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 August, 2019

This top university is giving women 10 bonus points on their ATAR if they apply for STEM degrees like IT or engineering

The unending bigotry of the Left.  Always favouring one group over another.  Why does it matter which degrees women do? Why can't they be allowed to be different?  The push to make everybody equal is insane.  Women now get more degrees than men anyway

Women who apply for undergraduate degrees in engineering, IT and construction at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) will be given extra points toward their Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) as the university aims to boost the number of women in Australia’s STEM sector.

Women who apply for undergrad degrees in the Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology or apply for the construction degree in the Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building will get 10 adjustment points on their score, giving them an extra lift up if they are gunning for a spot at the university.

While adjustments won’t change your ATAR, it will change your selection rank when you apply for uni, meaning you stand a chance of getting into one of those STEM courses at UTS if you were just a few points shy.

UTS told Business Insider Australia in an email that in order to be eligible for the adjustment points, applicants “must be a female domestic student who has achieved a minimum ATAR of 69.00 (not including any other adjustment factors) applying through the Universities Admission Centre.” They also have to satisfy all the other application requirements in the course description.

The move is designed to get more women to consider degrees and careers in industries that have been male-dominated for years.

According to UTS, women make up only 13% of the engineering workforce, 28% of IT roles and 11% of positions in the building and construction sector. These stats are even worse when you consider that women make up more than half of all Australian undergraduate students (58%).

Arti Agarwal, Director of UTS Women in Engineering and IT (WiEIT) said there has been little progress in the number of initiatives designed to support more women in engineering, IT and construction. The WiEIT program provides weekly drop-in sessions for students, networking events and a mentoring program that pairs students with industry experts.

“We need our education institutions to encourage girls and women at all levels, and create a stronger ‘pipeline’ to acquire the skills and knowledge to build successful careers in dynamic areas,” she said in a statement.

The NSW Anti-Discrimination Board approved the extra points and the process will be available for the 2020 intake of students.
Keeping women in STEM positions

The Australian Academy of Science, together with the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering developed a ‘Women in STEM Decadal Plan’ to attract and keep women in STEM industries.

Unveiled in April 2019, the plan calls for a “bold” and “sustained” effort across the whole STEM ecosystem to keep women in those industries. And that, of course, includes the education sector.

Justine Romanics, National Manager for Professional Diversity and STEM at Engineers Australia said, “We need to be disruptive – what we have been doing is not working.”

“It’s time to flick the switch. We need to show the benefits that greater diversity will create for everyone – for individuals, for teams, for organisations, for the profession.”

According to the Decadal Plan, the STEM gender gap becomes measurable in high school. In the final year of high school, the report said more young men choose to study advanced and intermediate maths, physics and chemistry compared to young women.

That trend then continues into tertiary education, with women becoming underrepresented in certain STEM courses. According to the report, they account for less than 25% of participants in engineering, computing, physics and astronomy.

Once women finally get into the STEM workforce, they are hampered by systemic barriers such as gender-based discrimination, bullying and harassment and gendered expectations around caring responsibilities.

“All of these issues combine to lead to a significant reduction in the proportion of women at every stage of professional progression in STEM fields, particularly in research and industry,” the report said.

And amid all the challenges women face in the sector, the report said one of the main reasons they choose to leave is lack of career progression.

Jessica Massih, a fifth year Civil and Environmental Engineering student from UTS, said supporting young women into tertiary studies and while they are studying, helps them believe they have a role in the industries.

“Once you are at uni, you have to do the same subjects, same assignments, and work just as hard to get good grades and opportunities,” she said in a statement. “Getting there is just the start.”

So for the young women already working hard to get a spot in engineering, IT or construction degrees at UTS, the extra points will be the icing on the cake.

And hopefully they can stay the course once they’re in.

SOURCE  






State or climate — an easy choice

Looking at remote sensing data from NASA’s satellites across the past two decades, the Earth has increased its green leaf area by a total of 5 per cent, roughly 5.5 million square kilo­metres — equivalent to the size of the entire Amazon rainforest.

Who knew?

Certainly not French President Emmanuel Macron. In an alarmist tweet featuring a photo of an Amazon fire said to have been taken 30 years ago, he told the G7 leaders conference: “Our house is burning. Literally. The Amazon rainforest — the lung which produces 20 per cent of our planet’s oxygen — is on fire.” Well, not really. Atmospheric scientists claim that even though plant photosynthesis is ultimately responsible for breathable oxygen, only a fraction of that plant growth actually adds to the store of oxygen in the air. Even if all organic matter on Earth were burned at once, less than 1 per cent of the world’s oxygen would be consumed.

No doubt the Amazon fires are worrying. However, an analysis of NASA satellite data indicates that total fire activity across the entire Amazon Basin this year seems relatively unexceptional. Indeed, NASA observed on ­August 21: “It is not unusual to see fires in Brazil at this time of year due to high temperatures and low ­humidity. Time will tell if this year is record-breaking or just within normal limits.”

Nevertheless, with the next UN Climate Summit due on September 23, it’s time to ring the alarm bells. Before each UN climate action conference the media rhetoric ramps up and new evidence of an existential threat is provided. A blazing Amazon rainforest is perfect propaganda ­material. But then, as British scientist Philip Stott observes: “In essence, the Earth has been given a 10-year survival warning regularly for the last 50 or so years.”

Still, CNN obediently turns NASA’s cautious observation into a catastrophe, declaring: “Amazon rainforest is burning at an unprecedented rate.” NBC News despairs: “Amazon wildfires could be game over for climate-change fight.” And, predictably, The New York Times fails to mention that while today’s fires are significantly worse than last year’s, they appear close to the ­average of the past 15 years.

For Macron, the Amazon fires give him ammunition to attack someone he dislikes, right-wing Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s unfiltered style has seen him dubbed the “Trump of the Tropics” and, like the US President, he attracts condemnation for his attitude, ­especially on climate change.

It’s true, since coming to office in January, Bolsonaro has moved Brazil further away from climate action and Brazil’s commitments under the Paris Agreement. Critics argue his government has weakened the institutional and legal framework that helps fight deforestation and lessened the participation of pro-environment groups. Indeed, before Bolso­naro coming to office, Amazon deforestation had declined almost 80 per cent in a little more than a decade. Now the Brazilian President is opening up previously protected areas to private ownership. He believes forests and forest protection are impediments to Brazil’s economic growth and that his critics are leading a “disinformation campaign built against our nation’s sovereignty”.

Indeed, Brazilian farmers ­believe they have a right to burn. They see fires as a natural part of life. Most fires are agricultural in nature; smallholders burning stubble after harvest or clearing forest for crop land. For this, Don­ald Trump is also blamed. Toby Gardner, director of non-government organisation Trase, reckons the huge growth in Brazil’s farms is because of Trump’s trade war that “sent China, the top buyer of US soybeans, shopping in South America”.

But while international condemnation is directed at Brazil, what largely goes unreported is that the worst fires are in Bolivia. But then Bolivian President Evo Morales is of the hard left and seeking a fourth term in office. Unlike Bolsonaro, Morales talks the global warming talk. In 2010 he hosted a summit to tackle “the threats of capitalism against life, climate change and the culture of life”. Having politically correct credentials gives him a free pass. He can approve oil ­exploration and fracking in indigenous territories. All 11 of the ­nation’s protected areas have been opened for oil and gas exploration. But still Morales is spared criticism.

Of course, Bolsonaro’s threat to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and his abandonment of Brazil’s offer to host a key Latin America and Caribbean climate week on the grounds “the event only serves as a platform for NGOs … which has nothing to do with climate change” did nothing for his global standing.

Nor with Macron, whose relationship with the Brazilian is now toxic. A proud Bolsonaro accuses Macron of having a “colonialist mentality”, while the Frenchman calls him a liar over a broken pledge to fight global warming. Macron says he will block efforts to seal a major trade deal with Brazil. Now the relationship has completely broken apart after a Brazilian supporter posted an insulting comment about Macron’s wife that Bolsonaro re-tweeted.

Such are the politics of climate change. Like the US, Brazil believes its national interest lies outside the Paris Agreement. It is not alone. Countries such as Bolivia, Poland and others, including Aus­tralia, find it increasingly difficult to balance domestic priorities with the economically crippling demands of their Paris commitments.

Something will have to give. Environmental awareness is one thing but outsourcing sovereignty is something else. Amazon fires have exposed what has long been suspected. Despite international agreements and peer group coercion, in the end nations will pursue their self-interest. With the passing of each survival deadline that decision becomes easier.

SOURCE  






NAPLAN results spark further calls for overhaul of student testing system

There seems to be a lot of blaming the messenger here

Victoria is leading a push for an overhaul of the NAPLAN school testing system, proposing a job certificate to help engage students and a change to the ages of test-takers, to combat flagging results in high schools.

National preliminary figures for the 2019 tests showed while primary school students had small lifts in average scores in some areas, results were stagnant for most categories.

Nationally, Year 7 and 9 students slid backwards on the baseline score in writing and Year 9 students' scores were flat across the board.

The results, released this morning, are further ammunition for critics of the assessment scheme, with three states, including Victoria, already leading a review into the tests.

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan conceded there was "further work to do" in bringing up literacy and numeracy scores.

Victorian Education Minister James Merlino said Year 9 was "the most difficult" cohort to engage in their education. "If they don't see the relevance in the test, they're not going to take it seriously," he said.

In a bid to boost engagement, he has proposed linking the tests to a literacy and numeracy certificate for Year 9 students to show would-be employers.

"We need our Year 9 students to think 'OK, this test means something, I'm going to give it my best shot, and I'm going to give it my best shot because I'm going to get a certificate that's going to go into my careers portfolio'," he said.

A newly-established advisory committee of principals from government, independent and Catholic schools will begin assessing the proposal.

The National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy, better known as NAPLAN, is standardised testing taken by students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 across the country.

The tests have proved controversial, particularly their move from pen and paper to online, which has seen widespread computer glitches affecting students and concern over the legitimacy of the results.

The three largest states — New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria — are running a review of the system, which has been operating in its current form for more than a decade.

Mr Merlino said he had asked the review to consider changing the target students to those in years 4, 6, 8 and 10. "It makes common sense to me," he said.

Any recommendations made by the states' review would need to be accepted by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA).

'Let's not blame the tests,' Tehan urges.  Mr Tehan said he wanted to work with states and territories to make sure they kept "their eye on the ball" to improve secondary school results.

His Opposition counterpart Tanya Plibersek said the Government had shown a "a complete failure to address the problems in our schools". "Of course the Federal Government has a responsibility here," she said.

The Australian Education Union (AEU) seized on the results to renew its criticism of online NAPLAN testing, which it said was plagued by issues that "fundamentally undermine the credibility of the data".

"Despite whatever story ACARA tries to spin, this data is so seriously compromised it should not be relied upon by education departments, schools, parents, and the broader community," AEU acting federal president Meredith Peace said.

"Teachers and principals cannot trust NAPLAN or the results it has produced."

Mr Tehan defended the system and said Australians would not know about problem areas without them. "Let's not blame the tests. Let's make sure that we understand what the results are and where we need to put the work in," he said.

ACARA CEO David Carvalho said the results were reviewed by independent measurement advisory experts before their release and results should be interpreted "with care".

Despite the flagging results for Year 9 students, Victoria's primary schools led the country in seven out of 10 different measures. Across the country, there was an upturn in all student writing results compared to 2018.

"NAPLAN results for 2019 in writing have shown a pleasing improvement from last year, and it is a trend we would like to see continue, given the decline in recent years across all year levels," Mr Carvalho said.

Students and schools will receive their individual results next week.

SOURCE  






Liberal Party architects of SSM bill back Christian Porter’s religious protections bill

The Liberal Party architects of Australia’s same-sex marriage laws have broadly backed Scott Morrison’s religious discrimination bill.

North Queensland MP Warren Entsch led the push towards the legislation of marriage equality from within the Liberal Party when it returned to power in 2013. WA Senator Dean Smith wrote the bill that was ultimately passed after 7.8 million Australians voted in favour of same-sex unions.

Today’s draft Religious Discrimination Act partly exists to address concerns from religious Australians who feared same-sex marriage could encroach on their beliefs and rights.

Senator Smith and Mr Entsch both said Attorney-General Christian Porter’s decision to avoid enshrining freedom of religion and instead molding his laws in the image of other anti-discrimination was the right move.

“I wholeheartedly support the introduction of a religious discrimination bill,” Senator Smith told The Australian.

“Pursuit of a religious discrimination bill was initially proposed by the Senate Select Committee which examined same sex marriage and has been comprehensively examined and endorsed by the Ruddock Review.

“Substantively the draft bill is a faithful expression of the Government’s response to the Ruddock Review released in December last year.

“The case for a positive rights approach has been poorly made and the Attorney-General is correct to have rejected the idea as inconsistent with Australia’s legal approach and fraught with inherent legal risk.

“Australia’s anti-discrimination architecture has served Australians well and enjoys broad endorsement across the community and it would be careless to dismantle it now.

Mr Entsch told The Australian today he was pleased the Attorney-General had avoided a freedom of religion bill, but he was still to read the full bill and wanted to consult with LGBTI groups.

“This bill is always what was intended. That’s what the Ruddock Review recommended and it couldn’t be anything else, otherwise we’d need a whole other review,” he said.

“I have to say Mr Porter has been good and he’s always kept me up to scratch. There is no reason to think the Attorney has done anything other than his absolute best on this.

Attorney-General Christian Porter has unveiled laws to protect Australians from discrimination on the basis of their religious belief, but the laws do not go as far as many church leaders want.

The Attorney-General’s Religious Discrimination Bill will take the form of similar anti-discrimination laws on gender, age, race and disability, and be brought before parliament in October.

It will not be a broader “religious freedom” act which Mr Porter said today would be too vague and lead to courts ultimately deciding what rights matter more in Australia.

“Australia has a strong anti-discrimination framework with specific protections for people against discrimination on the basis of their age, sex, race and disability,” Mr Porter said.

“This draft Bill released today extends those protections to provide protection for people against discrimination on the basis of their religion or religious belief, or lack thereof.

“The Bill would make it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of religious belief or activity in key areas of public life. The Bill does not create a positive right to freedom of religion.”

The Religious Discrimination Act would create a new Freedom of Religion Commissioner and provide comprehensive protection on religious belief and activity.

“Whilst there will always be competing views on issues such as this, the government considers the draft Bill presented today strikes the right balance in the interests of all Australians,” Mr Porter said.

“Consultation has already been undertaken through my office and the office of the Prime Minister with a range of stakeholder groups, including religious organisations.

“Further consultation with a wide range of stakeholders will now follow the release of the Bill and I look forward to working constructively with interested parties in settling a final Bill over the coming weeks. The first of these consultations will take place next week.

“I expect the Bills can be introduced in October and considered by both the House and Senate before the end of the calendar year, allowing time for a Senate inquiry.”

Some religious leaders boycotted the speech by Mr Porter at Sydney’s Great Synagogue because of his inclination against a broader act enshrining freedom of religion.

Mr Porter today said he was always opposed to such a broad law and this religious discrimination bill would provide courts with a better structure by which to weigh up religious issues.

He also said that some religious leaders did not understand the fallout any religious freedoms bill could entail.

“Aside from not being what was recommended from the extensive consultative analysis of the Ruddock Review, or indeed what was taken and promised at a full federal election, there are several obvious problems with the positive rights approach,” he said in Sydney.

“At several points of the consultations, I might respectively say, on this issue it appeared people had not thought through the positive rights approach — including those in church groups who were calling for it.

“I have always found vague and unconvincing ... a list of rights and leaving the courts to determine the outcomes.”

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 August, 2019

AG plays to win back our liberty

A religious bill of rights would be too sweeping.  Small steps will work best

Following last week’s cabinet meeting, the Attorney-General said there would be finetuning to the government’s bill to bolster religious freedom before it goes to the Coalition partyroom on September 10. That gives MPs time to dust off some works by John Locke or Thomas Jefferson on the nature of rights.

The demand by a handful of conservatives for something akin to a charter of religious rights is both myopic and misplaced. If they get their way, they will be cheered by every left-wing legal academic who has been pushing for a broad-ranging charter of rights for two decades. That alone should stop these misguided conservatives in their tracks.

In case it doesn’t, here are other reasons they are wrong. There is no quick fix to bolstering religious freedom in this country. It is a long game, not for the impatient, the imprudent or the faint-hearted. Religious freedom in Australia has been curtailed by myriad laws, introduced over decades by legislators who had little interest in protecting religious freedom and did not value free speech either.

For a half-century, there has been an unsuitably named “progressive” project to treat certain groups of people, distinguished by sex, race and sexuality, and a long list of other legislated characteristics, as victims in need of protection from speech deemed offensive.

The resulting laws are regressive, up-ending what has been called a “delicate ecosystem of liberties” where freedom of conscience and freedom of religion cannot exist without the right to speak freely.

None of this will be fixed by a single new law giving religious freedom to Australians. Religious freedom can be fully restored only by going to the source of what has taken away our liberty.

And the sources are many.

They include a raft of state anti-discrimination laws that prohibit speech that “offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules” a person on the basis of a listed attribute. While these provisions are not always direct curbs on religious freedom, that is their effect when laws limit what we can say.

When Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous distributed a pamphlet setting out Catholic teaching on marriage, Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Commissioner decided he had a case to answer under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. And that remains the state of play; the woman complainant dropped the case before it was determined.

The Attorney-General’s plan to address the Porteous problem will be a major win for religious freedom in this country. But it will not, and should not, be done by passing a religious bill of rights.

The Australian understands Christian Porter has in mind a new federal provision making it unlawful to drag someone to an anti-discrimination tribunal for expressing a religious belief.

That would be an important start to unwinding the morass of anti-discrimination laws stifling freedom of expression and religious freedom.

The Australian also has been told that Porter wants laws to address the legal saga entangling Israel Folau. That could be done by providing a new act, separate to provisions in the Fair Work Act the rugby player is relying on in his stoush with Rugby Australia. These provisions could prohibit sections of a workplace code of conduct that have a disproportionate effect on a particular employee because of their religious beliefs.

These reforms, and others planned, could give the ambitious Attorney-General the chance to prove his leadership, by meshing political nous with sound legal judgment.

Politically, Porter has framed the proposed reforms as part of a new but entirely orthodox anti-discrimination law to protect people of faith. That will satisfy voters that the Morrison government is keeping its election promise.

But legally, Porter must know the last thing we need is another layer of anti-discrimination laws. It would add insult to the injury of identity politics to add another anti-discrimination law, creating another category of victim — the person of faith — requiring special protection. Given that there is no prospect of the states and territories repealing their various anti-discrimination laws, Porter will prove that he understands the hindrances to the exercise of faith if he punches sizable holes in today’s anti-discrimination laws — in other words, legislating a series of carefully targeted exemptions to present laws to bolster religious freedom, rather than cementing into society another new layer of anti-discrimination laws.

If that is his plan, keep punching, Attorney-General. And don’t lose sleep over earlier assurances that new federal laws will not override state laws.

That is a passing scuffle compared with the long game that Porter can lay claim to: the first federal attorney-general to start a long-term liberty project to unwind, with a series of tactical and targeted exemptions, anti-discrimination laws that have multiplied since the 1970s.

By contrast, the demand by some conservatives that the Morrison government legislate a religious bill of rights is wrong on so many levels. It is a concession of defeat, an admission by them that they will no longer argue from first principles.

And that first principle — that our fundamental rights are inalienable to us as human beings — is a dangerous one to throw out in the rush to find a quick fix.

This country has fought tyranny when tyrants stripped people of their inalienable rights: Hitler, communism, Saddam Hussein, Islamic State. It is not up to governments, no matter how benevolent, to give fundamental rights to people. The essence of liberty is that elected government makes the case to voters why our inalienable rights should be curbed.

Test it this way. Consider how each scenario looks in another 50 years. In the first scenario, various Australian governments (even Labor governments after the party was punished by voters back in 2019 for ignoring people of faith) have worked assiduously to return fundamental rights to Australians by dismantling, section by section, laws that unreasonably limit religious freedom and freedom of expression. Legislators understood that their project to restore liberty would take time, just as the previous project by “progressives” took decades to distort our liberties.

In the alternative scenario, the Morrison government legislated a religious charter of rights. And when it comes to power, the next Labor government passes a wide-ranging charter of rights converting all kinds of claims into rights. Crackpot cases clog up the Human Rights Commission, like the transgender woman complaining after a beautician refuses to wax her testicles. Turns out there is no human right to a sac wax. But still, we kick ourselves for not learning, all those years ago, from Canada’s mistakes.

Within 20 years, there is a transfer of power from parliament (meaning we, the people) to judges who determine the limits of our fundamental rights.

If the plan is to punch holes in existing laws, Porter’s liberty restoration project is the best chance of returning lasting freedoms to Australians. And perhaps the misguided conservatives are merely positioning themselves, asking for much more, but happy if a few minor tweaks go their way.

If, on the other hand, they are serious about demanding a religious freedom act, then, as one Liberal MP told The Australian this week, “they really have lost their marbles”.

SOURCE  






‘Low-paid work provides dignity’: MPs urged to scrap $19.49 minimum wage, unions slam ‘appalling’ push

Low-paid work “provides dignity” and is an “important first rung of the career ladder”, according to a document distributed to MPs calling for the minimum wage to be scrapped.

The parliamentary research brief distributed by conservative think tank the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) argues Australia’s minimum wage of $19.49 an hour is the highest in the developed world and “undermines work opportunity and job creation” by “removing the entry rung” for young and low-skilled workers.

“Low-paid work equips workers with important experience, builds transferable skills, demonstrates a willingness to work and provides references and contacts for future work opportunities,” the paper says. “It also functions as a starting point for young people to experience the dignity of work that provides meaning and direction and fosters personal responsibility and independence.”

Using data from government submissions to the Fair Work Commission’s Annual Wage Review, IPA research fellow Kurt Wallace calculated nearly two-thirds of minimum wage workers moved to higher-paid work within two years and just 3 per cent remained in low-paid work after five years.

“Contrary to suggestions that low-paid work is a ‘dead-end job’, these jobs have high upward income mobility,” Mr Wallace said in a statement. “Over half of low-paid Australian workers move to higher-paid work within a year, 64 per cent move to higher-paid work within two years and 75 per cent move to higher-paid work within five years.”

Mr Wallace added, “Australia’s stringent labour regulation significantly raises the cost of employment, making it difficult for those who lack experience to find work. The superannuation system and leave entitlements alone increase the minimum wage to $25.34 per hour worked.”

The World Economic Forum ranks Australia the 105th least flexible labour market out of 140 countries. The IPA argues the minimum wage is a large reason 38 per cent of 15 to 19-year-olds are either unemployed or underemployed and an estimated 250,000 Australians aged 15 to 24 are not engaged in work, study, or caring for children.

“All work provides dignity, skills and financial independence,” Mr Wallace said. “Low-paid work is an important rung toward higher-paid work and career success. Australia’s high minimum wage and restrictive labour regulation undermines the ability of young people to enter the workforce and experience the dignity of work.”

An IPA spokesman added the think tank did “not believe there should be a minimum wage”. “It is not a policy which is well targeted at alleviating poverty — most who are on the minimum wage are not poor,” he said. “And it prevents the lowest skilled from getting a job. Instead governments should explore alternatives such as earned income tax credits.”

Australian Council of Trade Unions secretary Sally McManus slammed the research. “The proposal by the extreme big business advocates at the IPA to abolish the minimum wage is appalling, dangerous, but predictable,” she said in a statement.

“This group believes that workers should have no rights or protections and our society should be run solely according to the wishes of big business. At the same time, former and current IPA members who are Liberal MPs are also pushing for the removal of unfair dismissal protections.”

Ms McManus said Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter should “publicly reject any suggestion that minimum wages or unfair dismissal protections should be abolished and stand up for working people”.

“Should they not do this, it will be clear that they are allowing extreme groups like the IPA to drive their agenda,” she said. “Ideas like this are fundamentally unfair and would drive our country into recession. The only thing keeping wage increases in line with inflation are our minimum wages system and the pay rises won by unions.”

More than two million Australians got a pay rise at the start of last month after the Fair Work Commission’s 3 per cent increase to the minimum wage took effect. Unions were pushing for a 6 per cent increase at the Annual Wage Review in May, while business groups wanted 2 per cent.

Mr McManus said the IPA was using the Morrison Government’s shock election victory as an “opportunity to once again push their extreme agenda”.

“They have a list of demands which over six years the Coalition government has been ticking off, but they’re not done,” she said. “The Morrison Government has given them this soapbox with the announcement of a review of workers’ rights. It is up to them to make clear they will not be entertaining any proposal that makes workers worse off.”

SOURCE  






World's first transgender actress Carlotta slams 'ridiculous' bill that allows people to change their sex on birth certificates - and says children should NOT be allowed to transition

Her appearance on the Australian soap Number 96 in 1972 marked the first time a transgender actress played a transgender character on TV anywhere in the world.

And Carlotta shared her opinion on a major trans issue on Monday, slamming a decision by the Victorian legislative assembly to pass a bill that allows transgender and non-binary people to change the sex listed on their birth certificate without gender reassignment surgery.

Speaking on Studio 10, the 75-year-old trans icon and cabaret performer claimed the whole bill is 'ridiculous'.

'It is a different generation today, but I really believe that unless you've had the sex change [you shouldn't] have your papers changed… because anyone can do it,' she said.

Emphasising that transitioning is far more complex than simply changing information on legal documents, Carlotta turned to host Sarah Harris and said: 'You could go in and say, "I want to be a boy", and you're not a boy. It's ridiculous!'

The TV personality, who rose to fame in the stage production of Les Girls in 1962, went on to say that she doesn't believe children should be allowed to transition either.

'I have a lot of people writing to me about little kids - a little girl wants to be a little boy, or a little boy wants to be a little girl - and they go to school dressed that way,' she said.

Carlotta added that she is 'strongly against' doctors approving hormone treatment for children before they have a true grasp of who they are.

The outspoken star said that children 'should not be put on treatments' until they have 'matured and are of age'.

'Your hormones change... they could get to 15 or 16 and decide they don't want to be [a different gender],' she added.

Carlotta acknowledged that her views reflect her own experience growing up transgender in a less permissive age, saying, 'I'm only being sensible because I did it the hard way.'

According to Carlotta, when she went overseas for her own gender reassignment surgery, she was forced to get a new passport issued to reflect the fact she had become a woman.

At that time, she was still obliged to have a separate page in her passport with her old identity, so as not to cause confusion.

She concluded: 'I do not believe that [transgender people] have the right to go and have their birth certificates changed when they haven't had the changes.'

Carlotta's return to Studio 10 comes after she dramatically quit the show last year, claiming at the time that the show's producers had treated her 'unfairly'.

Announcing her comeback last month, she said: 'I thought mummy needed to comeback with a bit of political incorrectness! Mummy's here because you know I say it how it is. I'm back, honey, but I'll behave.'

SOURCE  






Super giant to impose 100pc carbon reduction targets

This is just virtue signalling puffery that can achieve nothing.  What will happen if the power stations fail to comply?  Nothing.  They could sell the power stations at a huge loss but what good would that do them?

Australia’s biggest energy network will face an unprecedented emissions reduction target as its owner — industry super­annuation giant IFM ­Investors — launches an ambitious project to cut carbon across its vast asset holdings.

Emissions reductions targets of up to 100 per cent by 2030 will be slapped on a broad range of infrastructure assets across the nation, including the Ausgrid electricity network, Melbourne and Brisbane airports, and NSW ports.

The move risks stoking a conflict­ with the Morrison governmen­t, which has sought to clamp down on social and environme­ntal activism by industr­y super funds.

The $140 billion IFM Invest­ors, chaired by former ACTU head Greg Combet and co-owned by 27 of the biggest industry super funds, including Aust­ralianSuper, Hostplus and Cbus, also controls or has large stakes in assets such as the Port of Brisbane, Southern Cross Station in Melbourne and Northern Territ­ory Airports.

IFM Investors will announce today a move to strip 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annual­ly from the assets by 2030 — equal to removing almost 70,000 cars from the road.

According to its Paris Agreement target, Australia will reduce emissions to 26-28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030.

Following the collapse of the Coalition’s national energy guarantee last year, IFM Investors will apply an emissions reduction target of ­between 8 and 25 per cent on infra­structure projects by 2024, and of 38 to 100 per cent by 2030.

Ausgrid, which was half-privatised by the NSW Liberal government for $16bn in 2016, is the largest energy network in the country, supplying more than 1.6 million homes and businesses across Sydney, the NSW central coast and the Hunter region.

It will now attempt to reduce its emissions by 8 per cent over the next five years, and by 17 per cent by 2030. To achieve this, IFM will invest in a range of solar energy projects, launch ­effic­iency upgrades on its buildings, install thousands of energy-efficien­t lights and use low-emissio­n vehicles. NT Airports, meanwhile, is hoping to achieve a 100 per cent emissions ­reduction by 2030.

The emissions reduction prog­ram comes after the government’s $10bn Clean Energy Finance Corporation, established by the Gillard government in 2012, invested $150 million last year into IFM to help lower emissions across the country’s largest infrastructure assets.

IFM head of Australian infrastructure Michael Hanna said it made “perfect business sense” to cut emissions by “reducing costs, mitigating future business risks and contributing to outcomes that our customers value”.

“This exciting initiative represents a genuine commitment and start to aligning our assets to the Paris Agreement,” Mr Hanna said.

Clean Energy Finance Corporation boss Ian Learmonth said the reductions had “the potential to make a material impact” on Australia­’s carbon footprint. “This … sets an important example for other major infrastructure owners and managers,” he said.

Deep divisions between union-backed funds and big business surfaced this year when Josh Fry­den­berg asked the prudential regul­ator whether it had the power to ensure union-appointed super trustees did not pursue political objectives at the expense of ­members’ interests.

The Treasurer’s ­intervention came after the ACTU backed a Maritime Union of Australia ­campaign for industry funds to pressure BHP and BlueScope Steel into reversing a decision to forgo the renewal of a legacy contract­ for two Australian-crewed vessels — the last servicing the iron-ore industry.

AustralianSuper, the nation’s largest fund — where ACTU president Michele O’Neil is an alternate board director — also joined a throng of major instit­utional investors to pressure global­ commodity group Glencore to cap its coal production.

Industry funds have an equal-representation board model, meaning they appoint ­directors from unions and employer groups. Together, they have $677bn of assets under management — more financial power than the bank-run retail fund sector ($623bn), or public­ sector funds ($475bn).

Last week, the US Business Roundtable overturned 57 years of corporate orthodoxy holding that the only purpose of a corporation was to generate profit for shareholders by publishing a new “statement­ on the purpose of a corporation”. The statement sought to elevate the concerns of customers, employees and com­munitie­s. It was signed by 181 chief executives, including Lachlan Murdoch, the chairman and chief executive of Fox Corporation and co-chairman of News Corp, ultim­ate publisher of The Australian.

Ausgrid, which owns the ­NSW energy distribution network, triggers the majority of its emissions through electrical line losses by transmitting power over long ­distances. While these particular costs would be too “prohibitive” to clamp down on, IFM said it would tackle inefficient street lights, which account for 11 per cent of emissions, and convert more than 250,000 to energy-efficient bulbs.

The company will also install more than 11,500 rooftop solar panels across its work sites. Excluding­ the emissions for line losses, the program will cut Ausgrid­’s emissions by 44 per cent by the end of 2024.

IFM and AustralianSuper jointly own 50.4 per cent of Ausgrid­ for a 99-year lease. IFM owns 25 per cent of Aust­ralia Pacific Airports Corporation, which owns Melbourne Airport under a 50-year lease.

It also owns 20 per cent of Brisbane Airport Corporation, which controls the airport under a 49-year lease. IFM owns 45 per cent of NSW Ports, which manages Port Botany and Port Kembla, the Enfield Inter­modal Logistics Centre and Cooks River Intermodal ­Terminal.

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 August, 2019

Nina Funnell has been very busy

Bettina Arndt 

Nina Funnell is a rape survivor who has built her journalism career exaggerating the risk of rape to young women at our universities. She’s the key spokesperson for End Rape on Campus which played a significant role in prompting the Human Rights Commission’s survey on sexual assault and harassment. Then, when that proved a fizzer, her organisation still bullied universities into measures to tackle ‘sexual violence’ – like sexual consent courses, rape crisis lines and so on. She’s currently trying to persuade universities to do new surveys, trying to cook the results more to her satisfaction.

In the past two years Funnell has published nine articles which attack me or include material designed to damage my professional reputation – plus there was a Sixty Minutes programme, a recent ABC 7.30 Report and numerous other newspaper reports based on the damaging material she has been promoting, using material she has clearly supplied to the journalists.

Last year she linked the rape and murder of the La Trobe student Aya Maarsarwe to my campus tour in an article in The Saturday Paper. I posted a detailed analysis of the many inaccuracies in that article on my Facebook page and encouraged my readers to report her to the Press Council.

Clearly my loyal followers did their homework because I then suddenly received a letter from a female law firm threatening defamation action over that post. This petered out following a letter from the formidable Brisbane QC Tony Morris, who is well-known for successfully defending the QUT students in the indigenous computer lab scandal.

Morris wrote to Funnell’s lawyers saying we did not wish to discourage her from commencing legal proceedings. “Ms Arndt cannot conceive of a better way to ventilate the issues about which she is passionate, than at a trial where the focus of the tribunal of fact will be as to your client’s honesty, integrity and professionalism as a journalist.”

Yet most of the Funnell attacks relate to a YouTube video I made with Nico Bester, a Tasmanian teacher who went to prison for having a sexual relationship with one of his students. I decided to interview Bester after a judge spoke out against vigilante justice when feminist activists were targeting him following his release from prison, trying to stop him studying for a PhD at the University of Tasmania. In that interview I condemned Bester’s criminal actions, we discussed the seriousness of his crime and agreed his prison sentence was absolutely appropriate.

Funnell is persistently using carefully selected edits from that video, taking comments out of context to suggest I’m a pederast apologist. See the blog in which I explained all this following the ferocious 60 Minutes attack on me last year, where Funnell launched her  “Let Her Speak” campaign to allow Bester’s victim to speak about what happened. Tasmania has now changed its laws to allow sexual abuse victims to go public – which has enabled Funnell to launch a new wave of attacks on me as part of the victim’s new version of events involving Bester, which differ significantly from the evidence presented in the criminal trial.

Apart from all this, there have also been two complaints in the last six months to the NSW Health Care Complaints Commission claiming I am misrepresenting my professional qualifications. Both times the Commission dismissed the complaint. I am always careful when describing my qualifications to say that I “trained as a clinical psychologist,” rather than suggesting I am currently practising.  I haven’t worked in this field for over 40 years but it’s difficult to avoid inaccurate descriptions appearing occasionally in the media.

It’s obvious that people are gunning for me. My next campus talk is in September at UNSW and social media chat from one of the feminist campus groups revealed End Rape on Campus has “confidential damning information” on me which they plan to release prior to the event.

Via email from Bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au






Electric vehicles have ‘higher carbon emissions’

When you count how their electricity is generated

Electric vehicles in Australia’s eastern states are responsible for more carbon dioxide emissions than regular petrol vehicles, according to an expert report that warns Labor’s green cars policy would require up to $7 billion in upgrades and installation of recharging infrastructure across the nation.

A pre-election briefing obtained by The Australian, which was prepared by engineering firm ABMARC, concedes the immediate benefit of electric vehicles in Australia “is not guaranteed”. It also states Bill Shorten’s electric vehicle target of 50 per cent of new car sales by 2030 would need between $5bn and $7bn in recharging infrastructure and additional investment in “switchboards, transformers and poles and wires”.

“Installing this level of charging infrastructure would require a significant increase in the rate of investment in recharging infrastructure,” the report says.

The report, released to stakeholders in May, also provides a breakdown comparing average CO2 emissions of hybrid, petrol, diesel and electric vehicles in Australia.

ABMARC, which is used by government departments, motoring firms and major energy companies, reveals “CO2 emissions from electric vehicles in Victoria are particularly high, similar to the average diesel CO2 emissions”.

On average, in NSW, Victoria, ACT and Queensland, petrol vehicles “provide less CO2 than electric vehicles”, with ABMARC linking the emissions disparity with “Australia’s continued reliance on coal-fired power stations”. The consultancy firm also notes that the Australian Average Diesel emissions data was “heavily skewed by light commercial vehicles (utes) and larger SUVs”.

The report says hybrid vehicles “provide greater environmental benefits in nearly all states and territories” than electric vehicles with the exception of Tasmania, which primarily uses hydro-electricity.

The ABMARC analysis also unravels the argument for Australia to replicate Norway’s electric car market, which imposes heavy taxes on passenger vehicles and provides generous incentives for EVs.

Pro-electric-vehicle groups and the Greens, who want 100 per cent of new car sales to be electric by 2030, use Norway, Denmark, Ireland and The Netherlands as models for supporting electric vehicle uptake.

As a result of Norway’s pro-EV policies, the ABMARC report shows the cost of a Hyundai i30 in the Scandinavian country is $54,204 compared with $18,498 in Australia.

In addition to reducing taxes on EVs, Norway provided incentives to boost electric car uptake, including free parking, excluding or limiting conventional vehicles from parking in some locations, reducing registration fees for EVs, exempting them from road tolls, free charging on public charging points and access to fast lanes.

In April, Mr Shorten unveiled a $100 million commitment towards the rollout of 200 fast-charging stations across the nation, a 50 per cent electric vehicle target for government vehicle purchases and new tax incentives for fleet buyers to purchase green cars instead of conventional combustion engine vehicles.

On May 7, in response to Coalition “scare campaigns”, Anthony Albanese declared “the whole world is moving towards electric vehicles”. “When we announced our policy you’d think that the world was going to end with nonsense like we’re coming for people’s utes and all this sort of rubbish,” Mr Albanese said.

ABMARC notes that a 50 per cent target by 2030 would be “extremely challenging and not possible without very significant policy changes and incentives”.

“Incentives similar to those in Norway are likely to be required and it is not clear how these could be readily achieved as Australia does not currently have Norway’s policy mechanisms at its disposal”.

Scott Morrison’s criticism of Labor’s electric vehicle policy — in tandem with the Coalition’s attacks on Labor’s big tax-and-spend agenda and climate change costings — was viewed by some inside the ALP as a weak point for the opposition in some electorates.

Along with Labor’s major policies put forward at the May 18 election, the electric vehicle target is now subject to an ALP review, due to be finalised by October.

Following Mr Shorten’s electric vehicle policy announcement, Tesla boss Elon Musk suggested EV sales could hit 50 per cent of new cars sooner than 2030. Musk cited the Norwegian experience, which through generous subsidies and benefits has increased its EV uptake.

“Norway has already proven it could be done last month. No question Australia could do this in far fewer than 11 years,” he tweeted. Electricity prices in Norway are among the lowest in first- world nations.

SOURCE  






President Trump meets his ‘King of Australia’

Scott Morrison has lent support to Donald Trump over the escalating trade war with China, saying the US had “legitimate issues”, but it needed to be resolved quickly with collateral damage threatening to hurt the Australian and other third party economies.

The Prime Minister said he had raised the issue during a 20-minute meeting with the US President on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Biarritz, after which Mr Trump humorously described Mr Morrison as “the King of Australia”.

“The US has legitimate issues they wish to pursue as part of that trading relationship … it’s not for us to dictate to them any more than it is to China what they should be concluding … it’s just more broadly in everyone’s interests that they proceed to a conclusion.”

Australia is attending as an observer to the summit with the G7 confined to the US, France, Britain, Canada, Japan, Italy and Germany. It was formed primarily in response to the 1973 oil crisis.

However, in a sign of Australia’s growing status, Mr Morrison’s meeting with Mr Trump was elevated to an official engagement and included US National Security Adviser John Bolton, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and senior adviser and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner. Australian officials included the Prime Minister’s chief of staff John Kunkel, national sec­urity adviser Michelle Chan and executive officer Nico Louw.

The meeting was held after Mr Trump had sent mixed messages over China, claiming he was having “second thoughts” about the latest round of tit for tat tariff hikes. After being interpreted as a softening in the US position, the White House said the President had been referring to having second thoughts on whether he should have raised the tariffs even higher.

Mr Morrison also talked up Vietnam’s emerging role in the ­region during his discussions with Mr Trump. Vietnam is engaged in a maritime dispute with China. “I’ve just come from Vietnam to this and was able to have a good conversation about the engagement I had with Vietnam and the positive role they are playing in the Indo-Pacific,” he said.

He said Mr Trump had expressed his gratitude for Australia’s military commitment to the international coalition to protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz while touching on the Hong Kong protests and North Korea.

Mr Morrison is using the G7 to try to head off a European push, led by France, for an international tax standard to be applied to digital companies such as Google because of fears it could be extended and hit Australia’s commodity exports.

SOURCE  






Left-wing journalists try to censor the inconvenient facts

The hysterical preeners of the virtue-signalling Left must exhaust themselves daily with mental contortions working out what facts are suitable for public consumption and what needs to be suppressed. Slaves to political fashion, social media memes and their own sanctimony, these people seem to lack any guiding principles or ­intellectual integrity.

If they had their way, media ­reports last week would have told us about a fatal stabbing rampage and shown a man standing on a car in Sydney’s CBD, beeping out the audio of what he was yelling and telling us merely that there was some shouting. Apparently, the public could not be trusted with the knowledge that the man yelled “Allahu akbar”.

You need to remind yourself that these same activists tend to have an anarchical attitude to government secrecy, supporting the Julian Assanges of this world who would share even the most highly classified secrets. Yes, ­secrets are evil to these leftist ­activists, except the secrets they want to keep from a public they believe is not wise or woke enough to be trusted with reality.

They want to save the mainstream from their own bigotry and knee-jerk reactions. They must consider themselves secular saints — arbiters of the national debate for the common good — but in truth they are delusional.

My Sky News colleague Laura Jayes ran headlong into this idiocy when she happened to tweet breaking news from last week’s stabbing, including the fact that a man, armed with a knife, was ­yelling “Allahu akbar” as he called for police to shoot him. Jayes ­posted video showing exactly this.

Soon enough on social media Jayes was criticised for being ­unhelpful, encouraging “unnec­essary othering” — whatever that is — and “Islamophobia”. News reports yesterday revealed “Allahu akbar” also got a mention on a grotesque video made by the alleged killer; I guess that should never have been reported either.

We have seen a similar response from ABC presenter and purveyor of offensive and violent abuse on social media, Benjamin Law, over transgender issues. He has slammed this newspaper for collating its extensive reporting on these issues, much of it written by Bernard Lane, on to a web page.

On the one hand Law thinks we should be alive to the complexities confronting transgender-identifying children but on the other he doesn’t want the national broadsheet to facilitate an informed discussion. Truth is, of course, he is only interested in his views and those of people he agrees with. His problem with The Australian’s coverage is simply that he won’t agree with all of it.

Instead of welcoming a page on these issues, or perhaps offering an article, Law took to Twitter (where else?) to call it a “despicable” move to “demonise” trans and gender-variant kids and give vent to “extremist” voices. We are to presume that in an ideal world Law’s would be the first and last word on this issue.

Never mind that federal Health Minister Greg Hunt has now launched an inquiry into the medical processes involved, prompted largely by the cases and concerns reported by Lane. Federal and state medical authorities are examining whether they can handle these difficult cases better — we are left wondering whether this is acceptable to Law or whether this too fits under the category of demonisation.

Law, who still appears regularly on ABC radio and television, has publicly threatened to “hate-f*ck” Coalition politicians he disagrees with on gay issues and to “projectile diarrhoea” on the kids of other protagonists.

He sounds like a lovely chap with, at least, some expertise in the demonisation of which he speaks.

The activist Left seems to demand a virtue-signalling monoculture. We saw plenty of that last week when the Left — including most journalists, of course — sided with the illogical, hypocritical and alarmist criticism of Australia by some small island nations and New Zealand over climate action.

Cartoonists couldn’t resist drawings of drowning islands. Journalists with furrowed brows talked about the existential threat of climate change to these islands.

Never mind that Tuvalu’s land mass has expanded by almost 3 per cent over the past few decades, with three-quarters of its islands growing rather than shrinking. Never mind the most pressing dilemmas for almost all of these nations is poor governance, inadequate education, healthcare and employment opportunities.

And never mind that Australia is committed to Paris Agreement emissions reductions and that global emissions continue to rise steadily thanks mainly to China — a benefactor these Pacific nations don’t criticise. We must be the only country where our journalistic cohort’s natural disposition is to agree with any criticism of our country, no matter how ill-founded.

The facts often don’t fit the narrative, so the Left prefers to leave them out. And increasingly they will bully any journalist impertinent enough to report any facts that the green-left evangelists find too confronting.

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





27 August, 2019

Australian sunshine could soon be farmed to power an Asian nation

Setting one thing aside, this is one Greenie scheme that could work.  Australia is mostly desert so uninterrupted sunshine will happen most of the time.  So Singapore could get cheap daytime power from Australia and turn on its gas-fired generators at night.  And if there was any interruption to the Australian power supply they could just turn on their gas generators during the day as well.  Perfect. Cheap uninterruptible power.  The Holy Grail,

So where is the African person in the woodpile? Cost. Particularly with the undersea cable, there would be a huge capital cost before startup, a cost borne by banks who will want their usual 4% pa on funds invested.  Generating the power may not cost much but paying the huge bills needed to get the generating going will be another matter.  Just about all big projects cost at least twice the initial estimate so to pay the banks the operators will have to charge big for what they supply.  Will it be so big that the Singaporeans will simply say "No thanks"?  Could be.

And let me mention another nettle: Solar farms actually require a lot of maintenance and with so many panels that will be a big cost too. 

If the project goes ahead, it is my prophecy that all investors, including the banks, will lose their shirts.  And in a capitalist society destruction of capital is a big issue.  It means that money which could have been used productively was in fact wasted.  But that's standard Greenie form, of course


An Australian entrepreneur wants the Northern Territory desert to become home to the world’s biggest solar farm, with the electricity generated sent along undersea cables to Singapore.

David Griffin is an entrepreneur and leader in the development of Australia's renewable energy industry and his ambitious new plan to power Singapore from a 15,000-hectare solar farm in the Northern Territory has investors taking interest worldwide.

“It is first and foremost the largest solar farm under development in the world,” the Sun Cable CEO told SBS's Small Business Secrets from Singapore.

The Sun Cable project will be the first of its kind to try and export clean energy internationally.

A former GM Development at Infigen Energy, David has been developing solar and wind farms in Australia and South Africa for nearly 20 years.

His Sun Cable project would send electricity to Darwin, then along a 3,800-kilometre undersea cable to Singapore.

“It’s an extremely complex problem that we are solving. There are risks associated with that [undersea cable] and that’s why it’ll take a long time to go through the entire design process,” he said.

“It is the longest proposed project on the table at the moment but it’s certainly not the deepest.”

The solar farm would sprawl over 15,000 kilometres, backed by a 10-gigawatt plant.

The Northern Territory Government recently granted ‘major project’ status with construction expected to start in 2023. Environmental approvals are pending.

“If we look at Asia, no-one wants to see forests cleared,” Mr Griffin said.

“In order to truly see an electrification of global economy and to see it done in a way that doesn’t lead to climate catastrophe, we need to be able to move huge volumes of renewable electricity over vast distances and this is the technology that’ll allow it to happen.”

SOURCE  





Report suggests changes to teacher pay and $10,000 scholarships to attract top students

Rubbish! Money is not the answer.  Making schools a pleasant working environment is.  That can be done but it needs a restoration of classroom discipline  -- which is mightily resisted these days

Australia’s top teachers should earn $80,000 a year more, and top students should get $10,000-a-year scholarships if they take up teaching, a new report has recommended.

The Grattan Institute has proposed a $1.6 billion reform package to double the number of high achievers who become teachers, and increase the average ATAR of teaching graduates to 85, within the next decade.

Attracting Australia’s best students could pay dividends, with the report suggesting a typical student could gain an extra six to 12 months of learning by Year 9 with a higher-achieving teacher workforce.

“Australia needs more high achievers in teaching, because great teachers are the key to better student performance,” Grattan Institute school education program director Peter Goss said.

“The low status of teaching in Australia has become self-reinforcing, putting off high achievers who might otherwise want to teach. By contrast, high-performing countries such as Singapore and Finland get many high-achieving students to apply, and then select the most promising candidates.”

The report recommends three changes.

1. $10,000 cash-in-hand scholarships for high achievers to study teaching. Scholarship holders should be required to work in government schools for at least several years.

2. The creation of two new roles in schools: an Instructional Specialist and Master Teacher. These teachers would be paid more and have responsibility for improving teaching at their schools and in their regions. Grattan suggests Instructional Specialists make up about 5 to 8 per cent of teachers and that they be paid about $140,000 a year — $40,000 more than the highest standard pay rate. Master Teachers would make up about 0.5 per cent of teachers and they would be paid about $180,000 a year — $80,000 more than the highest standard pay.

3. A $20 million-a-year advertising campaign, similar to the Australian Defence Force recruitment campaigns, to promote the changes and re-position teaching as an attractive, challenging, and well-paid career option.

The report shows bright young Aussies are turning their backs on teaching, with demand among high achievers falling by a third in the past decade — more than for any other undergraduate field of study.

Only 3 per cent of high achievers now choose teaching for their undergraduate studies, compared to 19 per cent for science, 14 per cent for health, and 9 per cent for engineering.

But a Grattan survey of nearly 1000 young people aged 18 to 25 with an ATAR of 80 or higher, found they would take up teaching if it offered higher top-end pay and greater career challenge.

The report recommends all three schools sectors in Australia — government, private, and Catholic — implement the reform package.

It believes state and territory governments, some of which have failed to adequately fund schools, should pay for the reforms in government schools.

Private and Catholic schools should pay for the reforms themselves, without extra taxpayer money.

“Our reform package would transform Australia’s teaching workforce,’ said Dr Goss. “In the long term it would pay for itself many times over, because a better-educated population would mean a more productive and prosperous Australia.”

SOURCE  






ABC, Guardian journos give Pacific Islands leaders a free kick on climate

“Trust the science.” It’s the mantra of left-wing news outlets on any climate change story, yet many ­reporters at the ABC, Guardian Australia and the Nine Entertainment newspapers don’t seem to know the science.

The ABC’s reporting of the ­Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Tuvalu from August 13 to 16 was a spectacular case in point. In a bid to wedge Scott Morrison on the public broadcaster’s favourite subject, climate, Pacific leaders received a free kick. But here’s the thing: most of the islands are not sinking. That is what the peer-reviewed science shows.

In a famous paper from the University of Auckland released last year and based on sophisticated physical models, scientists showed many of the atolls on Tuvalu, Kiribati and Tokelau are actually rising. The finding confirms observations from satellite photos showing the islands are increasing in area, Tuvalu by 73ha between 1971 and 2014.

It gets worse. The ABC’s own fact check unit confirmed this in a ruling last year on claims by conservative federal Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly, who had said the Pacific’s islands were not sinking.

The fact check unit said on December 21 last year: “Mr Kelly’s claim checks out. The research cited by Mr Kelly suggests certain islands — specifically larger atolls and reef platforms — can adapt to the current pace of sea level rise.”

Where was Paul Barry’s Media Watch, normally the ABC’s ­climate science policeman? Perhaps news director Gaven Morris should have emailed the ABC’s own fact check to staff before the Pacific Islands Forum meeting so they would not be treated like useful idiots in a cash grab by the states Australia supports with aid.

Patricia Karvelas did not ­appear to know the science when she interviewed Tuvalu Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga on RN Breakfast on August 14. “What impact is the changing climate having on your country right now?” Karvelas asked.

Sopoaga replied: “People are about to be … swallowed into the sea because of erosion …”

Karvelas offered no defence of the science, allowing Sopoaga to make claims that fit the long-term, and to date false, narrative of ­climate refugees. Remember all the scare stories in the 1990s and early noughties quoting the UN predicting “50 million climate refugees by 2010”?

The interview went on for ­another six minutes as the leader of a nation of 12,000 citizens was allowed to demand Australia stop mining coal and open no new coalmines. Karvelas did not ask how Sopoaga thought Australia could keep the aid money flowing to the South Pacific if it shut down its largest export industry, worth $70 billion a year.

Nor did she ask about the ­elephant in the room: why are the Pacific Islands flirting with China if they are so concerned about carbon dioxide emissions they think will drown their island homes given China produces half the world’s man-made emissions of CO2 and Australia only 1.3 per cent? The best she could do was ask: “Do you think a bit of healthy competition is good for the ­Pacific?”

Karvelas hosted Insiders the following Sunday morning, Aug­ust 18. On the couch were Guardian Australian editor and climate activist Lenore Taylor, Peter van Onselen, columnist for this paper and Network Ten political editor, and David Crowe, political correspondent for Nine’s papers.

Taylor kicked off a session on climate saying Australia had a problem at the Pacific Islands Forum only because it lacked a credible climate policy. No mention Australia has one of the highest penetrations of renewable power generation in the world and has destroyed its competitive advantage in low-cost electricity in the process. PVO chimed in with the right observation: “We let China off the hook in relation to where their emissions are at and where their influence is at in the South Pacific.”

Taylor shot back in the carbon giant’s defence: “China is on track to meet its Paris targets.” That would be the target that allows China to increase emissions each year until 2030 by more than Australia’s total annual emissions.

Karvelas played footage of New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters bagging the island ­nations for their double standard on China’s emissions while criticising Australia, which he said had been generous to the region for decades.

Interview subject for the program was Labor foreign affairs spokeswoman Penny Wong. She claimed with no evidence and without challenge by Karvelas that Labor would have done better at Tuvalu. She eventually was forced to admit Labor would not cut coal exports or ban new mines.

Wong said forum nations were at the forefront of the war on climate change, but she was not confronted with the science on sea-level rise. To be the “partner of choice” for the Pacific over China, Australia needed to do more on climate, Wong said. Again no mention of China’s emissions.

The media really should know more about changes in climate ­science, especially given UN forecasts on temperature and sea-level rise have been revised down regularly in successive Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports.

And journalists covering the Pacific should know much more about the history of Australia’s ­relations with its island neighbours. Since the forum was launched by New Zealand in 1971 this has largely been the work of Coalition governments as Labor after the Keating era looked increasingly to Indonesia and China for its foreign policy impetus. The Morrison pivot to the Pacific is back to the future.

This is something Peters understood even if his Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and many journalists, did not. Even a combative Fiji today is replete with social and business connections back to Australian expats, many influential long before Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama stopped democratic elections in 2009 and his country was barred from the Pacific Islands Forum and the Commonwealth Games.

Yet Guardian Australia was breathless in its reporting of Bainimarama’s criticisms of Morrison in what it badged as an exclusive on August 17. Bainimarama said: “China never insults the Pacific. They don’t go … and tell the world we’ve given this much money to the Pacific Islands. They’re good people, definitely better than ­Morrison …”

Perhaps the Fiji Prime Minister should ask the leaders of north Pacific states such as Vietnam, The Philippines, Thailand and Japan if they think Chinese territorial expansion into the South China Sea is as benevolent as Bainimarama seems to imagine China’s influence in the South Pacific could be.

A rare beacon of sense from the progressive side of politics was Labor deputy leader Richard ­Marles, interviewed by Hamish Macdonald on RN Breakfast last Tuesday. Macdonald tried desperately to link a Papua New Guinea request for a $1.5bn loan to repair its budget to the forum climate troubles and increased Chinese influence in the region.

Marles said it was many years since we had underwritten PNG’s budgets, Australia was giving more than $600 million a year to PNG and “it is really important that we not engage with the Pacific by reference to China”. Macdonald claimed the Pacific was saying “give us what we want or we go to China”. Marles insisted that was in fact not the Pacific’s position and Australia should focus on the ­Pacific for the right historical and geographic reasons rather than to deny access to China.

Marles was correct but the ABC and Guardian Australia saw the entire Pacific Islands Forum meeting and China’s South Pacific interest as no more than a means to damage a new conservative prime minister on climate policy.

SOURCE  






Chinese 'cash cows' For Australian universities

I think this is a false alarm. Chinese kids are coming to Australia not at the behest and expense of the Chinese government but at the behest and expense of their rich Chinese parents.  So the politics are unlikedly to affect anything

Australia’s universities are taking a multi-billion-dollar gamble with taxpayer money to pursue a high-risk, high-reward international growth strategy that may ultimately prove incompatible with their public service mission. Their revenues are booming as they enrol record numbers of international students, particularly from China. As long as the China boom continues, the universities’ gamble will look like a success. If and when the China bubble bursts, taxpayers may be forced to step in to clean up the mess.

The CIS Analysis Paper The China Student Boom and the Risks It Poses to Australian Universities published this week pulls together data from universities, state and Commonwealth agencies, foreign governments, international organisations, and press reports to present a full picture of the risks being taken by Australian universities in enrolling unprecedented numbers of Chinese students.

While the report was being researched, ABC’s Four Corners came out with its own investigation into international students, ‘Cash Cows’ (aired May 6, and now available online). The documentary uncovered weak international admissions standards at Central Queensland, Southern Cross and Murdoch, but our report shows that the potential exists for similar problems even at highly respected institutions like Sydney, Melbourne, ANU, UNSW, UTS, Adelaide, and Queensland.

Even more worrying, these seven universities have become so reliant on Chinese student money that it may pose a serious financial risk to the universities’ continuing operations. At these seven universities, Chinese students seem to account for more than 50% of all international students. All seven have higher proportions of international and Chinese students than any university in the entire United States. And they rely on Chinese student course fees for anywhere from 13% (Adelaide and ANU) to 22-23% (UNSW and Sydney) of their total revenues.

The University of Sydney alone seems to generate more than half a billion dollars in annual revenue from Chinese student course fees.

Chinese enrollments are particularly unstable because of macroeconomic factors like the slowing of China’s economy, the lack of full convertibility of the Chinese yuan, and fluctuations in the value of the yuan versus the Australian dollar.

Australian universities, and particularly the seven leading universities spotlighted in our report, should act now to mitigate the risk of a sudden revenue collapse by raising admissions standards and reducing international student enrollments. They should make, publish, and implement plans to reduce their reliance on international students (and Chinese students in particular) to manageable levels, with targets set both for the university as a whole and for individual programs.

Australia’s universities are taking massive financial risks in pursuit of international student revenues. As the world’s leading banks in 2008, they must be aware that they are ‘too big to fail’. As public and publicly-accountable institutions, they enjoy an implicit guarantee that if things go wrong, the government will come to the rescue. The government should step in now to ensure that the universities change course before it is too late.

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 August, 2019

Refashioning corporations in a bonfire of the vanities

Company big bosses decide they are no longer interested in boring old things like profits.  They would rather be loved.  Feel sorry for their shareholders

I forgive Greta Thunberg. She is a young girl with a misguided sense of doom about humanity. Her mission to convince us that ­instru­ments of our magnificent progress, such as airline travel, are weapons of self-destruction would lead us back into a new dark age.

Alas, modern missionaries trying to destroy other instruments of our progress are everywhere. And they get no forgiveness. This week one group of mostly old rich men made their mission public: to get rid of the corporation as we know it. Maybe the wolves of Wall Street are trying to repent for their unimagined wealth by becoming the conscience of Wall Street. Whatever their motivation, their moralising project to change the purpose of a corporation will end up killing it off.

At first glance, the joint letter released by 181 bosses of America’s biggest companies sounds rather appealing. Led by JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, who chairs the Business Roundtable, the letter redefines the purpose of the company as follows: “While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders … We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country.”

This sort of sweet-sounding bumpf used to be harmless, part of a chief executive’s public branding exercise, like a politician saying he supports motherhood. Back then, chief executives returned to the office with a clear understanding that a corporation cannot exist without upholding the primacy of shareholders whose money and assumed risk holds up the whole damn show.

But this refashioning of the corporation by some of America’s richest men is something else. This is a bonfire of the vanities, where the corporation is being condemned by latter-day Savonarolas as sinful. Now consider what they want to throw on the dust heap of history: recognising the primacy of the shareholder has allowed the company, as a ­vehicle to pool people’s money by limiting their liability to the amount invested, to deliver tremendous advancements that started with perilous merchant ventures by the Dutch and British East India companies in the early 1600s.

These self-appointed corporate moralisers have grown bored with a corporate structure that, for hundreds of years, has ­unleashed unthinkable innovation and creativity, opening borders, employing and moving millions of people, providing ­infrastructure, essential goods and services to mass populations across the globe, not to mention the grand luxuries that we want.

The corporate wowsers have something else in mind for us for the next few hundred years. Exact­ly what, they haven’t made ­entirely clear. And maybe that ambiguity is part of their ruse.

What is clear enough is that their attempt to change the purpose of a company is an audacious attempt to blur its purpose. Are these chief executives proposing an equal commitment to each stakeholder? Or are they after something like Animal Farm where some are more equal than others? Who takes precedence when there is a conflict between interests? Which “community” are they talking about? And who and what determines what is in the best interests of the community? The obvious, but perhaps ­deliberate, flaw in their plan is that the purpose of a company will henceforth be whatever management wants it to be. That means that their stirring commitment to all stakeholders will make them accountable to no one.

Chief executives at the Business Roundtable should also know better than trying to socialise profits and privatise losses. Why would people invest in a company, let alone risky ventures, unless their interests take priority over a nebulous category of other “stakeholders”? After all, when a company goes bust, shareholders, not stakeholders, blow their dough.

Notice that the most vociferous of these self-proclaimed corporate reformers get religion after they get rich — very, very rich. Dimon’s net worth is estimated at $US1.3 billion ($1.9bn); his pay last year was $US31 million. Other signatories to the letter include Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the richest person on the planet, with a net worth, after his recent divorce, of $US111.7bn; Apple’s Tim Cook (net worth of $US625m); Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan (net worth of $US64.8m); Boeing’s Dennis A. Muilenburg (net worth $US85.2m); Morgan Stanley’s James Gorman (net worth more than $US84m) and BlackRock’s Larry Fink, whose net worth surpassed $US1bn last year.

Good on them for amassing such wealth. These masters of the universe made their fortunes the old-fashioned way, when shareholder primacy and profit mattered. Now they want to pull the drawbridge up, stripping the same opportunities from future generations of shareholders. And what do we get in return?

So far, a chorus line of chief executives committing companies to “the countries, regions and communities where they operate”, to quote from Fink’s annual letter to investors in January.

“The American Dream is alive but fraying,” Dimon said this week. But which part of the dream is fraying? Who decides how to mend it? And who pays to fix it?

That’s the real kicker behind their project: rich chief executives are using other people’s money to prosely­tise their personal social visions for the future. It’s terrific they care about the American Dream. And when they use their own money to those ends, we might take them more seriously.

When they use shareholders’ money for these pursuits and then try to justify this expropriation by defining down the importance of shareholders within the corporation, their mission will end up killing the structure that has been responsible for hundreds of years of human flourishing.

The claim that we must redefine the purpose of a company to enable long-term decision-­making is simply not true. Old law dating back at least to 1883 ­remains current law: directors and chief executives may look beyond the shareholder and short-term profits, to other stakeholders, when it is done for the benefit of the ­company. But many chief executives today don’t like constraints on their freedom to import social issues and other stakeholders into corporate decision-making. Hence the Business Roundtable’s plan.

Other activists are also champing at the bit to overturn the primacy of the shareholder. Last year in Australia, a cunning group of activists, mostly from industry super funds, tried to hijack the ASX corporate governance principles. The new rules, pages of ­social engineering baloney, would have effectively redefined the property rights of shareholders, creating an armoury of new legal weapons for activists to harass, ­intimidate and blackmail boards at AGMs. Corporate Australia’s response was to leave it to others to defeat this proposal.

One down, more to come. The International Standards Organisation, a body that makes money by drafting and selling standards, is busy putting the finishing touches on ISO 37000, a new global standard for corporate gov­ernance. It’s a safe bet that the ISO’s mission creep will cause the attempted hijackers of the ASX standards to turn green with envy.

Meanwhile in the US, Democrat Elizabeth Warren is still trying to sell her Accountable Capitalism Bill to the country, ­requiring big companies to obtain a charter from government to ­operate. And maybe the senator, dubbed Pocahontas by Donald Trump, is somewhere between 1/64th and 1/1024th correct.

Companies could do with a clear charter of their objects. Not a charter granted by government; that would take us back when the colonial whims of a 17th-century monarch controlled the purpose of a company. Just as controlling are the modern corporate moralisers, and their brazenness has reached the point where we need new laws to rein them in.

So here is an alternative idea to the Roundtable’s proposal to blur the purpose of the company: the law should require that companies have a charter established by those who put their money at risk, namely shareholders, which clearly sets out the objects of the company. That would stop free-range virtue-signalling CEOs in their tracks. To be sure, they could always devote their own time and money to causes that stray from the stated corporate purpose. But they will only be able to use shareholders’ money for the purposes for which shareholders contri­buted the money in the first place.

Corporate law used to have just such a thing — it was called the doctrine of ultra vires. If it sounds dreadfully dull, that’s ­because running a company is not meant to be an exhilarating gig for a social-engineering CEO unless that is a stated purpose laid out for shareholders when they invest. If corporate bosses hate these new legal restraints, shareholders should be all in favour of them.

At the very least, governments could respond to the plethora of grandstanding CEOs by legislating to make it optional for a company to set down a clear purpose that attracts real and enforceable lines of accountability, something the present Corporations Law lacks. In other words, give shareholders a real choice about the kinds of companies they can ­invest in.

There is little to lose from this proposal. Only upside for the real owners of a company, whose money is blown when a company goes belly-up. By contrast, if the Business Roundtable gets it way, other “stakeholders” will be thrilled. But not for long because we will be destroying one of the most important and inventive contributors to global growth over the past 400 years, the limited liability company.

SOURCE  






Thousands gathered in Sydney to protest against the abortion legalisation bill

Opponents of a bill to decriminalise abortion gathered in their thousands near the NSW parliament for a rally so loud it could be heard from inside the chamber where the draft laws were being debated.

Holding aloft crosses, pictures of Jesus and signs saying 'stand for life', thousands gathered in Sydney's Martin Place on Tuesday evening to listen to MPs and religious leaders who oppose the bill.

Pro-choice activists had rallied on Macquarie Street earlier in the day.

Some had hoped the bill would go to an upper house vote within days but Deputy Premier John Barilaro on Tuesday confirmed that wouldn't happen amid reports Premier Gladys Berejiklian had buckled to pressure from conservatives.

It means the upper house debate, which began on Tuesday, is likely to drag into September.

Liberal MP Tanya Davies told the crowd they had been given a 'stay of execution'.

She asked them to 'gather a tsunami of opposition to this bill' [and direct it] to Ms Berejiklian, Mr Barilaro and upper house MPs.

The crowd chanting 'abort this bill' and 'love them both' were so loud they could be heard in the upper house chamber, where the bill was being debated.

Chantal Czeczotko, who is 26 weeks pregnant, took to the rally's makeshift podium, a bench in the middle of Martin Place, where the heartbeat of her unborn child was broadcast over speakers for the crowd to hear.

'This baby's heart is beating strongly for us tonight and if MPs have their way in the house behind us, a baby with this strong a heartbeat has no right to life,' said Right to Life NSW chief executive Dr Rachel Carling, eliciting boos from those gathered.

Sydney's Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher said the draft legislation was the 'abortion industry's dream bill'.

He called for more people power and more 'God power' - more prayer, fasting and lobbying - to ensure those opposed to the bill had their voices heard.

Melkite Catholic Bishop Robert Rabbat said the rally had gathered in response to 'the call to defend life'. 'Abortion is not simply a religious or philosophical issue, abortion is not an a la carte menu to choose from. It is a matter of rights and the pre-born do not have fewer rights than the powerful or the outspoken or the legislators,' Bishop Rabbat said.

Federal Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce was the last to speak, telling those gathered the clause requiring two doctors to sign off on an abortion after 22 weeks 'is not a reflection of a civilised society'.

'I am not here to try and espouse a religion. I'm not here saying I'm some saint. I'm here because I'm trying to argue to those people on logic,' Mr Joyce said.

Speaking after the rally, Mr Joyce said people turned up to the rally because they are angry. 'If you keep on working on angry people, they vote for somebody else and the next thing you know, you've got another job,' he told AAP.

His message to the premier was to be 'really focused on this'. 'You thought the greyhound debate was bad - the greyhound debate was for the bush, this is one for the city.'

A petition calling for upper house members to vote against the bill, signed by more than 77,000 people, was handed to Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MLC Robert Borsak who will table it to parliament on Wednesday.

Maketalena Afeaki, 33, travelled from Liverpool with a contingent of the Tongan Catholic Youth who she said were at the rally to 'give our voice for the unborn children'. 'We're all here to just vote no against the abortion bill only because we strongly believe in our faith that abortion is murder,' Ms Afeaki told AAP.

SOURCE  






Religious freedom proposal passes cabinet, draft bill imminent

Cabinet has backed Attorney-General Christian Porter’s proposals for a religious discrimin­ation act, with minor changes to be made before a draft bill is released in the coming weeks.

Mr Porter on Tuesday outlined his ambition for the bill to come to a vote in both houses of parliament by the end of the year, ­enshrining it in law if it wins support from a majority of politicians.

After facing calls from the Catholic Church and some ­Coalition MPs for wider-ranging “positive right” protections than were being considered, Mr Porter said his reforms would act as a “shield” against discrimination and not a “sword” allowing ­religious people to discriminate.

“The laws will protect people from being discriminated against, but will not give them a licence to discriminate against other ­people,” he said.

“The draft bill will deliver a ­religious discrimination act that reflects other existing anti-­discrimination laws, such as those covering age, race and disability.”

Mr Porter said he would release a draft bill before the next September sitting weeks and hold consultations with Labor, ­religious leaders and LGBTIQ groups.

“It is my expectation that a bill can be introduced and considered by both the house and Senate before the end of the calendar year.

“Naturally, this will include time for a Senate inquiry,” Mr Porter said.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Mark Dreyfus attacked Mr Porter for the short time for consultation.

“The Liberals have been arguing about this for two years but now want to give the rest of the country just weeks to debate this important bill,” Mr Dreyfus said.

“Every Australian is affected by this, not just the Liberal Party, and all Australians deserve to be given the chance to properly scrutinise what’s being proposed, and not have this rushed through parliament because of the government’s internal divisions.”

The Australian reported on Tuesday that Scott Morrison was headed for a showdown with the Catholic Church over the breadth of the religious discrimination laws.

The proposals that were mostly supported in cabinet aim to provide religious groups with exemptions from discrimination laws, while also banning discrim­ination on the basis of faith in areas such as employment, housing and the use of services.

The country’s largest church demanded the government go further than an exemption-based law and take a “positive approach to recognise religious rights” that would protect schools, hospitals and charities adhering to church teachings.

Catholic bishops, while supportive of an anti-discrimination act, are also asking for changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to provide positive protections to faith-based institutions to act ­according to their teachings.

Current protections under the act exempt religious groups from adhering to sex discrimination laws.

Mr Porter said the rights of faith-based institutions to teach issues such as marriage according to their doctrines would be investigated in a separate process.

SOURCE  






GREENIE ROUNDUP

Three recent articles below

Climate failures cost us: ALP election review

Bill Shorten’s Labor Party failed a basic test of politics by not articulating to voters who would pay for its climate change policies, how much they would cost and the ­impact on the economy.

A confidential submission to the party’s post-election review from the Labor Environment ­Action Network, obtained by The Australian, expresses “anger and disappointment”, and also “grief”, over the party’s failure to win what was expected to be an unlosable election. The submission is brutal about policy, political and leadership failures.

“Labor was unable to put a price on its climate change action plan,” a LEAN member says in the submission. “It couldn’t say how much it would cost, where the money was coming from or what economic dividend it would deliver or save. It is basic Australian politics — how much, who pays, what does it save. We had no answers.”

The submission reflects poorly on Mark Butler, Labor’s spokesman on climate change and ­energy. While LEAN members thought Mr Shorten was an ­“excellent leader” they concede voters “did not like or trust” him. This damaged Labor’s ability to sell a sweeping policy agenda.

LEAN has called for Labor to reconsider its “specific climate change policies” and how they are communicated, but warns “the party cannot ignore and must ­address the issue of expanding fossil fuel export industries”.

Labor’s franking credits policy, its wishy-washy stance over the Adani coalmine and its failure to “listen to the workers” are ­identified as additional reasons for its loss.

While LEAN members said they were “proud” of Labor’s bold policy agenda, the party failed to connect with voters and persuade them with a compelling message.

“LEAN members … felt we had many, many good and great ­policies but our narrative around them was problematic,” says the submission drafted by co-conveners David Tierney and Felicity Wade.

“Creating a narrative that connects with voters was ­identified as most important to win an election.”

A failure to balance mitigating climate change with the need for “economic opportunities” for workers, industries and rural communities is also recognised. LEAN argues Labor must rebuild its credibility with workers in areas such as the Hunter Valley, which swung against Labor.

“Addressing climate change has to be about the economic possibilities and prosperity, not the moral argument,” LEAN ­argues. “The new jobs need to be led and initiated by clever government policy and investment.”

LEAN urges Labor to stand by a bold emissions reduction target — currently 45 per cent by 2030 on 2000 levels — recommended by the Climate Change Authority and to also support a new federal environment act and the creation of an independent Environment Protection Agency.

However, it argues that Labor must recognise many voters do not trust market mechanisms and there is a worldwide backlash against globalisation, neoliberalism and deregulation. Many ­voters saw specific policy measures as a cost rather than an opportunity to deal with climate change.

“Labor’s policies were generally well received by the climate change, environment and ­renewables ‘industries’,” the submission notes.

“This support, however, didn’t translate to the voting public. While we have walked away from the policy purity of a carbon price across the economy, our policies are still in the technocratic and market mechanism sphere.

“They are supported by ­Treasury officials, corporations and the political class. It is hardly surprising many … people are suspect.”

LEAN urges Labor to build better links internally with members and externally with other environmental groups to help ­develop practical and pragmatic policies so they can help ­communicate and campaign for them.

The blistering submission to Labor’s post-election review comes as Labor, now led by ­Anthony Albanese, is yet to ­officially dump many policies some in the party regard as electorally toxic.

SOURCE  

Sydney Lord Mayor backs climate change strike, in virtue-signalling madness

When your employer encourages you to go on strike, is it still a strike? And what about the people who pay your wages, should they get a say?

These and other imponderables are the latest questions thrown up by the ongoing spectacle of climate activist madness. While the stunts become increasingly silly, indulged by complicit politicians and media, it is taxpayers who are being taken for a ride.

Just two months after becoming one of the first virtue-signalling local governments to declare a “climate emergency”, Sydney City Council has voted to support the Global Strike for Climate Change.

The strikes in the past have been led by schoolchildren bludging a day out of the classroom, but now they are urging “workers across the world” to join them.

And, incredibly, so is Sydney’s Town Hall. A council motion backs the strike, calls on councillors to attend and even orders its administration to support council staff who want time off to get involved.

Lord Mayor Clover Moore and six councillors supported the motion last night, while three others voted against it. So, on Friday September 20th, when dewy-eyed school students and socialist activists rally in the streets of Sydney to ban this nation’s largest export industry, among other things, Town Hall will be cheering them on.

The council wants its own staff to be part of the strike and the protests; which could get kind of messy if the council needs to block off streets, provide security, issue permits or clean up the rubbish.

The campaign wants to ban all new coal or gas projects, demand all energy be renewable and insist that money, sucked from somewhere, is used to retrain workers from the axed industries so they can take up other unspecified jobs in other unspecified places at another unspecified time.

It sounds like a foolproof economic plan — next, they should demand the installation of a fountain of youth.

Sydney ratepayers, of course, are not left out. They are free to attend the strike and its rally — so long as they don’t mind the risk to their own jobs or the costs to their own businesses. September 20 should be a great day in Sydney; perhaps the rubbish bins will go uncollected, planning applications will sit unassessed, parks and gardens will be left untended and the libraries will be a free for all.

Presumably no parking tickets will be issued on that day. And all ratepayers, no doubt, can look forward to having an amount of their annual rate notice rebated to compensate for the day the council decided its service obligations didn’t really matter.

Strike me pink. If they shut down Sydney City Council, wouldn’t it have a non-existent carbon footprint? And what would be the downside?

SOURCE  

Adani refuses to bow to climate activists

A climate activist has locked himself to machinery at Adani's Queensland mine site in defiance of the state government's move to outlaw lock-on protest devices.

The man locked himself to a drill rig at the Carmichael mine site on Wednesday morning, a day after the government announced it would push for an increase in penalties for protesters using the devices. Protesters will face up to two years' jail under the new laws.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk denied the crackdown was to silence protesters of the controversial central Queensland mine, which was finally given the green light earlier this year. "Absolutely this is not the case ... It's just this small element that are going to extreme lengths " the premier told the Today Show on Wednesday.

The government's move to outlaw the devices follows the arrest of dozens of Extinction Rebellion climate protesters who have brought major Brisbane thoroughfares to a halt in recent weeks.

They say stopping traffic gets people's attention, and want communities to collectively find solutions that would lead to zero carbon emissions by 2025.

The government claims protesters are filling the devices with broken glass and explosive gas to injure anyone who tries to cut them free.

Protesters say these claims are baseless. "The climate crisis impacts us all. Increasing penalties will not stop good people standing up for the environment and one another," Frontline Action on Coal spokesperson Kim Croxford said.

Adani is this week facing another hurdle in getting the mine off the ground, with engineering firm Aurecon's announcement it has severed its 20-year relationship with the company. Aurecon has been the target of recent protests by climate activists over its link to the project.

An Adani spokesperson said in a statement that company was surprised by the decision and was already in talks to replace Aurecon to ensure the mine went ahead.

"There has been a concerted campaign by extremists against our Carmichael Project and businesses that partner with us," the statement read. "It has not succeeded and construction of the Carmichael Project is well and truly underway."

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





20 August, 2019

How recycling is a massive con job and an environmental disaster in the making - and why everyday Australians are wasting their time sorting rubbish

Australians think they are doing the right thing when they throw their empty milk bottles, beer cans, and junk mail into their yellow bin.

They roll the bin out to the kerb every week and assume they have helped the environment by having their waste recycled with 90 per cent saying it's very important.

But millions of tonnes is instead shipped to Southeast Asian countries where much of it is burned, buried, or just dumped in landfill.

Millions more is piling up in huge storage facilities of Australian councils and their contractors - or sent to the tip - because they can't sell it.

Only 12 per cent of the 103kg of plastic waste generated per person in Australia each year is recycled, mostly overseas, according to research cited by Prime Minister Scott Morrison.

He pointed out last week that there was an 'implied promise' that when people put their recycling out it would actually be turned into something else. 'People think [plastic] is going to be recycled but only about 12 per cent of it is,' he said.

Australia used to ship enormous amounts of waste to China, sell it for up to $150 a tonne, and then wash its hands of it. Much of it was recycled to fuel the country's boom, but the industry was largely unregulated and dozens of dodgy operators burned or dumped it. Then in January 2018 the Chinese Government decided enough was enough and banned the importing of 99 per cent of recycling.

Australia's worst waste was usually palmed off to China, much of it too contaminated or low quality to be worth anything.

Now only a 0.5 per cent contamination rate is tolerated and the vast majority of Australian sorting facilities just can't meet that.

India, Malaysia, and the Philippines followed suit over the past year so Australia turned to Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Vietnam.

They each receive tens of thousands of tonnes of supposed recycling - Bangladesh alone took 51,400 in May, up 270 per cent from last year's average. Indonesia is about the same.

However, these countries don't have anything like the capacity China did, and aren't any more scrupulous about what they do with it.

Around Indonesia, the streets and rice fields of villages are now used to harvest piles of rubbish as they are laid out to dry in the sun by locals.

The waste is then sorted and sold to tofu factories where it is burned in their furnaces as a cheap alternative to wood.

Australian companies are slowly waking up to the reality that this state of affairs is not sustainable.

An Environment and Energy Department report painted a dire picture of Australia's predicament should more Asian countries close their doors.

'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 report said.

So easy was it to palm off Australia's waste on the developing world that the domestic industry is now in full-blown crisis.

The situation was made even more dire when one of the biggest companies, SKM, collapsed last month and is now in liquidation.

Then on Monday, Phoenix Environmental Group was banned by the Environmental Protection Agency from accepting more waste as its stockpiles were already dangerously high.

Councils, particularly in Victoria where those two companies are based, are at a total loss as to what to do with tens of thousands of tonnes of recycling.

The City of Melbourne is dumping about 45 tonnes of recyclables into landfill every day, along with about 30 other councils.

Other councils are stockpiling recycling in storage units in desperate hope of finding a buyer - as the stock degrades in value and is attacked by scavenging vermin.

This can have disastrous consequences, such as when stockpiled recycling bales at an SKM facility caught fire.

Australian companies are also accused of rorting the system themselves - trucking building site waste to recycling facilities where it is picked up and dumped in landfill.

Numerous companies allegedly do this to tick the boxes required to avoid waste levies - as high as $138 a tonne in NSW and $66 in Victoria.

Such practices, and the overstocking crisis, is only going to get worse as China's new policy has obliterated the price of many recyclables.

Almost overnight, mixed paper scrap crashed from $124 a tonne to next to nothing, and low-grade plastic is also effectively worthless.

The costs of recycling the scrap plastic in particular are now so high that it is basically not worth it and in many places no longer considered recyclable.

The airport in Memphis, Tennessee, has abandoned recycling altogether and only keeps its recycling bins to keep the 'culture' of recycling going - everything in them goes straight to landfill.

Manufacturers are also giving up on buying recycled materials because it is now much cheaper to make its from virgin components.

The recycling industry, which claims to employ more than 50,000 Australians and generate up to $15 billion in value, has tried to downplay the crisis. It pointed to the government's National Waste Report 2018 claim that 37 million tonnes of Australia's 67 million tonnes of waste was recycled in 2018. The report found just 4 million tonnes was exported, half of it metal.

Ten to 15 per cent of kerbside recycling cannot be recycled because it is contaminated with nappies, soft plastics, garden hoses, bricks and batteries.

'We encourage householders to continue to separate and sort their recycling correctly to reduce contamination and realise the environmental and economic benefits of recycling,' National Waste and Recycling Industry Council chief executive Rose Read said.

The Federal Government has belatedly decided to try propping up the Australian recycling industry with $20 million worth of grants to domestic operators.

'We are committed to protecting our nation's environment while also building our capacity to turn recycling into products that people want and need,' Mr Morrison said on Tuesday.

'By engaging industry and researchers we can make sure we're seeing these changes introduced in a way that cuts costs for businesses and ultimately even creates jobs.'

Mr Morrison said the funding was an effort to get the local industry into a position where shipping recycling overseas could be banned.

'This stuff won't change until we set a date where you can't put this stuff on a boat any longer,' he said.

The industry wants a labelling scheme, similar to the country of origin stamps, that shows how much of a product and its packaging came from recycled materials.

Analysts and recycling industry figures also said there needed to be incentives or quotas for businesses to use recycled material, and councils and government needed to lead the way.

'Recycling only works when people, corporates and government buy products made with recycled content,' Plastic Forests boss David Hodge said.

'As we know, the options to send our waste or a misallocated resource overseas will come to an end.'

The Australian Council of Recycling recycling advocacy group Boomerang Alliance proposed five priority actions for the federal government.

They included a Plastic Pollution Reduction Strategy and a $150 million investment in a national industry development fund.

'With Asian markets for recyclable materials from Australia closing down and local governments confronted with potentially sending their kerbside recycling to landfill, it's time to recognise that the system Australians value is greatly under threat,' the ACOR said.

'The National Waste Policy, recently agreed upon with all states, tries to set out an agenda for the future, but its aims cannot be achieved without investment and policy support.'

Boomerang Alliance director Jeff Angel added: 'Without concerted and effective action, Australia is set to go back 50 years to the days when waste was dumped or burned and the only things recycled were the bottles collected for a refund.

SOURCE  






ScoMo takes inspiration from Donald Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp”

Scott Morrison today launched his own version of Donald Trump’s promise to “drain the swamp”, with a sharp offensive against public servants and lobbyists.

It was the prime minister’s bid to deflate the Canberra “bubble”, which he claims contains priorities alien to the concerns of most voters.

Just as the US president portrayed government insiders as part of a powerful, unaccountable elitist “swamp” that had to be emptied, Mr Morrison today accused public servants of ignoring middle Australia from the comforts of a bubble.

“The best teams are the ones where everyone knows what their job is and they do it well,” Mr Morrison said. And of course, he had a three-word slogan: “Respect and expect.”

Whether or not his attacks improve public service performance, they have four potential political benefits for Mr Morrison.

The speech today to the Institute of Public Administration was an obvious attempt to again appeal to what he calls the ‘Quiet Australians’, who he argues don’t get the attention or acclaim they deserve. It also was a deft ploy of blame-shifting, which exonerates his government. Blame those cocooned bureaucratic tribes instead.

And it cost nothing, a vital factor as the Morrison government puts all its actions through the wringer of delivering a $7 billion Budget surplus.

It’s important for the government to appear to be doing something as long as it adds to the Budget.

Plus, it might look prescient. The government expects the review of the public service by businessman David Thodey to be with the PM soon.

It too might contain an unfriendly assessment of the public service.

A bit of public service bashing isn’t an original idea, even for Donald Trump. But the federal government has been able to force its agenda through the bureaucracy or changing bureaucrats.

When John Howard took the Coalition into government in 1996, he introduced himself to the public service by sacking six department secretaries.

In 1999, the Federal Court upheld the government’s powers of hire and fire, following the dismissal of Defence Secretary Pail Barratt. The court found a prime minister did not require cause to sack a department chief.

Scott Morrison didn’t question the priorities of public servants alone. He took aim at lobbyists by saying those ordinary Australians didn’t stay in Canberra’s Hyatt hotel, or dine at the highly regarded Ottoman restaurant or relax in the Chairman’s Lounge at Canberra airport.

“There are many highly organised and well-resourced interests in our democracy,” he said in a section of his speech that read like a warning of an encroaching menace rather than just the usual circus which forms when parliament sits.

“They come to Canberra often. They are on the airwaves and the news channels. They meet regularly with politicians, advisers and departments to advance policy ideas and causes on behalf of those they represent.

“Some will be corporate interests. Some will be advocating for more welfare spending or bigger social programs. Many will be looking for a bigger slice of government resources.”

He wanted to identify a cohort of public service and private enterprise players who ignored the comfort of middle Australia while looking after their own.

It could be middle Australia doesn’t get into those plush venues Mr Morrison listed because they are packed out with MPs on travel allowances.

But Mr Morrison didn’t want to touch on that issue. In fact, he seemed to free politicians such as himself as innocents in the bubble.

“There is strong evidence that the ‘trust deficit’ that has afflicted many Western democracies over recent years stems in part from a perception that politics is very responsive to those at the top and those at the bottom, but not so much to those in the middle,” Mr Morrison said.

SOURCE  

SOURCE  





Australia's most radical abortion law will allow late terminations and to abort unwanted girls - and most bizarrely makes no mention of women, writes MARK LATHAM

This week the controversial New South Wales abortion bill goes to an upper house vote. With the Berejiklian Government ripping itself in two over attempts to rush the legislation through parliament, people are starting to see some of the more bizarre aspects of the bill.

In line with today's PC madness, it makes no mention of women. It constantly refers to 'a person' having an abortion, but never a woman. This echoes Greens MP Jenny Leong's wacky declaration in parliament two weeks ago that: 'There are people who have uteruses who are not women'.

Think of that the next time you are watching the footy or walking past a building construction site.

The Greens are always saying we need to 'respect the science' when it comes to  climate change but when it comes to biological science, they have invented the fantasy of men having babies.

In the common law, abortions in NSW have been permissible since an important court ruling in 1971. [The Heatherbrae case]

Those pushing the proposal now before parliament – a cross-party cabal of Greens, Independent, Labor and Left-wing National and Liberal MPs – want to remove abortion from the NSW Crimes Act.

This would have been a straightforward task if they had been open about it, engaged in public consultation and started with a moderate, commonsense bill.

Instead, they have tried to ram through Australia's most radically extreme abortion laws without adequate safeguards for late-term abortions, gender selection abortions (parents who only want boys) and medical mistake abortions (where the baby is born alive). The religious freedom of doctors and nurses not to participate in the process has also been wiped.

I'll be moving an amendment this week to ensure that no medico is made to do anything they regard as morally wrong.

Whenever governments coerce people to act against their religious and moral code, we move one step towards a police state.

The people of NSW, conservatives in particular, have every right to feel betrayed by Gladys Berejiklian.

She has allowed a bill to be rushed through parliament that has the Greens and Labor Left cheering on its extremism.

She knew the bill was coming, telling the media, she 'kicked it down the road because I didn't want to deal with it before the (March) election.'

She kept the voters and some of her own MPs in the dark. No wonder they are now calling her sneaky and counting the numbers to get rid of her.

SOURCE  






‘Crazy lunatic bill’: Mundine lashes NSW Liberals on abortion

Former Liberal candidate Warren Mundine has blasted the recent push for abortion decriminalisation in NSW as a “crazy lunatic” bill, accusing the Berejiklian government of doing a “grubby little deal with the Greens” that betrayed the Liberal party room and its membership.

Speaking on 2GB radio this morning, the former Labor Party president turned Liberal member said the Berejiklian government had “got arrogant” and “ahead of themselves”, and urged them to hold a debate with the public and within the Liberal party room.

“This is what I can’t understand about the leadership of the Liberal party in regards to NSW,” he told host Ray Hadley.

“Here they are, never mentioned in the election, never mentioned it to anyone, did some grubby deal with the Greens.

“And how embarrassing it is for the Premier and the Deputy Premier to be sitting with the Greens on one side of the parliament while two thirds of the Liberal party are sitting on the other side.

“They should have had the public debate, had the debate within their party room … rather than doing a grubby little deal with the Greens,” he said.

Mr Mundine described abortion decriminalisation as a “very contentions and emotional issue”, and said he was concerned at discussion about aborting foetuses past the 22 week mark.

“This crazy lunatic argument … This is not about having abortions or not having abortions.

“When you start getting into 20 and 22 weeks. I had a cousin who was born premature. You cannot tell me that that is not a living baby, a human being.

“I just find it amazing that they’re going against their party room, they’re going against their membership in regards to this issue. “They seem to try and think they get away with this all the time.

“Well I’m going to call it out. They’ve got to stop doing these grubby deals. “They’ve actually got to start talking to their own party room and talking to the membership.” he said.

Legislation to decriminalise abortion passed the NSW lower house last week by 59 votes to 31 after an amendment to the original bill passed.

It allows terminations up to 22 weeks, as well as later abortions if two doctors considering all the circumstances agree the termination should occur.

The bill must still pass the NSW upper house later this month, and will be assessed by a social issues committee this week.

NSW is the only state where abortion remains a criminal offence.

Queensland decriminalised abortion in December, where the procedure is available up to 22 week. After that, two doctors must be consulted.

In Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania, abortion is available through a doctor up to 24 weeks, 23 weeks and 16 weeks respectively, and can be performed later with the consent of two doctors.

In Western Australia, a woman can seek an abortion up to 20 weeks, however there are restrictions for those under 16 and beyond the 20 week mark.

Northern Territory law allows abortion up to 14 weeks with one doctor’s approval. A second doctor is required to sign off if an abortion is sought between 14-23 weeks into the pregnancy.

The practice is also legal in the ACT.

SOURCE  






Shore School headmaster: 'The boys are privileged, and it's not their fault'

Timothy Wright, the head of Shore School, also defended his students against those who judged them because of their privilege. "I don't think it's right, as some people do, to say that because you come from Cremorne, you must be somehow a morally bad person," he said.

In a wide-ranging interview with the Herald ahead of his departure from the North Sydney school, Dr Wright spoke of the benefits of single-sex education for boys.

Dr Wright will step down at the end of 2019 after 17 years at the helm of Shore, and 34 years in education.

Shore, an Anglican school, is now in such demand that parents wanting to send their sons there must either be old boys, or lodge their son's waiting list application on the day of his birth. One family has sent their sons there since the 1890s.

Despite fears among some of his high socio-economic parent body that anything but a university degree amounted to failure, Dr Wright said the notion that everyone should get a degree was a "complete fallacy".

He has often encouraged his students to think about an apprenticeship as an option, as they head into an increasingly uncertain job market. "We would not get as many boys going into trades as I would like to see," he said. "I'm pretty confident [artificial intelligence] won't replace plumbers."

Shore costs up to $33,000 a year, and 83 per cent of the school's students are from the top quartile of advantage. But Dr Wright said parental wealth did not inoculate his students against difficulty, and was irritated by the assumption by some that their wealth was a character flaw.

"That sort of attitude that sometimes crops up really annoys me on behalf of these boys," he said.

"I know them. I love them. I do not understand how people can possibly take that attitude towards them. The boys are privileged, and it's not their fault. It's what you do with your opportunities in life that I think you are responsible for. [Wealth] will give you certain advantages, yes, but it does not protect you. Some of my boys have some pretty wicked problems."

Having taught in both single-sex and co-ed schools, Dr Wright said a boys' only environment gives the students a freedom they might not feel if girls were around. "One of the things you'll notice is boys in boys' schools sing," he said.

"They don't, by and large, in co-ed schools. You'll find senior boys out there still playing handball." Girls often master language more quickly than boys, so "there are some real advantages for boys in an English curriculum that meets their needs."

Despite being a chemistry teacher, Dr Wright is passionate about reading. "The more we can get kids reading, the less work you have to do in educating them," he said. "A lot of well-read people are fundamentally self-taught."

He worries about the quality of some modern young adult and children's books. "To some extent I believe in the canon - I realise that's almost an heretical position," he said. "The notion that you are just reading words on a page, and a Campbell's Soup ad is just as worthy a form of text as Joseph Conrad, I'm struggling with that. I do agree that some [young adult fiction] is just churned out.

"I think the same thing with a number of children's books. There seems to be a flood of books [about] bottoms, farts and all the rest of it. I'm not sure that once you have read one or two of those, there's a whole lot more to explore."

Unlike many other private school principals, Dr Wright has resisted the temptation to expand Shore's numbers. He cannot speak for his successor, but believes there is a "sweet spot" at around 220 students per year.

"It's not like Coca Cola - you can't scale the experience of a school," he said. "It's like many complex human organisations, just to double its size doesn't mean you get twice as much of the quality."

About 26 per cent of its students are sons of old boys, but in the next decade the school may also open to the sons of old girls, as girls have been able to attend the K-2 campus in Northbridge for more than 15 years.

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 August, 2019

Reports of the Great Barrier Reef’s doom are exaggerated

Master reef guide Natalie Lobartolo has a first-hand window into what the world thinks about the Great Barrier Reef. She says the most common comment from tourists after they experience the reef and waters around Lady ­Musgrave Island where she works is: “I thought the reef was dead but it’s amazing.”

Federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley had a similar experience last week when she snorkelled over two reefs off Cairns.

On her first official visit to the Great Barrier Reef, Ley said she found it difficult to reconcile what she saw in the water with what had been said around the world.  “The reef is not dead,” was her appraisal. “It is not dying. I would not even say it is on life support.

“Tourism operators want a very clear message that the reef is definitely not dead, that it is amazing and one of the true wonders of the world and it is worth visiting.

“Having seen it for myself I can certainly endorse that. That is a ­really clear message that I want people to hear.”

The results of first-hand observations from two snorkels may not meet the test of scientific rigour. But along the Queensland coast there is a pushback that challenges the now familiar message of the reef’s doom.

A lecture tour by controversial marine scientist Peter Ridd has ­attracted hundreds of people and is only half way through a program that stretches throughout the ­sugar cane centres from Bundaberg to Cairns.

The tour has been promoted by the sugar cane and other agriculture ­industries that face the prospect of strict new regulations under a reef water quality bill before state parliament. Liberal National Party MPs at state and federal level have embraced Ridd’s call for greater quality assurance of the science. But conservation groups are alarmed Ridd is getting a platform to express his views.

Ridd was sacked by James Cook University after being disciplined for not being collegiate. That sacking was ruled unlawful by the Federal Court but its finding is being appealed by JCU.

Like it or not, science groups have been forced to engage with Ridd’s message that the findings of key reef research should be checked.

Ridd’s message on his lecture tour is that coral cover has not changed and that there is still excellent coral cover on all 3000 reefs across the Great Barrier Reef system. He also says there is almost no land sediment on the reef from run-off from agricultural processes.

Ridd’s findings have struck a chord with canegrowers, who are being asked to change their practices to satisfy UNESCO requirements that Australia is respecting its obligations to retain World Heritage status for the reef.

A suite of measures by the ­Abbott government, including a ban on dredge spoils from new port developments being dumped in reef waters, was enough to ­remove the threat of an “in-danger” listing for the reef.

Since then there have been two bleaching events and damaging cyclones that have had a big impact on coral cover, which is now recovering.

The Great Barrier Reef is again due to be considered by the World Heritage Committee next year and the proposed Queensland water quality regulations are seen as part of a broader campaign to keep the reef off the in-danger watch list.

Environment groups are ­pushing for more regulation and most likely would welcome intervention by UNESCO. But the bruising campaign last time damaged the global reputation of the reef among potential tourists and left the tourism industry crying foul.

Ridd says this is a prime reason to get the science right. He says reef science is affecting every major industry in north Queensland: mining, agriculture and ­tourism.

The legislation before state parliament will hurt agriculture badly, he says. It sets nutrient and sediment pollution load limits for each of the six reef catchments and ­limits fertiliser use for crops and grain production, covering agricultural activities in all Great Barrier Reef catchments.

The message Ridd wants people to take home from his talks is that there has been a massive exaggeration of threats to the Great Barrier Reef. He accuses the reef institutions of producing untrustworthy results because of inadequate quality assurance systems and says that must be corrected before any new legislation is introduced.

And he says there is an urgent need for an independent body to run through the Auditor-General’s office and examine the science used for public policy.

Bundaberg Canegrowers manager Dale Holliss says Ridd has ­allowed many to articulate concerns they may have already had. “Peter Ridd basically when he talks says … it is the only science we have, so we do need a process where we actually check it,” Holliss says. However, environment groups say Ridd’s tour has been “simply spreading misinformation”.

The Australian Coral Reef ­Society says several of Ridd’s claims are not true, while others could be characterised as straw-man arguments that ignore much greater challenges faced by the Great Barrier Reef.

“As the reef is facing fundamental challenges from rapidly warming oceans, it is important that governments take action to support a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while taking all available steps to reduce the amount of sediments, nutrients and pesticides that reach the reef lagoon,” the society argues.

Ley says she is “not downplaying the seriousness of climate change” but acknowledges that some people are understandably confused. “Tourism operators are saying they want somewhere to go to say that is the truth,” she says. “My answer is they can go to the Australian Institute of Marine Science.”

So what does AIMS say about water quality and the issues raised by Ridd? In a statement to ­Inquirer, AIMS chief executive Paul Hardisty says there is a natural improvement in water quality from inshore to offshore reefs ­because inshore reefs are exposed to increased sediment from wind and rough seas.

Mid-shelf and offshore reefs typically have better water quality as these regions are flushed more frequently with waters from the Coral Sea. As such, material ­delivered into the inshore region via rivers remains close to the coast for extended periods.

When it comes to water quality on the Great Barrier Reef, researchers agree it is uncommon for sediment plumes to regularly reach outer-shelf reefs. During flood events, most sediments are deposited relatively close to river mouths.

Hardisty says enhanced sediment loads from farmed catchments increase the amount (and duration) of sediment that is resuspended locally around river mouths, on inshore reefs close to rivers and along the inner shelf.

He says analysis of 11 years of satellite imagery for the whole Great Barrier Reef shows water clarity is significantly reduced for up to six months after every big flood from the central and southern rivers, but not so much from the far northern rivers.

Several studies have shown fine particles of nutrient-enriched and organic-rich sediments can settle on inshore and mid-shelf reefs during calm periods and have the potential to kill young corals within 48 hours and adult corals in three to seven days, depending on the species.

Hardisty agrees there are many conditions that increase nutrient concentrations, including oceanographic processes and upwelling, liberation of nutrients contained in sediments, and inputs from ­riverine systems that may be ­enhanced above natural levels by residual nutrients from agricultural or industrial activities.

The AIMS says long-term monitoring of cycles of ecosystem decline and recovery tells us that the Great Barrier Reef is under stress. Its latest condition report, published last month, found average hard coral cover had continued to decline in the central and southern Great Barrier Reef while stabilising in the northern region this year.

This decline is because of ­numerous and successive disturbances including outbreaks of the crown-of-thorns starfish, tropical cyclones and coral bleaching. The central region’s highest recorded average coral cover was 22 per cent in 2016 compared with 12 per cent this year, and the southern ­region had 43 per cent coral cover in 1988 compared with 24 per cent this year. Hard coral cover in the northern region increased slightly from 11 per cent in 2017 to 14 per cent this year but was down from 30 per cent in 1988.

Hardisty says disturbances such as bleaching, cyclones and crown-of-thorns outbreaks are ­occurring more often, are longer-lasting and more severe.

This means coral reefs have less time to recover. Right now, however, there is still plenty to see.

SOURCE  






How red tape and high taxes have stunted home construction and sent prices soaring across the country

High taxes and regulatory red tape as well as economic factors have stunted new home construction and caused prices to surge across the country, according to an industry body.

A report commissioned by the Housing Industry Association lists levies, stamp duty, GST, council rates and land tax as factors that drive up home prices, The Australian reports.

The HIA says the cost is as high as 50 per cent of a house and land package in Sydney, 37 per cent in Melbourne, and between 29 and 33 per cent in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.

The report stated that 14 per cent of total GST revenue raised came from the housing sector because most of the tax burden is being transferred directly to households.

'It is unacceptable that the red tape and tax incurred in the construction of a ''house and land'' package as a percentage of the purchase price is 50 per cent in Sydney and 37 per cent in Melbourne, as outlined in this report,' Housing Minister Michael Sukkar said.

'It is also unacceptable that the supply of new housing is so badly constrained by state and territory planning and regulatory bottlenecks.'

HIA executive director NSW David Bare said housing was 'one of the most heavily taxed sectors of the economy, alongside the ''vice taxes'' applied to cigarettes and alcohol'.

Mr Bare said having to pay $417,000 on taxes and regulatory costs when building a home was too much of a burden. 

Among some of the regulatory charges Australians have to pay are soil testing, native vegetation protection, contamination reports, heritage assessments, bushfire assessments, traffic management fees, site inspection fees, building levies, connection fees and flood assessments.

In an attempt to unlock the housing supply, the commonwealth is implementing its reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability package.

This package will make $1billion available through the National Finance and Investment Corporation.

The government will also be launching their First Home Loan Deposit scheme on January 1 2020, which aims to help 10,000 first home buyers by topping up their 5 per cent deposit with a government guarantee of 15 per cent per loan.

SOURCE  






Albo is a footballer

This will help his image as a regular guy a lot.  A big difference from the robotic Bill Shorten

The leader of the Federal Opposition has shown off his ball skills in a charity football game.

Anthony Albanese donned his black, yellow and red Western Walers jersey, along with some seriously short shorts at the AFL Reclink Community Cup match at Henson Park in Marrickville, Sydney.

The 56-year-old Labor leader battled alongside his team against the Sydney Sailors which saw them win 41-35.

This is the third year in a row the Western Walers won the annual event. 

On his Twitter page, Mr Albanese shared several pictures leading up to the game where he is seen arm-in-arm with his fellow teammates.

After the big win he tweeted 'winners' along with an image of the team celebrating their victory.   

Money raised from the event is donated towards Reclink Australia which provide sporting and art opportunities for disadvantaged Australians.

SOURCE  






Another day, another 600 pages of audit stuff and nonsense

Reading government reports is part of my job description. Believe me, it is an increasingly exasperating activity. What is it about government reports these days? They are always far too long, replete with silly pictures and charts, and the messaging is almost always deep-green.

Even the more sensible ones go off the rails. The recently released report of the Victorian Auditor-General on recycling had a six-minute spoken option brimming with highly simplified charts and key messages. Let me put it out there: I expect the reports of ­auditors-general to be sombre, measured and thorough — not ­entertaining.

Consider the 642-page contribution of Infrastructure Australia, released this week — The Australian Infrastructure Audit 2019. It is a pitiful document, full of meaningless homilies and worthy sounding gobbledygook.

The best that can be said about it is that the contracted graphic artists must have done very well, given the page upon page of ­cartoon-like representations of various thought bubbles dreamt up by the authors. Not only are these little pictures completely misleading, they are an insult to the serious reader.

Now most of us understand very well what is meant by the term audit: it is an independent ­inspection and assessment of an organisation’s accounts. To be sure, the term can be used more broadly, but IA’s report really pushes to the limit the meaning of the term.

We learn early on that the audit is based on “strategic foresight methods”. I’m wondering whether this is just a fancy term for ­extremely well-paid bureaucrats sticking their fingers out windows to test the direction of the wind.

This is another report that is full of trendy ideas of the left. It’s all about climate change, equity and access, Australia going to hell in a hand basket — all the predictable themes. It’s a worry that the federal government department that was responsible for this useless piece of sludge was headed by the person who has recently been named secretary to the Treasury.

Don’t get me wrong: I did get a few good laughs reading the ­report. Evidently, higher education, food exports and tourism are “emerging industries”.

And here’s something to really get your creative juices going: Australians drive the equivalent of 1000 times from the Earth to the sun every year. And what about this clanger? Evidently we could build eight Sydney Opera Houses with the annual subsidies to public transport. Whether we need eight more opera houses is an unanswered question.

But wait, there’s more: by 2028, women will control close to three-quarters of discretionary spending worldwide. Why would this sort of pretend-fact even be included in this report? Although I guess that’s strategic foresight methods for you.

Let’s not forget the horizon-scanning methodology used in the report. This involves guessing “the shifts that are likely to transform how we live, and consequently what we need from infrastructure”. Unsurprisingly, there is a half-page photograph of electric vehicles being charged.

Evidently, Australia’s average annual equivalent CO2 emissions per capita is 21 tonnes, which is nearly double the OECD average. But that is juxtaposed on the same page by the fact just more than 90 per cent of Australians own a smartphone.

Unsurprisingly, there are some outright mistakes in the report. The claim is made that “job security is becoming a key issue, particularly as new sharing and ‘gig’ economies create more transient and casualised workforces”. This is just wrong. Job tenure has actually increased, the degree of casualisation remains steady and the gig economy is tiny — 2 per cent to 3 per cent of the workforce.

Leaving aside all this flim-flam, there is a fatal weakness in the ­report and that is its failure to question the central assumption that Australia’s population will grow by nearly a quarter to reach 31.4 million in 2034. This outcome will be largely as a result of immigration, with IA anticipating that almost all the new migrants will pile into Melbourne and Sydney.

I’m not sure you need a university degree to predict that much more infrastructure will be ­required to accommodate this population growth. What would have been worthwhile is an assessment of a much slower rate of population growth and the benefits this would bring in terms of ­allowing the infrastructure to catch up at a more leisurely pace.

The reality is that we pay far too much for infrastructure. The vice-like grip of the tier one contractors — now mostly overseas companies — plus the almost exclusive worker coverage of the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union mean that a cost-premium of at least 25 per cent applies to all major projects. Can you recall when you last heard someone talk about a major infrastructure ­project being delivered under budget and on time? There is no reason to think these cost penalties that apply to infrastructure will end any time soon.

We know what huge costs ­increased commuting times are exacting on those who live in the major cities.

According to longitudinal survey Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia, the average commuting time in Australia has risen by ­nearly one-quarter in the 15 years to 2017.

In 2002, workers averaged 3.7 hours commuting each week; by 2017, it was 4.5 hours. Unsurprisingly, Sydneysiders had the longest average daily commutes, followed by Melburnians. Moreover, workers with the longest commuting times are the least ­satisfied with their jobs and the likeliest to quit.

But instead of querying the rate of population growth, IA simply tells us the cost of lost productivity because of congestion could double to $39 billion if the government does not act. This is pathetic stuff.

Of course, IA, along with other left boosters, hates what it terms “urban sprawl”. Evidently, “densification” is the way to go. We all need to live in inner-city dogboxes in cracking apartment buildings to enjoy all the amenities of inner-city living.

Mind you, IA is a tad concerned about the lack of green spaces. “Our fast-growing cities risk not having adequate, high-quality, ­accessible green and recreation ­infrastructure as they grow and densify, particularly in inner-urban areas.” What this means in practice is all of us living in dogboxes located in concrete jungles.

Interestingly, the IA tome has much in common with another rubbish report released this year by the CSIRO — the Australian National Outlook 2019. In that ­report, it was the clear recommendation we all crowd into “higher-density, multicentre and well-connected capital cities to reduce urban sprawl and congestion”.

And here’s another predictable bit: “(We need to) invest in transportation infrastructure including mass-transit, autonomous vehicles and active transit, such as walking and cycling.” The things you learn: walking and cycling are active transit.

It never seems to occur to these highly paid bureaucrats or the puffed-up types on the boards of IA or the CSIRO that people ­prefer to live in houses with back yards and to drive their own cars.

The most laughable part of the CSIRO report is the call for greater trust in institutions. This seems highly unlikely as long as they continue to produce such condescending drivel that insults very many quiet Australians.

The only good thing that will come out of the IA report is that it be will ignored as pretty much all IA’s output has been to date. And as for the CSIRO effort, it’s already gathering dust.

SOURCE  







Girls not welcome at Randwick Boys' High

The NSW Department of Education has rejected a proposal to turn Randwick Boys' High into a co-ed school despite a survey showing strong support within the eastern suburbs community.

The idea was floated by the Coalition government in the lead-up to the March election to counteract a promise by Labor to build a new, co-educational public high school in the marginal electorate of Coogee.

The NSW Department of Education ran a survey in January and February to discover community attitudes and held meetings with those who would be most affected, such as parents, students and representatives from surrounding schools.

Of more than 2220 community respondents, 57 per cent strongly supported the idea, 10 per cent were in favour, and 28 per cent were opposed. The rest were neutral.

Parents and carers of girls made up more than half of the respondents, and two-thirds of them supported the idea.

But in making the final decision, the department said it weighed the survey results against the feedback from those who would be most affected, such as staff at surrounding schools and existing students of Randwick Boys' and Girls'.

Of the 192 female students who responded, 70 per cent said they would not be interested in attending a co-ed Randwick Boys', and more than half of the 300 parents at Randwick Girls' who responded said they would not send their daughters there.

There was also strong opposition from staff at other schools in the eastern suburbs network, including Randwick Girls', JJ Cahill, Matraville and South Sydney high schools, who were concerned about the impact on enrolments.

"The department has accepted [an] independent assessment that the consultation process was inconclusive in determining a meaningful community position," said Murat Dizdar, the department's deputy secretary of educational services.

"The independent analysis shows quite clearly that when you dive deeper, the views of the families and students who would be most directly impacted by a change of the provision there at Randwick did not provide clear support for the change."

Mr Dizdar said the eastern suburbs schools operated as a network, rather than a series of stand-alone schools, and there was existing capacity at schools in the south of the district, such as JJ Cahill and Matraville.

Without Randwick Boys’, eastern suburbs parents would not have the option of a public boys’ high school.

Two new or upgraded schools – Inner Sydney High and Alexandria Park Community School – were about to open, and the two Randwick single-sex schools were part of the "tapestry of provision in the area", he said.

The department would now proceed with plans to upgrade the two Randwick schools. It would also develop a strategy to improve infrastructure and curriculum offerings across the whole eastern suburbs network.

Community groups have been campaigning for a new co-ed high school in the eastern suburbs, saying there is not enough capacity to cope with the numbers of students who attend the area's primary schools.

They say the new school is needed in the northern part of the region, and that schools in the southern parts – such as Maroubra and Matraville, some of which have many vacant classrooms – are too far away for students to travel to.

"We will look at strengthening our provision across all of those schools," Mr Dizdar said. "We are well placed to cater for the demand."

Randwick Boys' P&C president Birgit Schickinger said parents would be "extremely disappointed by this outcome, especially given that the majority of people surveyed were in favour of turning Randwick Boys' into a co-ed high school".

"Randwick Boys' will continue to be a strong, caring, nurturing school for the boys in this area, and we will work with the department to make sure it gets better facilities and resources."

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 August, 2019

Scott Morrison firm on climate change, in shades of Donald Trump

Scott Morrison has mirrored Donald Trump’s tough stand with G20 leaders in his negotiations with the Pacific Island Forum over climate change and coal — and emerged stronger as a result.

Australia refused to accept a communique that might satisfy the emotional needs of some regional leaders but would jeopardise Australia’s economic and regional security interests.

The red lines set by Australia were met and the final communique did not overstep progress made by the UN conference regarding the IPCC’s report on 1.5C warming.

The communique pulled back from mentioning coal or what actions member countries should take. Instead, leaders reaffirmed climate change as the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific and their commitment to the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Leaders acknowledged the challenge for the forum would be maintaining regional solidarity in the face of more intense political engagement, which may serve to divide the forum collective.

Along with other nations, Australia is being called upon to lift its ambition on climate change action before an already agreed timetable set for next year.

Mr Morrison’s challenge is not to allow Australia’s position to be misrepresented by vested interests. Australia has a story to tell on climate change action that is at stark odds with how it is often portrayed. Last year, Australia was among the world’s top investors in renewable energy in absolute terms and the biggest on a per capita basis.

Billions of dollars have been set aside for land-based programs, which are a big new focus for the IPCC.

A telling point before the backdown of demands at the Pacific Island Forum was that leaders asked for Australia to provide details on what it actually was doing.

The understanding of some leaders had to that point been informed by media reports.

The lack of support shown by New Zealand leader Jacinda Ardern for Australia will no doubt be remembered, but is of little real consequence.

In terms of regional politics, the bigger concern is the disconnect between demands being made of Australia on fossil fuels and those of its strategic competitor, China. Australia is reducing coal use and providing cleaner alternatives for regional neighbours. But there is no meaningful demand that China cut its fossil fuel use or begin to reduce emissions until 2030.

Between January and June, China’s energy regulator has given the go-ahead to build 141 million tonnes of new annual coal production.

Chinese coal output rose 2.6 per cent in the first half of this year to 1.76 billion tonnes, and the China State Grid Corporation last month forecast that total coal-fired capacity was to grow by 25 per cent.

Given the rising stakes in the “Blue Pacific”, Mr Morrison would have been foolish to accept any invitation to accelerate Australia’s self-harm.

SOURCE  






School Choice means more than a public-private pick

The Australian Scholarships Group (ASG)’s flagship annual publication — the Parents Report Card — dishes up some choice findings about school choice in Australia. It provides a sober account of what matters to parents and dispels the claims of school choice opponents.

For detractors, choice in schooling is scorned as synonymous with educational ‘segregation; into gated school communities. They argue choice is a luxury enjoyed by the rich, while the rest are ‘stuck’ with their local school.

But choice is about more than those who can afford to fork out for private school. Parents in NSW enjoy more options than in other states — for instance, with more selective schools and specialist performing arts and sports schools, all under the public school tent. But when it comes to choice, more is more.

And choice in public schools is now threatened by the crackdown on the number of out-of-area enrolments permitted in NSW. This makes it harder for parents to send children to schools on their way to work, or to where their siblings go, or where their needs are best served.

To be sure, for some parents, choice is a non-starter. And, by all means, parents are free to choose not to choose. But, most parents — and increasingly, their children — value choice and don’t take it lightly.

Many already opt for private school. Over 40% of students in high school and 31%  in primary attend a non-government school. Enrolment growth in independent schools, in particular, has been outpacing that of public schools.

A lot goes into the process, but the top considerations according to the ASG are a prospective schools’ reputation, sector, and performance. ABS data shows that for those at private school, reputation is by far the primary reason for choosing a school. For those at public schools, being close to home is the decisive factor.

ASG emphasises that ‘choosing a school with confidence’ is about finding the ‘right’ school, not necessarily the so-called ‘best’ school. This reflects that school reputations are formed by more than scouting the MySchool website ­­— though the tool certainly doesn’t hurt.

For many, choosing a school is also not a decision hatched overnight. 42% considered their high school before commencing primary school — including 61% of those in independent schools, though only 33% in public schools. Another study found one in four consider schools from the time of a child’s birth.

It’s true that choice is not enjoyed equally and fully by everyone. The main barriers reported are cost, waiting lists, and zoning — with barriers more commonly reported by parents of children in public schools.

Cost of some schools is prohibitive for many parents; more than two-thirds report feeling the pinch financially. More efforts to make private school affordable can relieve some of this pressure and make it a viable option.

Waiting lists are tough to nudge, but it pays to remember that they are an indication of demand. One way waiting lists could be reduced is for there to be a greater supply of desirable schools.

The zoning of school catchments compels students of public schools to go local – even if they would prefer to go out-of-area. Zoning also means the composition of schools is less diverse than they would be otherwise – since local areas tend to share demographics. Zoning hurts those living in disadvantaged areas the most — forcing them to pick between public and private, rather than weighing up diverse school offers.

OECD research has argued that to deliver on its promise, choice must be ‘real, relevant, and meaningful’. In Australia, choice needs to be more than just a public-private pick.

SOURCE  






Let us now praise masculine men

(Alludes to Wisdom of Sirach 44:1)

On Tuesday afternoon a handful of men ran into the face of danger. Going about their business only seconds before, they confronted a man brandishing a bloody knife, pinning him down in the middle of a bustling Sydney street. The men who stopped further bloodshed have been called heroes, and they will be recognised for their courage. In passing, can we praise masculinity too? Or is that too controversial in an age when masculinity is raised only to condemn what is wrong with men and to preach how to change them.

Today, any celebration of masculinity is limited to praising men who do more housework and get involved with their kids, men who are able to cry, empathise with women and express their feelings. All very important stuff. But none of that would have restrained a crazed man who was threatening more violent carnage in Sydney’s CBD. Can we praise men who do both please?

Lawyer John Bamford picked up a wicker chair from the cafe he was in, raced outside and chased the attacker, 21-year-old Mert Ney, who was bloodied, jumping on a car bonnet while wielding his knife and screaming at passers-by. Ney was jammed to the ground by men using a milk crate and two chairs. Bamford returned the chair to the cafe and ordered a pie.

Traffic controller Steven Georgiadis tried to tackle Ney to the ground. “As soon as I saw the knife I moved to the side so I could crash tackle him sideways so he wouldn’t stab me,” said Georgiadis, who managed to stand on the bloody knife.

From their office window, brothers Luke and Paul O’Shaughnessy saw the mayhem unfolding in the street below and raced down to help. They followed a trail of blood to the man who is alleged to have murdered one woman and stabbed another. “(We) were like ‘Right, where is he? Where is he?’ … I’m shouting, because I’m a bit more risk-averse than Luke, (who is) straight in there.”

NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller described these men as heroes of the highest order. It is also true that the heroes were all men exhibiting traits now routinely derided as part of traditional masculinity — brute force and ­aggression, taking charge, adrenalin pumping, taking risks.

Do we fear praising masculinity in case it leads to a scolding for encouraging toxic masculinity?

It’s not an unreasonable fear because the conflation of masculinity with toxic masculinity, to use the phrase favoured by the roving gender police, has become routine. This common sleight of hand to use gender to confect some crudely defined phenomenon stokes pointless gender wars and risks harming both men and women.

No one in their right mind endorses or condones or whitewashes genuinely toxic behaviour, let alone violence. A beautiful woman, Michaela Dunn, died on Tuesday allegedly at the hands of a man. Another innocent woman, Lin Bo, was stabbed, allegedly by the same man. But condemning violence should not be conflated with a male pathology.

The conflation of traditional masculinity with the poorly defined “toxic masculinity” won’t stop bad behaviour because when words lose their meaning, they lose their punch. Take the Gillette ad, “The Best Men Can Be”, where Procter & Gamble tried to hijack this latest fad to turn a profit. Proving that consumers are not fools, it didn’t work. This month, P&G reported a net loss of $US5.24 billion ($7.73bn) for the quarter ending June 30. The company said men today like more facial hair. The company could have added that men today don’t like being told that masculinity needs to be redefined by a preachy razor ad showing a series of men behaving badly. While whoops of delight came from Jane Caro and Clementine Ford, more thoughtful viewers saw an advert with as much nuance as a lightning bolt from God.

Perhaps Gillette’s next foray into “The Best Men Can Be” will include some vision of those brave men saving Sydneysiders from further violence earlier this week. It does no one any favours when gender is used as a cheap weapon, a stunt for ulterior motives.

This week, for example, former foreign minister Julie Bishop fronted a camera, again, to talk about her time in politics, again, this time on Andrew Denton’s Interview program on the Seven Network.

Repeating a story she has told many times, Bishop said that if a woman was the only female voice in the room, men showed a “gender deafness”. “It’s as if they just don’t seem to hear you,” she said.

How often has this happened to her? If it was once, maybe it was an innocent oversight? If it’s more than once, then that deserves a bit of prodding too. For every Julie Bishop who complains, in sweeping terms, about “gender deafness”, there is someone like me who has sat in many board meetings over many years as the only female voice and never experienced gender deafness, only respect and courtesy. But, because I don’t talk about my thoroughly normal experiences in all-male meetings, and Bishop complains endlessly about hers, we are encouraged to treat “gender deafness” as a widespread, deeply entrenched phenomenon that treats women as second-class ­citizens.

Predictably, the movement against toxic masculinity has become an open invitation for some women to grandstand about all kinds of silly, unproven claims, warping our understanding of the true state of affairs between men and women. And as Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Even if it is not a lie, repeating the tale of a single experience over and over again does not turn it into a wicked gender-based phenomenon either.

There is only one thing worse than Julia Gillard making claims about misogyny when her leadership tanked: that is hearing Bishop say this week that she was disgusted by the treatment of Australia’s first female prime minister, when Bishop said nothing about it when it was apparently happening. It’s like Bishop’s recent conviction that the Liberal Party has a problem with women, expressed only after she lost the leadership contest last year.

It’s time for the former foreign minister to draw stumps on her stage show because her smiling stage face can’t disguise the sour grapes. When men treat women poorly, it should be called out. And vice versa, if equality means anything. But credibility comes from acting on these matters when you have the power to change things, not afterwards as a stunt to get attention. After all, the bystander is sometimes as bad as the bully.

Bishop’s diminishing credibility aside, there is a far more serious side to the gender zealotry unfolding today. As The Australian reported this week, there are real concerns that NSW crown prosecutors are running sexual assault trials with insufficient regard for the strength of the evidence. One of Sydney’s most prominent criminal lawyers, Greg Walsh, who has acted for alleged victims and defendants, told this newspaper that the “hysteria”, the “zealous” and “activist” prosecutions had “gone too far”. “They (sexual assault cases) are becoming a cause celebre, they are just out of control,” Walsh said.

Lawyer Chris Murphy, another well-known Sydney criminal lawyer, said prosecutors were undoubtedly feeling the potential threat of public condemnation if they didn’t proceed to trial, and go hard in court. It was leading to especially aggressive tactics, Murphy said, with critical evidence being withheld from the defence in some trials.

Murphy cited the recent rape trial of Wolf Creek star John Jarratt, who was acquitted within hours of the jury retiring to consider the verdict. Murphy, who acted for Jarratt, said he had never seen “a more undeserving, weak” crown case go to trial.

Last week, a District Court judge implored the NSW parliament to consider changing laws that are aimed at protecting rape victims but are causing a serious injustice for defendants. The judge is presiding over a case where a man accused of rape is not allowed to bring evidence of 12 incidents in which his female accuser has made false complaints about sexual abuse. On two separate occasions, the woman made false reports to the police, and after being investigated she admitted fabricating the sexual assault allegations. The judge was precluded by law from allowing evidence of the woman’s history of making false claims of sexual assault because of laws that were introduced to stop “offensive and demeaning” cross-examination of an accuser’s sexual history. He described this as an “affront to justice”.

Gender zealotry is having a real impact on our culture and our legal system. It stops us publicly praising the kind of masculinity that unfolded on King Street in Sydney this week. And a fixation with gender is not a win for women either because when women make silly claims, they lose credibility.

The legal consequences are even more troubling given the pressure on prosecutors to proceed with flawed sexual assault trials. If it makes it harder to reform unjust laws, then surely it is time for more women to reconsider their role in stoking gender zealotry. After all, women who make false claims do real damage to genuine victims, and they should face the music for their lies.

SOURCE  







Council's new 'meat-free Mondays' to cop BBQ protest

You do get a lot of ratbags on local councils

A meat-eating councillor plans to protest an inner-Melbourne local government meeting next week by hosting a barbecue after the council voted to ban meat on Mondays.

The Greens-led City of Moreland on Wednesday agreed to change its catering contracts to only serve vegetarian food at all council events held on Mondays.

Locals attending council-run events will be affected, as well as councillors at their weekly Monday briefings which are held over a buffet dinner.

The move comes amid a push by a crossbench MP for the Victorian Parliament to go vegan every Monday to stymie greenhouse emissions. Moreland councillor Oscar Yildiz, who quit the Labor Party last year, voted against the motion, labelling it "ridiculous". On Friday morning, he floated the idea of setting up a barbecue across the road from the Coburg council in protest during next Monday's briefing.

"I think we're becoming a sort of dictatorship council," he told The Age. "I didn't get elected by the people of Moreland to ban meat or ban Australia Day or ban parking down Sydney Road."

Animal agriculture is a major polluter and reducing meat consumption is considered a way for individuals to reduce their impact on climate change.

City of Moreland declared a climate emergency last September, and supporting councillors say having meat-free Mondays is a simple way to take action.

"We've declared a climate emergency, but what are we actually doing about it?" said mayor Natalie Abboud at the Wednesday night meeting. "I think it's acceptable that we put our mouths where our money is."

Greens councillor Dale Martin, who moved the amendment, said it was one of the few things Moreland Council could do to reduce its emissions. "Council has a very, very limited sphere of influence in the agriculture space, especially being an inner city council," he said. "We can't be going around expecting our residents to be reducing their emissions without first trying to reduce our own."

He said his colleagues should recognise this would generally impact just one meal a week for the Monday night briefing. Caterers would also need to serve only vegetarian options at other functions or events held on a Monday.

Cr Martin had the support of Cr Abboud and councillors Mark Riley, Jess Dorney and Sue Bolton. The amendment was opposed by Cr Yildiz and councillors John Kavanagh, Ali Irfanli and Lambros Tapinos.

"In September last year council unanimously declared a climate emergency, while some on council are happy with climate platitudes," Cr Martin told The Age on Friday.

"I hope this amendment inspires all councillors to attend future briefings as the data on our website currently shows attendance from some councillors has historically been very poor on a Monday night."

Cr Yildiz said ratepayers often didn't realise councillors were not full-time staff on cushy salaries. "I leave work at 5.30pm to go to council, get there by say 6pm and this is not exactly an a la carte silver service meal we get.

"It's only one meal, but it's only once a week anyway. It's the only meal that we have.

"And you want to deny my freedom of having meat on that day, like really?"

Cr Yildiz said he first got the idea of a barbecue from a ratepayer on Facebook. If it goes ahead, weather permitting, he said he would have vegetarian options and would hope to feed local rough sleepers.

It comes as crossbench MP Andy Meddick, from the Animal Justice Party, campaigns for the Victorian Parliament to go vegan every Monday. Mr Meddick, who is vegan, cited a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as evidence that food production needed to change for the good of the planet.

The proposal is set to be debated in the upper house and could eventually go to a vote. However, it could proceed without the support of a majority of MPs.

Mr Meddick’s team will lobby the Victorian Parliament’s house committee to make the change, but they believe the proposal would carry greater gravitas if it were passed in the upper house.

His motion says raising animals for human consumption “is a leading cause of the climate emergency” and meat-free Mondays would be a step towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

SOURCE 






PNG’s debt overture to Beijing rings alarm bells

On a cold Canberra morning 18 days ago, Scott Morrison stood alongside Prime Minister James Marape at Parliament House, declaring Australia had “no truer friend” than Papua New Guinea.

Marape, on an official visit with full red carpet treatment, said he came to Australia as “friend and family”, and that for PNG there was no relationship “more important than our relationship with Canberra”.

But back on home soil this week, Marape indicated PNG’s relationship with China could soon rival its ties with Australia, in crude financial terms at least.

After a meeting with Chinese ambassador Xue Bing in Port Mores­by on Wednesday, Marape made a series of announcements that would have set heads spinning in the Australian government’s new Office of the Pacific.

Most alarming for Australia was a request — publicised in an official statement from Marape’s office — by PNG for Chinese help to refinance its entire $11.8 billion government debt.

In a statement, Marape said he had asked the ambassador formally to convey the request to Beijing, and for PNG’s central bank to work directly with the People’s Bank of China “in ensuring that consultations are under way”.

Also concerning was the foreshadowing of new deals with China to build ports and airfields, to be discussed on Marape’s imminent state visit to Beijing.

Wider play

The idea that PNG could consolidate its government borrowings under a single Chinese loan would seem to be a bizarre move for a leader who pledged to “take back” PNG’s economy from foreigners, leading some to see a wider play.

As one long-time PNG observer says: “It looks like a massive China-sanctioned shit-stir for Australia.”

Marape back-pedalled on his statement yesterday, saying his government also would look to the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and “some other ­possible non-traditional partners”, to secure low-cost and concessional loans to restructure his ­country’s debt. He says there will be “no more unnecessary loans except to refinance our expensive loans and for key enabling economic infrastructure”.

But strategic experts say the prospect of PNG becoming ensnared in a Chinese debt trap is not one that can be taken lightly.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute executive director Peter Jennings says there is now a familiar pattern of China luring developing nations to accept loans they cannot afford, forcing them to make political commitments to Beijing or hand over key assets.

He cites Sri Lanka’s experience, where it was forced to surrender the southern port of Hambantota to Beijing on a 99-year lease after defaulting on a Belt and Road Initiative loan, as well as surging Chinese debt in Africa.

“Given our geography, this is something we have to pay very close attention to,” Jennings says. “Frankly, PNG is of immense strategic importance to us. We saw that in World War II. It is the first buffer of any big strategic threat that might develop for Australia.

“And for that country to find itself under the thumb of Chinese financiers I think would be extremely dangerous.

Morrison, who will meet regional leaders in Tuvalu next week at the Pacific Island Forum, avoids directly addressing the question of Chinese influence in the Pacific.

But he has a simple message for Pacific leaders that succinctly sums up the problem, without antag­onising Beijing.

Australia, he says, wants to ­ensure “each and every one of those nations are as independent and as sovereign and as much in charge of their future as they ­possibly can be”.

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 August, 2019

Bitter woman told her online lover she would falsely tell police he had raped her unless he coughed up $30,000

A vile fraudster threatened to tell an online lover that she'd falsely report him for raping her if he didn't come up with $30,000.

But Beatrice Hinton claims it is she who has been hard done by.

The 61-year old, who migrated to Australia from Kuwait after marrying an Aussie she had never met, claimed she had been ripped off by males all her life.

First it was a bogus photographer in the 1990s who ripped-off her life savings.

Then when her husband died, she squandered their savings on various men she met online - none of whom she ever actually met or even spoke with.

She had tried a couple of dating sites before - Spice of Life and Widow Singles Near Me - but it was on Oasis Active where she found her mark.  Two days after meeting him in person, Hinton hit the man up for $20,000, which she claimed she would pay back.

The man refused and days later she asked him again, this time asking him to marry her because she refused to have sex before marriage.  She had sex with him anyway at his beach house, but the court heard this is when his real troubles began.

Days later she called the man a rapist and demanded $6000.

She told her victim she had medical tests done after their sex sessions and planned to use the results to make false rape reports against him if he didn't pay up. 'Either give me the money or I go to the cops,' she texted.

When that didn't work, Hinton got her soon-to-go-missing Italian online friend to threaten the man. This time Hinton demanded $30,000 or the rape would be reported.

The man called police, who arrested Hinton in July last year.

She admitted she had tried to get the money out of her victim.

County Court Judge Felicity Hampel warned she may jail Beatrice Hinton for blackmailing her victim

While Hinton hopes to escape jail on a community corrections order, Judge Hampel said she would consider jailing her.

'It's conduct that perpetuates the myth on women rape claims,' she said. 'It's the sort of conduct where one bad act like this undermines so much work ... It's a particularly insidious thing to do in (the victim's) situation.'

Hinton, who has pleaded guilty to blackmail, will return to court for a further pre-sentence hearing next month.

SOURCE  






Yes, Ministers – collaboration is the answer

Public confidence in Australian school education may be low, but no one could complain about a shortage of official reviews and reports.

High-powered panels and prominent figures continue to produce lengthy publications recommending various strategies to achieve one mighty goal: improve the academic performance of students.

The long list includes the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools (Gonski 2.0), the Independent Review into Rural, Regional and Remote Education and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015.

From the start of this year, all states and territories have signed up to a National School Reform Agreement that has the overarching objective of ensuring that Australian schooling provides a high quality and equitable education for all students. That Agreement will expire on 31 December 2023.

Success will depend on what the Agreement refers to as ‘the long-standing practice of collaboration between all governments to deliver school education reform’.

But wait, there’s more! One of the most important — albeit most abstract — documents guiding Australian school education since 2008 is also being reviewed.

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, signed by all education ministers serving at the time, has steered the development of the Australian Curriculum and other reforms. It followed the Hobart Declaration (1989) and the Adelaide Declaration (1999).

All these national frameworks have stressed the importance of collaboration. As the Hobart Declaration put it, working together “to enhance Australian schooling” would be the key to success.

But collaboration isn’t easy in a federal system where each jurisdiction has separate responsibility for schools, teachers, curriculum, assessment, student credentials … and so on. There are still far more differences than areas of common practice. Notwithstanding the flexibility states and territories need to do their best work for their own schools and students, this is not leading to the best results.

As ministers consider the review documents landing on their desks, collaboration should be at the very top of the subsequent list of action items. They should insist on an honest assessment of the cost and benefits of education between 1989 and 2019 — particularly as seen through the lens of national agreement and the goals of the three documents.

If nothing else, better collaboration would set a great example to young Australians. After all, isn’t this one of the exciting new 21st century skills they are supposed to be learning?

Ministers would be wise to tread cautiously with regard to all proposals for solutions. Australian education has been all too vulnerable in the past to a range of fads and trends, much of which explains the challenges we face now.

It would be good to think that 30 years of talking about teamwork won’t be wasted.

SOURCE  






New United Nations appointment for Gillian Triggs

I loathed the supercilious Leftist bias of this woman when she infested the Australian bureaucracy and the sarcastic writer below thinks similarly.  She and the U.N. are a good fit for one-another, though

She is our lady with the lamp and may her light shineth ever so bright in exposing human rights abuses. Now that illumination will be amplified a hundredfold across the world. Naturally I speak of emeritus professor Gillian Triggs, former president of the Australian Human Rights Commission, and soon to be the United Nations Assistant High Commissioner for Protection as announced this week.

Describing her new role as a “huge job with massive implications,” Triggs spoke of the “71 million displaced people and refugees around the world”. She added, however, this job is “largely diplomatic in function”, which presumably explains why she will be based in Geneva, Switzerland, well away from the arse end of the world and the displaced people in question. For those of you who have not been to Geneva, let’s just say she will be unlikely to rub shoulders there with the rubes of Koo Wee Rup.

Now I know Australians think we lead the world in appointing human rights luminaries to lucrative taxpayer-funded positions, but we are talking Top Gun school for tribunes here, the best of the best. Unlike her time at the HRC, she will not have to suffer the indignity of answering to elected representatives on Senate committees. Nor is it likely impertinent journalists will continue to accuse her of incompetence, untruthfulness, and bias.
Gillian Triggs was immortalised by for the Archibald Prize in

As ever, her pronouncements are full of confidence. “Most refugees overwhelmingly want to go home; one task will be finding and helping their safe transit passage back to their homes and villages,” said Triggs this week. “They want to return home, but safely, and that’s the key thing.” That was news to me. But if she really believes this is the case and that Afghan, Sudanese and Sri Lankan asylum seekers are busting to get back to their country of origin, why was she so opposed to the reintroduction of Temporary Protection Visas during her time at the HRC?

Triggs must have missed media reports of hundreds of asylum seekers demonstrating on Monday outside the Home Affairs offices in Sydney, all of whom were demanding permanent visas and the end of TPVs. Among their number was Iraqi refugee Ali Nayyef. “We are part of this country,” he insisted. Far be it from me to question a soon-to-be UN Grand Poobah, but it doesn’t sound like Ali or any of his fellow protesters “overwhelmingly” want to go back to their old countries.

As is typical with human rights advocates, Triggs still obstinately denies the success of Australia’s border protection policies. In 2017, she stated there was “not a scintilla [of] evidence” behind the claim that indefinite detention stopped unlawful vessels or saved lives at sea. The former speaks for itself; as for the latter, there is no better example than the absence of numerous floating bodies off Christmas Island.

“It is obviously very worrying that some countries are pointing to Australia as having an [immigration] approach that they think is worth emulating,” she told The Guardian this week. Indeed, just think of the many terrible things this country has done in that regard: disrupting criminal people-smuggling syndicates, refusing to kowtow to Indonesia, turning back boats that enter Australian waters unlawfully and admitting asylum-seekers here on our terms. It is called insisting on sovereign rights while offering one of the more generous resettlement programs in the world. Truly dreadful I know.

But it seems that in the two years since leaving the commission Triggs has experienced an epiphany. She is now a champion of free speech. Yes, the same woman who only in 2017 publicly lamented that people could say what they like around the kitchen table wrote in The Conversation this week of the “national urgency” to safeguard “common law freedoms”. What could explain this remarkable turnaround? Answer: when the free speech threatened is that of a public servant who uses social media to publicly condemn the government’s policy of detaining asylum seekers offshore.

Triggs took issue with the High Court’s judgment last week in the case of Michaela Banerji, a former departmental public affairs officer who in 2013 was dismissed from the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship after a finding she had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. Among those she criticised via an anonymous Twitter handle were her then-boss and manager of the department’s communications branch, Sandi Logan; then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Bob Carr; and then-immigration shadow minster and now Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. She claimed in her tweets that “offshore processing is unlawful” and also used the hashtag “nodetention”.

The full bench of the High Court unanimously found Banerji’s dismissal “did not impose an unjustified burden on the implied freedom of political communication”. It is difficult to disagree with this ruling, especially given the enormous conflict of interest if public servants were allowed not only to publicly undermine their managers, but also to disparage government policy, effectively fracturing the executive.

But according to Triggs, the judgment was “highly technical”, based on a “narrow interpretation” of the law, and one that “failed to recognise Australia’s international treaty obligations”. And here comes the best bit: this precedent is “likely to have a chilling, if not freezing, effect on the liberty of public servants to speak up fearlessly when governments abuse their powers or trample on fundamental freedoms”.

Maybe we should just forget the High Court has already found that offshore processing of asylum seekers is lawful and leave it to activist public servants to be the moral arbiters of the government’s immigration policies. Public servants like Banerji, for example, who as the Canberra Times revealed in April is a Port Arthur and Christchurch massacre truther. For good measure, she also tweets obsessively about Zionists infiltrating parliament and taking over the world. Just the sort of person you would want to be the voice of the public service in the Triggs-envisioned role of it holding the government to account, wouldn’t you say?

In her defence of free speech in this latest opinion piece, Triggs cites cases such as Rugby Australia’s dismissal of Israel Folau, the Australian Federal Police’s search warrant on the ABC, and the prosecution of ‘Witness K’ and lawyer Bernard Collaery for allegedly conspiring to reveal secret information. Fair enough. However, Triggs is silent on section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which makes it unlawful to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person on the basis of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin.

This is not surprising, given the HRC’s lamentable role in the appalling Queensland University of Technology case, in which seven students were the subject of an 18C complaint arising from some of them objecting over being denied entry to an ‘indigenous only’ computer lab. The students were denied natural justice because of the HRC’s year long delay in notifying them (one was not even notified). Consequently, several students were forced to negotiate an expensive settlement; the others had to defend a $250,000 civil suit in the Federal Court and were only able to do so successfully thanks to barristers Tony Morris QC and Michael Henry who represented them pro bono.

Consider the hypothetical case of a dissenting public servant in the HRC merrily tweeting about the agency’s — and its president’s — numerous failings during Trigg’s tenure. What do you think would have been the likely outcome: Triggs serenely permitting this in the name of holding a statutory appointee to account, or the suspension and likely termination of employment if the public servant did not desist?

As for Triggs’s concerns about the “chilling effect”, she might remember the late artist Bill Leak did much to illustrate that phenomenon in his brilliant cartoons for The Australian. I do not recall her citing artistic freedom or the need to reveal uncomfortable truths when he was hit with an 18C complaint — later withdrawn — after drawing a cartoon depicting a deadbeat indigenous father who did not know the name of his delinquent teenage son.

However, I do recall Triggs freely admitting in her autobiography that after her tenure had ended she dined with the complainant, Melissa Dinnison, and her family, remarking this woman “had stood up against the racist implications of the Leak cartoon”. Bear in mind Triggs had a statutory responsibility for conciliating Dinnison’s complaint impartially, and that Leak was never found to be in breach of 18C. What was Triggs saying about officials abusing their powers and trampling over fundamental freedoms?

Although it grates that Triggs will once again be occupying a lucrative position at our expense, I say we should count our blessings. We should be forever grateful the former law professor will be sitting in a plush UN office and not on the bench of the High Court.

SOURCE  





CLIMATE POLICY DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND: ROUNDUP

Three current articles below

Australian radio jock blasts 'clown' New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern for lecturing Australia's PM on climate change

During the Pacific Islands Forum in Tuvalu - an independent island nation in the South Pacific - Ardern warned that the Morrison Government 'will have to answer to the Pacific' on global warming.

Morrison is under pressure from the 18 members of the forum to sign a statement which calls for the world to quickly stop using coal to fight global warming.

But the 2GB radio host urged Mr Morrison to fire back at New Zealand's leader, branding her a 'complete clown' after she pledged her nation would have a carbon neutral economy by 2015.

'She is a joke this woman, an absolute and utter light-weight. These people are an absolute joke and Jacinda Ardern is the biggest joke.'

This morning, Jones said of Ardern: 'Here she is preaching on global warming and saying that we've got to do something about climate change.

'If you want to talk about the figures… the fact is New Zealand's carbon dioxide has grown by 10.8 per cent per capita since 1990. Ours has grown by 1.8 per cent.'  

Many of Jones's listeners on Facebook were on board with his comments called Ms Ardern a 'lightweight'.

One fan said: 'Couldn’t agree more with Alan Jones. Tell it like it is. NZ must DUMP Ardern ASAP before the country loses all credibility.'

Jones doubled down on his position on climate change on Facebook, going on to accuse Ms Ardern of excluding agriculture and methane from her calculations, because they 'contribute half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions.'

'When it comes to fossil fuel power generation, coal, oil, gas, biomass - which is dirtier than Australian black coal - New Zealand gets 67.2 per cent; we get 84.8,' Jones said.

'But when it comes to wind and solar which she's in love with, we get 12.1 per cent, New Zealand 0.93 per cent.'

Jones claimed neither Australia or New Zealand slashing emissions would stop climate change. 

'The point is, no matter what either of us does, there will be no impact,' he said.

Ardern said New Zealand was committed to helping ensure the global temperature increase was kept to 1.5 degrees.

In Tuvalu on Wednesday, Morrison vouched that Australia would be a 'champion' for the environment in the Pacific.

However, reports have claimed the country's negotiators are working to water down an official communique about climate change. 

SOURCE  

NZ Foreign Minister walks back Jacinda Ardern’s carbon challenge

Ardern depends on the support of Peters to stay in office so she will have to listen to his realistic comments and tone down her virtue signalling

NZ Foreign Minister Winston Peters has walked back his prime minister’s challenge to Scott Morrison to explain Australia’s position on climate change, saying Pacific nations need to look at the “big picture”, including China’s massive coal-fired economy.

The NZ deputy PM told ABC radio this morning that calls for Australia to “step-up” on climate change were a “bit of a paradox” as many Pacific countries were seeking cheap loans from China “on the back of coal-fired everything”.

Mr Peters’ comments came after PM Jacinda Ardern said every nation needed to “do its bit” to fight climate change, and “Australia has to answer to the Pacific” for its own emissions policies.

“There’s a big picture we have to contemplate where we have to ensure that when we act in this big picture, we act with consistency and integrity,” Mr Peters said.

The Foreign Minister acknowledged that the island nations were desperately concerned about their long-term longevity, but said China’s emissions also needed to be factored into the discussion.

“You need to look at everybody, not just Australia, but also who is getting that coal and what things they are doing with it.”

He encouraged Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting in Tuvalu to “look at all the details”, and downplayed concerns Mr Morrison was out of step with his counterparts.

In conciliatory comments after Ms Ardern said Australia would be held accountable by the Pacific for its emissions policies, Mr Peters said he was “slightly worried” there was an outward perception Mr Morrison was “somehow acting incorrectly” when that wasn’t the “real picture at all.”

PIF leaders this morning went into a retreat to negotiate the final wording of the Fanufuti Declaration, which small island states want to include a strong statement about transitioning away from coal, limiting temperatures to 1.5 degrees, and replenishing the UN’s Green Climate Fund.

Mr Morrison, who is pushing back against all three demands while simultaneously defending his “Pacific step-up”, told counterparts the nation’s “coal dependency has been falling”, and “record renewables investments” was underway across Australia.

It’s understood he will contrast China’s environmental performance, including its massive reliance on coal-fired power, to that of Australia.

China has 981,000MW of installed coal generation capacity, compared to Australia’s 25,150MW.

Mr Morrison has committed an extra $500 million this week to Pacific climate change resilience projects, on top of $300 million announced by the Turnbull government.

Ms Ardern today announced she would set aside $150m of New Zealand’s $300m global climate change development assistance to the Pacific, but did not provide additional funding.

When asked whether Australia was at risk of alienating Pacific nations because of its climate change stance, Mr Peters said the island countries should remember Australia has been a “great neighbour” to the Pacific. “They should remember who has been their long term and short term friends,” he said.

SOURCE  

Easy for NZ PM to point the finger at Australian climate policy

Demanding Australia abandon its coal production and exports for the good of the climate in the ­Pacific is akin to asking New Zealan­d to give up its love affair with sheep.

New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is naive if she believe­s such moves would be economically feasible or in the best interests of regional stability.

New Zealand under Ardern may be a poster child at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum for setting a 2050 ambition for her country’s carbon neutrality.

But it has only been possible because less than 20 per cent of New Zealand’s electricity comes from fossil fuels and its biggest source of emissions, agriculture, has been given a free pass.

Most New Zealand power comes from hydro, geothermal and, increasingly, wind.

In terms of historic performance, New Zealand just scraped through the first Kyoto round of emissions cuts and failed to sign up to a legally binding target for the second. New Zealand parted company with Europe and Aust­ralia and instead joined Japan, Canada and Russia in a non-binding commitment for 2020.

In 2015, after barely securing a surplus in credits for Kyoto’s first ­period, New Zealand said it would apply the 123.7 million unit excess to its non-binding 2020 emissions reduction target — something it now criticises Australia for wanting to do with the Paris Agreement. Greenhouse gas emissions figures are notoriously difficult to compare because of different treatments of land-use contributions. But without taking these into account it is clear that ­Australia’s challenge is 10 times bigger than that of New Zealand.

Figures compiled by the European Commission show Australia’s emissions without land use rose to 402 million tonnes in 2017, up from 275 million in 1990. New Zealand’s comparative emissions were 36.8 million tonnes in 2017, up from 24 million tonnes in 1990.

For perspective, China’s emissions were 10.9 billion tonnes.

The UN Green Climate Fund is another case in point. Australia gave the body $200 million between 2015 and last year but has pulled out after a meltdown in governance and confidence.

Climate groups are asking Australia to up its contribution to $400m a year. But Scott Morrison has made clear he would prefer to ­direct spending through the ­Pacific region.

New Zealand’s contribution to the Green Climate Fund was a tiny $3m by comparison, but Aust­ralia’s $500m contribution to regional projects, through a partia­l rebadging of foreign aid, did not win it any points.

The hard fact for Australia is that Pacific neighbours represent a potent force in the geopolitics of global climate change negotiations and enjoy a close alliance with non-government groups.

WWF said Australia’s $500m in Pacific funding must be accompanied by a plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050. This means ­reducing domestic emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and phasing out thermal coal export­s by the same year.

Including a ban on coal ­exports, the nation’s biggest export­ earner, would make the challenge all the more difficult for Australia. As a result, Australia’s strategic ambitions in the Pacific region more broadly have been caught up in other concerns.

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 August, 2019

Surviving her son's false rape ordeal

Bettina Arndt

Are more women falsely accusing men of rape or simply being caught out making these allegations? Maybe we are now just seeing more journalists reporting these cases instead of pretending they never happen.

Whatever the reason I’m now finding myself posting comments on a steady stream of such cases, including some, like Sara Jane Parkinson whose story I broke in January, where women have been sent to prison. That’s rare, of course. More often than not these women get off scot-free, even when their lies have sent men to prison, destroyed families and cost fortunes in legal fees for the wrongly accused.

I seem to be talking every few weeks to men in this circumstance. Not only the men but their mothers. It is particularly distressing talking to weeping women who are always amazed that our legal system is now so intent on denying their sons’ proper justice.

My new video features one such mother. She’s one of the rare lucky ones. Her 18-year-old son was recently found not guilty after a long rape trial where, amazingly, the jury stood and applauded the newly acquitted young man when he left the courthouse. It seems the jurists were left in no doubt about his innocence after his accuser’s extraordinary court appearances which left her web of lies in tatters. The 12,000 messages from her phone showed she was prone to juggling multiple partners at any one time and DNA evidence revealed sperm deposits from two other men in her vagina on the night in question, but none from the accused.

The family is trying to persuade the police to charge the young woman with perjury but face an uphill battle.

I hope you will listen to this moving story and help me circulate it. https://bettina.social/2MfsR43

Please like my video and make sure you are subscribed. It’s so frustrating seeing my YouTube numbers dropping off due constant censorship.

Music teacher in the clear

Regular viewers of my videos will remember the music teacher falsely accused by some of his female students. At the time I interviewed the poor man the police and Department of Community Services had decided the accusations didn’t stack up but the Department of Education was still refusing to allow him back into NSW schools. Well, they have finally lifted the ban – so that’s good news. Let’s hope his life settles down now although it’s hard to imagine how he will ever totally recover from the damage caused by the malicious social media campaign against him. Here’s a link for those of you who missed out on that video.

Via email from Bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au






Children as young as THREE who identify as transgender are being 'fast-tracked' into hormone treatment when they should be sent to counselling, expert says

This is just child abuse -- Left-enabled child abuse

The number of children being referred for transgender treatment has almost quadrupled in the past four years.

New figures have shown a rapid increase across four Australian states - with 727 child patients admitted to a gender clinic in 2018 compared to just 211 in 2014.

Victoria has experienced the greatest rise in young people seeking gender services, and a leading youth psychologist has now hit out at the 'fast tracking' of gender treatment.

'It's a psychic epidemic because the whole thing is being fuelled by a virulent trans lobby who are silencing dissenting voices,' Sydney Dr Dianna Kenny told 7News.

The adolescent specialist has written to the federal government to express her concern about the children seeking service becoming increasingly young.

The new data, obtained by the New South Wales psychologist using a freedom of information request, showed children as young as three years old in Victoria were being referred for gender treatment.

The state has experienced the largest growth in the number of child gender dysphoria cases since 2014, up from 104 to 981.

A paediatrics professor from Western Sydney University has also highlighted issues with the rise in transgender-identifying children.

He said the use of treatments such as those using hormones could cause issues for male fertility down the line and other medical complications.

In total, 2415 children have been referred to a gender treatment clinic in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and Queensland since 2014 and 2018.

Concerns have been raised about drugs known as puberty blockers, which proponents say delay the onset of development and give children the chance to self-identify.

But Western ­Sydney University paediatrics professor John Whitehall has hit out at new treatments, saying they lack a scientific basis and are essentially an experiment.

'We should give the psychiatry and psychology a full run before we start castrating children,' he told The Australian.

SOURCE  







Yes, Ministers – collaboration is the answer

Public confidence in Australian school education may be low, but no one could complain about a shortage of official reviews and reports.

High-powered panels and prominent figures continue to produce lengthy publications recommending various strategies to achieve one mighty goal: improve the academic performance of students.

The long list includes the Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools (Gonski 2.0), the Independent Review into Rural, Regional and Remote Education and the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Strategy 2015.

From the start of this year, all states and territories have signed up to a National School Reform Agreement that has the overarching objective of ensuring that Australian schooling provides a high quality and equitable education for all students. That Agreement will expire on 31 December 2023.

Success will depend on what the Agreement refers to as ‘the long-standing practice of collaboration between all governments to deliver school education reform’.

But wait, there’s more! One of the most important — albeit most abstract — documents guiding Australian school education since 2008 is also being reviewed.

The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, signed by all education ministers serving at the time, has steered the development of the Australian Curriculum and other reforms. It followed the Hobart Declaration (1989) and the Adelaide Declaration (1999).

All these national frameworks have stressed the importance of collaboration. As the Hobart Declaration put it, working together “to enhance Australian schooling” would be the key to success.

But collaboration isn’t easy in a federal system where each jurisdiction has separate responsibility for schools, teachers, curriculum, assessment, student credentials … and so on. There are still far more differences than areas of common practice. Notwithstanding the flexibility states and territories need to do their best work for their own schools and students, this is not leading to the best results.

As ministers consider the review documents landing on their desks, collaboration should be at the very top of the subsequent list of action items. They should insist on an honest assessment of the cost and benefits of education between 1989 and 2019 — particularly as seen through the lens of national agreement and the goals of the three documents.

If nothing else, better collaboration would set a great example to young Australians. After all, isn’t this one of the exciting new 21st century skills they are supposed to be learning?

Ministers would be wise to tread cautiously with regard to all proposals for solutions. Australian education has been all too vulnerable in the past to a range of fads and trends, much of which explains the challenges we face now.

It would be good to think that 30 years of talking about teamwork won’t be wasted.

SOURCE  






Are BHP shareholders on board with crusading boss?

It is a safe bet that the chief executive of BHP won’t deliver a speech about the virtues of capitalism any time soon. A few weeks ago, this column gently nudged Andrew Mackenzie, the Scottish chief executive of BHP, to use his privileged position for something novel, to be an advocate for a system that lifts people out of poverty and drives human flourishing. Instead, his response was to dig in, reaffirming it is his proper role to speak out on social causes, from climate policy to entrenching a separate voice for indigenous people in the Australian Constitution.

Given that Mackenzie is resolute about his righteousness, where does the BHP board stand on these issues? More to the point, what is their role? We won’t hold our breath waiting to hear from BHP chairman Ken MacKenzie and other board members because boards don’t like publicity. They prefer that their highly paid, powerful gigs stay in the background. But the determination of BHP’s chief executive to add BHP’s name and reputation to contested social issues has thrown the role of BHP’s board into the spotlight, and it has some questions to answer.

The board of BHP is responsible for overseeing the governance, management and strategic direction of the company and delivering accountable corporate per­formance. That means it has a duty to ensure that when a chief executive puts the company name to a prominent social issue that potentially affects brand, reputation and shareholder value, proper due diligence is done before reaching that decision. It is not tenable for the board to dodge responsibility by claiming that plunging the company name into contested social issues is within the day-to-day delegation of management.

Here, then, are questions for each of the 10 non-executive BHP board members.

When BHP’s chief said that “deep down our employees want to be more moral and ethical” as justification to take positions on social issues, how does the board determine what moral and ethical issues BHP should involve itself in? What empirical evidence is there for Mackenzie’s claim about what BHP’s employees want? Did he take a survey or is he just assuming his personal views are shared by BHP employees? And how strong are the employee views; are their views on the voice evenly divided or overwhelmingly in favour? Are their views lukewarm or strongly held? And how much do they understand about the constitutional implications of the voice? Drilling down further, how does the board satisfy itself about how the nuts and bolts of these “moral and ethical” stances will affect shareholder value? The board can’t be satisfied with a chief executive doing a Dennis Denuto, arguing “the vibe of the thing”.

The BHP board must ensure correct procedures and policies are in place to protect shareholders, and shareholders are entitled to assurance that the board carefully supervised how social issues are chosen and positions reached. What has the board done to ensure BHP’s management team, led by Mackenzie, has considered all relevant issues? In other words, what kind of management work is required before BHP puts its name to a social issue, be it a separate voice for indigenous people or telling BHP customers how to use coal bought from BHP? Are papers presented to the board about the pros and cons of adopting one position over another? Are there detailed background briefings on the long-term consequences, political and legal, of entrenching a separate voice in the Constitution or the long-term economic effects of BHP dictating to customers how they use BHP’s coal? If not, how can the board meet its duty to shareholders to oversee rigorous decision-making processes at BHP? Or is the board happy for Mackenzie to commit the company to divisive social and political stances based on a feeling in his waters?

BHP’s chief executive spoke last week in broad brushstrokes about “morals and ethics” and being in the “middle of the road”. But has the board of BHP demanded further details to test whether he is acting in their best interests by signing BHP’s name to a constitutionally entrenched voice for one class of Australians? For example, a separate indigenous voice raises a fundamental issue about parliamentary sovereignty given that, once set in the Constitution, federal parliament will not have the power to abolish the voice. How middle-of-the-road is that? Has Mackenzie and each of BHP’s board members satisfied themselves that this won’t fundamentally alter our democratic model for the worse? More important, what long-term projections has Mackenzie brought to the BHP board about the impact on shareholder value of a constitutionally entrenched voice?

And how does BHP’s board feel about the chief executive in effect saying opponents of a constitutionally entrenched voice, such as Scott Morrison, are immoral and unethical?

Each year, boards sign off on their company’s environmental, social and governance statements in their annual report. Where is the assurance from the BHP board that the company has effective corporate governance practices that ensure its chief executive is using its platform and brand for the tangible benefit of shareholders, rather than as a platform to promote their own personal social preferences? If the board of BHP has not set down proper decision-making processes around Mackenzie’s call to plunge BHP into contested social issues, why not? And where is the regulator on this issue, given corporate virtue-signalling is becoming more endemic by the day? When a chief executive assumes the role of corporate cleric, attaching the company’s name to social reforms without knowing the full ramifications to the company, it is not some innocuous act that can be ignored by boards or regulators.

The Australian Securities & Investments Commission has recently been plugging the benefits of putting a psychologist into corporate boardrooms to test the risks of pushy chief executives getting their way without proper board oversight. What does ASIC have to say about a culture that appears to give chief executives a free pass to attach company names to contested social issues? Watch the regulator dodge this one, another issue for the already bursting too-hard basket.

And what about some guidance from the Australian Securities Exchange? The latest edition of the ASX corporate governance principles offers up a long list of measures for company boards to follow as a matter of best practice, including new board responsibilities to help set the appropriate risk appetite, overseeing and challenging management and new measures to encourage better disclosure of environmental, social and governance risks. Given the rise of corporate virtue-signalling, isn’t it time that ASX corporate governance principles be read to require proper oversight of processes around how management decides on social activism, sifting the harmless from the potentially harmful? A board serious about its role would be doing this already.

It is discouraging, to say the least, if BHP’s board is not properly checking Mackenzie’s social frolics. Shareholders are entitled to know whether the board of BHP is providing the proper oversight of a chief executive who remains determined to sign the company name to highly contested causes with unknown legal, political and social consequences. The boards of other big Australian companies are on notice, too.

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 August, 2019

Blood-soaked man 'shouting Allahu Akbar' in Sydney's CBD attempts to stab multiple people - with one woman rushed to hospital and another found dead with throat slit in nearby building

Nothing to do with Islam, of course.  He was just insane.  They say that about every Muslim murderer.  He looks like a Palestinian.  So that could supply the motive

Update:  It seems that he was of Turkish origin,  Turks are 99% Muslim


A blood-soaked man screaming 'Allahu Akbar' has gone on a rampage with a knife through central Sydney - allegedly killing a 21-year-old woman inside a unit and stabbing another in the back at a nearby pub.

The dead woman was found inside a Clarence Street apartment, allegedly with her throat slit, after the knifeman was subdued by heroic bystanders about 2pm using chairs and milk crates in Wynyard Street after attempting to stab multiple people.

Police are investigating whether the attacker, believed to be Mert Nay from Blacktown, had escaped from a mental institution.

They do not believe it is a terror-related incident, and said the alleged attacker did not have links to any terrorist organisations - despite witnesses reporting the attacker was muttering religious slogans including 'Allahu Akbar'.  

Dramatic footage showed the man, wearing a grey hooded jumper and holding a large knife, jumping on top of a Mercedes while screaming 'shoot me in the head'.

Brave witnesses were able to tackle the man and pin his head down with a milk crate until police arrived and arrested him as hundreds of workers gathered.

Police praised on Tuesday evening the civilians, fire fighters and ambulance staff for preventing 'what could have been a much worse situation'.

'Do you know how many people you just stabbed, you dog? You just stabbed a chick, mate, in broad daylight,' one of the men was heard screaming during the arrest.

Moments before the attacker was arrested, another woman was found inside The Grace Hotel with stab wound. She was taken to hospital in a stable condition.

A painter working on a mural near where the man was arrested witnessed him charging down the street with a 'big kitchen knife' with five or six people in close pursuit.

Witness Jess Warren, 35, said she was was having lunch at the Regiment CBD cafe when the knifeman was finally arrested. 

She told Daily Mail Australia fire and rescue workers wielding an axe and a crowbar, and a few civilians, two brandishing chairs, had given chase before finally restraining him.

'One of the guys who was chasing pushed him in the back, then as he was falling the firies got him in the legs, and then they pinned him down with the chairs,' she said. 'Then they just sat on him until the cops came.'

'People couldn't believe it, then everyone started standing on their chairs to see over the crowd.'

Megan Hales said there was a group of people running away from the knife man but it wasn't clear if he was chasing after them, or running away from the group that was trying to stop him.

'At that point there were people chasing him down the street trying to stop him,' Ms Hales, who was at work on Wynyard Street, said.

Ms Hales described the man as being in his late 20s or early 30s, Caucasian and with dark curly hair.

'He wasn't looking in great shape - it was fast. 'A whole lot of guys just came down on top of him and laid him down'.

A barrister named Marco, who was working at Batch Café, on York Street, watched in horror as the chaos unfolded.

'He was trying to smash a driver side window of a random car with the knife. He was unsuccessful.

'People were chasing him by that stage. There was fireys chasing him with axes and he went around the corner.'

Adrian Papaianni was walking along Clarence Street when when he suddenly heard terrified screams. 'There were a stack of people running down Barrack Place saying that there was a guy with a knife,' he told news.com.au.

'I ran into the Woolworths and people inside got them to shut the glass doors. I was feeling OK until I saw a mother crying with her baby in her hands, trying to get into the Woolies.

'Police started arriving about a minute later and started to chase him.'

An Uber driver said the knifeman jumped on the bonnet of his car with a knife in his hand and blood on his shirt.

He told 2GB: 'I was next to a fire truck in York Street and he jumped on the bonnet of my car. He crashed across the bonnet and had a knife in his hand. 'There was blood on his shirt. People had their phones out and there was police'.

SOURCE  





Young people who skip university and pick up a trade will make MORE money in their lifetime than their friends saddled with student debt

Young people who skip university for vocational courses could find themselves better off with higher wages and no HECS debt, according to a new report.

Research taken out by the Grattan Institute, in Victoria, found that students are being told inaccurate information about employment.

Grattan's program director Andrew Norton said well-paying trade jobs are facing a skills shortage while those students undertaking degrees in science and humanities are struggling to get jobs.

Those enrolling in university courses has increased by a third in the past decade with more students with lower ATAR scores attending than ever before.

Meanwhile students taking trades-based courses has plummeted 43 per cent in the past five years.

It is estimated that Australia will need up to a million workers with vocational qualifications by 2023 if it is keep up with demand.

Grattan's researchers found that young men with low ATAR scores were at a significant disadvantage if they didn't pick up a trade.

'I think there is a lot of cultural pressure to go to university, kids often need a good reason for why they are not going to go to uni rather than why they should go,' Mr Norton said. 

'What often happens in these (professional) careers is that people struggle to secure the higher position jobs and end up falling down to lower level positions that earn less.'

Mr Norton said that engineering-related industries, such as maintaining equipment in the field, construction and working in telecommunications offered some of the best career opportunities.  'A lot of people can earn a couple of thousand (dollars) a week in these jobs.' he said.

However women often struggle in trade industries with few pursuing the male dominated careers and those that do, struggle to maintain a career long term.

'It really seems like there are big barriers to these fields, employers aren't sympathetic to part time work or maternity leave so women often go elsewhere,' he said.

Instead women with low ATAR scores are better off pursuing options such as teaching and nursing that offer far more career stability.

'Even though you are never going to be rich you are going to have a reliable career and that makes it very attractive to some people.'

Mr Norton said there is misconception often held by teachers and parents that students will perform better in university regardless of their skill set or ability.

'Career advice in schools is often patchy at best,' Mr Norton said. 'Schools need to give students better career advice alerting them to these possibilities – and governments should end funding biases against vocational education.'

The report said universities often take in students regardless of their ATAR score which is often to the student's detriment. 

'They are more likely to fail subjects and get low marks, and when they finish their courses are less likely to find professional jobs or earn high salaries,' the report reads.  

SOURCE  






You can bin the assumptions — recycling is expensive

I am old enough to remember milk being delivered each morning in glass bottles. We would eagerly­ drink it and mum would wash the bottles, ready to be collected the next day and replaced­ with full ones.

On the rare occasions we had soft drink, my sister and I would race down to the local milk bar to receive the small deposit (was it threepence?) that was attached to the purchase of that bottle of Tarax lemonade.

I recount those days to make the contrast with today’s debate­ about recycling and the mess in which we find ourselves. Then we were talking about re-use — not recycling. It was small-scale and it was local.

Bottles weren’t smashed to be recycled. They were thoroughly washed and re-used. For various reasons, the re-use option has largely disappeared. What we are debating today is quite different.

The critical issues in the recycling debate are its high cost (collection, sorting, energy) and the absence of profitable markets for most recycled products. The combination of these factors, plus the effective refusal of China and other Asian countries to take waste, means there are no easy solutions­ to what is fast becoming a disaster.

For example, in 2016-17, almost 13 million tonnes of waste was generated in Victoria. At least one-third went to landfill. The rest was recovered or collected for recycling. No one can be sure what happened to this portion because the government agency, Sustainability Victoria, has dropped the ball on reliable data collection.

In a recent report by the Victorian Auditor-General, Recovering and Reprocessing Resources from Waste, a damning picture emerges­ of government agencies failing to meet their core object­ives while ignoring the implic­ations of the creeping ban around Asia on the import of waste since 2013.

It is increasingly common for waste to be sent to landfill or stockpiled. These stockpiles pose serious safety and environmental risks. There was a fire at a recycling plant in Coolaroo operated by recycling firm SKM, which is now in liquidation.

There are more than 700 shipping containers of recycled mater­ial hanging around the Port of Melbourne that can no longer be shipped overseas. The company that ordered the transportation of the material was none other than SKM. Needless to say, the transport company has not been paid.

Scott Morrison’s achieved agreement at last week’s Council of Australian Governments meeting that the nation would no longer export its waste was essentially for show. The receiving countries had made it clear that previous practices will no longer apply, effectively forcing this outcome on every state and territory.

The dilemma is how state and territory governments deal with this without imposing undue costs and burdens on their citizens. There is a tremendous amount of fuzzy thinking and sloganeering, including the development of a so-called circular economy.

In Victoria, there are self-interested calls for the introduction of a container deposit scheme along the lines of other states. Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio made the first sensible decision of her ministerial career by declaring that such a scheme was not the “answer to kerbside recycling”.

Not only has the Productivity Commission assessed the costs of these schemes to outweigh their benefits, but the experience of NSW points to very significant implementation problems that are costly to rectify.

Moreover, the diversion of used aluminium cans, the only recycled­ product that produces a serious economic return, away from kerbside recycling will further­ undermine the latter.

Mind you, D’Ambrosio has been sitting on a Sustainability Fund of more than $500 million amassed through landfill levies. It would seem the Victorian Treas­urer would rather retain this fund on the asset side of the state’s balance­ sheet than see it used for the purposes it was collected. These include “fostering environmentally sustainable use of resourc­es and best practices in waste management”.

Scepticism should be applied when assessing the contributions of many in this industry. They will always make big environmental claims while seeking the assistance of taxpayers and ratepayers.

Consider this quote from one consultant: “Industry is very supporti­ve of a positive procurement policy where government and businesses preferentially purchase recycled content. Part of the solution is positive procurement and part of the solution is infrastructure, but industry can’t and won’t invest in new technologies unless there’s an economic return. At the moment, they are outcompeted by cheap landfill.” What he is really saying is that the industry requires regulatory assistance along with government subsidies.

Another suggestion is to force households to further sort and wash their recycled material, includin­g separating soft and hard plastic. This will involve extra containers, despite many people living in very small premises that would rule out this option. More waste management education is on the cards, including exhortations to minimise waste creation.

One sensible policy option in Victoria that was raised only briefly, then reject­ed, was the burning of waste material in purpose-built incinerators with scrubbers installed. This option would also generate electricity that could provide valuable back-up power to renewable energy sources.

This is common in Sweden and Japan. Indeed, Sweden imports waste for this purpose. Burning waste generates carbon dioxide but then landfills generate methane, a more toxic greenhouse gas. That said, best-practice landfills will also be part of the solution.

The bottom line is that recycling is imposed people-­management, with the message being that we are all contributing to saving the planet by diligently sorting our rubbish. The reality has always been markedly different from this message and it is getting­ worse.

Waste for recycling must be collected, sorted and sent on for recovery or reprocessing. The entir­e cycle is itself costly and energy­-intensive, something that must be taken into account when considering policy options. With the rising price of electricity and the withdrawal of those previously helpful receiving countries, there are no easy solutions to this serious public policy problem.

SOURCE  






PM earns twice the salary of Boris Johnson - but is he worth that much?

Here’s a bad idea: the Reserve Bank governor is calling for 3 per cent wages growth across the public sector, apparently to help the rest of us. Ratcheting up public sector pay would damage the economy far more than help it, undermini­ng economic growth, productivity, increasing inequality and further eroding respect for government.

“We’re in a situation now that wage norms have drifted down to 2 or 2.5 per cent,” Philip Lowe said at his testimony before the house economics committee last week.

In today’s low-inflation world, 2-2.5 per cent a year isn’t all that bad, actually, especially when it comes annually regardless of perform­ance.

No doubt the 15 per cent of the workforce employed by governments are all for Lowe’s suggestion, but for the rest of us it’s a recipe for higher tax.

A bigger and higher-paid public sector is a double whammy, shifting workers into less productive work, by and large, while sapping the incentive to work and hire in the private sector — the ultimate source of our prosperity.

Wages will increase when prod­uctivity increases, not when government decrees it so. The federal­ government had almost 241,000 staff in June last year, the states 1.56 million, and local governme­nts 188,000.

All up, the national wage bill for the 2018 financia­l year, the most recent for which we have data, was $158.6 billion, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Every additional 1 per cent in wages is therefore another $1.6bn in tax a year that must be raised.

Our public servants are well paid, especially at the top, where pay is frequently double — in some cases almost triple — their British counterparts. Our Treas­ury secretary, on more than $893,000, receives 170 per cent more than his British equivalent, who presides over a considerably bigger department and a G8 economy almost three times the size.

Scott Morrison earns more than twice that of Boris Johnson (who makes do with less than £150,000 or $265,500), who argu­ably has a more difficult job, especially now as he walks the political tightrope to extricate Britain from the EU. Our chiefs of the army, navy and air force, on about $580,000, earn 90 per cent more than their British equivalents, who oversee a nuclear arsenal.

Our chief statistician, on more than $700,000, earns 90 per cent more than his British equal. And London is much more expensive than Canberra.

There were 3405 “senior executives” in the federal public sector alone last year, up from 2701 a year earlier, according to the Public Service Commission’s latest data. They earn more than the chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

It’s unclear whether the talent is commensurately higher in Canberra than Westminster as a result of the outsized remuneration. At the very least, surely we already pay enough to attract top talent.

The RBA itself has been no slouch in the pay department, ­having 181 economists and executives on $200,000 or more, with an average of $300,000, up from 160 staff the year before. The Produc­tivity Commission’s entire staff was 160 last year.

There’s a deeper problem with these sky-high salaries beyond the cost and public contempt they generate. They align the top echel­ons of government not with the public, who earn vastly less, but with that sliver of private sector interests whose outlandish pay is used to justify ever higher public sector pay at the top. Thus, reforms that might boost competition or curb rent-seeking will not be favoured by the bureauc­racy in a way they once would have.

The trend continues further down the pay ladder. According to the latest OECD data, adjusted for purchasing power, Australia has the fifth-best-paid teachers, the fourth-highest-paid nurses, and the third-best-paid police.

Lifting public sector pay is particula­rly damaging for small businesses, which typically have no hope of matching such rates. This is especially true in regional Australia, where the cost of living can be lower, while public sector pay reflects capital city costs.

Even if they can, many would prefer a public sector job paying $85,000 than a private sector one paying $95,000. Conditions in the public sector are extraordinarily generous, including 15.4 per cent superannuation, and generous dollops of “personal”, maternity, and annual­ leave unavailable in all but the biggest businesses.

Workers in the federal public service took an average of nine sick days a year — almost two weeks — in 2017, a number that’s changed little in recent years.

Far from criticism, the NSW government, the biggest employer in the southern hemisphere, deserves­ credit for reducing public sector pay growth to about 2.5 per cent. The new West Australian Labor government has had an even better idea, limiting wage increas­es to $1000 per public servant, and freezing indefinitely those of higher-paid public servants­, including MPs, judges and senior bureaucrats.

Sluggish real wage growth, or at least the perception of it, is one of the two defining economic characterist­ics of our age; ultra-low interest rates being the other.

Cutting income tax is a far bette­r remedy than paying already highly paid public servants more. An even better way would be allow­ing workers the option of having their 9.5 per cent super contributions paid as wages. It would be a huge win for everyone except the financial services communi­ty — government would receive more tax, and households more in disposable income.

Public sector wage growth should only increase when private sector wages grow naturally. Various reports of late have accused people of snubbing work or stubbornly refusing to take up higher-productivity jobs. Research by the Department of Employment, for instance, found almost one in two employers was finding it difficult to hire workers. Such frustrated businesses should consider lifting the rate of pay they are offering rather than complaining.

The Reserve Bank wants higher­ wage growth to boost inflation, which has hovered below its 2-3 per cent target for almost five years. Meeting an arbitrary inflation target is hardly justification to damage the economy and increase inequality further.

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






13 August 2019

Drag queens teach preschool children about 'inclusion and diversity' at local libraries - as critics slam the 'storytelling' sessions as 'inappropriate'

I find drag queens disgusting.  They are just men mocking women and I like real women very much. Drag queens  are offensive.  Are conservatives allowed to be offended?  It seems not

Drag queens are reading story books to pre-school children in public libraries to promote 'diversity and inclusion' among the new generation.

The controversial storytelling events - which have previously been met with strong opposition in Melbourne - have been scheduled across Sydney in the past year.

While supporters claim the public readings promote open-mindedness, critics such as New South Wales Upper House MP Mark Latham have hit out at their 'inappropriate' nature.

One event due to be held earlier this year in Kogarah, southern Sydney, billed itself as a chance for children 'to experience positive and inclusive role models in a fun environment'.

Another in Erskineville last year fronted by high-profile drag queen Hannah Conda encouraged attendees to bring their own dresses and wigs along.

Fellow entertainer Charisma Belle, another well-known proponent of the scheme, told The Daily Telegraph the events were there for children 'unable to express themselves properly'.

'Drag story time is about opening a dialogue between parents and their children,' she said.

'Part of my job as a drag performer is to educate and challenge the misinformation that is spread about my community.'

Georges River Council said the event at Kogarah Library had kept its place in their calendar due to its high popularity.

But Mr Latham, One Nation's NSW state leader, has expressed his concern the events serve as a 'backdoor' for the Safe Schools campaign - which pushes for greater inclusion for LGBTI students.

'Given the way the drag queen program is pushed in municipal libraries, it's highly appropriate for the Education Minister to issue a general directive through NSW schools they must not be part of school libraries,' he said.

Last year, the Drag Storytime with Miss Roxee drag queen reading in Wollongong attracted the anger of social media commenters.

Negative feedback ranged from those who accused the central library where it was held of spreading 'propaganda' and 'sexualising children'.

SOURCE  






How good is ScoMo? Popularity for the Coalition SURGES as PM enjoys post-election boost following tax cuts and help for drought-stricken farmers

Scott Morrison is squaring for a fight against union thugs as the Government's popularity surges ahead following the federal election.

The coalition's primary vote has increased 2.6 per cent since its May victory to 44 per cent, according to the post-election Newspoll published by The Australian.

Mr Morrison has also seen the best results for a prime minister since 2016, with approval ratings shooting beyond 50 per cent for the first time in four years.

The boost in popularity comes as the Government delivers on its tax-cut promise, which saw millions of Australians receive up to $1,080 in relief when they lodged their tax returns this year.

Mr Morrison's continued support for drought-stricken farmers has also been tipped as a key factor in the surge.

The Government now leads Labor 53 per cent to 47 per cent on a two-party preferred vote.

And with four sitting days left until the long winter break, the prime minister wants to pass laws making it easier to kick rogue officials out of the union movement.

Mr Morrison also wants more power to de-register misbehaving unions and put checks on union mergers.

He has seized on John Setka's refusal to step down from the Victorian construction union as apparent proof the crackdown is needed.

This may be enough to clinch crucial Senate crossbench support for his union-busting legislation but Labor claims the industrial relations laws expose the prime minister's deep-seated 'hatred' for unions in general.

The opposition will this week try to launch an inquiry into meetings between Energy Minister Angus Taylor and environmental officials about endangered grasslands. Labor is pursuing the cabinet minister over his interest in a family company linked to an investigation into alleged illegal land clearing.

But Mr Taylor says his interests have been widely declared and has accused the opposition of waging a 'grubby smear campaign'.

The government has so far managed to fend off an investigation.

But key crossbench senator Rex Patrick has flipped his position, and is now willing to back an inquiry.

Meanwhile, Mr Morrison heads Labor leader Anthony Albanese as preferred prime minister 48 per cent to 31 per cent, according to Newspoll, while Labor's primary vote remains largely unchanged at 33 per cent.

The findings come after many pollsters took a hiatus following the May election result which they failed to predict across the board.

SOURCE  






Universities’ research focus is leaving students unprepared

It’s nearly a year since US online recruiter Glassdoor shocked the global university and tertiary college world by revealing that major US employers no longer require a degree for top new employees.

Google, Apple, IBM, Penguin Random House, Bank of America, Starbucks, Cisco, and Hilton were among the groups that had changed their recruiting policies, partly because too many graduates did not have the skills they required.

Subsequently, at least in Australia, nothing much has happened in the university sector.

But the US-China trade war is suddenly raising alarm bells in our third-largest export industry. Australia’s education sector is in a dangerous position and that danger puts our entire tertiary education sector in jeopardy.

Universities live in an academic world and are rarely looked at from a business point of view. To date, that academic approach has worked. But the post trade war world is likely to be very different.

Basically, in the words of education analyst Kee Wong, universities offer their students the choice of a series of “hampers” covering areas like law, engineering, commerce and arts.

We have all received Christmas hampers and on most occasions we find things in them that we want but many things that are of no use. And so it is with most university degrees. But too many university hampers have not fundamentally changed in 30 years.

I know my university friends will dispute that statement, and I recognise that some universities have become much more flexible and have modernised their subjects. But too many have not and that means too many students are coming out of a tertiary courses totally unprepared for the workplaces of today, let alone the future.

Many students understand this and they scramble to join large organisations (both private and government) that have training courses that will make them “work ready”. Those organisations take the best students available, so the rest go into the workforce unprepared. Many fail and I run into countless medium sized business people who shake their heads when they describe how unprepared most graduates are for the modern world.

So the universities have a product problem. But it gets worse.

Universities are funded by taking in foreign students who pay full fees. Many of these students come from China. Chinese universities have adapted their courses to fit the modern world, with a particular emphasis on databases and artificial intelligence: the area where China seeks superiority over the US.

In other words, in business terms, we face a rival which has updated its product. In the past, Chinese universities have not had the capacity to meet the demand, but they are catching up.

And just to make matters even more dangerous for Australia, relations with China are poor, so returning to China with an Australian degree might not carry the same advantage that existed in previous decades, particularly given the rise in the standard of Chinese universities.

On this front, Australia is helped by the fact that the largest education state, Victoria, was smart enough to join China’s belt and road initiative.

Of course the student market covers many other countries. We must also recognise that a proportion of the total student market has come to Australia seeking long-term residency. If Canberra tightens the visa requirements, it will be a disaster for the education sector because without visa seeking students, the tertiary education sector could not be funded.

In normal businesses, the chief executives know they must adapt their products to meet the market. But in the tertiary sector attracting both local and overseas students currently requires a good ranking.

An important part of securing such a ranking is producing research papers that often have very limited relevance to today’s challenges. So large sums are spent to produce such papers to gain ranking, and therefore more overseas students. In an ideal world that money should be spent improving courses and flexibility to match our rivals in China and elsewhere.

I do not claim to have the answers but Australia’s third largest export industry has not recognised that the game has changed. Nor have the federal and state governments, who blame each other. We have to change the debate or we will lose this industry because if overseas students fall then it will go into a downward spiral. Now is the time to recognise that the new situation and to act. It’s not too late.

SOURCE  






'We don't want there to be no air travel': Qantas boss warns climate change panic could devastate the industry and take the world 'back to the 1920s'

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce has warned that global warming panic could bring the aviation industry to a halt, saying additional airline taxes could take the world back to the 1920s.

Speaking at the Centre for Aviation summit in Sydney this week, Mr Joyce hit back at climate change hysteria and 'flight shaming'.

Mr Joyce referenced an increase in the amount of global warming rallies being held globally and a rise in activists criticising travellers who fly, The Australian reported. 

'We don't want to go back to the 1920s and not have air ­travel. We need to make sure that we keep the baby, because it is important for the world economy to have connections,' he said.

He pointed out that the airline industry had made a difference to the world in terms of economic trade and job creation. 

'We know there's an environmental impact, but the things we're doing as an industry are fantastic. We have targets by 2050 to reduce our CO2 emissions to half the levels of 2005,' he said.

Just last month, the French government announced an 'eco-tax' on all flights out of airports in France, which would rack up $300 million per year.

Passengers in The Netherlands have are now being slugged a levy of $11.60, amid calls for the European Union to enforce taxes across the whole continent.

Mr Joyce said the aim of the new tariffs is to limit commercial flights by slugging customers and airlines more.

The amount of passengers flying the prominent flight routes between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have remained stagnant, according to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics.

Swedish teenager Greta Thunberg has launched a staunch against airlines and their customers, and has even vowed to travel to the US by boat to spread her message.

As well as ruling out flying on a plane on the trip, Thunberg also refuses to travel aboard a cruise ship as they're notoriously big polluters. Meanwhile, sailors rarely brave the Atlantic in August because of hurricane risks.

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 August 2019

'They're back again': Dozens of African youths are targeted by police just days after 100 teenagers wreaked havoc on the same street - as Tony Abbott blames  'pussy footing' around gang crime

Terrified residents have been forced to lock themselves in their own homes as police rounded up a swarm of youths wreaking havoc on their street.

For the second time in as many weeks, police were called to Banjo Paterson Park in Melbourne's south-eastern suburb of Lynbrook on Saturday night to usher dozens of rampaging youths, predominantly African-Australians, onto trains.

As locals hid, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was vocal in his criticism of Victoria Police's leniency, saying youths will continue to treat authorities with contempt unless arrests are made.

Police were called to the park on Saturday evening at around 7:30pm after reports of chanting and public intoxication.

One female resident told the Herald Sun she was expecting a fight to break out at any minute.

The youths were reportedly approached by police with their batons drawn and ushered to Lynbrook Railway Station, about a ten-minute walk away. One man was seen being put in the back of a police van.

Frightened locals watched through their windows as the scene was returned to tranquility about four hours later.

One resident saying they had 'never had this issue here before'.  But fewer than two weeks ago, on October 3, police were called to the exact same park after a report of African youth gang violence.

On that night, at least 25 riot squad officers were seen near the railway station and the reserve where the youths were loitering.

They were called on reports of violence and assault, but later said no arrests were made and no victims had come forward.

'Looks the same group of people that were here a couple of weeks ago are back again,' one local wrote on Facebook Saturday night, leading to concerns for re-offenders.

Mr Abbott has led the criticism of Victoria Police, accusing them of 'pussy footing' around youth and gang crime in Melbourne.

'The problem is that there seems to be a few hundred youngsters in outer metropolitan Melbourne who treat the police with contempt,' Mr Abbott said.

Legislation was introduced earlier in the year, which restricts youths with no prior convictions from associating with known gang members.

SOURCE  






A message to the lost tribes of the left wing

Last week, Joe Hildebrand argued why “hate speech” shouldn’t be banned. After copping a wave of abuse, he has a message.

This time last week I wrote a long, considered piece arguing that free speech, even that considered offensive or “hate speech”, should not be banned — with the obvious and explicit exception of any incitement to violence.

I put forward a number of reasons both principled and practical but chief among them was that allowing freedom of expression is an invaluable way of identifying extremist sentiments in society and hopefully, through reason and open discourse, turning those sentiments around.

The piece was written in response to calls to ban a right-wing UK activist from entering Australia and as it turned out, the reaction to the piece overwhelmingly proved its point.

The only irony is that the extremists it identified were all on the Left.

Indeed, the reactions themselves were also crippled by their own internal irony. It was, as anyone who witnessed the response on social media will know, a volcanic eruption of abuse all exploding in the name of peace and tolerance.

Now before anyone shrieks hypocrisy — even if certain people struggle to tell the difference between free speech and abuse — I’m not going to complain or name and shame individuals. But to illustrate the point, here are just a few examples.

One respondent opened by calling me a “c**t” and then, in the very same tweet, bemoaned the lack of civil discourse in public debate.

Another began their first tweet with the words, “get f***ed Joe” and then in their second, complained that I wouldn’t have a polite discussion with them.

A third quipped: “Nothing good ever comes out of Dandenong” — a reference to my home town, one of the poorest, most multicultural and working-class Labor suburbs in the country. She was also, apparently, a Labor supporter.

There were also the obligatory pictures of dead bodies in Nazi concentration camps — according to the new hard Left narrative, history’s most infamous book-burners were in fact diehard free speech advocates.

And of course the more vicious the abuse, the more voiceless and victimised the abusers claimed to be. They also appeared to be mostly white and university educated, both statistically unusual indicators of oppression.

You honestly could not make this stuff up and it is a sad reflection of where we are.

The reason for this is probably not so much a rise in extreme Left sentiment in the community but the advent of platforms that allow it to be spread so effortlessly and widely. In order to return to Russia to start the October Revolution, Vladimir Lenin had to travel 2000 miles over eight days by train. These days you only have to literally hit return.

To get an idea of just how extreme Lenin was, this was someone who described a fellow socialist as a “detestable centrist”, accepted the patronage of the despicable autocratic German Kaiser (who was using him as a pawn to sabotage the Russian front in World War I), and then returned to Russia to overthrow a revolution that had already taken place because the first revolution wasn’t extreme enough.

Russia was thus turned from a miserable imperialist slaughterhouse to a miserable socialist slaughterhouse. And so imagine my lack of surprise when one of my more vociferous anti-free speech Twitter critics proudly described themselves as “Left of Lenin”. And they are far from alone in doing so.

Of course, I was a student socialist back in the day but at least my influence was limited to whoever I was chanting at on the steps of Parliament House or having a bucket bong with in my lounge room. And at least, unlike Lenin and many of my then-comrades, I had the good grace to actually be poor.

These days, as then, socialism is the domain of the disaffected, upper middle-class so-called intellectual. The only difference is that these days such insufferable twats can bang on about it 24 hours a day, creating the impression that it is a growing movement rather than just a spreading disease.

And of course because it is the domain of the over-privileged, the causes du jour have shifted from elevating the poor — or the “dictatorship of the proletariat” as Lenin so progressively proclaimed — to the niche obsessions of identity politics that have so dominated public debate.

Say what you like about Vlad, at least he wouldn’t have slagged off Dandenong.

But just like Vlad, they see anyone on the right as a fascist and even centrists as fascist enablers.

And while the brutally oppressed and impoverished people of 1917 Russia can be forgiven for embracing such an ideology, no one with even a passing understanding of history or complex thought could hold such a view in the information age. These are people less interested in backstories than backs against the wall.

This brings us to the most profound response to left-wing extremism, which is the number of sensible, compassionate and thoughtful people who once considered themselves progressive but now feel abandoned and isolated, as the movement has been hijacked by hardcore ideologues. And little wonder.

As one former fellow traveller mournfully said: “ALP/Greens/lefty social democrat my entire life … and I am really starting to detest the left. De. Test.”

Another: “My upbringing and instinct too but increasingly embarrassed at the level of self-bullshit, hysteria, hate/division and gesture politics in Left circles.”

Another: “I’m feeling you man. Their hysterical application of ‘fascism’, their antagonism to free speech, their often violent disruption of legitimate political meetings, their inability to see the contradiction between open borders and a welfare state and the hierarchy of victimhood.”

And another: “It’s becoming a mass exodus. But where to go? Not Lib that’s for sure. The politics of group identity and emotions over facts however, leave a lot of us feeling homeless … In a political sense.”

These are the lost tribes of the left. Needless to say, I know how they feel.

And of course not only do hardcore socialists and hand-wringing identity ideologues turn anyone with a brain or a sense of humour away from their cause, they also play into the hands of the right by making the whole Left side of politics look ridiculous. Donald Trump might appear crazy compared to a centrist but he looks sensible compared to a Stalinist.

Little wonder major left-wing parties are fracturing and struggling to win government in liberal democracies all over the world while populist right-wing movements are on the rise.

Likewise in Australia, the ALP lost the unlosable election just a couple of months ago after a cynical attempt to harness what it thought was a neo-Marxist resurgence. For next time, it’s probably a good rule of thumb to remember that when Australia’s only celebrity communist endorses your campaign, you’re probably on the wrong track.

The good news is that the Labor Party has learned from this and is in the process of recovering and recalibrating under the sensible stewardship of Anthony Albanese.

Cynics might point to the post-election dip in the polls, but it is pretty obvious to any seasoned observer that this is almost certainly a result of the party having to quietly jettison all of the toxic policies and rhetoric that cost it victory and start from scratch.

And greater cynics might point to the fact that all the polls got it wrong in the first place.

And so the message to the sensible Left is don’t give up hope. Don’t let dead-eyed socialist extremists or elitist ideological dilettantes trick you into thinking that they are the future of the Left or the champions of working Australians. They are the shackles on their feet, the ones who would rather go down spitting and shrieking than work for meaningful and achievable change.

Society progresses through evolution, not revolution. And it is the extremists who have yet to evolve. The centre will survive. The centre will hold. And the centre will eventually bring us together.

SOURCE  






CPAC 2019: Labor’s Kristina Keneally ‘wins’ conservative award

Senator Kristina Keneally’s attempt to disrupt a conservative conference in Sydney appears to have backfired, with attendees presenting the Labor frontbencher with an award for drawing attention to the event.

Shortly after guest speaker Nigel Farage used his opening address to tip a bucket on “fake” conservative Malcolm Turnbull, former NSW premier Keneally was cheered by a crowd of about 500 at the Conservative Political Action Conference Australia (CPAC) yesterday.

The Labor frontbencher publicly railed against the CPAC event and pushed for the visa of British activist and guest speaker Raheem Kassam be cancelled due to his “extensive history of vilifying people” on racial and religious grounds.

Mr Kassam, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News London and former Muslim, has described the Koran as “fundamentally evil”.

Liberal MP Craig Kelly, who addressed the CPAC conference in Sydney on Saturday took to the stage with a trophy the size of a small child. “This is the CPAC Freedom Award, which goes to the individual who has done the most to promote the CPAC conference,” he told about 200 attendees. Chuckles and broad applause met Mr Kelly’s announcement of the Labor senator as “winner”.

“Is Kristina here by any chance?” the Liberal MP joked.

Attendees on Friday reportedly chanted “send her back” after two speakers made a joke at the expense of Senator Keneally.

Mr Kelly, introduced to the conference as one of Australia’s strongest conservative MPs, also slammed the country’s move towards more renewable energy, and accused science agency CSIRO of a “bogus report” on energy costs. The 2018 report found solar and wind generation technologies were the cheapest power stations to build new.

“If an ASX-listed company said that in an annual report, they would likely end up in jail because of how misleading it is,” Mr Kelly said.

About the same time as Mr Kelly’s speech, Senator Keneally was comparing the conservative conference to the Two Minutes Hate in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984.

“It’s uncanny how much CPAC is exactly what it claims to oppose,” she tweeted. “They are ... spending all day yelling about their ‘enemies’. This is exactly how people under totalitarian regimes behave.”

Earlier on Saturday, Mr Farage used his CPAC speech to celebrate Australia and Britain’s shift from “trendy, metro” leaders to real conservative leaders.

Mr Farage told the adoring crowd Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s election victory in May seemed impossible, after the recent hijacking of the Liberal party by “the other side”.

“Malcolm Turnbull ... pretended to be a conservative but actually turned out to be a snake,” he said, to applause.

“You’ve now got someone conservative, mainstream media (and) those in the middle of Melbourne and Sydney may not like him,” he said of Mr Morrison. “But out where real people live, they voted for him.”

He said he had thought “the greenies had taken over this country”, especially after heading to Melbourne and having 600 people rally against him. The UK member of the European Parliament for the past two decades was a crucial figure in the 2016 Brexit referendum’s Leave campaign.

SOURCE  





Australian universities highly ranked

The University of Sydney has improved its place in the latest THE World Reputation Rankings, jumping from band 71-80 to 61-70. This moves the University into second place, up from third, for reputation in Australia.

The annual ranking lists the top 100 universities for teaching and research reputation, based on the results of an invitation-only academic opinion survey.

“This outcome is a great tribute to our academic and professional staff who are doing so much to lift the performance of the University in education and research.

“In the past few years, we’ve undertaken some of the biggest reforms in a century to both our curriculum and our research approach; and it’s starting to pay off,” Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research) Professor Duncan Ivison said.

“More importantly, this result also demonstrates the extraordinary contribution our staff and students are making to society more generally. We are working with more partners than ever before, collaborating to tackle some of the biggest challenges the world faces – whether it’s climate change, chronic disease, inequality or artificial intelligence.”

The questionnaire was completed by more than 10,000 senior academics from 135 countries.  The respondents, who are experienced, published scholars, are asked to identify the top 15 universities for research and the top 15 for teaching.

The survey data will also be used alongside 11 other indicators to determine the THE World University Rankings, which will be released in September this year.

This result follows the University of Sydney’s strong performance in rankings announced last month, placing 42nd in the world and first in the state in the 2020 QS World University Rankings and with 12 subjects ranked in the top 50 in the 2019 ARWU Global Ranking of Academic Subjects.

There are now six Australian universities in the top 100, up from three last year, a significant achievement for the domestic higher-education sector.

SOURCE  






Young Australians are turning their backs on jobs with salaries of up to $17,000 a WEEK 'because they're too lazy' - as bosses claim foreigners have a better work ethic

Young Australians are walking out on jobs that pay up to $17,000 a week because they are too lazy, bosses are claiming.

Sydney man, Ryan Graham, who has has owned a commercial flooring company for around 10 years said he regularly hired Australian workers who would quit soon after starting.

The 42-year-old said the problem is so big he has turned to sponsoring foreigners to work for him - saying British, Irish, Argentinian and Brazilian employees had a great work ethic.

'People complain that foreign workers are taking Australian jobs … but we've had 15 guys over the last two years that haven't lasted more than a week. I interviewed one guy for an hour who was there for 10 minutes before he walked off the job,' he told news.com.au.

He said while it was more paperwork and more money to hire foreign workers it was worth the investment.

'You know they're going to turn up and do the work, because they don't have mum and dad to look after them,' he said.

Mr Graham said that the problem is affecting all trades within the construction industry.

He says if a young person is willing to work hard at a trade they could make $7000 to $8000 a week.

One contractor he knows makes, on good weeks, about $17,000. 

'The problem is young guys see that and want $17,000 straight away, but you've got to work three to five years to be able to make that money,' he said.

A Department of Employment survey revealed that 45 per cent of Australian employers struggled to recruit staff in 2018.

A massive 60 per cent of employers trying to fill lower-skilled positions reported issues with hiring workers. 

Some of these issues were identified as jobseekers not interested in the occupation or working conditions and not having 'personal presentation' skills. 

'We have an economy of opportunity and employers are screaming out for workers who are eager for a job,' employment minister Michaelia Cash said in a statement on Monday.

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 August, 2019

Great Barrier Reef run-off rules rile farmers

This is all about another unproven Greenie theory.  There is no good evidence that farm runoff damages the reef.  There is in fact good evidence that it does not. There is practically no agriculture bordering the reef in the top half of the Eastern Cape York peninsula yet there has been a lot of reef damage there.  Farmers are being burdened by restrictions and bureaucracy for no proven benefit

Contentious moves to put added restrictions on farmers and development have emotions running high along this stretch of the central Queensland coast. The state Labor government is planning new legislation that will provide for much greater supervision of agricultural practices.

“Onshore activity will always have an impact,” Dunlop says. “The question is where the intervention point should be. Nutrient loads are coming out of the Fitzroy River and from developments from population growth along the coast. There is discharge from ­inadequate sewage treatment works and manure from household pets from all these coastal suburbs.”

The duty of care, Dunlop says, should be bigger than beating up on farmers.

Great Barrier Reef protection regulations already apply to the environmentally relevant ­activities of all commercial sugar ­cane cultivation and grazing on properties of more than 2000ha in the Wet Tropics, Burdekin and Mackay Whitsunday catchment areas. Canegrowers and graziers are required to comply with farming practices that include applying fertilisers and chemicals using prescribed methodologies and keeping associated records. But until now there have been no restrictions in the Fitzroy and Burnett-Mary reef catchments.

The new legislation, which could be voted on as early as this month, will set nutrient and sediment pollution load limits for each of the six reef catchments and will limit fertiliser use for sugar cane, grazing, bananas, other horticulture crops and grains production and to agricultural activities in all Great Barrier Reef catchments.

Advisers will be required to keep records of farms they work with and provide them to governments on request. Requests could also be made for agricultural data that may assist in determining where over-application of fertiliser is occurring. Measures will also be introduced to address extra nutrient and sediment loads from new cropping to achieve no net ­decline in reef water quality from new developments.

A parliamentary committee has said it is satisfied there is sufficient evidence that links agricultural land use with adverse effects to water quality, and that this ­affects the Great Barrier Reef.

It has not accepted arguments that there is insufficient evidence to make this connection. The committee notes the difficulties in capturing the data specific to indivi­dual properties and says “scientific modelling is an adequate and ­reliable way of providing and ­assessing data”.

The new laws will require data from the agricultural sector that may assist in determining where over-application of fertiliser, and therefore high rates of nutrient run-off, may be occurring.

It is intended that the new laws will begin later this year, with imple­mentation staged across three years. There will be heavy fines for non-compliance. Controversially, the limits set in legislation can be changed in future by the director-general without having to go back to parliament.

Bundaberg Canegrowers is leading the charge against the new laws. “They are assuming we are dumb as dogs and we are farming like grandad used to with horses,” Bundaberg Canegrowers chief executive Dale Holliss says.

His group is questioning the rationale for extending laws to a region with a vastly different climate and rainfall. Holliss fears that once introduced, the targets set for improved water quality simply cannot be met. Canegrowers see the regulations as part of a broader political push that is loaded with unintended consequences for the rural sector.

“It hasn’t been thought through,” Holliss says. “Everyone cares but why are you imposing more regulation on our struggling economy? Vegetables from this region are sold to major super­markets right around the nation.

“The Bundaberg region supplies 80 per cent of Australia’s sweet potatoes, 42 per cent of avocado and 40 per cent of maca­damia. It supplies the largest field-grown tomatoes in the country.”

Together with grazing, all will be captured by the new laws.

Holliss says he believes sugar cane has been singled out because there are not many votes in it and the industry is visible.

“Cane is not king here but it is a cornerstone tenant,” he says. “The irrigation system here that makes everything possible is as a result of cane. The port is as a result of cane. The foundry is as a result of cane.”

Analysis by canegrowers shows that for every dollar earned by cane there is a $6.20 return to the Queensland economy.

For Holliss, it smacks of politics. “A lot of this comes back to people in southeast Queensland trying to shore up votes and selling the bush out of it,” he says.

Research by farm groups claims that if all cane were removed from the system, it would still not be sufficient to meet the targets. Most sediment comes from natural processes.

However, Capricorn Conservation Council spokeswoman Sherie Bruce says the regulations are needed to maintain the Great Barrier Reef’s World Heritage status.

“To keep UNESCO World Heritage status they have to comply with outcomes, so the science is showing we are not going to meet those outcomes on water quality,” Bruce says.

She says self-regulation is favoured by the industry but it has failed. “The LNP allowed that to happen for a long time and then you can see only 3 per cent undertook self-regulation and the rest didn’t want to do it.

“To get the outcome they want for water quality to protect the reef, the state government committee recommended that regulation was the way to go,” she says.

“The Queensland government has an obligation under UNESCO to introduce that.” Bruce says she can understand that farmers are saying they have an issue with the data, but “I don’t have a problem”, she says. “It is peer-reviewed.”

Conservation groups cite a ­recent paper in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, which found corals in the central and southern sections of the reef would need improvements in water quality of between 6 per cent and 17 per cent to keep their recovery rates in line with projected ­increases in coral bleaching.

Australian Marine Conservation Society director Imogen Zethoven says the canegrowers’ campaign is “disappointing” when the reef needs all the help it can get. “Getting the water cleaned up was a key promise that Australia made to the World Heritage committee when it was considering putting the reef on the ‘in danger’ list in 2015,” Zethoven says.

She says the science showing that the reef’s corals are being hit hard by climate change and poor water quality is overwhelming.

A 2017 scientific consensus statement says improving the quality of the water flowing from the land to the reef is critical for the Great Barrier Reef’s long-term health and resilience to the effects of climate change. The statement says sediments, nutrients and pesticides flowing into reef waters ­affect the health of coral and seagrass habitats, making the reef less able to withstand or recover from events such as the coral bleaching in 2016 and 2017.

Holliss isn’t completely buying it. “My personal view is I think there is that much money around associated with reef science and lots of people find reasons to investigate things so they can get that rich succulent funding stream into their area.”

But Zethoven says “the fact that the canegrowers group is also now trying to attack the science, while claiming they are doing the right thing to protect it, is deeply disappointing”.

When it conducted its inquiry into the new legislation, the parliamentary committee received submissions from around the world including the US, Canada, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands, as well as conservation groups and farmers.

The Environmental Defenders Office told the committee that a failure to act appropriately would result in Queensland and Australia not meeting their commitments as a state and a nation to improve our management of the reef.

“We will be shamed in the face of the international community, let alone have the prospect of a dead reef in the decade to come,” the EDO said.

Several submissions were received from individuals and businesses who identified as working in the agricultural industry in a reef catchment area.

“The majority of these submitters did not support the bill,” the committee report says. But it has recommended the bill be passed.

Tourism operator and reef guardian Peter Gash has sympathies for all sides.

“Down here the southern reef has the geographical advantage that it is further off the coast and any run-off that happens generally doesn’t reach it,” says Gash. “In my time I have only seen run-off get to Lady Elliot (island) once from a big flood on the Burnett.

“I come from the farm. I can see both sides. The first thing we need to do is stop overreacting. We all need to work together as partners. Certainly there is no doubt that some run-offs can do some damage to the reefs, but how much and where is it worse than others and how can we work with our farming practices to improve that?”

Gash says farmers have every right to be concerned. “Farmers are long-term thinkers,” he says. “I don’t think there is any doubt that there have been some things done that farmers look back on now and go, ‘I wish grandpa didn’t do that.’

“But it’s not just farming. It ­applies to industrial and residential developments as well.”

SOURCE  





Malcolm Turnbull a snake, fake: Farage

Nigel Farage has labelled Malcolm Turnbull a snake as he celebrated Australia and Britain's shift from "trendy, metro" leaders to real conservative leaders.

Introduced as "quite possibly" the next British prime minister, the Eurosceptic and right-wing figure on Saturday addressed a crowd of about 500 at the Conservative Political Action Conference Australia in Sydney.

Mr Farage told the adoring crowd prime minister Scott Morrison's election victory in May seemed impossible, after the recent hijacking of the Liberal party by "the other side".

"Malcolm Turnbull ... pretended to be a conservative but actually turned out to be a snake," he said, to applause.

"You've now got someone conservative, mainstream media (and) those in the middle of Melbourne and Sydney may not like him," he said of Mr Morrison. "But out where real people live, they voted for him."

He said he had thought "the greenies had taken over this country", especially after heading to Melbourne and having 600 people rally against him.

The UK member of the European Parliament for the past two decades was a crucial figure in the 2016 Brexit referendum's Leave campaign.

He now leads the newly-established Brexit party, which unexpectedly won the most UK seats of any party in the European Parliament election in May.

Mr Farage said the right-wing revolt was moving across the West, against parties that said they were conservative but run by leaders who were nothing of the kind. "(Former conservative UK prime minister) David Cameron was someone who was not conservative at all but a part of the trendy, metro, liberal elite masquerading as a conservative."

Mr Farage, who wants a no-deal Brexit, said he wanted the UK free of Europe so it could re-engage with its real friends in the world. "Australia is right up there at the top of my personal list," he said.

He said he wanted a complete rebalancing of where Britain was in the world, an increased engagement with Commonwealth countries and fewer people forced into universities.

SOURCE  






Paul Keating dismantles Labor’s excuse for losing the election

Bill Shorten knew exactly who to blame in the wake of Labor’s shock defeat. But that excuse has now collapsed, thanks to a former Labor PM.

Bill Shorten was quick to blame others in the wake of his shock election defeat. He cast Labor as the victim of corporate interests, lies from the government and an “unprecedented” scare campaign. “Obviously we were up against corporate leviathans, a financial behemoth, spending an unprecedented hundreds of millions of dollars advertising, telling lies, spreading fear. They got what they wanted,” Mr Shorten told his colleagues on May 30, the day Anthony Albanese was formally endorsed as his replacement.

“Powerful vested interests campaigned against us, through sections of the media itself. And they got what they wanted. “I understand that neither of these challenges disappeared on election night. They’re still out there for us to face. It is important we face them with courage and honesty, with principle, and with unity.”

According to this interpretation of Labor’s loss, Mr Shorten had the right policies, but fell victim to a dishonest, negative campaign from the government. Think of the Opposition’s proposed changes to franking credits, which Scott Morrison labelled a “retiree tax” to devastating effect.

The Prime Minister also hammered Mr Shorten on the unspecified cost of his emissions reduction policies and his plans to raise taxes on wealthier Australians.

Now a former Labor prime minister, Paul Keating, has slapped down Mr Shorten’s excuse and placed the blame squarely on him.

“Wasn’t one of the lessons of the election campaign that oppositions shouldn’t be brave?” ABC journalist Laura Tingle asked Mr Keating on 7.30 last night.

“No. I don’t think it is one of the lessons at all,” Mr Keating responded. “If you are talking about the Labor Party and why it lost the election, it failed to understand the middle class economy that Bob Hawke and I created for Australia.

“So much of the Labor Party’s policies were devoted to the bottom end of the workforce and the community, paid for by cuts in tax expenditures (i.e. tax increases).

“If the cuts in tax expenditures had have been employed in reducing tax rates then it would have been a big tax reform, and I believe a much more successful outcome.

“But instead of that the Labor Party was actually increasing the top rate of tax from 45 to 47 per cent, which of course you know, in public, I opposed.”

The shorter version is that Mr Keating believes Labor neglected the middle class in favour of a high-taxing agenda that was ultimately rejected by voters. In other words, the policies were wrong.

Labor is currently reviewing its performance in the election campaign, and its new leader, Mr Albanese, has indicated its more controversial policies could be scrapped.

We should also point out that Mr Shorten did acknowledge his own culpability during an interview with the ABC last week — albeit very briefly. “That’s why I stood down, absolutely. You have to take some responsibility,” he said.

SOURCE  






New push to deport immigrants convicted of serious violent crimes and sex offences carrying jail terms of two years or more

More migrants convicted of serious crimes would face deportation under a proposal to toughen Australia's migration laws.

Immigration Minister David Coleman is urging Labor to support changes to migration laws that would lower the bar for criminals' visas to be cancelled.

Under the proposal, criminals would automatically fail the character test if they were convicted of a designated offence that carries a jail term of two or more years.

Designated crimes would include violent offences such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping and threatening violence and possessing a weapon.

Sexual assault and sharing of an indecent images without consent would also be covered, along with breaches of protection orders.

'These are crimes that inflict long lasting trauma on the victims and their friends and family,' Mr Coleman said on Thursday.

'They are abhorrent and those foreign criminals who commit them are not welcome in our country.'

The coalition is pressuring Labor to support the bill, which has been referred to a Senate committee for an inquiry.

While the opposition was against the changes before the election, backing existing law, it has now reserved a position until review of the bill is complete.

Mr Coleman said Labor should explain why it doesn't support the laws which target sex offenders, violent thugs and people who commit crimes against women and children. 'How can Labor possibly justify their stance on this law? Their position is outrageous,' he said.

Civil liberties groups and lawyers have also questioned the need for tougher laws to crackdown on deportations.

SOURCE  






Universities need to listen to what students want from their degrees

University students have become "customers" and if universities are uncomfortable with that idea they are out of touch.

The chief executive of study support service, Studiosity, Michael Larsen, said a  survey of student experience showed the demand-driven system has shifted what students expect to get from higher education and many universities are running hard to catch up.

The survey asked 1100 students to rate their satisfaction with university education. Nearly 49 per cent said the did not believe the course they were studying was worth the money it cost. More than 55 per cent said it would "take years to pay off my student loan".

That was despite the fact only 16 per cent thought what they learnt at university could have been learnt in a job. And only 10 per cent felt the quality of what they learnt at university was not of a high standard.

"Value is a big part of the student experience," Mr Larsen said. "Everyone in society has become a consumer. Services like Netflix and Menulog have changed expectations. The availability and immediacy of those services has raised the bar for what students experience."

He said the demand-driven system meant everyone who wanted to go to university could get there. But combined with the high cost of a degree there were far more people in the system who felt they weren't getting value for money.

"Not all universities see students as customers and are quite confronted by that idea. That's a shame. Universities need to improve the student experience," Mr Larsen said.

Student responses to the survey question "Was your degree worth the money?" included, "I feel many people still go out from uni unprepared because they haven't actually experienced the world" , "It's very theoretical, not very practical based learning like you deal with in the workplace" and "what I am learning seems more theory based and not very practical".

The chief academic officer at Studiosity and former pro vice chancellor, learning and teaching, at Sydney University, Judyth Sachs said the survey showed the quality of university education was not in question but the high cost showed there was a disconnect as far as students were concerned.

Professor Judyth Sachs says universities are out of touch.

"Universities have to do more on employability, on soft skills and being able to work in a team."

She said nearly 19 per cent of students in the survey said they didn't feel they had learnt enough to be job ready.

"In some professional areas like engineering and psychology this has been going on for a long time. But for arts degree or generalist science degrees there has to be an employability focus.

"It's government policy that universities respond to performance indicators," Professor Sachs said.

The most important of these was the governments' Quality Indicators of Learning and Teaching (QILT) survey of attrition, retention and employability which will feed into the new performance-driven funding from 2020 under a Coalition government.

Labor has also said it will look at performance funding if it wins power in May.

"It's about making the universities more accountable. Given government is spending more money than ever on higher education, it has to get more accountability and responsibility from unis."

She said universities also needed to pay more attention to engagement in the first months of an undergraduate degree which was where there were high levels of drop-out.

"There's a broad disconnect. Students come to uni without any peer group.  Lots of them don't know how to navigate their way. Especially if they're first in family and alone at university; it's large, informal and chaotic but they're expected to perform.

"I was provost at Macquarie University for 12 years. Retention rates were high. But we found lots of the first in family didn't have the cultural capital to be self supporting."

She said a drawback of the QILT survey was it pushed universities to focus on "technocratic"  solutions when what they needed to think about was how to ensure students were successful.

"We're not just talking about academic terms. It's the value-add of soft skills, it's about producing productive and successful citizens.

Among international students, 42 per cent thought the degree was not worth the cost and of these 37 per cent said they didn't feel they'd learnt enough to be "job ready".

Mr Larsen said, "With the cost of higher education on the rise, proving consistent value-add will be a challenge for universities."

Only 16 per cent of students in the survey said their experience of university was better than they expected. One of them added, "I thought it would feel more like a community."

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 August, 2019

Another false rape allegation that put an innocent man in jail



In amazing ingratitude, the evil woman targeted someone who  helped her.  She is pretty plain-looking so maybe she was just embittered by her failure with men generally.

The police and prosecutors were very much at fault for accepting uncorroborated allegations as grounds to deny bail.  They were no doubt influenced by the "believe the woman" chant coming from feminists.  But they should not have accepted such a non-judicial policy

A young woman, whose actions led to a good Samaritan being locked up in a maximum-security jail for a week after she lied and claimed he had stalked and sexually assaulted her, has made another accusation.

Caitlyn Gray, 19 at the time of the offence, fronted Bankstown Local Court yesterday accused of lying for days over the way Sydney dad Kenan Basic behaved after he spent more than two hours helping her get her damaged car back on the road at a local BP petrol station.

Mr Basic, 36, lost his job, was served with divorce papers from his wife and spent a week in Silverwater Jail in Sydney’s west after he was accused of the horrific crime on November 22 last year.

Gray initially claimed the father-of-one lunged at her and grabbed her breast and vagina after she refused his advances as “payment” for helping with her car. She then claimed he stalked her through the streets of western Sydney before she called her boyfriend, who reported it to police.

Seven days later, Gray admitted to making the whole thing up.

In sentencing submissions, the prosecution said Gray’s lie was “an offence that strikes at the heart of the judicial system.”

“If not for CCTV footage and the follow-up investigation, Basic would’ve spent months in custody,” the prosecutor said. “There is no alternative other than a full-time custodial sentence.”

Gray’s defence lawyer Peter Kondich instead asked for the 20-year-old to be put on an intensive correction’s order.

Mr Kondich told the court Gray had been in counselling at the time of the incident and was on medication for depression. He also brought up her mental state, reminding the court the then 19-year-old had been in a car crash minutes before Mr Basic assisted her and was not in a “normal frame of mind”.

Mr Kondich also briefly touched on why Gray had made up the allegation, levelling another accusation at Mr Basic.

“The version of the accusation provided is because of a slight that was provided by Mr Basic by way of sexual innuendo,” Mr Kondich told the court. “She has taken offence to that and by that reason she has made the false and misleading statement to police.”

Magistrate Glenn Walsh adjourned Gray’s sentencing to August 9 where he said he expects to give a lengthy sentencing submission.

Following Gray’s sentence, Mr Basic plans to pursue the 20-year-old for the ordeal she put him through.

Mr Basic’s lawyer Mona Elbaba has always maintained the 36-year-old will sue Gray and NSW Police for his week in jail telling reporters in June her client “of course hoping for a jail sentence in the matter he was jailed”.

Today, Ms Elbaba doubled down, speaking about how Mr Basic was still struggling almost nine months after the accusation.

She said she expected higher damages to be laid against NSW Police considering Gray is only 20 years old and may not have many assets.

Mr Basic spent close to $20,000 on legal fees to fight the false charges, which is expected to form part of his lawsuit. He has also been unable to return to work as a handyman due to the psychological damage from his week in jail.

When asked why she lied, Gray said she “just wanted (Mr Basic) to go to jail”.

“He shouldn’t have said that to me. He was disgusting.”

Court documents did not explain what had been said to Gray.

Police then urgently worked into the late hours of November 29, calling senior police, lawyers and Parramatta court “informing them of Gray’s lies”, the statement of facts said.

An urgent bail application was scheduled for Mr Basic the next day, when he was released from custody after seven days behind bars.

SOURCE  





Anti-political correctness packs will be sent to 500 schools to stop students being brainwashed by 'radical gender activists'

Anti-political correctness packs will be sent out to at least 500 schools in a push back against 'radical gender activists' in schools.

The information packs, issued by lobby group Binary, feature a range of materials to educate parents in NSW on their rights and what they can do to keep their children separated from gender identity ideology.

The group, set up by NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham, has the support of several high profile politicians including Finance Minister Damien Tudehope and Corrective Services MP Anthony Roberts - who attended the launch of the packs.

One Nation seeks to end transgender self-identification in NSW that it says has a 'damaging impact' on school children.

'This problem is increasingly common in NSW schools, urged on by left-wing political activists,' Mr Latham told Sydney Morning Herald.

'Schools made a big mistake when they stopped being places of learning and ventured into the world of mental health assessment and radical gender theory.'

Mr Latham, who chairs the upper house's education committee, said on social media following the launch the Information Pack will be 'a great resource in the fight against radical transgender indoctrination in schools'.

'As a father, only a parent has full responsibility over the development of their child, a teacher is secondary and the state should not be interfering with the rights of parents and the family,' he said.

Former candidate for the Australian Liberty Alliance and Director of Binary, Kirralie Smith, said the kits have been funded by donations from their supporters. 

'Barely a day goes by when we don't hear from another parent concerned about what their child is being exposed to at school ... transgender speakers, de-gendering language, pronoun police, explicit sex-education programs and inappropriate library books,' Mrs Smith said.

The kit warns parents against various uses of language such as anti-bullying to silence those raising an alternate opinion.

It also recommends that parents force school to expose their policies on Transgender students by asking them what bathrooms self-identifying students are allowed to use.

SOURCE  






Australia's High Court upholds dismissal of public servant over tweets in landmark free speech ruling

Australia does not have a First Amendment so the courts recognize only a limited right to free speech.  And in any jurisdiction, a government is entitled to impose restrictions on an employee as a condition of employment.  If you don't like the restrictions, get another job.  The High Court has ruled that no conception of free speech over-rules the Australian government's right to require certain things of an employee as a condition of employment


The High Court has upheld the sacking of a public servant who used a pseudonym to criticise government immigration policy on Twitter.

The High Court’s seven judges unanimously overturned a lower court’s decision that Michaela Banerji’s dismissal was not reasonable and that public service rules around the use of social media and making public comment “unacceptably trespassed on the implied freedom of political communication”.

The Community and Public Sector Union, which represents public servants, said the decision had serious implications for free speech and could potentially affect almost two million Australians who work for the federal, state and local governments.

Banerji used the Twitter handle “LaLegale” to send more than 9000 tweets in six years while she was employed by what was then called the Department of Immigration and Border Protection from 2006 and 2012.

The tweets were often critical of government policies, such as banishing refugees who attempt to reach Australia by boat to camps on the poor Pacific island nations of Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

A department investigation discovered that Banerji was behind the tweets and had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, which demands civil servants appear to be politically impartial. Her job was terminated in September 2013.

The next month, she lodged a claim for workers’ compensation for a post-traumatic stress disorder that she blamed on her termination. The claim was refused because her termination was deemed a “reasonable administrative action”.

Banerji appealed that decision in a public service court known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, arguing that her tweets were “entirely anonymous”, did not disclose departmental information, were sent from her personal phone and outside office hours.

The Australian Constitution does not explicitly protect freedom of expression. But the High Court has previously ruled that an implied freedom of political communication exists in Australia because that is essential in a democracy. The tribunal upheld her appeal and her right to political communication, but the High Court decision rules out the prospect of compensation.

A tearful Banerji said outside court that she pursued the case “to affirm the role of this freedom of speech for public servants and we failed”. “It’s not just a loss for me, it’s a loss for all of us and I’m very, very, very sorry,” Ms Banerji told reporters.

Her lawyer Allan Anforth said outside court that he expected the decision would entitle any employer to fire an employee for criticising the boss’s stance on a political issue. “The logic of it does not stop at the bounds of the public service,” Mr Anforth said.

The Community and Public Sector Union national secretary Nadine Flood said her union “has always defended the rights of public servants to participate in our democracy like everyone else can”. “People working in Commonwealth agencies should be allowed normal rights as citizens rather than facing Orwellian censorship because of where they work,” Ms Flood said in a statement.

SOURCE  







SA blackout blows wind farms into court

No precautions taken against interruption of supply.  They just accepted the delusory Greenie belief that "renewables" were adequate

The Australian Energy Regulator will take four South Australian wind farm operators to court accusing them of failing to perform properly during SA's statewide blackout in 2016.

The action in the Federal Court will allege AGL Energy Ltd, Neoen SA, Pacific Hydro Ltd and Tilt Renewables all breached the National Electricity Rules.

"The AER has brought these proceedings to send a strong signal to all energy businesses about the importance of compliance with performance standards to promote system security and reliability" chair Paula Conboy said.

"These alleged failures contributed to the black system event, and meant that Australian Energy Market Operator was not fully informed when responding to system-wide failure."

The allegations relate to the performance of wind farms during the severe weather event that swept across SA in September 2016 and which ultimately triggered the statewide power outage.

The storms damaged more than 20 towers in the state's mid-north, bringing down major transmission lines and causing a knock-on effect across the state's energy grid.

About 850,000 customers lost power, with some in the state's north and on the Eyre Peninsula left without electricity for several days.

A report from AEMO released about a month later found nine of 13 wind farms online at the time of the blackout switched off when the transmission lines came down.

It found the inability of the wind farms to ride through those disturbances was the result of safety settings that forced them to disconnect or reduce output.

The blackout also sparked a war of words between supporters of renewable power and those who blamed SA's high reliance on wind and solar generation as a contributing factor.

That included an infamous confrontation between former Premier Jay Weatherill and then Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg at a media conference in Adelaide, with Mr Weatherill lashing the coalition's "anti-South Australian stance" as a disgrace.

Current Energy Minister Angus Taylor said it was important for the regulator to enforce market rules. "We need to have reliable power in this country ... and that means all generators need to perform," he said.

In its action, the AER alleges each of the wind farm operators failed to ensure that their plant and associated facilities complied with their generator performance standard requirement to ride-through certain disturbances.

It also alleges that the wind farm operators failed to provide automatic protection systems to enable them to ride-through voltage disturbances to ensure continuity of supply, in contravention of the National Electricity Rules.

The AER is seeking declarations, penalties, compliance program orders and costs.

The action against AGL relates to the Hallett 1, Hallett 2 Hallett 4 and Hallett 5 wind farms.

In relates to Neoen SA's Hornsdale Wind Farm, Pacific Hydro's Clements Gap Wind Farm and Tilt Renewables' Snowtown 2 Wind Farm.

In a statement, AGL said it had previously considered that it had complied with its legal obligations in relation to the 2016 events.

But it said it would review the allegations made by the AER and consider its position.

Tilt Renewables said it believed it had acted in good faith and in accordance with the applicable National Electricity Rules in relation to the SA blackout. "The company will continue to engage with the AER in an endeavour to resolve this matter," it said.

Pacific Hydro said as legal proceedings had just commenced, it would not be making comment at this stage.

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 August, 2019

Australia's politicians ignoring voters by supporting population growth

At this year’s federal election, there were clear differences in the positions of the two major parties on every significant policy area save immigration on which, except for a few details, they effectively ran a joint ticket.

The Coalition spoke of sending migrants to regional areas; Labor wanted to reduce the number of temporary skilled workers while providing open-slather entry for grandparents. But the parties were in heated agreement in their support for high migrant intakes, both permanent and temporary, and the associated high population growth.

But political support for large-scale immigration does not tally with voters’ views. Support for large migrant intakes has fallen significantly during the past decade. People want immigration cut and slower population growth.

The evidence is in figures collected by Newspoll, Essential Research, the Lowy Poll, the Scanlon Survey and the Australian Population Research Institute. The politicians know what we think. They just act like they don’t.

The lobbying behind immigration is so strong that both parties have concluded the views of ordinary folk can be ignored. These forces include the bureaucracy — check out the Treasury’s reports — big business, property developers, the universities and various interest groups, some ethnically based.

Consider the recent report released by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, the only aim of which is to support unrestricted inflows of temporary migrants. It seeks to dispel the proposition that the surge of temporary migrants has been harmful to Australian workers.

There are about 1.4 million temporary visa holders in Australia. The number of temporary migrants has been growing by about 50,000 a year.

What the authors of the CEDA report desperately, albeit unconvincingly, seek to prove is that the increased competition in the labour market caused by temporary migrants has not affected local workers either in terms of their earnings or employment prospects. But the authors’ methodology doesn’t test this proposition.

Not only are temporary migrants not specifically identified in the study but the critical results are insignificant. The best that can be said is that weekly wages and unemployment of local workers appear unaffected by the migrant intake. It may also be that the causation of the model runs the other way. That is, migrants are attracted to strong labour market conditions rather than cause them.

Another point made by CEDA — that the number of temporary migrants is too small to affect outcomes — is wrong. Adding in New Zealanders, there are about two million temporary migrants in a workforce of about 12.9 million — or 16 per cent of the total. This is a sufficient proportion to significantly affect outcomes. Indeed, the government’s own Migrant Workers’ Taskforce notes that the abundant supply of temporary migrants is one of the reasons they are so widely exploited.

It is obvious why businesses would endorse the CEDA study. They don’t want the free flow of available workers impeded; indeed, the report recommends labour market testing for positions filled by migrants be ditched.

But when thinking about the low wage growth during the past five years, one plausible reason relates to the impact of the migrant intake, particularly temporary visa holders. Most temporary migrants operate in the unskilled or semi-skilled parts of the labour market.

This hypothesis is consistent with the material collected by the Migrant Workers’ Taskforce. Many instances were found of workers being exploited, with the conclusion being that “there is a culture of underpayment in some areas of the economy”.

While the taskforce presented several recommendations for ensuring compliance with Australia’s labour laws, it’s not actually clear how this can be policed. That we should have fewer temporary migrants was not canvassed.

Not not all areas of our immigration program are working well. There are clearly games being played with the partner visas program that are not necessarily in our interests.

According to population researcher Bob Birrell, there were 40,000 partner visas issued in 2017-18, down from 48,000. And there are at least 80,000 in the queue. These figures compare with about 112,000 marriages in Australia each year.

The reason there are so many partner visas is because we allow anyone aged 18 or older, including those who have recently been awarded permanent residence, to sponsor a partner — the most generous arrangement among developed economies.

As Birrell notes: “For the large number wanting a permanent residence visa, the partner visa is an attractive option. There are no onerous English language standards or any need to find an employer … For prospective partners living in low-income countries, an Australian partner visa offers the prospect of a huge lifestyle gain with no entry costs, other than the visa fee.”

It is not uncommon for recent permanent residents to return to their place of birth to select a partner known to their family or community. On Birrell’s figures, at least one-third of partners enter this way. A rising number of former overseas students also receives partner visas.

Partner visas now account for a quarter of the permanent migrant intake and most of the partners head for Sydney or Melbourne. But the government plans no changes.

Politicians will continue to ignore our wishes if they can get away with it. They will oversee an immigration program that is contributing two-thirds of population growth and is associated with lengthening commuting times and loss of urban amenity.

But there is always the possibility that quiet Australians could become noisy on this.

SOURCE  






Samoans replace Cowra’s job snobs

Some mornings Peter Brown is so desperate to find workers for his NSW regional abattoir that he’ll drive around town at 6am looking for casual employees.

Mr Brown, the general manager of Cowra Meat Processors, said he advertised for local workers but most didn’t want to do more than two days a week so as to maintain their dole benefits. The company he runs is the biggest employer in Cowra, in the state’s central west, with 180 to 200 workers, but he is constantly under pressure for staff and sometimes works on the floor himself to make up numbers.

“We had a good base of locals, older blokes,” Mr Brown told The Australian. “But over time they got older and retired, and when relying on younger blokes, you can’t fill the jobs for this sort of work.”

For Mr Brown, the answer lies thousands of kilometres away in the South Pacific. He recently brought in his first seven workers from Samoa under the federal government’s Pacific Labour Scheme, in which they can work for three years and are then expected to return with a view to taking their skills with them.

Mr Brown said his seven Samoan men, who earn the same award wages as his Australian employees, were excellent, reliable workers, clean living, God-fearing, and all play rugby union for a local side.

What he and the Samoans can’t understand is why the federal government does not allow them to bring their families here to work, and get permanent residency, to provide a stable workforce and encourage regional economic growth.

One of the Samoans, Harry Ielome, 21, said he loved the work, and loved Cowra. “This is very good money, I feel very happy in the job, and I want to lift up the company,” he said, adding that he would like to stay in Australia “forever”.

The Australian Meat Industry Council has asked for the three-year scheme to be extended to five to help Pacific Islanders achieve permanent residency. Immigration Minister David Coleman would not say whether the government would grant AMIC’s request.

SOURCE  






How families are being slugged with higher power bills to fund a $276million project to save koalas and 'increase climate change awareness'

Families will be slugged with higher electricity bills to a fund multi-million dollar climate change project.

The project, introduced by the NSW government, will help save koalas, 'increase public awareness of climate change' and offer pensioners cheap televisions.

Electricity providers Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy and Essential Energy, as well as Sydney Water will have to fork out $276million to contribute to the fund.

This would allow the companies to force their customers to foot 25 per cent of the cost by increasing their electricity bill. 

More than $3.25billion has been contributed to the fund by electricity companies and their customers since 2007, The Daily Telegraph reported.

The move comes after the Federal Government's Renewable Energy target scheme added about $68.50 more to the average electricity bill in 2018.

Ausgrid, Endeavour Energy, Essential Energy and Sydney Water have been ordered to contribute $134million, $86million, $56million and $740,000 respectively.

A whopping $37.5million will go towards a 'Five Million Trees' initiative and $33.6million will fund coastal and floodplain management to prepare for floods.

The fund will give $6.3million to improve five habitats of koalas, while $3.9million will go towards rebates on energy efficient TVs and fridges for pensioners.

The project will also fund bushfire hazard reduction, rooftop solar systems and more efficient street lighting.

An Ausgrid spokeswoman told the publication they don't directly charge customers more for their bill, but that it does contribute to the fund through the company's price changes.

About nine per cent of bills paid by Endeavour Energy customers contributed to the fund.

An Essential Energy spokeswoman said the company collects 'no more or no less' than what is required by law.

A Sydney Water spokesman said the company has not made their customers contribute to the project in 2019-20.

The environment department regulates how companies will help customers recover the charges for the fund.

But NSW Energy and Environment Minister Matt Kean did not explain how the department will ensure the charges are actively monitored.

'Over the period of 2017 to 2022, the Climate Change Fund will have an average cost of around $22 per annum for householders, outweighed by savings of around $60 per annum on energy bills,' Mr Kean said.

SOURCE  






University funding boost brings hope for new era

A plan to link a small proportion of funding to the performance of universities has been hailed as a breakthrough after a funding freeze.

University chiefs have hailed a promised modest funding boost, based on new performance criteria, as a "starting point" for a new era of growth.

Education Minister Dan Tehan met with university vice-chancellors in Wollongong on Wednesday to discuss a report on performance-based funding.

The report was commissioned in the wake of a $2.2 billion funding freeze initiated by the coalition government in 2017 to help balance the federal budget.

Performance-based funding will begin from 2020 and grow in line with population growth of 18 to 64-year-olds, providing an increase of around $80 million next year.

University performance will be determined by such factors as graduate job outcomes, student success, student experience and participation of indigenous, low socioeconomic status, and regional and remote students.

Review panel chair and University of Wollongong vice-chancellor Paul Wellings said linking a small proportion of funding to the performance of universities was a world-first. "It's a starting point - how do we start to grow the sector again," he told reporters.

"There was a cap put in to try and control the overall spend ... and now we are starting to see a green shoot emerge and a new opportunity for funding."

Mr Tehan hoped to finalise the details of the plan by the end of the month, after a further meeting with university bosses.

Universities were key to improving Australia's productivity and fulfilling the government's promise to create 1.25 million jobs over the next five years, he said. "We are providing over $17 billion to the sector," he said.

"What the model does is universities give up a tiny bit of autonomy where they are not performing and enables government to work with you to lift that performance."

National Union of Students president Desiree Cai said the promised funding was inadequate in light of chronic underfunding of universities.

"At the very least, Minister Tehan needs to restore funding to what it was before the $2.2 billion funding cut introduced in the funding freeze," she said.

The government also needed to step up support for students, including boosting the Youth Allowance and student income support, and tackling job insecurity and underemployment in the workforce.

National Tertiary Education Union president Dr Alison Barnes said there could be many unintended consequences from the performance-based criteria.

"If the 'job outcome' is not linked to the learning, we may see the perverse outcome of many more lawyers being qualified, but working in fast food outlets," she said.

As well, staff could come under pressure to improve student pass rates in a bid to reduce the number of dropouts.

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





7 August, 2019

'The loss of dignity - and friends': Elderly woman reveals her tragic story of life on the dole - amid claims Australia's welfare system is an 'embarrassment for our nation'

Judging by her shape, Ms Bartels eats well so what else is at issue?  It appears that being on the dole has "cost her dignity and friends".  It has not been good for her social life, in short.

But is the dole supposed to be good for that? Should the taxpayer be financing a good social life for everyone?  It would perhaps be desirable but I think there are too many other calls on taxpayer funds to make that a reasonable possibility

Note that she is only a few years away from going on the pension, which is similar to the dole, so she is just undergoing a bit early what would be an inevitable transition

The lady seems to think that the government should provide some avenue for getting her a job but that is absurd.  The number of employers who would take on an overweight elderly woman is vanishingly small.  We may deplore that but it is reality.  It is hard to see what any government could do about it


An elderly woman has told the Q&A panel about how living on Newstart has been the 'worst time of her life' - costing her dignity and friends.

Ricci Bartels became emotional on Monday night's program as she revealed she was forced on to unemployment benefits three years ago after being made redundant.

'I have paid taxes for 46 years… I've worked 20 years in the private sector and 26 years in the public sector for a not-for-profit community service,' Mrs Bartels said.

'I was forced on to Newstart at the age of 62 through change of management and subsequent retrenchment. I've experienced Newstart for three years, JobActive left me to my own devices. I could not find a job no matter how hard I tried.'

Mrs Bartels said the experience of being on welfare after so many years of dedicated work had been the 'worst of her life'.

The Newstart allowance of $555.70 a fortnight hasn't risen in real terms, adjusted for inflation, since 1994.

It is also more than two-and-a-half times less than the minimum, full-time wage.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has ruled out calls for an increase, despite calls from former PM John Howard and ex-Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce.

'To put it in a nutshell it (being on Newstart) is the worst time of my life, the loss of dignity, the loss of friends because you can't go out, you can't socialise, not eating proper foods even though I suffer various ailments, looking for a job applying for a job, not getting the job,' Mrs Bartels said fighting back tears.

Referencing a quote from Mr Morrison, she said: 'So my question to you wonderful panellists is this, what would you or how would you suggest people like me have a go to get a go?'

Mrs Bartels posed the question to the panel before host Tony Jones gave the Liberal member for Mackellar Jason Falinski an opportunity to speak.

'We have done a number of things in the government to try and make sure that our system, which is a $172billion welfare system per-annum, is as bespoke as possible in response to the needs of individuals as much as possible,' the backbencher from Sydney's northern beaches said.

'It may be in your particular case we haven't been as accessible as we need to be but we keep trying.'

Mr Falinski then touted Australia's existing welfare system Australia, evoking audible moans of disagreement from the studio audience.

'Australia has a very successful welfare and tax and transfer system … it's one of the reasons that we have very high income mobility levels and very low levels of income inequality especially compared to other nations,' he said.

Mrs Bartels addressed the question to the panel before host Tony Jones gave Liberal MP for Mackellar Jason Falinski (pictured) a chance to answer but he left Mrs Bartels disappointed

Mrs Bartels continued her line of questioning to Mr Falinski and quickly called him out for dodging the crux of her question.

'Jason, with respect, you haven't answered my question, what do you suggest people like me, at my age or at a young age for that matter, how do they have a go to get a go, this is so important, have a go to get a go, it is so divisive,' Mrs Bartels said. 

Mr Falinski doubled down on his comments that without knowing all of Mrs Bartels's circumstances he couldn't tell her what path she needed to take.

'If the system has failed you personally, in your particular circumstances, I can only apologise for that, I'd love to know more and create a system to make sure what happens to you doesn't happen to others,' he said. 

SOURCE  






Almost 60 arrested as climate activists shut down Brisbane CBD

Cops have hauled away almost 60 climate activists as hundreds continue to shut down Brisbane’s CBD as part of a “rebellion day”.

Almost 60 climate change protesters have been arrested as activists shut down Brisbane’s CBD today.

A spokeswoman for Queensland Police told news.com.au that a number of protesters have been arrested at the scene for blocking traffic — and pictures show activists being dragged away.

Although she couldn’t confirm a number, local reports state that up to 56 people have been detained by police so far.

Carrying gazebos, chairs, blankets and a barbecue dozens activists from the Extinction Rebellion group have gathered in the city’s CBD, according to reports on social media.

The group expects hundreds of protesters will join them outside 1 William Street, the state government’s HQ, and carry out “mass civil disobedience”. The disruption is understood to continue for seven hours.

Queensland Police is advising those travelling to the CBD today to use public transport — saying the group is expected to cause “significant disruption to traffic in the Central Business District and South Brisbane” between 7am to 9pm.

Translink advises there are currently 25 to 30-minute bus delays in the Brisbane CBD as a result of the protest.

The Courier Mail reports that the activists are encouraging families to involve their children in the protests by giving them  chalk to graffiti Brisbane’s roads and footpaths with climate change messages.

“I’ve bought a whole pile of chalk and definitely the main encouragement from the main group was they would love to have the kids chalking, and then it’s still on the street the next day,’’ an organiser said in a hook-up yesterday.

Extinction Rebellion is a socio-political movement with the stated aim of using civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance to protest against climate breakdown, biodiversity loss, and the risk of social and ecological collapse.

Begun by a group of British academics in 2018 in response to the IPCC report that found we have just 12 years to stop catastrophic climate change, the movement has held hundreds of street blockades and occupations, mainly in the UK, but also other cities around the world. The group has held several street blockades in Brisbane this year.

“Business as usual is killing us,” the group wrote in a statement. “There is no more time to waste. Government has failed to protect us, so ordinary people have to act now.”

Nurse Daniel Young, who is one of 48 people already arrested in the lead up to Rebellion Day, condemns the way the government is treating climate policy.

“If the climate was one of my patients — and I was ignoring all the warning signs and just waiting for them to deteriorate — I would be charged with criminal negligence,” he said.

Superintendent Chris Stream said police acknowledge the right to lawful and peaceful protest. “Police and partner agencies are working closely to manage the protest and minimise as much as possible disruptions to transportation networks,” Superintendent Stream said.

“We continue to urge protest leaders to engage with police so that we can map out a solution for lawful and peaceful protest activity.”

However, the official Extinction Rebellion SEQ Facebook account appeared critical of police. A spokesman posted: “Queensland police uphold a colonial system of exploitation. “They hold children in watchhouses for weeks, they protect officers who give the addresses of DV victims to their abusers.

“They target indigenous people and people of colour for stop and search checks because of the racial profiling culture in the force. “Stay peaceful, stay non violent. Ignore them as much as you can.  “It f***s with their power trip.”

SOURCE  







Schools going backward with no plan for change

If more evidence were needed to demonstrate why our school education system is substandard, despite additional billions and so many government-mandated initiatives, look no further than the depressing sub­missions to the review of the 2008 Melbourne Declaration.

For 11 years it has been used as the key strategic road map to guide policy development at the state and commonwealth levels.

The declaration also has been employed by educational bureaucrats, education ministers and professional associations to inform the work of schools.

Given our retreating standards of literacy and numeracy, you’d expect the submissions would call for radical change.

Not so. The Australian Education Union argues that the document is still relevant; there’s no need for a review.

Predictably the union argues that to improve “equity and excellence”, additional billions must be invested, especially for “disadvantaged” schools, and that the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy tests must be abolished.

Ironically, NAPLAN is the only transparent and objective measure that can be used to evaluate and track school and system effectiveness.

The Melbourne Graduate School of Education is also hostile to NAPLAN. It argues that governments should “move away from a narrow focus of point-in-time high-stakes assessment” by adopting “best practice diagnostic and assessment tools and learning progressions”, otherwise known as formative assessment.

The stronger performing systems in Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Finland stress summative assessment, in which students are marked against year level standards, there are consequences for success and failure, and students are ranked one against the other at key stages.

One of the many destructive ideas associated with outcomes-based education, an unproven curriculum model forced on Australian schools in the 1990s, is championing generic competencies and skills rather than established subjects and disciplines.

Instead of learning from our failures, submissions to the review of the Melbourne Declaration also stress competencies and skills associated with 21st century, lifelong learning. A time, supposedly, when the workplace will be “unpredictable, dynamic, ambiguous and complex”. Given the ever-increasing rate of “changes, particularly global and technological”, the Melbourne Graduate School of Education argues that learning should focus on students becoming “lifelong learners, critical, creative and enterprising individuals”.

Learning and assessment should focus on “social and emotional wellbeing with general capabilities and multiple forms of excellence celebrated”.

Apparently, to “prepare students for the future” the Australian Association for the Teaching of English believes it is no longer necessary to give students an appreciation of the Western literary canon.

Given the cultural-left’s long march through the education system, it comes as no surprise that several submissions recycle the usual cliches and pretentious phrases associated with politically correctness and groupthink.

The Melbourne Graduate School, after citing the UN Sustainable Development Goals, suggests education should “recognise our common humanity and shared guardianship of the planet and the need to continue working with others towards a better and more peaceful world as we create an innovative future”.

Cultural relativism is also promoted. Any future road map should recognise “Australia’s diverse cultural heritage” and ensure students demonstrate “ethical and respectful behaviour towards other cultures”.

But not all cultures are equal as there are some practices that are immoral, uncivilised and indefensible. The Australian Curriculum Studies Association also champions the belief that Australia is “diverse” and “multi-faith”.

Submissions to the review emphasise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander history and culture on the basis that indigenous history and culture are “a foundation of Australia’s culture, heritage and future”.

But Australia primarily is a Western, liberal democracy where our institutions and way of life are underpinned by Judeo-Christianity and epochal events such as the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and modernity.

Of greater concern is that while most submissions focus on equity and disadvantage, there is no acknowledgment that students’ performance is so dismal — especially among gifted students.

Even worse, the deluded argument is put that the Melbourne Declaration has been so successful that any new road map should be extended to include universities. As suggested by the Australian Catholic University’s sub­mission, this would extend the dead hand of self-serving educrats and further undermine Australia’s tertiary system.

SOURCE  







CSR no license for private government

The trend for business to get involved in controversial political debates in the name of ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) is gathering pace.

Last week, BHP Chief Executive Andrew Mackenzie announced that the ‘Big Australian’ would be ramping up its climate change policy. Not only will executive pay be linked to reducing the company’s greenhouse emissions, but BHP will also begin monitoring and seeking to reduce the carbon emissions of its customers.

My work on the CSR phenomenon has stressed that there may be legitimate commercial reasons for companies to proactively address environmental issues to protect the financial interests of shareholders.

Despite — or perhaps because of — BHP’s extensive coal business, commercial considerations could well be driving the company’s emission strategy, given the scope of the global transition to renewable energy.

But of concern is that the new approach appears to have been adopted in response to pressure from climate activists “who have been pushing mining majors to monitor and try to reduce so-called ‘scope 3’ emissions — those from downstream manufacturers, such as steel mills, that use the iron ore and other commodities that BHP mines.”

This seems to be a clear case of corporate power and influence being co-opted by activists to drive their political agenda, skirt the democratic process, and exert control over the otherwise legal activities of companies.

This type of CSR initiative might, therefore, be fairly characterised as inappropriate political meddling in pursuit of ‘systemic change’, given that climate change policy has been one of the most contested and partisan political issues of recent times.

In a democracy, it is the parliament that is sovereign and makes the laws which all are obliged to abide by.  As Milton Friedman argued in his classic essay on CSR, when the social role of companies extends – as in this case – outside of the rule of law, business is effectively usurping the functions and acting as “simultaneously legislator, executive and jurist.”

The standard rationale for CSR is that its demonstrating social responsibility that enhances the good standing of brands in the community.

But it is hard to see how company reputations are enhanced by opening them up to allegations of acting undemocratically and operating above the law.

CSR should not become a license for companies to initiate a form of private government that undermines our democratic traditions and rides roughshod over the rule of law.

SOURCE  





Here is the speech Mr BHP should have delivered

JANET ALBRECHTSEN

I am the chief executive of BHP. For a brief moment last week, I thought about giving a speech in London to an august crowd, some lords and ambassadors and other masters of the universe. It’s not as neat as rubbing shoulders with celebritie­s at Davos, but that mountain soiree is six months away. I thought about announcing that BHP will appoint itself as the moral guardian of greenhouse emissions, dictating to our custom­ers how they use our product­s to reduce emissions.

I imagined feeling a frisson of excitement when sections of the media and the climate-in-crisis activists laud my landmark addres­s when I also announce that BHP will commit hundreds of millions­ of dollars, shareholders’ money, to monitor what our custome­rs do with the coal they buy from us. I will ignore cynics who may think I’m after a personal­ halo.

Then I shook off such nonsense. As the CEO of BHP, my first duty is to our shareholders, meaning all of them. How feeble I would have looked succumbing to a small rowdy bunch of activist investo­rs who think they can tell us what to do over and above our millions of quiet shareholders.

I decided that joining the herd is too easy, too predictable, and maybe people are right to think it a bit sneaky to spend other people’s money to buy personal cachet. I decided to leave that to someone who craves adulation, rather than respect.

What follows is my actual speech. I should have given it long ago, in Australia, because BHP is still “the Big Australian”. Our histor­y and headquarters are in this country, and so the hard work must start here.

“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is a pleasure to be here today to talk about BHP’s respons­e to critical issues affecting our company, this country, and the global economy. It is time for me, as chief executive of BHP, to take the lead. I cannot remain silen­t any more. Too much is at stake. To the climate change activists who want me to speak about a climate crisis, and spend shareholders’ money on it, I say there is another crisis I must deal with first. And it won’t cost shareholders a dime.

The challenge is clear and present: there is a crisis of confidence about capitalism. It is on the nose, and so are big companies. The loss of legitimacy in big companies means that fundamentals of business and capitalism are more highly contestable than they have been for decades. What were once accepted as truths — that business­es create jobs and that small and big businesses work together to drive economic growth — are controversial because of sustained attacks by ideological opponents. Not to mention an education system that is failing to properly educate our students.

Those who bash big business and free markets won’t be defeat­ed by corporate bosses whining privately about populist politic­ians, dimwitted voters and left-wing activists.

As BHP’s boss, I must stand up to defend the story of capitalism. Our future as a company depends on the next generation understanding that free enterprise is critical to their future.

I hope other corporate leaders will join in this existential battle. Free enterprise, the success of companies, big and small, are integ­ral to human flourishing. Capitalism is not perfect but, as Winston Churchill said about democracy, it is a damned sight better than the alternatives.

The history of capitalism is one of lifting billions of people from poverty, providing standards of living that earlier generations could never have dreamt of.

People are living longer becaus­e of medical advances. Peopl­e are better educated, wealthier, more mobile, moving up income levels and across cities and countries. There is an extraordinary array of technology at our fingertips.

All of this comes from a set of values that drive free enterprise. If we lose confidence in those values, in open and free markets, we lose the key to our present and future prosperity.

I commit to reminding people of the morality of free markets. As CEO, it is my role to explain why profit matters to BHP, to our shareholders, those ordinary Australi­ans who save and invest in their future, either directly or through funds that invest in us.

I will use my privileged position to explain and promote the moral dimensions of policies that grow our company and create more jobs. Few corporate leaders, if any, ever speak of the essential human dignity that comes from work. If more people understand that improvin­g productivity is not just an economic imperative, it is a moral one too, they will back polic­ies that create jobs. If corporate leaders like me don’t support these policies, who will?

Lower corporate taxes, more sensible industrial relations laws and less red tape are far more fund­amental to our future than adding BHP’s name to any number­ of feel-good social causes.

For too long, corporate leaders have shunned these policy debate­s on spurious grounds that we do not get involved in politics. We make that claim in our corporate governance statement. It’s utter nonsense.

We get involved in, and throw shareholders’ money at, an array of highly contestable social causes. The Voice? How can we, as corporate leaders, justify taking sides on an issue that is an intensely political, its consequences unknown, yet we did nothing when there was a concrete proposal to abolish tax refunds for our shareholders.

That dereliction of duty will not happen again under my watch. Virtue-signalling about socia­l issues that are far more contested than we care to admit ends today. I commit to redrafting BHP’s corporate governance statement to make this new direction abundantly clear.

On that score, the next time another small, noisy group of activist­s tries to hijack the ASX corporate governance principles, imposing pages of social engineering baloney, I will speak out.

Last time it happened, our silenc­e created an opening for those interfering activists who do not value free enterprise. We left it to others to defeat the dangerous frolic that would have guaranteed a one-size-fits-all corporate medioc­rity. Mediocre companies do not survive in a globally competiti­ve world. Today, I commit to showing leadership about how and by whom BHP is run.

Nowhere is the morality of free markets more obvious than when it comes to cheap and reliable energ­y. Our economy, our local businesses, existing and new jobs, our living standards depend on cheap and reliable energy. That means there is a future for coal.

It is one of the great moral challeng­es of our time to provide cheap energy to countries less fortunat­e than ours.

Cheap energy has already lifted billions of people out of poverty­, improved their life chances­.

Let me end this address by making it clear that we are a proud exporter of coal, and we will not engage in rich-country hypocrisy that presumes to tell other countries they cannot enjoy the same advantages that have made us rich. Thank you.”

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






6 August, 2019

Australia's great job snob: Employers are failing to fill thousands of low-skilled roles due to 'lack of interest'

Thousands of Australian employers are desperately trying to fill low-skilled roles that no one wants - as politicians continue to push to increase the dole.

One in two employers are struggling to hire workers, with potential employees displaying a 'lack of interest' and presenting themselves without adequate qualifications, according to the Department of Employment.

The research found recruitment was deemed difficult across all states and territories and 60 per cent of employers noted difficulties hiring for low-skilled labour, The Australian reported.

The revelations come during heightened political discussion about raising the $277-a-week Newstart payment.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash said there are jobs out there 'for those who want them' and she aims to get every job-seeking Australian into a position.

'We have an economy of opportunity and employers are screaming out for workers who are eager for a job. 

'Our focus will always be to get people off welfare and into work. Taxpayers expect nothing less. The Morrison government strongly believes that the best form of welfare is a job.'

Across the nation, recruitment struggles have risen by seven per cent since the year earlier.

To cope with the pressures, the research found employers have begun to lower their requirements and focus on training.

They've also tended to cover vacancies by changing staff arrangement or by hiring contractors - as well as re-advertising positions.

In 2018, employers in technicians and trades cited labour pains at 63 per cent, while employers seeking a manager had 56 per cent difficulty.

James Pearson, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry chief executive, said the latest figures highlight that more needs to be done to address the lack of job-readiness.  

'Businesses need skilled workers, and more Australians need jobs. Businesses look to work with government, and education and training providers, to help deliver that outcome,' he said.

Speaking in Parliament on Wednesday, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said welfare dependency among working-age Australians is at the lowest level in 30 years. 

Over the past four years, 230,000 people had dropped off being dependent on welfare payments.

'If you want to get people off welfare into work, you have got to make sure your welfare system is supporting people to get onto work,' Mr Morrison said.

'Under this government, we are running a welfare system, which is a hand up ... not out.'

SOURCE  






Eastman has the last laugh

I followed the case from the outset and always thought that the evidence to convict him was just not there.  He was a bit of a weirdo and it was that plus police tunnel vision which got him convicted

A former Treasury official will soon outline the damages caused to him for wrongfully spending 19 years behind bars for murder.

David Eastman's official compensation bid for the wrongful imprisonment is edging closer, with his legal team ironing out details on Monday ahead of the September 30 hearing.

The 73-year-old will file a statement of damages by August 26, with the ACT government given a fortnight to respond.

Mr Eastman was found not guilty last year of murdering federal police assistant commissioner Colin Winchester in 1989.

He had pleaded not guilty to the shooting murder in 1993, but was sentenced to life in jail in 1995.

Mr Eastman's conviction was quashed in 2014 over concerns with the original evidence, leading to a new trial last year where he was cleared.

The compensation claim is widely expected to net Mr Eastman millions of dollars.

Rather than compensation, the ACT government is considering to offer Mr Eastman an "act of grace" payment, which is discretionary and would be signed off by the territory's treasurer Andrew Barr.

Lawyers for the ACT described such a payment as being made due to "moral obligation, not legal".

The case is listed for further directions at the ACT Supreme Court on September 9.

In 2009, the WA government issued a $3.25 million ex -gratia payment after Andrew Mallard spent 12 years in jail for a wrongful murder conviction.

SOURCE  






The Forgotten Freedom No More

As a think tanker, I sometimes jokingly refer to myself as a fact grubber and barrow pusher who is necessarily consumed by the nuts and bolts of key public policy debates.

So it has been a real pleasure to co-edit (with my colleague Rob Forsyth) the forthcoming CIS book, The Forgotten Freedom No More: Protecting Religious Freedom in Australia.

We have brought together a distinguished group of Australian writers and thinkers to offer their views on what should be done about this increasingly important issue.

It has been a joy to spend some time ‘in the minds’ of eminent scholars such as Henry Ergas, Patrick Parkinson, and Stephen Chavura — to name just three.

Reading their work has enriched my understanding of why properly protecting religious freedom is crucial to the future of Australia as a tolerant liberal democracy and genuine civil society.

As readers will also discover when the book is published, each of the different contributors is sympathetic to promoting religious liberty in Australia, while approaching the issue from varied viewpoints and experience.

Some have been asked to offer a general legal and academic analysis of the problem as they see it with suggested ways forward, while others have been asked to provide a more personal perspective based on their ‘lived experience’.

Sceptical secular readers will learn how important religious freedom is to allow deeply-held spiritual convictions to animate individual identity across their social, professional, and civic spheres of action and purpose.

We expect that this collection will not just be informative but helpful to readers of all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs.

This is crucial. For not only is greater mutual understanding across cultural and social divides important to help stimulate parliamentary action on religious freedom.

This is also the heart of the overall objective of protecting religious freedom: which is to allow all Australians, irrespective of their faith, to live harmoniously together, united in mutual respect for the rights of all.

SOURCE  






Leftist homosexual is ‘sick of the sexism in politics’

Underlying all his complaints is a refusal to confront the  differences between men and women.  Men and women are treated differently because they ARE different in important ways

Neil Pharaoh

The biggest double standard in politics is sexism. On all sides of politics, the way we treat women differently to men astounds me. And this is coming from a man who has been involved in politics.

If you got through that far in this opinion piece, you will either be quietly agreeing or telling me I don’t believe in “merit”; if the latter, stop reading now.

Why is it when a male is stiff as a board, monotone and boring that we call him “statesmanlike”, yet when a female is she is “detached, cold and ruthless”? Why is it that men don’t get asked about who will look after the children, yet women do?

The sexism in politics has reached epic proportions.

On the Labor side, this week we saw the settlement between Emma Husar MP and Buzzfeed. Let’s revisit the situation: unproven allegations, six-week media cycle against Emma, no proof, Emma forced to not recontest her seat, political career over, nothing ever proven — female.

Take her circumstance versus Greg Barber MLC, where a bullying claim led to a settlement of $56,000 (that is your taxes paying for a bullying settlement for a MP), and he was still able to continue as a MP, even after the “hairy-legged feminist, power pussies” comments (coupled with his “men’s room” to boot).

So why can an allegation kill a female MP’s career, but not a male? Even when the male has settlement payments for bullying on the taxpayer funded books? Not to mention Barnaby and his affair — all proven, yet none lost their career. Emma? She is gone.

Let’s look a bit deeper at sexist comments directed at women; Fiona Scott being called “sex appeal” during the Lindsay 2013 campaign, which then clouded her time in office — meaning everywhere she went, the “sex appeal” comment remained. Now, what man has had such an equivalent comment levelled at him? And has it stuck? Exactly. Silence.

Sarah Hanson-Young, in court commentary: “Mr. Leyonhjelm called me a hypocrite because I have sex with men,” said the Greens senator during cross-examination over Leyonhjelm’s comments about her in the media following a debate in the Senate last year.

“What’s sexist about that?” Leyonhjelm’s barrister, Tony Morris, QC, replied. “He wouldn’t say it to a man,” she replied. Again, double standards of behaviour.

Globally women’s participation in parliament is a tad above 24 per cent, yet accounted for only 8 per cent of national leaders and 2 per cent of presidents’ posts. In Australia, Labor has 47 per cent and Liberals 23 per cent after the last Federal election.

We all know the story of how Julia Gillard was taunted with tag lines like “ditch the witch” and described as “barren” as well as many other names. Name for me a male who has got equivalent levels of vitriol in public debate and discussion.

Julie Bishop — an amazingly capable, talented woman — looked over for Scomo and Dutton. Jane Prentice: lost preselection to a former male staffer, Julian Simmonds.

Ann Sudamalis: again another male, Grant Schultz (whose bullying complaint and review has still not announced its findings).

On Labors ledger, Lauren Palmer lost preselection to James Martin in Hasluck, and Lyndal Howlison in NSW for Brian Owler. Time and time again we walk past more capable and qualified women for men — it can’t continue.

Even Bronwyn Bishop and the helicopter affairs stinks of double standard, when a number of male politicians have undertaken similar activities without consequence — Bronwyn had to go after a helicopter flight to a Liberal Party Fundraiser. Yet Tony Abbott charged taxpayers over $3000 to attend the birthday party of Santo Santoro without consequences.

That’s right, a birthday party. Again, one standard for women another for men.

Susan Ley had to resign from a role over a taxpayer funded trip to the Gold Coast to purchase an apartment, something she admitted was within guidelines but failed the pub test. Yet Darren Chester did EXACTLY the same thing for an apartment purchase in Melbourne and yet no consequences for him, no resignation or role reduction. I mean, can the hypocrisy be any more obvious?

I can’t tell you the number of times in Labor preselection that I have seen amazingly qualified women looked over for men — let alone discussed it with friends who are Members of the Liberal Party and say they are continually disadvantaged during preselection.

Margaret Fitzherbert (Liberal) undertook professional polling on this issue and found 38 per cent of Liberal preselections think it is OK to ask a women who will look after her children if she is elected into parliament. A question which she rightly says has no right answers (not focused enough on family and too focused on career etc). And in the private sector, that question is illegal.

And don’t let the Greens Party claim moral high ground; the majority of their Federal leadership is also white men.

And while Labor is better on Parliamentary benches, peel back the curtain to the backrooms of power and you will find the “powerbrokers” behind the politicians is usually a room full of men.

Look to the number of single mums we have around Cabinet tables in Australia? None that I know of, for I have seen when a single mum wasn’t supported to sit in Cabinet because a Leader won’t assist with a reduction in portfolios, or offer other support to keep her in the Cabinet. I am sorry, but I want my taxpayer dollars to fund a full-time nanny just so we can have a single mum (or dad) in Cabinet. That is the Australia I want to live in.

Ironically, in the 2019 election there is one seat which was won by Labor. Labor won’t learn the lesson in it though. That is: that Fiona Phillips MP won Gilmore, and she had never worked as a staffer or advisor, was a local through and through, had deep strong roots to the community, and was a female running against a male. Coincidence? I think not.

I have personally alleged sexism within the Labor Party against a certain Parliamentarian — an accusation which after an internal investigation was found to be legitimate and accurate — only to be personally disadvantaged and brought before the disputes committee of the Labor Party for “disloyalty” and “bringing the party into disrepute” (for calling out sexism against a Parliamentarian). How is that for double standards?

If a male bystander receives a harsher penalty for calling out sexism than the person who was independently found to have been sexist, there is an issue. (Oh, and he got away with a simple written apology to the victim, not made public of course).

What I have learned from the many amazing women I have seen survive in politics, who try and try again and again, is that even those who never get preselected, those who don’t sit on parliamentary benches, have overcome so much more and are often so much more connected to the community than the men who succeeded them.

We need to change the discussion. We as men need to start calling this for what it is, whether Liberal, Labor or other. It is sexism and it needs to change.

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 August, 2019

‘Loyal’ voters who deserted Labor in no hurry to return

There are two great untold stories of the election; the first is what happened to Labor voters. This doesn’t make a pleasant read for the true believers. And they shouldn’t think it can’t get worse.

The second story is what happened to the polling. The most comprehensive and intelligent analysis so far, conducted by a private­ research firm, provided to senior Liberals and shown to The Weekend Australian, reveals a large-scale structural shift in the strength of Labor support and, to a lesser degree, Coalition support.

For whatever reason, whether it was Bill Shorten or Labor’s tax agenda, there was a historically significant soft vote for Labor before­ and on the day of the ­election. This made the outcome on election day very difficult for a broader national poll to predict, if at all.

In the 1990s it was the case that the Coalition could count on 30 per cent of people supporting it no matter what. The core numbers for Labor were about the same, with 40 per cent of voters floating. John Howard would often cite this formula.

That has dramatically changed, and it has done so only over the past 10 years. That number has shrunk to 25 per cent for the Coalitio­n and about the same proportion for Labor, with the core vote for the Greens and other minor parties, such as it is, accountin­g for about 10 per cent.

Going into this year’s election campaign, the so-called “soft vote” for both the major parties was about 45 per cent of their supporters. The research shows that, as the campaign went on, the softness in the Coalition vote began to reduce and ended up between 30 to 35 per cent by polling day.

Labor’s remained at a high 45 per cent. This was the percentage of Labor voters who said they were leaning to Labor but had not yet committed.

For Labor, the alarm bells should still be ringing. Labor voters­, more than any other party, are normally very brand loyal. They stick. This time, however, a lot of Labor voters were conflicted. And in the end many of them just didn’t want to vote for change — at least not the radical changes Shorte­n was promising.

For pollsters, the explanation as to the difficulty of getting a handle­ on what happened on election day begins to become clearer.

Going into the final week, several­ pollsters who spoke to The Weekend Australian off the record confirmed a consensus view that up to 20 per cent of all voters who had not cast their ballot had yet to decide which way they would vote.

A similar trend had emerged in the 2016 election when, by polling day, 10 per cent of voters did not make up their mind until they had pencil in hand. The number was similar or slightly higher this time around.

A decade ago, this number was about 5 per cent. For whatever reason­, at this year’s election there were double the number of people who decided only on the day — May 18 — than what has historic­ally been the case.

Rather than Newspoll over­estim­ating the Labor vote — which at 33.34 per cent ended up being the worst result since 1934 — the research pointed to another explanation.

The undecided and “soft” vote factors were more profound in this election. The “hard” undecided vote emerged in private polling in the final days of the campaign and was quantified at about 5 per cent.

The problem was in determining the Labor primary vote rather than the Coalition’s. Pushed to answer which way they would vote, the research shows many Labor voters said they were only leaning towards Labor.

What was extraordinary was the number who on the day of the election couldn’t bring themselves to back Labor, and abandoned the party and largely went with a minor party whose preferences came over to the Coalition.

The short answer to the election­ result is that Labor and Shorten made it very difficult for their soft supporter base to stick with them.

According to the research briefing: “Rather than Newspoll results suggesting Newspoll ‘got it wrong’, a more informed inter­pretation is that the hard un­decided voters (those still undecided on May 17) did not support­ Labor on election day.

“And soft Labor voters got cold feet on Labor’s tax changes, anti-coal jobs stance and climate overreach, and were unimpressed with Bill Shorten’s ‘Latham moment’ of celebrating rather than campaigning on May 17 before 75 per cent of voters had cast their ballot.”

It wasn’t the polling that changed. It was the unusual ­behaviour of voters that has shifted over time. Even polling on Friday night would not have picked up what was going to happen.

More people than usual didn’t make up their mind until they walked into the ballot box — and most moved violently away from Labor.

Labor certainly didn’t pick it up. If it had, it wouldn’t have allowed Shorten to put his feet up and start drinking beer while more than 1.5 million voters still tossed up who they would support.

SOURCE  






Seeking to protect borders is not hateful

Tim Costello has seen more human hardship than most of us could ­ imagine and he has done a great deal to relieve suffering in godforsaken places the world over. But — yes, there is always a but — his words about Australia’s refugee­ policy, published last week, demand a response­.

Costello compared Australia’s generous refugee intake unfavourably with Sweden’s, which spiked at close to 200,000 at the height of the European refugee crisis in 2015, when Middle Eastern refugees claimed asylum there. Sweden has since suffered from social problems, tightened its asylum­ laws and cut the intake dramatically.

Costello contrasted the height of Sweden’s influx to the 12,000 Syrian refugees welcomed­ by Australia about the same time. But this 12,000 were additional to the annual humanit­arian intake of about 18,000 people. Australia ­remains one of the longstanding and leading resettlement states for UN programs.

We should always be open to a discussion about the size of the ­intake but our record compared with other countries is something that should engender pride rather than shame. It is the restoration of strong border control that has enabled an expansion in the number of refugees accepted; previously boat arrivals effectively jumped the queue, which is why they were prepared to pay anything up to $US10,000 to people-smugglers.

There is no doubt that if you trawl the internet or seek out hard hearts you will find examples of fear and hatred in this nation. But clearly this is not a representative or accurate way to describe mainstream attitudes. Australian voters have supported strong border protection­ because they know the value of integrity in the immig­ration system; they have seen the tragedy and trauma of rampant people-smuggling and understand that sovereignty ­depends on ­secure borders and order, rather than creating chaos by outsourcing immigration to criminal smugglers. This is not hateful, pre­judiced­ or fearful — it is just sensible and fair.

Costello and others who put a humanitarian gloss on criminal people-smuggling cannot wish away the exploitation and tragic deaths, nor can they pretend away the injustice for legitimate refugee­s who have kept their identification papers (rather than destroy them) and waited for ­official ­resettlement, having either chosen not to engage smugglers or not having the cash to do so.

The real quandary in this global dilemma comes from figures ­quoted elsewhere in Costello’s piece. He said there are 65 million displaced people around the world. These numbers fluctuate and some displacements can be short-lived but there is no doubt that the number of legitimate refugee­s worldwide numbers in the tens of millions.

This exposes the silliness of the old argument about push factors — there are always push factors. What the numbers should do is provide a reality check for both bleeding-heart liberals and flint-hearted conservatives.

The numbers tell us that we cannot fix this problem simply by taking refugees — there are simply too many for the world’s resettlement nations to cope. But they also tell us that isolationism is no solution: while ever such misery occurs throughout the world, desperate people will find a way to cross border­s. In the era of globalisation, all nations own this challenge. The internal dysfunction and unspeakable horrors of Syria or Yemen soon become a problem for ­Europe; the traumas in Sudan or Sri Lanka, Myanmar or Venezuela, can quickly turn into dilemmas for Western nations such as ours.

Inevitably, even though it might be a long way off, the only sustainable solutions will be to ­ensure Syrians are safe in Syria, Sudanese can prosper in Sudan and people in Afghanistan and Pakistan can aspire to a bright ­future at home. Migration and tolera­nce, surely, will continue an ­upwards trajectory but they will require order.

Resettling refugees undoubtedly saves lives and creates hope, individual by individual. But we need to be more honest, robust and interventionist about the abominations that generate refugee­s in the first place.

SOURCE  






'I want pressure off electricity prices': Scott Morrison pushes for an end to state bans on fracking

Prime Minister Scott Morrison says Australians can 'watch this space' when it comes to ending states' bans on gas explorations.

Mr Morrison said he was frustrated with the refusal by states to end their bans as his government works to keep its promise to reduce the nation's power bills. 'I want to see those bans go, I want to see that gas come out from under people's feet because when it does that means it takes the pressure off electricity prices,' he told the Nine Network on Thursday.

Victoria has permanently banned fracking, while Tasmania has a moratorium and NSW has certain restrictions on the practice.

A moratorium on gas fracking in parts of Western Australia is expected to be officially lifted in August, while South Australia last year passed laws to enshrine a 10-year ban on fracking in the southeast of the state.

The Northern Territory in 2018 lifted a temporary fracking ban while Queensland allows the practice.

The prime minister gave a cryptic answer when questioned over whether there were any signs of states ending their bans 'soon'.

'Watch this space,' he said.

SOURCE  





Santos sees $3b Narrabri coal seam gas approval by year end

Santos chief executive Kevin Gallagher has declared that headwinds facing the company's $3 billion Narrabri coal seam gas project in NSW are "turning to tailwinds" as the project gains traction among domestic customers and moves through the planning approvals process.

Mr Gallagher said he is hopeful to secure NSW government approval for the  project by the end of the year, and again committed to sell all the gas produced to domestic customers, signalling that a gas reservation requirement as being contemplated by the federal government is no obstacle to going ahead.

'There's a lot of optimism, and a lot of enthusiasm for the project in the region, particularly given we've now got a lot of customers coming forward,' says Santos CEO Kevin Gallagher.  Attila Csaszar

He said meetings he took part in Narrabri on Tuesday with stakeholders in the project were supportive.

"There's a lot of optimism, and a lot of enthusiasm for the project in the region, particularly given we've now got a lot of customers coming forward," he said, referring to recent preliminary sales accords for Narrabri gas with Brickworks, Weston Energy and Perdaman Group.

He said he believed the success in signing up domestic customers meant the project was getting traction with NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian.

"The headwinds are slowly shifting and I would describe them as not quite tailwinds yet but on the way to becoming tailwinds," Mr Gallagher told the Credit Suisse Australian Energy Conference in Sydney.

The comments come as the federal government considers potential measures to reserve part of the gas in new development projects for the local market to ease the current squeeze on prices.

Farming and environmental groups are fiercely opposed to the Narrabri coal seam gas project, citing potential damage to groundwater and land resources. Dean Sewell

The Narrabri project, which is fiercely opposed by environmentalists because of risks to water and land resources, could supply up to half of the gas needs of NSW, which currently imports 96 per cent of its requirements and where manufacturers are struggling with price hikes.

"We're expecting soon the project to get put into the hands of the Independent Planning Commission; we are still hopeful that by the end of this year we can get that EIS [environmental impacts statement] approved and we can move forward with the project," Mr Gallagher said.

A Santos spokeswoman said the company has already said it is prepared to accept a condition for approval of the project that 100 per cent of the gas is sold into the domestic market.
Santos boss Kevin Gallagher: "There is no history that tells us that government intervention works."

Lock the Gate Alliance accused Santos of "playing politics" with Narrabri gas, instead of sticking to science and proper process.  Alliance spokeswoman Georgina Woods accused Santos of "inappropriate political interference" in the approvals process.

“It’s a bit rich for Santos to throw the blame around now and try to use politics to bypass environmental laws, especially when there is a gas import terminal which is well ahead of Santos’s project and properly going through the assessment process," she said, describing Santos as the "key architect" of the gas price crisis in the eastern states.

Mr Gallagher said Narrabri would beat LNG imports "hands down" on pricing. "Narrabri will be the lowest cost of supply gas going into the New South Wales market by a country mile," he said.

SOURCE  





Half stake in Cubbie Station now back in Australian hands

The Chinese kept it afloat when drought almost wiped it out

A Macquarie-run agricultural fund will take a 49 per cent stake in Queensland's famed Cubbie Station with its majority owner Chinese conglomerate Shandong Ruyi fulfilling a requirement to reduce its stake to 51 per cent.

Shandong Ruyi paid $232 million for Australia's largest cotton irrigator, the then debt-laden Cubbie Station in 2012. Until the deal with Macquarie, the Chinese textile giant had held 80 per cent with businessman Roger Fletcher controlling 20 per cent. Mr Fletcher will exit his stake under the transaction announced on Friday.

The investment by Shandong Ruyi was approved by then treasurer Wayne Swan on the condition its ownership would be reduced from 80 per cent to 51 per cent. The Chinese operator has been given extensions on that requirement, most recently last month by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg.

As part of the joint ownership agreement, the agricultural fund, managed by Macquarie Infrastructure and Real Assets, and Ruyi have committed to voluntarily contribute water to the Culgoa River and the Lower Balonne when it is most needed.

The commitment comprises a voluntary contribution of up to 10 gigalitres to the Lower Balonne over a five-day period following extended dry periods.

“Cubbie is one of Australia’s premiere agricultural assets and aligns with our investment thesis for long-term sustainable farming operations," MIRA Head of Agriculture, Liz O’Leary said.

“MIRA has been an active investor in and manager of Australian farmland for more than 10 years and we understand the responsibilities that we have to local communities and investors."

Ms O'Leary said said the voluntary water contribution was a "meaningful commitment that will increase the volume of water in the Culgoa River and Lower Balonne intersecting streams, at the most critical times".

"It is also an example of the private and public sectors engaging with one another to develop new ways of helping to meet environmental objectives, while enabling productive use of the land at times of high flows.”

Since the 2012 acquisition, Shandong Ruyi has invested $26 million in improving the efficiency of Cubbie’s operations and spent more than $25 million acquiring and upgrading the Dirranbandi cotton ginnery.

"Our joint venture provides certainty of ownership to Cubbie," said Ruyi Australia Group chief executive officer, Tony McKenna.

"Under the structure, the current management and operational team of Cubbie will remain unchanged and will be able to continue their good work.”

The sprawling Queensland farm extends across several properties near Dirranbandi and St George in south west Queensland.

Cubbie’s 93,700 hectares includes 22,100 hectares of irrigated cropping fields. Cubbie Station itself is an 80,600-hectare property with 19,100 hectares of irrigated cropping fields,

The broader farm includes The Anchorage, a 12,700-hectare property and Aspen, a 406-hectare property.

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 August, 2019

Realistic Aboriginal woman tours Australia to tell 'militant' city activists their anti-racism campaigns 'are doing more harm than good' to remote Aboriginal communities

She makes it clear that the luvvies are interested only in proclaiming their own big hearts.  They are not even interested in what is good for Aborigines  -- and they hate her for pointing that out

An Indigenous advocate is hoping to educate activists over their anti-racism campaigns as she believes they are hurting Aboriginal communities.

Jacinta Nampiginpa Price, a Warlpiri woman and conservative politician, said well-meaning city activists use Australia's history to make non-Indigenous people feel bad and were doing more harm than good.

'They are campaigning so hard and they're militant,' she told Daily Mail Australia on Friday.

'They're creating the divide between the most disadvantaged to connect to others in the country who could provide the advice and support they need to create opportunities.

'They (the activists) stop that happening. 'They believe indigenous people are babies and have to be compensated for their losses.

'They push for this dependency to continue instead of allowing Aboriginal people to stand on their own two feet and be responsible for our own opportunities and our own future. 'They get in the way of any of that.

'They say: ''There, there - you've been wrongly done by, someone else should be fixing things for you''. 'That's not empowerment.'

Ms Price said she was embarking on an 11-city speaking tour to create more understanding for city people of the cultural differences they have with remote Aboriginal communities, and what their needs really are, in order to bridge the gap.

She said symbolic issues are not helping remote indigenous communities move forward. 'Something always comes up,' she said.  'It's change the date (of Australia Day), or change the anthem words, or change the anthem entirely - and now it's constitutional recognition and The Voice.'

'A lot of these things are incomplete or there's a bit of a concept but no direction to how to achieve practical outcomes.'

Ms Price's Mind The Gap tour begins in late August and has adopted the slogans 'No Political Correctness' and 'No Identity Politics'. She will tour Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Brisbane and Adelaide as well as regional urban centres such as Newcastle, Toowoomba, Bendigo,  Mildura and Albury-Wodonga.

Ms Price will also speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney on Friday afternoon.

The indigenous campaigner wants practical changes to help remote indigenous communities thrive by themselves such as education geared to give children the tools to integrate into mainstream Australian society. 'People need jobs and less dependence on welfare,' she said.

'In remote communities where children are behind already - their health is not fantastic, their hearing is not great - the push to maintaining and teaching culture means the kids in the bush aren't getting the education they need to do well in life

Ms Price said Aboriginal people want the tools to thrive in the modern world, and while urban activists might feel warm and fuzzy by pushing the focus to keeping traditional culture strong, they were denying opportunities to remote indigenous children.

'My mother's generation ... had an emphasis on learning English and they learnt their own language at home. There was no bilingual education. My mother speaks her language fluently and English fluently.'

She also said land reforms were crucial. The Aboriginal Land Rights Act ensures that remote community land is communally owned in perpetuity with a land council having the final say over what happens.

'The Land Rights Act has to be reviewed,' she said. 'Traditional owners (TOs) don't feel at all represented by the land councils ... The ownership should go to the TOs themselves so they can have economic development on their own country. 'Imagine you live, owning a house and you can't fix it till you get permission from the land council.

Ms Price also had stern words for those who think 'racist laws' are the reason for a disproportionate number of Aboriginal men in jails.

'Statistically, about 70 percent of Aboriginal men  incarcerated are incarcerated for violence against their loved ones. If we take responsibility for domestic violence, we'll see a dramatic reduction in incarceration and less dysfunction in homes,' she said.

'Activists push the blame elsewhere in nearly every situation and expect someone else to solve issues.'

'In Indigenous law, if you continue to break traditional law they'd be punished probably in a very violent way.

'We talk of the high incarceration rate but almost never talk of why they are incarcerated in such high numbers.

'You've got to look at the whole picture - it's not a quick fix like a change in the law to be more lenient as that is not going to fix the crime situation and will not help the rights of the victims.'

SOURCE  





‘Can’t stand Islam’: Why Labor wants to block Raheem Kassam’s visa

He can be a bit crude but his words about Islam are more realistic than what we mostly hear.  That is the problem for Leftists

The Raheem Kassam visa dispute has developed into a free speech versus hate speech debate on the international stage.

A former Muslim who says he “can’t stand Islam” is due to take to the stage to speak at a conservative conference in Sydney next weekend, but the controversial views he wishes to talk about have already sent shockwaves through Australia.

Our politicians have torn shreds off each other in and out of parliament this week after Shadow Home Affairs Minister Kristine Keneally demanded a block on Raheem Kassam’s visa.

Some of the 33-year-old British political activist’s questionable opinions have also drawn criticism from both sides of the house, with finance minister Mathias Cormann blasting an infamous barb at Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon as “disgraceful, highly objectionable and completely outrageous”.

In that particular attack, Mr Kassam suggested on Twitter that Ms Sturgeon’s “mouth and legs should be taped shut so she can’t reproduce” — shortly after she had a miscarriage.

On other occasions, he’s called the Koran “fundamentally evil”, blasted Islam as a “fascistic and totalitarian ideology” and asked his followers whether a prominent UK Labour politician was in the “special needs class” in school.

Labor leader Anthony Albanese piled more criticism on the British firebrand today, labelling his comments “misogynist and disgusting” and urging the immigration minister to cancel his visa.

The debate even caught the eye of Donald Trump’s son, who accused the ALP earlier this week of trying to silence conservative views. “The insanity needs to stop!”, he tweeted.

Mr Kassam was formerly a Muslim and his parents are Tanzanian immigrants.

However, he became inspired by the late socialist writer Christopher Hitchens’ rejection of religious faith and is now an atheist.

He has also written books with alarming titles such as No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighbourhood Near You, which detail why he is so strongly against Muslim immigration.

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton — who also appeared on Today — said he fears shutting down controversial views could lead Australia down a slippery path. “I worry in our country, as we are seeing in other democracies at the moment, that views are shouted down either because they are politically incorrect or people don’t agree with them,” Mr Dutton said. “I think allow people in a democracy like ours to have their say, to have a civil debate then make up your own mind.”

Fellow senior Liberal Mathias Cormann agreed, telling Sky News on Friday that Australia didn’t want a reputation as a ban-happy nation. “I was absolutely critical of what (Mr Kassam) was quoted as saying, and I indeed find some of his comments objectionable and unacceptable,” Senator Cormann said. “But I don’t think, as a country committed to freedom of speech, that we want to put ourselves in a position where we ban everyone and anyone on the basis of objectionable and offensive speech.”

SOURCE  






Overcoming the odds in high school

Parents often focus more on the choice of a secondary school, but it turns out primary school is probably more important for a child’s academic success. Many parents send their child to the local primary school but then invest significantly more time and money in choosing a secondary school.

And Years 11 and 12 are often the time where parents are most hands-on in their child’s education, helping with subject selections, constantly updating ATAR calculations, and appealing assessment results to gain the moral victory of a few extra marks.

But ultimately, student achievement at this late stage depends largely on having mastered literacy and numeracy skills in primary school.

The well-established education phenomenon, the Matthew Effect — the tendency for differences in student achievement in early primary school to grow into more significant differences towards the end of secondary school, unless rectified — means that waiting for improvement in secondary school is often simply waiting to fail.

That’s why effective early literacy and numeracy teaching is so important to ensure students don’t fall behind. And it should be a priority for secondary schools to identify underachieving students when they enrol.

This is especially the case for students from disadvantaged social backgrounds. Our new research has found it is more challenging for secondary schools to help disadvantaged students succeed, compared to primary schools.

Using NAPLAN data and the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage, we identified only 3 Australian secondary schools that are both disadvantaged and high-achieving (no, before you ask, these schools do not receive more funding than other similarly disadvantaged schools). In contrast, 21 Australian primary schools are both disadvantaged and high-achieving.

There are evidence-based policies for improving outcomes for disadvantaged students in high school. For example, international education datasets indicate school discipline issues are especially prevalent among disadvantaged secondary schools in Australia. And direct instruction — an evidence-based teaching practice, where new content is explicitly taught in sequenced and structured lessons — is less common at disadvantaged secondary schools.

A policy focus on building positive school cultures and ensuring teachers are well-equipped to use effective direct instruction could significantly improve academic outcomes for disadvantaged students. And this wouldn’t necessarily require more taxpayer funding.

We all want to ensure that no student finishes school without essential knowledge and skills. But the solution isn’t to spend more money.

SOURCE  





Nuclear power to be examined in Australia for the first time in ten years

Australia could lift its ban on nuclear energy after the government’s Federal Energy Minister asked the Environment and Energy Committee to look into the use of nuclear power in Australia.

Nuclear is banned as a source of power and while Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor has confirmed Australia’s embargo on nuclear energy will remain, a parliamentary inquiry will revisit the issue and investigate “any future government’s consideration” into the topic.

According to the ABC, a 2006 report on nuclear power claimed Australia “could have up to 25 reactors providing over a third of the country’s electricity by 2050”.

“This will be the first inquiry into the use of nuclear power in Australia in more than a decade and is designed to consider the economic, environmental and safety implications of nuclear power,” Mr Taylor said in a letter to Environment and Energy Committee and Queensland LNP member Ted O’Brien on Friday.

“I am confident that your committee — involving all sides of politics — is the best way to consider this issue in a sensible way.”

The ABC reports “several Coalition backbenchers” supported the idea of nuclear energy, including Barnaby Joyce who suggested residents living near reactors could be offered free power.

“Clearly there are very passionate views on either side of this debate,” Mr O’Brien said.

“There are new and emerging forms of nuclear energy technology that are very different from the old smokestack reactors people tend to picture when they think nuclear energy and it’s on these newer technologies that we’ll focus.”

“Our job will be to determine the circumstances under which future Coalition or Labor governments might consider nuclear energy generation.”

Last month Queensland Nationals MP Keith Pitt and his Senate colleague James McGrath were reportedly behind the push, The Sunday Telegraph reports.

“I am not saying that there is a nuclear reactor coming to a shopping centre near you but we have to be able to investigate all options,” Mr Pitt told the newspaper.

“All I am calling for is an inquiry as to whether it’s a feasible option to ensure we are up to date with the latest information.”

During the federal election campaign Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he had no plans to reverse the ban on nuclear energy, after earlier saying he’d be open to it if the sector paid its own way.

The inquiry is due to be completed by the end of the year.

SOURCE  






After 23 years, a day of reckoning has arrived for Big Tech

British web expert Jamie Bartlett was a tech optimist. About a decade ago, that is. The fellow of London think tank Demos grew increasingly worried about what was happening under Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and the rest.

Finally he confessed to a mild panic about the industry and opened his most recent book with these words: "In the coming few years either tech will destroy democracy and the social order as we know it, or politics will stamp its authority over the digital world."

Big Tech has had 23 years to do exactly what Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg urged in his company's old motto: "Move fast and break things."

Because the tech firms haven't just had an unbounded Wild West opportunity to roam and raid unregulated territory. Twenty-three years ago, the US Congress passed a law that actually suspended the normal operation of law so that the tech industry could have unique advantages.
It was section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act that cast a magical protective spell to give the tech companies a special immunity – they're not responsible for what others put on their platforms. Other countries, afraid of seeming uncool and anti-innovation, generally followed America's lead.

So the tech firms moved fast and broke a lot of things and now the governments of the world have had enough. They're no longer quirky, fun, garage start-ups. They are among the biggest and most ruthless corporations on the planet. Google's parent, Alphabet, for instance, has a share market value three times that of entertainment behemoth Walt Disney, six times that of the biggest Australian company, BHP Billiton, and 140 times that of the New York Times Company.

Do they really need special legislative immunity from the consequences of their businesses any longer? Consequences like the propaganda and recruitment successes of the terrorist army Daesh, or Islamic State. Or the Russian government's subversion of US elections and democracy everywhere. Consequences like the exponential proliferation of child abuse images.

And the US Congress didn't actually grant them immunity from paying tax on their earnings – that's a little extra liberty the tech firms granted themselves. After 23 years, the reckoning has arrived. The Australian government is at the forefront. It started four years ago with the Office of the e-Safety Commissioner, a world first designed to protect kids from cyberbullying and other web-borne harms. Now it also removes revenge porn from the web. It's been a success, which is why other nations are studying it and the tech companies are lobbying to curb it.

Australia's e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman-Grant, started her tech involvement with Microsoft when the tech industry could do no wrong: "Fast forward two decades and the policy pendulum is definitely swinging the other way, with calls in the US for section 230 to be repealed and governments across the world seriously contemplating whether the internet industry should be more closely regulated," she told the National Press Club in Canberra last year.

Incidentally, if you do a Google search for more on America's section 230, you'll find a set of self-serving results. You'll find more objective information if you use a non-profit search engine, such as duckduckgo.com.

"I’m proud to say that I believe it is now Australia that is leading the way in terms of regulating the social media industry for the content and conduct that takes place on these platforms," Inman-Grant said.

Three other examples. First. After an Australian man walked into two Christchurch mosques in March and murdered 51 people in a hate crime partially livecast on Facebook, Scott Morrison joined his New Zealand counterpart, Jacinda Ardern, to get a G-20 agreement to work towards the elimination of terrorist and violent extremist content online. The G-7 summit in France next month will develop the theme. France's President Emmanuel Macron invited Morrison and Ardern in recognition of their leadership.

Second. The Australian Tax Commissioner, Chris Jordan, had a gutful of big multinational firms dodging their Australian taxes. He went after the big mining firms too, but the tech companies were the main target. They were collecting billions in Australian sales but booking the revenue through low-tax subsidiaries in Ireland or Singapore. In four years, armed with new laws and a hand-picked taskforce, he's got the multinationals booking an extra $7 billion of revenue a year in Australia. And paying tax on it in Australia. Recently, some European governments have reached the same breaking point and announced new tax regimes specifically to target the tax-dodging tech titans.
Mark Zuckerberg urged his company to "move fast and break things". Now governments are pushing back.

Third. Last week the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission delivered its final report into digital platforms. Its chair, Rod Sims, spoke of "many adverse effects" that flow from the market dominance wielded by Google and Facebook in particular. In neat symmetry, the commission delivered 23 recommendations for action to protect Australia from some of those effects, one for each year of the era of untrammelled techxploitation. The Morrison government immediately agreed to one of the 23 – for the ACCC to create special branch to protect online privacy and prevent abuse of market power – and is considering the other 22.

There are two big caveats. First is that while Australia's government can be proud that it is leading in the much-needed regulation of Big Tech, it should also be working to allow Australian business to lead in innovation, as well. Second is that all these initiatives are positive, but they are piecemeal and partial. For instance, none of the Australian measures address Jamie Bartlett's larger worry – the "manipulation, endless distraction and the slow diminishing of free choice and autonomy" that Big Tech delivers.

Is Bartlett's mild panic giving way to paranoia perhaps? Read what Google's then boss, Eric Schmidt, said in 2010 and make up your own mind: "You give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our services. We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less know what you're thinking about."

That's not creepy at all.

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 August, 2019

Israel Folau launches legal action against Rugby Australia and NSW Waratahs

Their political correctness could send them broke, which would be great!  They may even end up having to pay Folau's legal fees

Armed with a multi-million dollar warchest, Israel Folau has launched legal action against Rugby Australia and can “bleed them dry”.

Rugby Australia and Israel Folau are headed to the Federal Court after conciliation failed at the Fair Work Commission.

Rugby star Israel Folau has begun legal action against his former employers Rugby Australia and the NSW Waratahs for unfair dismissal.

The decision comes after the former Wallaby and RA failed to reach an agreement at a mediation hearing at the Fair Work Commission on June 28.

“Unfortunately, our conciliation before the Fair Work Commission did not resolve the matters between us and I have been left with no choice but to commence court action,” Folau said in a statement on Thursday.

RA terminated Folau’s multimillion-dollar contract over a social media post in which he paraphrased a Bible passage, saying “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters” would go to hell unless they repented.

The committed Christian argues he was unfairly dismissed on religious grounds. Folau, 30, is seeking $10 million in damages from RA and wants his contract reinstated.

The Australian reports his legal team insists he should still be playing for the Waratahs and the Wallabies, including in the upcoming Rugby World Cup.

“His form and natural talent suggests he would continue to be a star player for both teams,” the unfair termination claim says, per The Australian.

More than 20,000 people have donated about $2.2 million to help fund Folau’s legal battle via a campaign page set up by the Australian Christian Lobby. The ACL effort replaced an earlier campaign on GoFundMe, which was taken down by the platform for breaching its service guidelines.

Folau thanked his many supporters in the statement. “I have been blessed to have received the support of tens of thousands of Australians throughout my journey, and I want to say thank you to everyone who has offered their prayers and support. It has meant so much to (wife) Maria and me over the last few months and gives us strength for the road ahead,” he said.

In a segment on Sky News, digital editor Jack Houghton said Folau could bleed Rugby Australia dry.

“The broader point that got missed when people were raising funds for this particular legal challenge was not that they were specifically endorsing anything he said — or the intentions behind it — but they were making the broader case, ‘should you be able to be fired for holding certain religious views, if those views are controversial?’. That’s the question we all want to know right now,” he said.

“It really looks like Rugby Australia is in a lot of hot water here and financially they’re not doing that great, we know this, and he (Folau) doesn’t have to pay for any of this, so he can just sit there bleeding them dry and the benefit to the rest of Australia is some clarity over an issue which is getting a lot of people who may be haven’t read much about the legislation weighing in prematurely.”

“Rugby Australia was very foolish to pick this fight and they’re now starting to pay for it,” added The Advertiser columnist Caleb Bond. “You reap what you sow and while their sponsors might have been happy with the decision they’ve made they might lose more money out of this than they would have out of the sponsorship situation.”

According to a previous report in The Daily Telegraph, the future of rugby in Australia could be decided if Folau is successful in his challenge of RA’s move to rip up his contract.

The report claimed Rugby Australia is privately bracing for a $12 million financial loss this season — pushing the code to the brink of collapsing.

SOURCE  






Geoffrey Blainey says giving away citizenship too easily is a problem for our democracy

Noted historian Geoffrey Blainey says Australia gives away cititzenship too easily — and that creates a problem for democracy.

Professor Blainey told a Sydney audience that the essence of democracy was accepting defeat at an election, even if the electorate did not know much.

“And that is a problem,” he said. “I think we give away citizenship rather too easily. Why should someone who has been in the country two or three years and does not know the language or the common discourse, why should they necessarily have a vote if voting is compulsory?’’

Professor Blainey’s remarks were in answer to a question at a wide-ranging discussion at the think tank, the Sydney Institute, held to celebrate his newly published memoir Before I Forget.

He told the audience that governing in a democracy was difficult and he would not be surprised if democracies did not exist in the same numbers in 100 years’ time.

“I am very much a democrat but my view is that democracy is a difficult form of government,” Professor Blainey said. “We think it is easy and we blame the politicians… but we elected the politicians.

“I think democracy depends not only on having parliamentarians but 15 to 20 per cent of the population (taking responsibility for democracy). It depends on that segment of the population but I think that segment of the population is diminishing.”

He said that more than half the nations in the world could not by any definition be called democracies.

The period since 1945 was probably the most fortunate period of human history but we should understand that government was much more difficult now than in earlier decades and democracy was a more challenging form of government.

“There is so much to be optimistic about … I remain optimistic but I remain wary in assuming that democracy will go on and on,” he said.

Asked if he believed the study of history had become corrupted, Professor Blainey was circumspect but said there was no doubt the teaching of history was a “bit skewed”.

SOURCE  





Big tech must be treated like media: Regulator

ACCC chair Rod Sims has described technology giants Facebook and Google as publishers, who should be regulated in a similar way to traditional media. Following the release of the ACCC's final report into the market power of digital platforms, Mr Sims said Google and Facebook should be subject to the same laws as publishers and broadcasters.

Mr Sims told Sky News Business Weekend a new code of conduct regulating the relationship between digital platforms and traditional media would have "real teeth". He said if implemented media companies would start to receiving more revenue for their original content being used by the likes of Facebook and Google to make money.

"In many ways they are publishers and so we have to make sure we break that distinction that's been there before," Mr Sims said on Sky News' Business Weekend this morning. "Really you should have Google and Facebook being subject to...the same laws that apply to traditional media otherwise it's simply an unfair playing field. "They should be regulated in a very similar way to traditional media and in many senses, they are publishers."

Mr Sims, who described the final report as "very hard hitting", said as a regulator, the ACCC were capable of following through with its proposed recommendations, including the potential creation of a digital markets branch of the ACCC, which would enforce a code of conduct on Google and Facebook.

"I don't think in recent years the ACCC has been accused of lacking mettle," he said. "We've taken on some of the biggest companies around the world including Apple, Visa, Heinz. No, there's no problem there. We do need some changes to the laws and of course we do need to have a focused unit looking at this, because you can't just do this alongside your other business. "We definitely need a dedicated unit, and have no doubt we've got the mettle."

Labor Opposition communications spokeswoman Michelle Rowland says she does not trust tech giants Google and Facebook to crackdown on "fake news" without new regulatory intervention. Ms Rowland this morning said the owners major tech platforms have proven they are motivated by profit rather than what is in the public interest. She does not believe they would take adequate initiative to stop the spread of false information without being forced by government. "I don't, but that is my personal view.

The very fact that these organisations are there to make a profit, the profit is the primary driver. That is not to say they are very conscious of their public relations side," Ms Rowland told Sky News "I think you would need to question whether the Australian consumers at large would trust them to do that, particularly given the privacy breaches."

But Ms Rowland also urged caution on establishing a government body to decide what fake news is. "While instinctively we would be anti-fake news, I think that you would need to exercise caution in how that is done," she said. "You don't want a regulator, for example, who is censuring what actually goes out to people. "Because the whole idea of the internet is that it provides freedom of information and democratisation on that platform."

On Friday, the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission released its report into digital platforms, with the government to respond to its 23 recommendations by the end of the year. Under the recommendations, Facebook and Google could be forced to share revenue from journalism with traditional media, face investigations by a new digital branch of the competition watchdog and be fined for the spreading of fake news.

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher this morning said the government would consider creating a new digital markets branch of the ACCC and forcing a new code of conduct on Google and Facebook. "The government accepts the ACCC's overriding conclusion that there's a need for reform. We accept the recommendation or the proposal that there needs to be a harmonisation of the media regulatory framework," Mr Fletcher told the ABC. "At the moment, there are very different ways in which traditional media businesses like free-to-air television providers are regulated, for example in relation to Australian content, compared to the digital platforms.

"Clearly one of the questions is obligations on free-to-air television network and on subscription TV for Australian content. Does it stack up for Netflix not to have such obligations? Those are questions that we'll consider."

SOURCE  






Biggest native title deal in danger of dissident defeat

Payoff wanted

The biggest land rights deal in Australian history is in danger of being killed off, four years after the Noongar people of Western Australia voted for the $1.3 billion land-and-cash package to benefit 30,000 Aboriginal people.

A dissident Noongar group — among the minority who voted “no” in 2015 when the South West Native Title Settlement was put to the Noongar people at six ­regional meetings — have successfully stalled the deal in the Federal Court for years. Until now, their arguments were not widely regarded as likely to succeed and politicians from both sides have referred to the settlement as a fait accompli.

It has been described as Australia’s first treaty and has bipartisan support in WA.

A Federal Court decision about a small land deal in the Northern Territory in May has handed opponents of the Noon­gar settlement a fresh argument that reopened their case. The Cox Peninsula deal outside Darwin was thrown out by the court on May 20 because it was certified in 2017 by the Northern Land Council’s then chief executive, Joe Morrison, rather than by a full board. The Noongar deal was also signed by an employee of a land council, the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council’s then chief executive Glenn Kelly, so opponents of the $1.3bn deal rushed back to court.

Represented pro bono by one of Australia’s most respected nat­ive title lawyers, Greg McIntyre SC, the dissident group is arguing the Noongar deal was not signed off correctly and therefore incorrectly registered. The Federal Court is considering written arguments before deciding if more hearings are necessary. Opponents object to surrendering their native title. They are now hopeful they can kill off the Noongar settlement by the end of the year.

Mr McIntyre told The Australian the Federal Court’s decision about the Cox Peninsula land deal in May was important for many such deals across Australia that had been decided the same way.

“There could be hundreds of decisions affected by that ruling,” Mr McIntyre said. He said if a land deal was thrown out by a court, it was not always simple to start again. The deals were usually reached after large meetings of traditional owners and it cost tens of thousands of dollars to bring all the relevant people together.

Former Liberal premier Colin Barnett oversaw the South West Native Title Settlement after more than a decade of litigation.

In 2006, the Federal Court found the Noongar people held native title rights to occupy, use and enjoy lands and waters; it was hailed as the first decision recognising native title over a capital city, but it was overturned by the Full Federal Court two years later.

Instead of more court battles, the Barnett government and South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council agreed to negotiate. In July 2013, the government released the terms of its settlement offer and these were approved by the Noongar people at a series of authorisation meetings between January and March 2015.

The settlement is considered the most comprehensive as well as the largest in Australia. Up to 320,000ha of southwest land will be transferred to the Noongar Boodja Trust for development and cultural purposes. The WA government will also contribute $50 million annually for 12 years to the Noongar Boodja Trust, and $10m annually for 12 years to the Noongar Regional Corporations.

Noongar people will jointly run the state’s national parks.

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 August 2019

Domestic violence: The feminists are on the move again and we need to stop them

Bettina Arndt

They are up in arms at the move by the Federal Government to provide some counselling for couples dealing with domestic violence. A tiny $10 million out of a budget of $328 mill, which is the latest raft of funding adding to the huge cash cow which supports the domestic violence industry. This includes ongoing funding for the male-bashing Stop It At The Start television campaign which has already cost $30 million.

See this Guardian article showing all the lobby groups lining up to try to put a stop to the couple counselling. You’ll see they all promote the usual feminist propaganda, claiming domestic violence invariably involves dangerous men controlling their partners and suggesting couples counselling puts women at risk.

I’ve long argued that we are enabling the feminist capture of government policy by failing to challenge the persistent lobbying of this tiny minority group. This is a classic example. The government is finally making the right move in giving some funding to start to properly address this issue – after having wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on domestic violence money spent mainly on advertising campaigns to demonise men and boys, blaming misogynist attitudes for the entire problem. But unless we get moving the wicked witches will win again. The Guardian article makes clear they intent a ferocious scare campaign to try to get the government to back down.

So come on, people. Get active and write to relevant Ministers, your MP and to the Prime Minister and support this move to properly address one of the real issues at the heart of this problem. If you all wrote one letter we could really support the government and persuade them to stick to their guns.  Here’s some of the basic information you will need to make the argument that this is a sensible move:

There is strong evidence that most violence begins early, with couples at the start of their relationships reacting to conflict with two-way violence. Years ago, Professor Kim Halford and colleagues from the University of Queensland conducted a series of studies which focussed on couples at the start of their relationships, newly-wed couples and couples expecting a child together. Even with these early relationships about a quarter of the women admit they have been violent towards their partners – just as many as the men.

Professor Halford, who is one of Australia’s leading family relationship experts, points out this evidence means it is really important to help couples learn to deal with conflict without resorting to violence. He makes the point that one of the strongest risk factors for a woman being hit by a male partner is her hitting that male partner. “It’s absolutely critical that we tackle couple violence if we really want to stop this escalation into levels of violence which cause women serious injury.”

It’s nonsense to suggest that couples counselling will put women at risk, as this article by Maccollum and Stith makes clear, provided there are exclusion policies making sure no member of the couple is coerced, that there’s not ongoing mental illness, nor history of severe violence or weapon use. Avoiding couple counselling mean we are not addressing the patterns that lead to violence, leaving men and women trapped in conflicted relationships without the tools to find other ways of dealing with marital stress, and putting women and children particularly at risk. Here’s another review and meta-analysis of this subject which suggests couple therapy can significantly reduce domestic violence.

In fact, there are some good relationship counsellors across the country already doing this work. You may remember Perth counsellor Rob Tiller who was forced out of his job with Relationships Australia last year, after he posted my article on domestic violence on his personal Facebook page. I made a video with Rob at the time when he talked about working successfully with violent couples helping them learn to deal with conflict. Unfortunately, Relationships Australia, one of our peak counselling bodies, proudly promotes feminist policies on domestic violence which means couples are often refused help in these circumstances.

This is only one aspect of a proper comprehensive approach to tackling family violence, which would include support services for male victims of violence and their children and targeting at risk groups like people with drug and alcohol problems and mental illness. Such targeted approaches are being trialled overseas, with significant success.

Let’s hope this small move by the government is a sign that they are willing to deal more effectively with this major social problem rather than simply supporting the male-bashing feminist domestic violence industry. But this won’t happen if we sit back and let the feminists bully the government into backing down.

Here’s some addresses you can use to lobby on this issue, as well as your local MP:

Minister for Families and Social Services, Hon Anne Ruston: senator.ruston@aph.gov.au

Minister for Women, Hon Marise Payne: Foreign.minister@dfat.gov.au

Prime Minister: https://www.pm.gov.au/contact-your-pm

Bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au







Anthony Albanese’s political strategy of backing government plans is passive and risky, says Peter van Onselen

The debate as to how political parties should react to electoral failure is an interesting one: both philosophically and in terms of pure political strategy. Should they respect a government’s mandate, getting out of the road of most legislative initiatives, or should an opposition hold the line on policies tested with the community but ultimately rejected at the recent election?

There are virtues and vices in both options.

Right now new Labor leader Anthony Albanese is indicating that his preferred strategy is for the opposition to wave through government plans, in particular those it took to the election. The context Albanese is using for this strategy is what happened after the Coalition’s 2004 victory, when John Howard gained control of both houses and hence forth implemented Work Choices, which cost him dearly at the following election. So Albo is largely thinking strategically.

However Work Choices was implemented against Labor’s will, and of course it wasn’t taken as a policy script to the 2004 election either. In other words, the circumstances were very different.

Nonetheless, it is clear what is behind Albanese’s thinking: let the government have its way, unfettered and without the opposition saving the government from itself. Remember, Labor was devastated at the 2004 election but won a thumping victory just three years later. Politics can change quickly, and giving a government what it wants can evoke hubris.

It is unclear, however, if voters will credit Labor with getting out of the road right now, when it has the capacity to stifle agendas it might philosophically oppose. Or indeed policy settings it has genuine concerns about. In looking to avoid being cast as wreckers unwilling to accept the voters’ collective judgment Labor thus risks being accused of standing for nothing. It’s a catch-22.

Should Labor dump all its policies from the 2019 election and find a new agenda? Or should it recalibrate what was offered and hope that the sales pitch (and the then leader) were the real problems which led to the defeat? In truth it’s never such a black and white choice.

Labor as a party needs to stands for certain values, which means being prepared to argue for policies which aren’t always popular. That likely means not dumping everything it took to the election. Yet it is important that the party makes clear that it understands it was rejected by voters, including because of policies it campaigned on.

Albanese is right to therefore pause for thought. And one suspects voters are in a mood for governments to be given a reasonably free rein to govern, with voters then able to judge them three years later come election time. It’s a form of elected dictatorship which ignores the parliamentary processes and their value in the crafting of policy, but it still represents a form of democracy in action.

The danger for Labor is what if Scott Morrison governs effectively? Labor would be out on a limb, and unlikely to be competitive at the next election.

Albanese’s strategy is therefore passive and risky. It also won’t appeal to Labor’s base. Even though he is giving most voters what they want.

SOURCE  






Government rejects Keneally’s calls to ban far-right activist

The government will reject Labor frontbencher Kristina Keneally’s calls to ban a far-right British writer from Australia over misogynistic, racist and homophobic tweets, as a pair of Liberal MPs defended appearing alongside him.

The Australian understand that the Department of Home Affairs will not revoke a visa for former Brietbart UK editor Raheem Kassam despite his offensive tweets which have included calling on Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to “shut her legs” after she revealed she had a miscarriage.

Immigration Minister David Coleman refused to comment on individual cases. He has blocked far-right celebrities like Milo Yiannopoulos coming into Australia in recent months, but The Australian understands Mr Kassam already has a visa and the government will not intervene.

Liberal backbenchers Amanda Stoker and Craig Kelly will appear at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Sydney next month, where Mr Kassam will also speak.

Senator Keneally highlighted both Coalition MPs’ attendance in her attack on Mr Kassam.

Senator Stoker said the Labor home affairs spokeswoman wanted conservative views “silenced and siloed.  If we are doing our job properly as politicians, we should be talking with people from all walks of life, every day. We won’t agree with them all,” Senator Stoker told The Australian.

“Trying to shame into silence anyone who would speak to a person who is wrong on an issue damages our capacity for constructive democracy. When we are confronted with people with whom we disagree, we need to talk to them more, not less.

“Clearly Kristina Keneally would rather see Australians silenced and siloed, rather than able to interact with people who have different beliefs.

“While I don’t know all of the speakers at CPAC, I’m proud to be talking about economic productivity at an event with people of the calibre of John Anderson AO, Jacinta Price and Janet Albrechtsen, to name a few.”

Mr Kelly said Australia cannot ban everyone with offensive views. “I’m sure the organisers of CPAC in Australia would like to thank Kristina Keneally for giving the CPAC Conference in Australia publicity,” he told The Australian.

“We are a nation with a long and proud history of free speech and Senator Keneally’s demands are part of a disturbing recent trend of attempts to silence those that hold different political views.

“If we banned everyone from Australia that said something offensive things on Twitter — our tourist numbers would be well down.”

CPAC director Andrew Cooper said he was proud to bring Mr Kassam to Australia and said Senator Keneally’s attacks showed the success of his upcoming conference in Sydney.

“Raheem Kassam is a Brexiteer and popular commentator and is attending and speaking alongside the head of the UK Brexit Party, Nigel Farage,” he said.

“CPAC is proud to bring Raheem Kassam to Australia and rejects Senator Keneally’s embarrassing attempt to shut down political opponents.

“Australia is a country with a long history of free speech, something authoritarian hard left opponents such as Senator Keneally seek to change simply because they sometimes do not like what their opponents might say.”

SOURCE  







Australia approves controversial oil and gas deal with Timor-Leste

Now they will no longer be able to blame their third world economy on Australia "robbing" them.

Australian parliament has approved a new treaty with Timor-Leste governing how the two nations carve up rich oil and gas deposits.

Impoverished Timor-Leste and Australia signed a treaty in March last year ending a long-running ocean border dispute.

Legislation passed federal parliament on Monday to create a new regime to share oil and gas under the Timor sea, in an area known as the Greater Sunrise fields.

An authority will be established to act on behalf of Australia and Timor-Leste to facilitate joint management of the new area.

Australia backed the treaty days after Timor-Leste's parliament did the same, paving the way for Prime Minister Scott Morrison to make a historic visit later this year to the tiny nation, which gained independence from Indonesia in 2002.

Under the treaty, Timor-Leste will get the biggest share of revenue from exploiting Greater Sunrise.

It will be split 80-20 if gas is piped to Australia for processing or 70-30 if it is piped to Timor-Leste.

Mr Morrison said the government had worked with Timor-Leste's government and offshore petroleum operators on arrangements to provide commercial certainty.

"With the passage of the treaty's implementing legislation today, Australia is now ready to partner with Timor-Leste to jointly develop the Greater Sunrise gas fields for the benefit of both countries," he said in a joint statement with senior cabinet colleagues.

"Greater Sunrise will provide new opportunities for income, and commercial and industrial development in Timor-Leste, and is an important part of Timor-Leste's economic future."

SOURCE  







Wind and solar turn up pressure on electricity supply in South Australia and Queensland

A complicated balancing act from coal and gas is needed to keep the lights on

Daily price ramp on Australia’s wholesale electricity markets is quite strong in most states right now,  and particularly in South Australia and Queensland. The evening peak price ramp is about $100/MWh difference between low and high price, but the duration of low and high price is short.

Despite exports to NSW, coal in Qld is ramping up and down about 1000 MW twice a day. However, it’s the gas-driven QLD early evening peak that really moves prices. In South Australia in July, there were mostly exports even in the early evening peak. Those exports to Victoria required more high price marginal gas to enter the system.

Even in winter the aggregate influence of  rooftop and utility solar is very noticeable and a vast transformation from a few years ago. In South Australia at the moment wind and solar are well over 50% of generation driving prices on average below Victoria.

Victoria’s average price for July is about $11/MWh higher than either South Australia or NSW and $20 MWh above Qld,  basically because its midday price in July was around $70 MWh, compared to say $40 MWh in the solar richer States.

The five year total average in the NEM in front of the meter is around 193 TWh as measured by metered demand using NEM Review as a source. Although it looks like 2019 is soft in Autumn and Winter, due to the hot start to the year , the 2019 year to date average is right in line with the five year number.

The annualized level of the last 30 days is around 193 TWh which is in line with the full year average.  So when we look at what’s happening to price we are in effect seeing price at the average level of demand. Following so far?

Solar output is depressed in Winter  (it’s about 5% of total demand including behind the meter now, versus a peak  in the March quarter of over 8%).

Despite all that we are seeing some strong price ramps up and down in the daily average numbers. Two interesting cases are solar-strong Qld and wind-strong South Australia.

It seems self evident the spike in QLD when the Sun goes down and demand goes up and also the depressed price at lunch time. Looking at the supply and demand side what we see is that when the solar comes into action QLD exports and turns down its gas and coal. In the evening peak this is reversed although on average there are still some exports.

What’s most interesting to me is that even in Winter we are seeing coal ramping up and down 1000 MW pretty much twice  a day in QLD.  Coal has always had to be flexible because demand is itself volatile, but the ramping is already becoming stronger.

I don’t know how efficient it is to have the coal generators doing that morning ramp for just 2-3 hours but clearly they can still outcompete gas in that time frame.

I expect, based on the new Mt Emerald wind farm, that as the Coopers Creek wind farm gets into action it may start to eat into that morning peak. Note demand includes behind the meter and solar is combined utility and behind the meter.

Also it’s interesting to look at the daily average wind pattern in Qld from Mt Emerald. Unlike the other charts this is a 9 month average and there may well be seasonal factors I haven’t looked at. Assuming its representative of Qld in total though its quite encouraging.

The wind output drops off in the middle of the day and picks up again when the Sun goes down. Wind won’t quite pick up the early Qld peak but it will assist with the latter part. Again we look for more data over time and more wind farms to see if these early results can be replicated.

Enthusiasts might recall that one of the several far sighted principles underlying  the German Energiewende that kicked off the whole globabl energy transformation was that wind and solar were complementary to each other.

This is also supportive of the hybrid wind and solar farm pioneered by Windlab for Qld and now proposed by for instance by Goldwind at the Clarke Creek wind and solar farm and shortlisted by Cleanco in the recent tender for 400MW.

South Australia

In wind heavy South Australia price is softest early in the morning and the solar induced middle of the day reaction is less, probably because  thermal  supply in Victoria is constrained.

As with Queensland, South Australia is exporting most of the time right now. In this case though its exporting wind to Victoria, just not enough to reduce Victorian prices down to the level of other States.

Wind is 50% of supply in July 2019. On average wind has a remarkably steady hourly output in South Australia during the seasonally windy July. Most of the gas ramp is driven by solar.

It looks like peak prices in the South Australian evening would be lower except for the export opportunity.  The extra 250 MW of gas in the evening peak over the the morning peak requires a higher price but mostly wouldn’t be needed save for exports.

Both QLD and South Australia exhibit about $100 MWh afternoon ramp move  low to high but the duration of the low price and the high price is small suggesting it wouldn’t take much to arbitrage out both the low and the high.

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/