “depth” to the HSC — and its not studying harder.

Shane Hogan, the principal of Kambala in Rose Bay, has voiced his support for students being allowed to use the internet and search engines such as Google on mobile devices while they sit their final HSC exams.

Mr Hogan thinks changing the way students sit the exam could add more “depth” to their learning, saying many enter exams having memorised entire essays.

He says the test has become outdated and has little to do with the real world. “You have to think historically about the HSC and what it was designed to do,” Mr Hogan told Ben Fordham on 2GB radio on Friday. He explained the HSC, originally introduced in 1967, was designed for school leavers who were hoping to enter university.

Students are now required to stay at school until they are at least 16 or 17 years old and school leavers are required to engage in training. Three-quarters of students remain at school throughout the HSC.

But the principal said the current system has been reduced to a “memory test” with students entering exam rooms having rote learned entire essays.

Mr Hogan said the reality of “today is that we all grab our phone as soon as we’re asked a question”. “If we’re gonna test the kids let them use the tools that they will really use when they’re out in the workplace.” This means access to the internet during an exam. “It’s down the track but I believe it’s the way to go,” Mr Hogan said.

“The students have the essays prepared before they enter the room. It’s almost irrelevant. “There’s no depth in their learning, there’s no passion in their learning. It’s merely a race to the finish. It’s time the HSC entered this century.”

Mr Hogan also questioned the relevance of the ATAR ranking, a percentile score derived from comparing HSC marks against students across the country. ATAR ranks compare students who take on vastly different types of course work, offering no recommendation for higher learning.

He compared students who take on a number of language subjects to those taking on courses like design and technology, art, drama and music, achieving the same ATAR score.

“How is that … relevant? And what courses are they entering?” Mr Hogan said. “It’s a tool for universities to pick students. It’s not relevant to life.”

Mr Hogan pointed to the US model, where entry applications are individually assessed by the institution, as opposed to being “plucked” from their ATAR numbers.

“We’ve got a group who want to go to university, where we need to ‘depth’ their study more,” he said. “But I also think we have a group of young people that are yet to decide, and we need to educate them in the basic skills of team building, problem solving, but also passions.”

He suggested changes to the later years of school, where students could be given the option to focus on one or two subjects and develop greater understanding.

Kambala’s principal says the exams were set up for students hopeful to gain entry to university, at a time when many more students left school at the end of year 10. Students are now required to continue on at school until they complete year 12.

There are now over 142 subjects tested at the HSC, including 62 language subjects. He said fewer than 25 per cent of HSC students use the ATAR to enter university.

At Kambala School, 99 per cent of students are university orientated.

The ATAR was introduced as a national system in 2009 by the Gillard government for students in NSW and the ACT. It was further rolled out to remaining states and territories in 2010, excluding Queensland who plan to introduce the ATAR system in 2019.

The HSC was introduced in 1967, and underwent its last major revision in 2001.

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






2 April, 2019

Australia’s approach to indigenous communities is making their lives worse, expert claims

She's right.  Conditions for Aborigines have deteriorated steadily since the missionaries left. Putting Aborigines into the hands of bureaucrats was laughably inept. She seems unaware however that governments have tried just about everything since.  Her idea of Aboriginal self-management is really old hat.  It was tried years ago in the Lake Tyers experiment, with woeful results.  I agree however that Aborigines should be left strictly alone by governments.  That way they alone will be responsible for however they end up.


Australia is living in a “colonial fantasy” — and unless we radically change our path, the plethora of problems plaguing indigenous communities will worsen.

That’s the powerful message put forward by Sarah Maddison, a Professor of Politics at the University of Melbourne, has a game-changing idea which she believes will drastically reshape our nation for the better.

Speaking to news.com.au off the back of her new book, The Colonial Fantasy, Why White Australia Can’t Solve Black Problems, Prof Maddison said efforts from both political parties to bridge the gap over the years have just made life worse in indigenous communities.

“It’s hard to imagine that the situation can get any worse than it is now,” she said grimly, pointing to catastrophic suicide rates and an alarming level of youth incarceration for indigenous people.

“No approach that any government has taken has made any difference, so we need to try something radically different.”

In her book, Prof Maddison puts forward this bold new rethinking of Australian society and the solution, she says, is very simple — to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities the power to control and manage their own lives.

“There is now a wealth of evidence from overseas that's shows when you give indigenous communities the power to control their own affairs in areas like health, education and economic development, it makes a huge difference to their lives,” she said.

She argues that abolishing Australia’s current top-down approach and allowing indigenous communities to control their affairs, they can focus on the things that are important to them — rather being told what is important by the government.

In the USA, Native American communities are being empowered in a similar way, and decades of research from self-determination organisations, such as the Native Nations Institute, shows that the approach is working.

The argument is, that once power is handed back, decisions start to reflect local concerns and, perhaps more importantly, indigenous communities are accountable for their own lives — meaning they reap the benefit of good decisions and learn from the bad ones.

“Australia, however, is relentlessly going in the opposite direction by continuing to implement policies that are interventionist and paternalistic,” Prof Maddison said.

In the title of her book, she describes the current attitude and methods used to try to improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as a “colonial fantasy”.

In her book, she also argues that this heavy-handed approach — whereby increasing amounts of public money is thrown at indigenous communities to no avail — is a continuation of the colonial attitude that has persisted since Captain James Cook first landed here in 1770.

“I’m not saying that the current government is trying to kill all indigenous people, but the aim has always been the same, which is to eliminate indigenous difference and identity because the idea of them living independently of the state is threatening,” she said. “And, for indigenous people, this infects everything.”

She said evidence of this in the way Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people often place much greater importance on their clan name or regional identity rather than describing themselves as “Australian”.

But a much more glaring example of this disconnect rears its ugly head every January.

This year’s Australia Day debate played out on our television screens in spectacular fashion, when Kerri-Anne Kennerley made a point about there bigger fish to fry than changing the date of a symbolic national holiday.

But, while Prof Maddison said debates about statues of controversial historical settler figures and changing or abolishing Australia Day are a distraction on one level — they also matter on another.

“They matter because they become a deeply symbolic of the colonial relationship, and it shows that just can’t face up to the reality of what’s happened in our history,” she said.

She argues that if “psychological roadblocks” like this had been resolved years ago, Australia would be a lot further down the line in terms handing back power to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

However, she added that communities around Australia are not waiting around and they are starting to take matters into their own hands — such as the Yawuru people who are the native title holders of the Western Australian town of Broome and are organising their own affairs independently of the government.

“They are the now the authors of their own destiny and that’s what needs to happen right across Australia,” Prof Maddison said.

“The government needs to get out of the way and stop telling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people how to live their lives.”

SOURCE  






Revealed: The ridiculously easy test designed to weed out poor student teachers in Australia - but those who fail are STILL being allowed in the classroom

Now why would that be?  It's because they would not be able to staff their classrooms otherwise.  After the Leftist destruction of discipline, Australian classrooms are not an attractive environment for work

A skills test to weed out student teachers who can't multiply two numbers or read a simple graph is failing to stop them graduating as universities side step the system.

The Literacy and Numeracy Test for Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE) is a compulsory test that was brought in to remove incompetent student teachers from the system before they graduate and enter classrooms.

It is supposed to guarantee that student teachers have a literacy and numeracy level equivalent to the top 30 percent of the adult population in Australia.

Sample questions to prepare students for the test include problems as simple as multiplying 3.2 by 100.

'The weight of a box of stationery is 3.2 kilograms. What is the weight of 100 such boxes?' reads one sample question.

Another question asks students to look at a table of gym memberships and compare the monthly fee to the yearly upfront fee and work out the difference.

One in ten students fail the 130-question test the first time. 

Student teachers have three chances to sit the LANTITE test administered by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER).

If they fail on the third attempt, ACER says on its website that it will not allow them to try again without a formal recommendation from the university.

Students are instead trying up to five times after receiving study support and coaching from their universities who back them, the Daily Telegraph reports.

In a separate issue, universities are admitting below-average students directly into teaching degrees using a gap in the rules, according to the report.

After a scandal in 2015 where it was revealed that students with Australia Tertiary Admission Rank (ATARs) as low as 30 were becoming teachers, the NSW Government changed the rules to require students to have a minimum of at least 80 per cent in three HSC subjects, at least one of which had to be English.

The rule was intended to keep poor academic performers out of teaching degrees.

A provision was made to allow students who don't make the grade capable of entry after enrolling in an accredited degree and passing one year of studies in the subjects they will teach. 

The University of Newcastle, University of New England and the Australian Catholic University are using this provision to allow students who otherwise would not qualify directly into teaching degrees on the basis that completing the first full year of the teaching degree meets these requirements, the Daily Telegraph reported.

Australian Catholic University Executive Dean of Education Professor Elizabeth Labone said all entry pathways for enrolling in their initial teacher education course had been approved and were monitored by the NSW Educational Standards Authority (NESA).  

'ACU continues to ensure we meet the relevant accreditation requirements,' she said via an emailed statement.

A University of Newcastle spokesperson who declined to be named said ATAR was 'but one narrow indicator' for entry to university.

'It is in no way a predictor of whether a person will go on to successfully complete their degree or be a great teacher,' the spokesperson said via email.

 The University of New England was unable to respond by time of publication.

Federal opposition education spokeswoman Tanya Plibersek told Daily Mail Australia that in 2005, about a third of teaching entrants had an ATAR above 80 but by 2015 it had dropped to only one in five.

 'It is also a waste of students' time and money to allow them to complete a teaching degree if they are unsuitable to teach,' she said via email.

Ms Plibersek said if elected she would cap places in teaching degrees and pay cash bonuses of up to $40,000 to encourage 'top achievers' into teaching by way of 1000 bursaries per year.

Daily Mail Australia contacted the NSW Educational Standards Authority, Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan and the NSW Teachers  Federation but they were unable to respond by time of publication.

SOURCE  







Al Gore to head Climate Change Week in Queensland in June

What a nauseous prospect!  Why does anyone need "training" in global warming?  It is obviously not a scientific conference where evidence is discussed.  It seems to be a propaganda course.  That does need training because it is an education in falsehoods

An Inconvenient Truth presenter and former US vice-president Al Gore will run a three-day climate change training session in Brisbane during Queensland's first Climate Change Week.

Governments from around the Asia-Pacific region will travel to Brisbane for the week starting June 2 for discussion on climate change. World Environment Day is marked on June 5.

Political, business and community groups will also meet to debate issues to develop a strategy to minimise the effects of a changing climate.

After he left politics, Mr Gore developed an international reputation when his grassroots campaign to educate people about climate change became a 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

He was a joint-winner of a Nobel prize the following year.

An Inconvenient Sequel came in 2017, while Mr Gore runs and lectures at The Climate Reality Project.

In Brisbane, Mr Gore and The Climate Reality will host climate-change training for between 800-1000 business and community leaders.

Professor Don Henry, chair of The Climate Reality in Australia and the Pacific, said this was the first time Mr Gore would train others on climate issues in Queensland.

“It is a good opportunity for people from all walks of life to be better informed and act on the solutions needed to tackle climate change,” Professor Henry said.

“With the Great Barrier Reef threatened by climate change and action needed across the Asia Pacific region, the training will be of global significance.”

The Queensland government is developing a green paper on climate-change strategies, which it planned to release in either June or July, the state's new chief scientist Professor Paul Bertsch told Brisbane Times in February.

The Queensland government has set an ambitious target of meeting 50 per cent of its energy needs from renewable energy by 2030 and have zero net emissions by 2050.

“Climate change is the greatest challenge facing our planet today and it is critical that we unite to take urgent action,” Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch said.

Ms Enoch in February said Queensland "was on track" to provide 20 per cent of its electricity needs by renewable energy by 2020, in response to criticism by Queensland Climate Advisory Council senior scientist, Professor Ian Lowe.

The Queensland government is one of 220 members of The Climate Group's Under2 Coalition, a  group of "smaller than national governments" committed to keep the change in the world's temperature to below 2 degrees.

Ms Enoch said the Great Barrier Reef was still threatened by the warming climate.

“During Climate Week Queensland, we will bring together sub-national governments from across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region.

“In addition, we will host a First Nations Summit to ensure that these communities, many of which are also experiencing the impacts of climate change, are part of these important discussions.”

Climate Week Queensland will include business forums and a public program of arts, music, and panel discussions involving students.

Ms Enoch said that as part of the Minister’s Climate Challenge, students would be invited to identify a local climate problem and brainstorm an idea to solve it.

“The students who put forward the most innovative ideas will have the opportunity to be mentored by and have their solutions judged by world-class business leaders during Climate Week Queensland.”

SOURCE  







Berejiklian's cabinet reflects the direction of her new government



Gladys Berejiklian has been described as the "great hope of the progressive Liberals" and the direction of her new government reflects this. She wants a focus on compassion and empathy.

In announcing her new cabinet line-up, Berejiklian singled out several issues that are clearly top of mind for her and indicate a re-positioning for her government on social issues.

She says she is particularly troubled by high rates of suicide in NSW, as well as the plight of vulnerable young people (especially in the bush) and struggling families who need extra support.

The Premier wants to break the cycle of young people being sent to jail only to re-offend. This can only be done with more "sympathy and empathy" for families, she says.

But as well as social issues, and a bigger push for the environment and climate change, Berejiklian's cabinet also has a renewed focus on the bush.

She has conceded that voters in Barwon and Murray sent her government a "cry for help" when they comprehensively booted out the Nationals in favour of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

The once fringe single-issue party now holds three seats in the lower house. The voters who turned to the Shooters in desperation cannot be ignored.

Together with her deputy, Nationals leader John Barilaro, the new cabinet sends a message to disenfranchised voters in western NSW that the Coalition has heard their message loud and clear.

With a dedicated minister for western NSW, as well someone at the cabinet table with responsibility for regional roads as well as regional youth, the regions are not an after-thought.

Berejiklian is constantly asked if she is looking forward to "cutting ribbons", a reference to the large projects that are underway but were never going to be ready before the election campaign.

There is no doubt that she will be happy (and relieved) to get cutting on some of the more contentious projects, like the CBD light rail and WestConnex.

But her government is no longer defined by cranes in the sky and scaffolding along streets.

Berejiklian has a mandate to deliver what matters to her. She has been dubbed the infrastructure premier but with a huge pipeline of work underway, she will now also focus on people

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here







1 April, 2019

Pauline Hanson as Australia's Trump



Angela Mollard (above) rightly compares Pauline to Donald J. Trump below.  She could equally have compared Pauline to Ronald Reagan or Joh Bjelke Petersen. It was the Gipper who was first described as a "Teflon" politician -- one who did everything wrong by the Left-dominated standards of the media world but who somehow remained mystifyingly popular.  None of his "gaffes" hurt him. Sir Joh was an outstanding Australian example of that.  He and Reagan tied for the biggest percentage of the popular vote -- 59% -- ever achieved by a political leader in a Western democracy.

Angela is a generally sensible lady of a rather conservative disposition so she shows some understanding of the popularity but she misses the main "secret" of those three figures.  It is simple: 

All three seemed to a lot of people to be speaking commonsense in a world gone mad.  Immigration is a prime example of that.  To a lot of people in Western countries, immigration seems out of hand, with lots of undesirables -- such as Middle-Eastern Muslims -- pouring into the country who bring us nothing but harm.  And yet all other politicians of both Left and Right seem paralysed when it comes to doing something about it.  So someone who DOES speak out against a crazy consensus -- Reagan, Trump, Petersen, Hansen -- will be loved no matter what. He/she becomes what the Bible calls "A Pearl without price". Appreciation of such people is so strong that gaffes on other issues are instantly forgiven.

It is that simple.  Too simple for most politicians to admit


For any other politician it would go down in history as a disastrous week.

A party leader seen to be suggesting the Port Arthur massacre was part of a government conspiracy.

Her chief of staff and Queensland state leader captured in secret recordings discussing softening the party’s gun control policies in exchange for cash from America’s most powerful lobby group, the National Rifle Association. (This, of course, as across the Tasman thousands gathered at a remembrance service to honour 50 people killed in New Zealand’s worst terrorist attack.)

Then a bumbling press conference by said leader that was more ramble than rhetoric and will be remembered by some for the multiple errors and the red tick mark on the speaker’s cheek.

Anyone else would slink away hoping that the news cycle this weekend might throw up some other great scandal or disaster so that the past week’s shenanigans might be superseded by something worse.

Not Pauline Hanson. She’s emerged from the scandal more powerful than ever.

It must be galling to those who’ve had their careers nosedive on a poorly sourced fact or a clumsy utterance to see the flame-haired, Phoenix-like Hanson rise from the rubble yet again. So what’s her secret? Has she been spray-coated like Donald Trump with a substance to which nothing sticks? Or are her supporters so rusted on that she can do anything.

For Bronwyn Bishop, it took just a careless taxpayer-funded jaunt in a helicopter to see her turfed from office. Meanwhile Hanson can spout conspiracies based on some unnamed “blue book” and claim her colleagues are the victims of a “sting” and she’ll doubtless live to tell another hundred badly articulated tales.

The truth is that if her followers accept her making racist comments based on fear rather than fact, they’re hardly likely to turn on her for her recent comments.

In any case, they’re members of a club bound less by what they value and more by what they hate: namely latte-sipping inner-city wankers. Hanson’s supporters, like those of Trump, see her as anti-elite. They don’t care if what she says is sexist, racist, bigoted or stupid as long as their leader is annoying the media or urban sophisticates who wouldn’t know one end of a shovel from another.

When Hanson is criticised by the media, regardless of the substance, her supporters see it as evidence of the elite attacking “the deplorables”, the name Hillary Clinton so memorably ascribed to her detractors and a misjudgment that enabled Trump to trampoline straight into office.

Hanson’s supporters, like those of Trump, see the media as part of a political machine that is out to suppress the aspirations of “ordinary Australians” who “are living in the real world”. They’re the battlers and the underdogs and they’re driven by the belief there’s a cultural, economic and political elite who look down on them.

Hanson’s press conference on Thursday was Kool-Aid to her fans. They don’t care if she’s incoherent or short on facts. To them, she’s a maverick with a microphone who eschews brevity and big words. She speaks as her supporters talk to each other and so her dialogue – irrespective of what she’s actually saying – is familiar and reassuring. Like them she sees herself as a victim of both the establishment and a media riven with bias. As she told her fans in the 18-minute diatribe, there were some nice journalists and some nasty ones. Obviously Al Jazeera are the nasty ones even though, as she admitted, she hadn’t watched the full investigation.

Nevertheless, she still claimed the footage was dubbed and heavily edited.

Long before Trump came up with the concept of fake news, Hanson has claimed the media has been out to get her. When One Nation was wiped out at the federal election in 1998 she blamed it on Rupert Murdoch, falsely claiming he ordered News Corp Australia newspapers to attack her.

What is accurate is that the issue of preferencing One Nation will now consume the political debate in the lead-up to the election.

SOURCE  






Boardroom bandits only too quick to shoot messenger

Janet Albrechtsen

Hell hath no fury like a woman outed as a member of a cosy, lucrative little boardroom club.

Spare a thought for former competition tsar Graeme Samuel, who this week pointed out that the walls built around an exclusive group of female board members were so impenetrable only a nuclear bomb could blow it open to other women. Going by the hysterical over-reaction and silly indignation from members of a women’s club who get appointed to multiple board seats across the country, this bloke must have hit one heck of a sensitive nerve.

The truth is that a Norwegian phenomenon has come our way. In Norway, a small club of female directors was so tight after the government mandated a 40 per cent quota for women on boards, it became known as the Golden Skirts. Between 2007 and 2010, after the quota came into effect in 2006, four times as many women as men held 16 board positions, and twice as many women as men held between 13 and 16 board positions. That is busy. And lucrative.

Well, the gig is up. In Australia, even without a quota law, women have masterminded their own Golden Skirts club. For too long, discussion has only ever been behind closed doors, by both men and women. Experienced women trying to break into senior boardrooms have watched the club in action, gathering more board seats. Experienced men have been told by headhunters drawing up shortlists of board candidates that if they are not wearing a skirt, don’t bother applying, no matter how qualified you are.

Proxy advisers will tell you, again only privately, that there is a small group of women who, how shall we say this, are “very busy” and “getting busier”.

Never mind the silence; the numbers give the game away. Research by governance firm Ownership Matters shows that at the end of last year, 38 female directors in Australia held three or more ASX 200 board seats. There were 25 men in the same position. At the end of last month not much changed, according to data gathered by the Australian Institute of Company Directors, with 32 women holding three ASX 200 board positions compared with 26 men in the same position. Whereas four women held four board positions, only one man did.

Samuel did not ignore the men’s club. But there is a glaring difference. Many more qualified men make up the men’s club, which means when you pick a member of that club, you don’t know in advance that he may end up being rather mediocre in the role. By contrast, targets to get 30 per cent or 40 per cent of women into board seats within a short timeframe, mean that corporate Australia is institutionalising female mediocrity.

When you appoint a woman, you knowingly risk choosing a less qualified woman to fill a female-targeted seat. Unless you pick from the few very experienced female board directors. And, hey presto, that dilemma means members of the Golden Skirts club get busier and richer still.

The Golden Skirts don’t want to talk about this difference between the directors’ clubs of men and women. In fact, there is much that miffed Golden Skirts would rather we not mention. Hence the scorn poured on Samuel by Sue Morphet, president of Chief Exec­utive Women, chairwoman of National Tiles and a director of Noni B and Asaleo Care. She said she had to check the date because his comments were so “last century”.

Samuel is not a dinosaur. His language may have been in search of a headline but, as the country’s former competition regulator, he can spot a lack of competition — be it in the boardroom or between supermarket titans.

Other women with multiple board positions, such as Rebecca McGrath and Nicola Wakefield-Evans, piled on Samuel too. McGrath accused him of stoking the “gender wars”.

The ploy is twofold. Shame Samuel so others will not dare speak the truth either. And to paint any discussion as illegitimate, all part of a war, for goodness’ sake. Peace on their terms means we don’t discuss the club.

The Golden Skirts want to control the conversation about their good fortune, the power and riches that come from their multiple board seats. They imagine they can lay down the boundaries of what can be said, indulged by obsequious nods from men such as those Male Champions of Change who flock to promote women because it gives them a public glow of goodness. Men such as Gordon Cairns, who came out swinging in support of the status quo, joined the founding champions in 2010.

You don’t need to have the nous of a former competition tsar to notice how the cosy women’s club in Australia came about, bolstering the careers of the Golden Skirts at the expense of other women. In 2015, the AICD called for ASX 200 companies to fill 30 per cent of boards seats with women by the end of 2018. Last year, Wakefield-Evans pushed for 40 per cent targets for women on boards by 2022.

Similar targets over the years have two critical components.

First, the targets are aimed at getting women into non-executive board seats rather than into jobs at the executive level of companies. Targets at the executive level, across the long term, would have been much more productive for many more women and better for companies in nurturing talent from a wider pool. But targets at the executive level would take longer, involve careful planning and training of women, and would not help create a cosy women’s club of non-executive ­directors.

The Golden Skirts understand supply and demand in a capitalist world. Targets for female directors turned the existing small pool of qualified female directors into highly sought-after boardroom commodities, delivering power and riches through sheer scarcity.

It did not suit the women’s club to throw support behind targets for women in executive roles. That was too long term. It would rob them of their chance to cash in. Worse, it would mean a pipeline of a highly skilled class of women with real executive experience who would compete with club members in due course. Better to set boardroom targets, pick up a suite of swanky board seats and waft around like a role model for women.

The second way the women’s club entrenched their positions was by attaching tight deadlines to targets, exacerbating the scarcity issue and driving up the economic value of the existing pool.

The combination of these two factors has been a huge disservice to the cause of other women. It has meant that in a short time, the wrong kind of women get pro­moted, and they keep getting promoted as their LinkedIn profiles grow. If targets had started at the executive level, it would have cultivated, across the long haul, a group of women with chief executive or C-suite experience, providing a larger pool of competent women with line experience appointed to boards in their 50s.

Instead boardrooms include a batch of women who are too young, overcrowded with lawyers, investment bankers and management consultants, and lacking real-life corporate experience.

The Golden Skirts in Australia have shown that they did not need quotas to entrench their power and boost their bank balances at the expense of other women, which is why they piled on Samuel this week to denounce him for saying the bleeding obvious.

Even if you believe that targets are needed to get women into the nation’s boardrooms, the way it has been done has turned a small group of existing female directors into boardroom bandits at the expense of deeper, more effective change for a broader group of women.

SOURCE  






Man wrongly jailed for 32 days after wife’s fake rape claim sues government

"Believe the woman" bias in action, most probably

A man who spent 32 days in jail after his paediatrician wife faked a rape claim against him is suing the NSW Government.

A Sydney man is seeking more than half a million dollars in damages from the NSW Government for maliciously prosecuting a false rape claim made against him by his North Shore paediatrician wife.

A jury acquitted the man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, of rape, domestic violence, assault and other charges in 2017 after Sydney District Court Judge Mark Williams issued a rare Prasad direction.

A Prasad direction allows a jury to find a defendant not guilty any time after the close of the Crown in cases where there is insufficient evidence to justify a conviction.

On legal advice, the man had pleaded guilty to two counts of domestic violence — relating to an email and damage to his then-wife’s mobile phone (after discovering explicit text messages between her and another man) but the judge dismissed those charges without recording a conviction.

The man spent 32 days in jail on remand, an “extraordinarily difficult” experience given he had no criminal record and one that continues to haunt him to this day.

“I was never far from ending it all after my release from prison,” he told news.com.au yesterday. “The actions of police were so deliberate and savage that it made me doubt everything.”

The judge slammed the case against the man as “most unsatisfactory” and said prosecutors had failed to take into account “cogent and consistent objective evidence” that backed up the man’s claim that the sexual encounter at the heart of the rape charge was in fact consensual.

Defence lawyer Greg Walsh told the court the man and his legal team took photographic evidence that corroborated his story and discredited hers to the police, but it was ignored. “Was it ideological, was it wilful blindness? I don’t know,” Mr Walsh said. “All the evidence pointed to the fact that this was an innocent man who should not have been charged.”

“Cops worked on this case for two years,” the man told news.com.au.

“Judges, courts and jurors were used. It probably cost the tax payers over a million dollars in man hours alone. What a huge waste of time and money.”

She claimed she was raped another two times shortly afterwards. But it was all an elaborate lie and the defence proved it by tendering photographic evidence from a security camera in the home which showed the sex to be consensual.

“I had installed cameras in the house a day earlier but she didn’t know that when she went to police,” the man told news.com.au.

A text message exchange between the pair the following night in which she wished her husband a “safe flight” hours before he flew to Europe on a work trip was produced in court.

Four days after he left the country, the former wife walked into Gordon Police Station on Sydney’s North Shore and made claims of rape, assault and domestic violence that would ultimately be dismissed by a judge.

When he returned, police were waiting for him at Sydney Airport, arresting him in a dramatic swoop in full view of fellow travellers.

The basis of the man’s legal claim is that police and the DPP went ahead with the charges against him despite having been alerted to evidence that proved the so-called victim was lying.

That included video footage of the sexual encounters on June 15, 2015 which proved they were consensual.

In issuing a Prasad direction and dismissing proceedings against the man, Judge Williams acknowledged the case should never have gone to trial.

The man’s statement of claim, obtained by news.com.au, lists the defendants as the State of NSW (Commissioner of Police), the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and his ex-wife, who remains employed as a paediatrician at a Sydney hospital.

The man told news.com.au that his legal team have yet to put a final figure on the compensation he will be seeking but estimated it would be in excess of $500,000.

That included an estimated $200,000 in lost income, $110,000 in legal fees plus damages stemming from his horror month in jail.

While Judge Williams awarded the man court costs following his acquittal, he was only able to recoup just over half of his mammoth $270,000 legal bill.

“They accepted $260,000 of that and then they applied the government cap which meant I received $160,000, leaving a $110,000 shortfall,” the man told news.com.au.

The statement of claim describes the man’s dramatic arrest at Sydney Airport on August 20, 2015, which saw police seize his laptop, iPod and hard drive.

“The Plaintiff was refused bail at Mascot Police Station (and) remained in custody for thirty two days until he was granted conditional bail,” the document states.

Under his bail conditions, he was required to surrender his passport and report daily to police, making it impossible to travel overseas for work commitments, resulting in a significant loss of income.

“The arrest and imprisonment of the Plaintiff was wrongful, whereupon the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damages and is entitled to damages, aggravated damages and exemplary damages,” the document states.

“The arrest and imprisonment of the Plaintiff caused him severe mental anguish and distress.”

SOURCE  






ISIS sympathiser Saeed Noori - who mowed down pedestrians in Melbourne in 2017 while shouting 'Allahu Akbar' - has been sentenced to life behind bars

The thanks we get for taking in Muslim refugees

Saeed Noori, 37, had previously pleaded guilty to one count of murder, 11 counts of recklessly causing injury and five counts of reckless conduct endangering life.

Noori was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria on Thursday, and will spend 30 years behind bears before being eligible for release on parole. 

The Afghanistan immigrant will be 60 by the time he's eligible for parole, after killing a grandfather and mowing down 15 pedestrians outside Flinders Street Station in December 2017. 

SOURCE  

 Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here






Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.





Most academics are lockstep Leftists so readers do sometimes doubt that I have the qualifications mentioned above. Photocopies of my academic and military certificates are however all viewable here


For overseas readers: The "ALP" is the Australian Labor Party -- Australia's major Leftist party. The "Liberal" party is Australia's major conservative political party.


In most Australian States there are two conservative political parties, the city-based Liberal party and the rural-based National party. But in Queensland those two parties are amalgamated as the LNP.


Again for overseas readers: Like the USA, Germany and India, Australia has State governments as well as the Federal government. So it may be useful to know the usual abbreviations for the Australian States: QLD (Queensland), NSW (New South Wales), WA (Western Australia), VIC (Victoria), TAS (Tasmania), SA (South Australia).


For American readers: A "pensioner" is a retired person living on Social Security


"Digger" is an honorific term for an Australian soldier


Another lesson in Australian: When an Australian calls someone a "big-noter", he is saying that the person is a chronic and rather pathetic seeker of admiration -- as in someone who often pulls out "big notes" (e.g. $100.00 bills) to pay for things, thus endeavouring to create the impression that he is rich. The term describes the mentality rather than the actual behavior with money and it aptly describes many Leftists. When they purport to show "compassion" by advocating things that cost themselves nothing (e.g. advocating more taxes on "the rich" to help "the poor"), an Australian might say that the Leftist is "big-noting himself". There is an example of the usage here. The term conveys contempt. There is a wise description of Australians generally here


Another bit of Australian: Any bad writing or messy anything was once often described as being "like a pakapoo ticket". In origin this phrase refers to a ticket written with Chinese characters - and thus inscrutably confusing to Western eyes. These tickets were part of a Chinese gambling game called "pakapoo".


Two of my ancestors were convicts so my family has been in Australia for a long time. As well as that, all four of my grandparents were born in the State where I was born and still live: Queensland. And I am even a member of the world's second-most condemned minority: WASPs (the most condemned is of course the Jews -- which may be why I tend to like Jews). So I think I am as Australian as you can get. I certainly feel that way. I like all things that are iconically Australian: meat pies, Vegemite, Henry Lawson etc. I particularly pride myself on my familiarity with the great Australian slanguage. I draw the line at Iced Vo-Vos and betting on the neddies, however. So if I cannot comment insightfully on Australian affairs, who could?


On all my blogs, I express my view of what is important primarily by the readings that I select for posting. I do however on occasions add personal comments in italicized form at the beginning of an article.


I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!


I am an army man. Although my service in the Australian army was chiefly noted for its un-notability, I DID join voluntarily in the Vietnam era, I DID reach the rank of Sergeant, and I DID volunteer for a posting in Vietnam. So I think I may be forgiven for saying something that most army men think but which most don't say because they think it is too obvious: The profession of arms is the noblest profession of all because it is the only profession where you offer to lay down your life in performing your duties. Our men fought so that people could say and think what they like but I myself always treat military men with great respect -- respect which in my view is simply their due.


The kneejerk response of the Green/Left to people who challenge them is to say that the challenger is in the pay of "Big Oil", "Big Business", "Big Pharma", "Exxon-Mobil", "The Pioneer Fund" or some other entity that they see, in their childish way, as a boogeyman. So I think it might be useful for me to point out that I have NEVER received one cent from anybody by way of support for what I write. As a retired person, I live entirely on my own investments. I do not work for anybody and I am not beholden to anybody. And I have NO investments in oil companies or mining companies


Although I have been an atheist for all my adult life, I have no hesitation in saying that the single book which has influenced me most is the New Testament. And my Scripture blog will show that I know whereof I speak.


The Rt. Rev. Phil Case (Moderator of the Presbyterian church in Queensland) is a Pharisee, a hypocrite, an abomination and a "whited sepulchre".


English-born Australian novellist, Patrick White was a great favourite in literary circles. He even won a Nobel prize. But I and many others I have spoken to find his novels very turgid and boring. Despite my interest in history, I could only get through about a third of his historical novel Voss before I gave up. So why has he been so popular in literary circles? Easy. He was a miserable old Leftist coot, and, incidentally, a homosexual. And literary people are mostly Leftists with similar levels of anger and alienation from mainstream society. They enjoy his jaundiced outlook, his dissatisfaction, rage and anger.


A delightful story about a great Australian conservative


Would you believe that there once was a politician whose nickname was "Honest"?

"Honest" Frank Nicklin M.M. was a war hero, a banana farmer and later the conservative Premier of my home State of Queensland in the '60s. He was even popular with the bureaucracy and gave the State a remarkably tranquil 10 years during his time in office. Sad that there are so few like him.


A great Australian wit exemplified



An Australian Mona Lisa (Nikki Gogan)


Bureaucracy: "One of the constant laments of doctors and nurses working with NSW Health is the incredible and increasing bureaucracy," she said. "It is completely obstructive to providing a service."


Revered Labour Party leader Gough Whitlam was a very erudite man so he cannot have been unaware of the similarities of his famous phrase “the Party, the platform, the people” with an earlier slogan: "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer". It's basically the same slogan in reverse order.


Australia's original inhabitants were a race of pygmies, some of whom survived into modern times in the mountainous regions of the Atherton tableland in far North Queensland. See also here. Below is a picture of one of them taken in 2007, when she was 105 years old and 3'7" tall




Julia Gillard, a failed feminist flop. She was given the job of Prime Minister of Australia but her feminist preaching was so unpopular that she was booted out of the job by her own Leftist party. Her signature "achievements" were the carbon tax and the mining tax, both of which were repealed by the next government.


The "White Australia Policy: "The Immigration Restriction Act was not about white supremacy, racism, or the belief that whites were higher up the evolutionary tree than the coloured races. Rather, it was designed to STOP the racist exploitation of non-whites (all of whom would have been illiterate peasants practicing religions and cultures anathema to progressive democracy) being conscripted into a life of semi-slavery in a coolie-worked plantation economy for the benefit of the absolute monarchs, hereditary aristocracy and the super-wealthy companies and share-holders of the northern hemisphere.


A great little kid



In November 2007, a four-year-old boy was found playing in a croc-infested Territory creek after sneaking off pig hunting alone with four dogs and a puppy. The toddler was found five-and-a-half hours after he set off from his parents' house playing in a creek with the puppy. Amazingly, Daniel Woditj also swam two creeks known to be inhabited by crocs during his adventurous romp. Mr Knight said that after walking for several kilometres, Daniel came to a creek and swam across it. Four of his dogs "bailed up" at the creek but the youngster continued on undaunted with his puppy to a second creek. Mr Knight said Daniel swam the second croc-infested creek and walked on for several more kilometres. "Captain is a hard bushman and Daniel is following in his footsteps. They breed them tough out bush."


A great Australian: His eminence George Pell. Pictured in devout company before his elevation to Rome





MY OTHER SITES

Alternative (Monthly) archives for this blog



DETAILS OF REGULARLY UPDATED BLOGS BY JOHN RAY:

"Tongue Tied"
"Dissecting Leftism"
"Australian Politics"
"Education Watch International"
"Political Correctness Watch"
"Greenie Watch"
Western Heart


BLOGS OCCASIONALLY UPDATED:

"Marx & Engels in their own words"
"A scripture blog"
"Recipes"
"Some memoirs"
To be continued ....
Coral Reef Compendium
IQ Compendium
Queensland Police
Australian Police News
Paralipomena (3)
Of Interest
Dagmar Schellenberger
My alternative Wikipedia


BLOGS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED

"Food & Health Skeptic"
"Eye on Britain"
"Immigration Watch International".
"Leftists as Elitists"
Socialized Medicine
OF INTEREST (2)
QANTAS -- A dying octopus
BRIAN LEITER (Ladderman)
Obama Watch
Obama Watch (2)
Dissecting Leftism -- Large font site
Michael Darby
Paralipomena (2)
AGL -- A bumbling monster
Telstra/Bigpond follies
Optus bungling
Bank of Queensland blues


There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)


Alt archives
Longer Academic Papers
Johnray links
Academic home page
Academic Backup Page
General Backup
General Backup 2



Selected reading

MONOGRAPH ON LEFTISM

CONSERVATISM AS HERESY

Rightism defined
Leftist Churches
Leftist Racism
Fascism is Leftist
Hitler a socialist
What are Leftists
Psychology of Left
Status Quo?
Leftism is authoritarian
James on Leftism
Irbe on Leftism
Beltt on Leftism

Critiques
Lakoff
Van Hiel
Sidanius
Kruglanski
Pyszczynski et al.





Main academic menu
Menu of recent writings
basic home page
Pictorial Home Page
Selected pictures from blogs (Backup here)
Another picture page (Rarely updated)



Note: If the link to one of my articles is not working, the article concerned can generally be viewed by prefixing to the filename the following:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/42197/20151027-0014/jonjayray.com/

OR: (After 2015)
https://web.archive.org/web/20160322114550/http://jonjayray.com/