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?

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




28 February, 2020

Bob Katter launches into a rant slamming 'un-Australian' vegetarian pies while calling for people to eat more meat and boycott the new snack

Politician Bob Katter has slammed a new vegetarian pie as 'un-Australian' while calling on people to boycott the product.

The Queensland MP blasted Four'N Twenty's new offering - which the brand claims will be indistinguishable from the meaty original - saying eating a meat pie was 'the most Australian of all activities'.

The company will launch the pie in March, saying it is 'very excited' about the trendy vegetarian snack.

But Katter called for a boycott of the pie, saying people should 'eat our Aussie beef'.

'The most Australian of all activities is to be at the football and eat a meat pie and (have) a beer or a Coke,' he said in a Facebook video, clutching a pie in his hand. 'That is the essence of our Australian-ism.'

Katter wasn't the only Australian left unimpressed by Four'N Twenty's new pie, with some saying it 'must be an early April fool's joke'.

The beloved brand will begin selling the new vegetarian option in March in supermarkets, service stations and stadiums around the country.

The pie took eight months to perfect, with the filling made from soy protein.

General manager of marketing and innovation at Patties Food Group Anand Surujpal said customers won't be able to tell it was a vegetarian pie. 'If I hadn't told you it wasn't a meat pie, you wouldn't know,' he said.

The pie is meant to taste and smell just like their regular meat pies and contains no animal products as ingredients, but isn't vegan.

'It's got the same colours, textures, the taste profile, the mouth feel, you've got all those elements,' Mr Surujpal said.

It generated a polarising response on social media, with some commentators backing Four'N Twenty for opening up their menu to vegetarians.

'This is great news! I'd love to see them in party pie size too,' one comment reads.

 'Yay! No need to harm animals,' another post says.

'Fantastic news! Hope they are available at all AFL games this season and that a Sausage Roll is in development!' yet another reads.

Others weren't so supportive.

'Plants! Name one good thing a bloody plant has ever done for us!' one post reads.

'Why don't they invent pastry made out of meat instead so we can have meat wrapped in meat and avoid bloody plants altogether? Furious.'

'Four'N Twenty why don't you just call it for what it is.... a quiche. That's it. It's not a pie, it's a quiche,' another comment reads.

'Is this an April Fool's joke?,' another asked.

SOURCE  






One third say ABC is out of touch with ‘ordinary’ Aussies

A new poll suggests the ABC is out of touch with the views of “ordinary Aussies” – and a surprising age group is turning against the broadcaster.

Sky News host Chris Kenny says the issues plaguing the BBC, such as it being ‘out of touch with mainstream concerns’, mirror similar issues facing Australia’s ABC.

Less than one third of the country believes the ABC “represents the views of ordinary Australians”, a survey by the Institute of Public Affairs suggests.

The Liberal-aligned think tank says the result shows “public broadcasting has passed its use-by date”. The IPA is renewing calls for the $1.1 billion-a-year national broadcaster to be privatised.

In the poll of 1016 people conducted by marketing research firm Dynata in early December – largely before the bushfire crisis – respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement: “The ABC does not represent the views of ordinary Australians.”

Overall, more people sided with the ABC than not, with 32 per cent either somewhat or strongly disagreeing with the statement, compared with 30 per cent who either somewhat or strongly agreed.

Thirty-eight per cent were neither here nor there.

“Over two thirds of Australians either don’t believe the ABC reflects their views or they are on the fence,” Liberal Senator James McGrath told news.com.au.

“The ABC is becoming the pianola of media — it does a job but is increasingly irrelevant. In a pluralistic media market, Aussies are tuning out. The ABC is running a 1980s media model for a 21st century media market.”

When broken down by age group, the results tell an interesting story — and suggest the “zoomer” generation may be getting more conservative.

Predictably, people aged over 65 — the first half of the Baby Boomer generation — had the most negative view on the ABC, with 47 per cent agreeing the broadcaster is out of touch.

But surprisingly, they were closely followed in that view by their grandkids.

Thirty-three per cent of those aged 18 to 24 were in the anti-ABC camp, the second largest cohort. Only 21 per cent of Gen Z took the other side, the smallest proportion of any age group.

The strongest age group in favour of the ABC were those aged 55 to 64 — the second Baby Boomer wave — followed by Gen Xers aged 45 to 54.

In general, people aged under 44 were the most “meh”.

Just under half of those aged 35 to 44 were on the fence. That was closely followed down the age brackets, with 48 per cent of those aged 25 to 34 and 46 per cent those aged 18 to 24.

Only 19 per cent of over-65s said they neither agreed nor disagreed.

“These polling results suggest that young people are optimistic, ambitious and patriotic,” said IPA policy director Gideon Rozner.

“They are not interested in programming awash with negativity, black armband history and climate hysteria. These results prove there is no future in public ownership of the ABC.”

It comes after ABC chair Ita Buttrose sat down with Scott Morrison earlier this month, reportedly to ask the PM for more cash using goodwill the broadcaster earned from its highly praised bushfire coverage.

The government froze the ABC’s base funding last year at $1 billion. The Australian reported Ms Buttrose intended to ask the PM for “adequate” funds, as the ABC had been forced to dig into its reserves to fulfil its role as the country’s emergency broadcaster.

“The Morrison Government must rule out giving more taxpayer dollars to a state-owned broadcaster that already receives $1.1 billion a year,” Mr Rozner said.

“If the ABC is unable to fulfil its existing duties as the emergency broadcaster within its existing $1.1 billion budget then the Morrison Government should reduce its funding even more and run a competitive tender between the commercial broadcasters for the emergency broadcaster function.”

In the UK, Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently confirmed he was “looking at” scrapping the TV licence fee and turning the BBC into a subscription service.

The IPA is calling for something similar in Australia. “If only one third of Australians think the ABC speaks for them, maybe public broadcasting has passed its use-by date,” Mr Rozner said.

“The ABC seems to be playing to its loyal base in an era of audience fragmentation. It’s understandable, but let’s not maintain the fiction of a ‘national broadcaster’. Even if that were possible once, it’s not anymore.”

Mr Rozner said the ABC was “not the only media outlet that has some sort of bias, far from it, but it is the only media outlet that every taxpayer is forced to pay for”. “Rethinking state ownership is not an ‘attack’ on the ABC, any more than privatisation was an attack on Qantas or Telstra,” he said.

Speaking to Sky News earlier this month, Senator McGrath accused Ms Buttrose of “having a laugh” in her request for more funding, saying while the ABC “does a good job in parts of Australia” it was becoming “a left-wing blob of boring, woke views” and needed to “get in tune with the quiet Australians”.

“I’ve got a three-point plan — sell off their inner-city headquarters, make sure we have a review of the ABC Charter and Act, and stop this self-selection process where like-minded ABC people keep recruiting like-minded ABC people,” he said.

SOURCE  






Audiences have had a gutful of incessant pontificating and virtue signalling by Hollywood and actors generally

While normally not one to believe conspiracy theories, I sometimes muse there is a secret and sinister political movement that over many years has infiltrated our creative and performing arts industry and now controls it. Its members are actors, writers and singers, and they range from the highest paid celebrities to those struggling to make a name for themselves.

If there is such a movement, its methodology is to subject audiences and the wider community to incessant pontificating and displays of virtue, the aim being to elect and defend centre-right governments worldwide. You read that correctly. Conservatives are massively indebted to celebrities for sabotaging so-called progressive causes.

You probably thought Hollywood is a hive of leftist activism, that writers’ festivals are an imbibing of wokeism, and that concerts take the form of endless social justice homilies, interrupted only by the occasional song. If so, you failed to look beyond the superficial. While ostensibly supporting movements that the left holds dear, these artists use self-ridicule not only to discredit themselves, but everyone associated with the cause in question.

When Sir Elton John paused his concert in Verona, Italy, last year to rage against the evils of Brexit, he personified the petulance of Remainers. “I’m ashamed of my country for what it has done,” he wailed. “It’s torn people apart … I am a European. I am not a stupid, colonial, imperialist English idiot.”

Not so ashamed, apparently, that he would surrender his knighthood, together with its connotations of a colonialist and imperialist country of old. Only months later Britain’s conservative government, led by prime minister Boris Johnson, won a landslide victory under a Brexit banner.

As for US president Donald Trump, the celebrities who so loudly opposed his election in 2016 are doing their best to ensure he is given a second term. To acknowledge all of them would be too massive a task. Two warrant special mention: first: actor Robert De Niro, who announced in a choreographed scene just before the 2016 election that he wanted to “punch” Trump in the face.

It reeked of De Niro trying to trade on his onscreen tough guy persona, and merely highlighted the Democrats’ bluster and impotence.

The other is singer and actor Bette Midler. When she’s not tweeting foul-mouthed insults to Republican supporters, she composes what can only be described as erotic Vogon poetry as she speculates about Trump’s sex life.

There once was a girl from Slovenia
Who now lives right on Pennsylvinia
To the East Room she’ll flee
From her husband’s wee wee
While he plays with his own schizophrenia

— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) June 18, 2019

It is behaviour that is imbecilic, pathetic and counterproductive. Given Midler’s abysmal record in trying to unseat Trump, prime minister Scott Morrison is unlikely to be fazed to learn that last month she questioned his leadership, as well as labelling him an “idiot” and a “f**kwit”.

Pity the poor #Australians, their country ablaze, and their rotten @ScottMorrisonMP saying, “This is not the time to talk about Climate Change. We have to grow our economy.” What an idiot. What good is an economy in an uninhabitable country? Lead, you fuckwit!!

— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) January 3, 2020

As for Australia, we too have a tradition of celebrities lending their support to causes, only to botch them completely. When the minority Gillard Government rolled out a publicity campaign for its carbon tax in 2011, remember who fronted the camera to serenely inform financially strapped Australians this was all in the name of addressing “carbon pollution”?

That’s right, it was actor and multimillionaire Cate Blanchett, accompanied by fellow actor Michael Caton, whose idea of establishing his common man cred was to wear a flannelette shirt. One of the few who thought the choice of Blanchett was a good idea was then Treasurer Wayne Swan, which only showed he knew as much about connecting with ordinary Australians as he did delivering budget surpluses.

In 2015 — just prior to the executions of Australian drug traffickers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran — actors Bryan Brown, Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce and Joel Edgerton and others featured in a video titled “Save our boys”. It was based on the false and slanderous insinuation the Abbott Government was doing nothing to ask the Indonesian Government to grant clemency.

While the celebrities were largely restricted to reciting “I stand for mercy”, the video also featured lesser known types indulging in rank opportunism. Some examples: “Show some ticker,” “Come on Abbott, be a leader,” “Imagine if it was your child”, and “The time for diplomacy has now passed”. The corollary being an invasion of Indonesia I take it?

If you thought that was abject stupidity, wait for this: “Tony Abbott you need to give diplomatic immunity and protection to Andrew and Myuran before it’s too late,” an anonymous blonde woman tartly states. But the daddy of them all was from actor Brendan Cowell.

“Tony, if you had any courage and compassion, you’d get over to Indonesia and bring these two boys home,” sneered Cowell as he was filmed reclining on a bed. “Show some balls,” he added contemptuously.

As to who was lacking a pair, that was made very clear when Cowell hurriedly deleted his Twitter account in response to a social media backlash. He also conceded to radio station 2UE that he had no idea how Abbott could prevent the executions.

Brown surfaced again in 2018, along with New Zealand actors Sam Neill and Rebecca Gibney and singer Jimmy Barnes, this time in a video decrying the policy of detaining asylum-seekers in Manus and Nauru. Urging politicians to “stop playing politics with people’s lives” (oh the irony), Neill described these measures as a “barbarity”. For good measure Gibney’s voice quavered as she urged Australians to lobby politicians. As expected, none of the celebrities concerned suggested a viable alternative to mandatory detention.

All these cases and countless others serve as an example to celebrities that the best thing they could do for their pet causes is not to be a part of them, at least not overtly. Or if they must appear publicly in these movements, they should not condescend or patronise.

Clearly this was lost on actor Simon Baker, star of the television series The Mentalist. This week Greenpeace launched a climate change and renewable energy campaign video titled “Dear Scotty” featuring the actor, which targeted the prime minister. “Mate, sorry to do this to you,” he says in the opening scene, dripping with faux melancholy as he and others lambast Morrison in sequence for his supposed failings. “How will history remember you?” he asks pensively.

Should not a renowned actor be expected to — how does one put this — act? Likewise, they should be able to recognise a lousy script. “The audience should be treated with a certain level of intelligence, and I get very upset when we talk down to them,” Baker told the Glasgow Times in 2015. “It annoys me,” he added. Yes, Mr Baker. It annoys us too.

In 2018, Baker campaigned against Adani’s Carmichael Mine, telling viewers it was “just inland” from the Great Barrier Reef. In fact, the distance between the two is around 350km. “It’ll unleash one of the biggest reservoirs of carbon pollution we’ve ever known,” he said. “It’s a death sentence for the reef.” This is fearmongering. It is also elitist, given the unemployment rate in regional Queensland is higher than 14 per cent in some areas. Then again, it is all too easy to forget the plight of the unemployed when your lifestyle reflects that of the highest-paid actor in US television.

Predictably he also voices his opposition to “fossil fuels”, yet when Baker resided in Los Angeles he and his family frequently travelled between the US and Australia. “Mate, sorry to do this to you,” you might ask him, “but can we assume none of these multiple international trips involved a zero-carbon yacht?” Or “When you were filming in Western Australia in 2018 and someone stepped on your glasses, is it true you flew to New York just to get a replacement pair from your favourite store?”

Again, sorry for the impertinent questions. We are just compiling a record about you and all other activist celebrities. Its title is “How will history remember you?”

SOURCE  






Zero net emissions: Look no further than New Zealand for economic impacts

In some respects, the Labor Party is as Australian as the Magic Pudding, both revel in fantasy. According to past Labor leaders, high public spending won’t raise taxes and, in any case, high taxes won’t damage economic growth. Now we have Labor’s greatest magic pudding yet, we can cut our carbon emissions to zero and no coal miner will lose their job.

The Labor Party refuses to produce numbers to explain this remarkable outcome, but fortunately others have. Last year, New Zealand passed into law a net zero emissions target and in doing so they commissioned actual economic modelling on its impact.

The analysis, by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, evaluates a number of different assumed scenarios. All of these incorporate optimistic assumptions on future technologies, including for example a methane vaccine (which stops sheep from “emitting”). And, in another leap of faith, 50 per cent of trucks go electric by 2050.

Even with these assumptions, the negative impact of net zero emissions on the New Zealand economy is massive. The policy would reduce the size of the New Zealand economy by 10 to 20 per cent. In Australian terms that would amount to a $200 billion to $400 billion annual impact. Employment would fall by 2 to 4 per cent. If that happened in Australia 200,000 to 400,000 people would lose their jobs.

New Zealand’s main industry of agriculture would be smashed. Its dairy industry would reduce by more than half and that leads to a much poorer nation. Depending on technological assumptions, wages reduce by 8 to 28 per cent. In Australian terms, that would mean a $7000 to $24,000 annual hit to an average worker.

Of course, the economic impact on Australia would be bigger given that we have large coal and gas industries, as well as agriculture.

As it turned out, the New Zealand Government ended up exempting agriculture from its net zero emissions target. Agriculture makes up half of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions. New Zealand’s “brave” target that was welcomed by environmental activist groups is literally an example of doing things by half.

Here in Australia, however, the Labor party has not ruled out imposing a net zero target on our farmers. A net zero target is a double hit to the agricultural industry. They pay the direct cost of having to pay more for fuel, for feed and for vehicles. They also pay the cost of having productive farmland turned to trees (so we can sequester more carbon) and the loss of future growth opportunities because more land can not be developed.

This is where the “net” part of net zero kicks in. Under “net zero”, rich people can still fly to Davos to lecture others about carbon dioxide emissions. To do so, some pay an “indulgence” to have farming land locked up. Productive farm areas, in effect, would be turned into National Parks to house more weeds and fuel for bushfires.

Net zero emissions means net zero development, net zero jobs but far from net zero hypocrisy.

Labor has been keen to quote the CSIRO’s latest National Outlook report to conclude that net zero emissions is achievable but the CSIRO report does not do what Labor is saying it does. The CSIRO concludes that agricultural production levels “experience a substantial decline once the rising carbon price improves the relative profitability of other land uses such as forestry”. Up to 24 per cent of our agricultural land would be converted plantings on the CSIRO’s analysis.

Nor does the CSIRO measure the net impact of net zero emissions. It measures the economic outcomes of two scenarios, one dominated by a protectionist world with high barriers to trade and the other a world of free trade, global cooperation on climate and magically high productivity. Surprise, surprise, free trade and high productivity lead to higher economic growth. The unique and separate impact of net zero emissions remains unmeasured by the CSIRO’s analysis.

Also, to get to net zero, the CSIRO estimates that a global carbon price of $273 a tonne is required. Once again Labor shows their addiction to a carbon tax.

In The Magic Pudding, the possum and the wombat create a fire to distract Bunyip Bluegum while they steal the pudding. A similar distraction seems to have afflicted the modern Labor Party, where this summer’s fires have distracted them away from their founding mission of defending and protecting workers. Labor once again has not seemed to learn the lesson that you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

SOURCE  






Some Australian Private schools may see government funding boost

Billions in extra funding could flow to private schools favoured by less well-off parents under changes by the federal government.

Private schools chosen by less well-off parents could receive a multi-billion dollar funding boost under changes proposed by the federal government.

New legislation introduced to parliament on Wednesday would change the way the government calculates the income of parents to measure of how much taxpayer money a school is entitled to.

"(This) will ensure more funding flows to the schools that need it most," Education Minister Dan Tehan told parliament.

The government estimates the change will open up an extra $3.4 billion for non-government school funding over the next decade.

"The new methodology will use the best available data to estimate the capacity of parents and guardians to contribute to the cost of schooling," Mr Tehan said.

It follows recommendations by the National School Resourcing Board to change the way the government calculated the incomes of student's parents and guardians.

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 February, 2020

Neo-Nazis among Australia's most challenging security threats, ASIO boss Mike Burgess warns

If so, where are they?  We've seen nothing of them.  I think this is just a red herring to deflect attention from the real threat: Muslim Jihadis

Neo-Nazis are emerging as one of Australia's most challenging security threats, according to the country's top intelligence chief.

In a rare public address from inside ASIO's heavily fortified Canberra headquarters, Mr Burgess said foreign espionage and interference activities against Australia were higher now than at any time during the Cold War.

While delivering ASIO's annual threat assessment, the director-general warned a terrorist attack on Australia was still "probable" and it was "truly disturbing" to see extremists trying to recruit children as young as 13 or 14.

And he said "violent Islamic extremism", embodied by Islamic State and al'Qaida, remained ASIO's top concern.

"The number of terrorism leads we are investigating right now has doubled since this time last year," Mr Burgess told an audience of diplomats and intelligence officers.

"The character of terrorism will continue to evolve and we believe that it will take on a more dispersed and diversified face."

Mr Burgess said right-wing extremism had been in "ASIO's sights for some time", but had obviously come into "sharp, terrible focus" following last year's Christchurch mass shooting.

"In Australia, the extreme right-wing threat is real and it is growing," he said.

"In suburbs around Australia, small cells regularly meet to salute Nazi flags, inspect weapons, train in combat and share their hateful ideology," he said.

Far right-wing groups are now more organised and security conscious than they were in previous years according to the ASIO boss, who has revealed Australian extremists are seeking to connect with like-minded individuals in other parts of the world.

In a previously undisclosed case from earlier this year, ASIO advice led to an Australian being blocked from leaving the country to "fight with an extreme right-wing group on a foreign battlefield".

"While these are small in number at this time in comparison to what we saw with foreign fighters heading to the Middle East, any development like this is very concerning," Mr Burgess observed.

"Meanwhile, extreme right-wing online forums such as The Base proliferate on the internet, and attract international memberships, including from Australians."

The ASIO boss said his organisation expected such groups would "remain an enduring threat, making more use of online propaganda to spread their messages of hate".

"While we would expect any right-wing-extremist-inspired attack in Australia to be low capability — i.e. a knife, gun or vehicle attack — more sophisticated attacks are possible."

SOURCE  






Exploration under the gas pump in Victoria

Green/Left ban on gas exploration is costing Victorians

As gas emerges as the politically palatable alternative to coal, pressure is building from within the Andrews government to end the five-year moratorium on onshore conventional gas exploration in Victoria. The shift by Labor figures follows mounting pressure from unions, industry and consumers.

It comes after Scott Morrison issued a passionate plea for gas supplies in NSW and Victoria to be unlocked, declaring there is “no credible energy transition plan for an economy like Australia which does not involve greater use of gas as an important transition fuel”.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair Rod Sims has repeatedly called on NSW and Victoria to lift their bans, declaring in August: “If we really want permanently lower prices in the south we need more gas in the south.” Santos’s Narrabri project, with potential to fill half of NSW’s domestic supply, has been a particular bone of contention, with approvals continually delayed by the state.

The federal government is pushing for a national gas reservation policy to improve supplies for manufacturers and heavy industry, along with a price measure to the gas export trigger to ensure the national market is operating efficiently. The Australian Energy Market Operator predicts that offshore gas supplies in Bass Strait are unlikely to meet Victoria’s needs ­beyond the next five years. AEMO estimated late last year that coal would contribute less than a third of power supply in the grid by 2040 as demand for gas and other ­renewables surges.

The Morrison government has struck a $2bn deal with the NSW government to pay for carbon abatement and energy projects in return for increased production of natural gas. It says it will not fund a similar deal with Victoria unless the ban on onshore gas exploration is lifted.

With the results of a geological survey of the state’s onshore ­conventional gas resources expected next month, ahead of the expiration of the moratorium on June 30, energy experts say the Victorian government faces a stark choice: it can either cease being the only state with a ban on conventional gas exploration or import more expensive, less environmentally friendly gas from ­interstate.

Far from banning conventional gas exploration, Queensland allows all forms of unconventional gas exploration, including fracking, and is home to almost 90 per cent of Australia’s 2P (proven and probable) gas reserves, and about 63 per cent of Australia’s 2C (best estimate of contingent) reserves. NSW permits conventional and unconventional exploration but the Berejiklian government frequently declares it has the “toughest” regulations in Australia, particularly in relation to fracking of coal-seam gas.

In 2014, the then O’Farrell government froze new CSG exploration licences and introduced exclusion zones, making residential areas in 152 local government areas of the state, including Sydney, “off limits”. While the freeze has since been lifted, no new licences have been granted.

The West Australian, South Australian and Northern Territory governments have all recently lifted their moratoriums on fracking, except in the southeast of South Australia where it is still prohibited. Tasmania maintains a fracking moratorium but allows conventional and unconventional gas exploration.

While Victorian state Labor MPs remain publicly tight-lipped about which way they are leaning on the conventional gas moratorium, internal sources say there is significant support within the right of the party for its overturning, including from Treasurer Tim Pallas, Resources Minister Jaclyn Symes and key factional powerbroker Adem Somyurek.

Energy and Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio — of the Socialist Left faction — has previously supported the moratorium but declined a request from The Australian to clarify her present position.

One source said they would “bet London to a brick” D’Ambrosio would continue to support the moratorium but others said they believed she could be persuaded to support its overturning should more senior members of her faction, including Premier Daniel Andrews, do so. The decision sits within Symes’s resources portfolio.

Australian Workers Union Victorian secretary Ben Davis is one ALP member who has been publicly critical of the moratorium since its inception, saying it is ­costing jobs. “It sends a terrible ­investment signal to gas companies and manufacturers alike,” Davis says. “I look forward to the review of the moratorium, and we’ll be campaigning and agitating to get it lifted.”

NSW-based federal opposition resources spokesman Joel Fitz­gibbon is another within the Labor camp who does not mince words in calling for the Andrews government to not only lift the moratorium on onshore conventional gas but also overturn its ban on ­unconventional gas exploration. “Every project, whether it involves fracking or not, should stand on its merits,” Fitzgibbon says. “Blanket bans make no sense.”

While all forms of gas mining involve the extraction of methane from kilometres below the earth’s surface, conventional gas extraction involves releasing gas trapped in sandstone, under solid rock, with minimal impact on the surrounding geology.

Unconventional gas is trapped in a coal seam or shale and is more difficult to extract, often but not ­always requiring fracking, or fracture stimulation, which involves pumping fluid down the gas well at high pressure to produce small cracks in the target rock reservoir.

Victoria’s moratorium on conventional onshore gas exploration dates back to May 2014, when Napthine government energy minister Russell Northe opted to suspend decisions on all onshore gas exploration in the state until after the November state election, which was won by Labor.

At the time the Coalition feared punishment at the ballot box if it approved a controversial application from Lakes Oil to drill for gas 1500m below Seaspray, in then Nationals leader Peter Ryan’s South Gippsland electorate. Far from lifting the suspension post-election, the new Andrews government maintained it, intro­ducing legislation in 2017 that placed a moratorium on all conventional onshore gas exploration and production until June 30 this year, and permanently banning all unconventional gas mining and exploration, including fracking.

Ahead of the 2018 state election, Andrews went a step further, making a yet-to-be-delivered promise to enshrine a ban on fracking in the state’s constitution. The state Coalition continues to oppose all unconventional gas ­exploration but this week renewed its calls to lift the moratorium on conventional onshore gas.

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor says the “great irony” of Victoria importing ­increasing amounts of gas from Queensland is that 20 per cent to 40 per cent of Queensland gas is from coal seams.

“That’s exactly what they’re objecting to with their ban on unconventional gas — which they’re not even considering lifting — and yet they’re OK with importing coal-seam gas,” Taylor says.

Anti-fossil fuels groups are ramping up their campaigns ahead of the moratorium expiring. Friends of the Earth campaigns co-ordinator Cam Walker says he is “very concerned” about the possibility of the ban being lifted. “The greatest concern is the climate change implications of the methane that comes from fugitive emissions,” he says. “Looking to mainstream science, it’s clear that we need to stop producing new ­reserves of fossil fuels if we want to have the hope of keeping temperature rises under 1.5C globally.”

Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood says that unless one takes the Friends of The Earth approach of opposing all fossil fuel extraction, there is “no scientific justification” for banning conventional or even all unconventional gas exploration. He concedes lifting the ban on fracking is “too politically sensitive”.

As the June 30 sunset clause on the moratorium approaches, Victorian Lead Scientist Amanda ­Caples, a stakeholder advisory panel and a team of scientists have been commissioned by the Andrews government to complete a three-year, $40m inquiry into ­onshore conventional gas as part of the Victorian Gas Program.

One of the key questions they are addressing — which gas companies say they would have ­answered at no cost to the taxpayer had the moratorium not been imposed — is how much ­unconventional gas there actually is under Victoria, and therefore what impact it might be able to have in terms of keeping a lid on prices, creating regional jobs and saving manufacturing jobs.

As part of the gas program, scientists from the Victorian Geological Survey are developing comprehensive 3D geological models of the Otway and Gippsland basins, where most of Victoria’s onshore gas is believed to be located. The results of that investigation are expected to be made known next month.

Recent discoveries in the South Australian section of the Otway Basin, near Penola, have encouraged companies with acreages in western Victoria, including Beach Energy, Cooper Energy and Vintage Energy, to hold out hope of finding more gas on the eastern side of the state border.

While the decision on whether to lift the moratorium will be made by the politicians, and not the scientists, The Australian understands the Geological Survey team is working to compile “pre-competitive data” on prospective locations for gas wells.

Should the moratorium be lifted, this would allow the industry some minimal compensation for five years of lost work, in the form of being able to restart ahead of where it was when the moratorium was imposed.

‘Plenty of gas’

The gas program stakeholder advisory panel includes representatives from a wide range of interest groups, including the manufacturing industry, AWU, Victorian Farmers Federation, gas company Beach Energy, the Australian ­Industry Group, the Great South Coast Group (which represents councils in the Otway Basin, some of which have publicly voiced their support for lifting the moratorium), as well as green groups ­including Frack Free Moriac and Environment Victoria.

State Resources Minister Jac­lyn Symes says the gas program work will “inform decisions about potential onshore gas exploration”. Symes maintains that Australia “has plenty of gas”, blaming escalating prices on an ­increase in gas exports over the past five years and calling on the federal government to activate its domestic gas security mech­anism to put Australian consumers first.

But as AEMO forecasts a 34 per cent decrease in Victorian winter gas production by 2023 because of dwindling supplies in Bass Strait, it is clear the Andrews government is under pressure to increase supply, with new offshore exploration and production licences recently approved at state and commonwealth levels.

The state government, which has jurisdiction to three nautical miles (5.56km) from the coast, ­recently gave the go-ahead to two onshore-to-offshore wells being drilled by Beach Energy in the Otway Basin.

The wells are permitted under the moratorium, despite beginning on clifftops before extending 1.5km out to sea, kilometres under the earth’s surface.

While Victoria does import some gas via pipelines that connect it to the rest of the east coast gas market, it is a net exporter, with about two-thirds of the gas processed locally being used in the state, and the rest sent to neighbouring states.

If the state cannot produce enough of its own gas in coming years — or refuses to do so by maintaining the moratorium — it will need to import gas, predominantly via a pipeline from southwest Queensland, which AEMO has found would need to be seriously upgraded to carry larger volumes to Victoria.

As the ACCC has highlighted, Queensland gas already costs $2-$4 a gigajoule more than Victorian gas — or up to 50 per cent more.

Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association chief executive Andrew McConville says the industry remains hopeful that the Andrews government will “see sense” and lift the moratorium, given Victoria’s longstanding requirement for more natural gas, with 80 per cent of the state’s homes connected to more than 31,000km of gas mains distribution pipelines.

“The Victorian government’s renewable energy target (of 50 per cent by 2030) will also see the ­demand for natural gas increase,” McConville says.

“Modelling undertaken for the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in 2017 assumes that as other sources of baseload power (coal) no longer become viable they are replaced by natural gas generation capacity.

“Under every scenario modelled for the department, natural gas has a bigger role to play in ­delivering energy stability to Victoria out to 2050.

“Unless new gas resources in Victoria are developed, families and businesses in the state will pay more than those in states continuing to develop new supply.”

SOURCE  






Activist chief executives are ‘stealing’ from shareholders

It's not their money to spend on "good" causes

Every other day a corporate chief somewhere will declare, in sombre tones and often for applause, that business must take a stand on an issue for the sake of the community. These big-noting corporate chaps justify their grand plans for humanity in many ways.

They claim businesses have a legitimate interest in matters affecting the wider community in which they operate. Political leaders are not doing enough, they say. Workers and consumers want us to do this, they assure themselves.

While it is not evident how they canvassed the views of workers or consumers, it is patently clear these new activist chief executives are endearing themselves to other activists with the same ­visions for the planet.

These reasons for corporate activism were, more or less, laid out last week by John Denton, the first Australian to head the Paris-based International Chamber of Commerce. He waved away as “completely ridiculous” the notion that corporate leaders should stick to their knitting. “This is our knitting,” Denton declared.

This is also the same tedious click-clacking sound emanating from many self-important business people who make up the Business Roundtable in the US, and swan around at Davos. They imagine their own beliefs are so brilliant they form a modern-day list of corporate commandments.

Like the harm that’s done to the human body from ingesting too much sugar, Denton’s attempt to encourage corporate bosses to be more activist is loaded with so much corporate saccharin it threatens to kill off the company as a vehicle to pool people’s money.

If activist chief executives, and their Paris-based spokesman, are impatient with politics, they could, of course, stand for parliament and spend other people’s money as a politician. In choosing much ­higher-paid gigs running companies and managing shareholders’ money, credibility comes from ­explaining how, at law, an activist chief executive fits in the company model. But this is where modern-day ­corporate preachers fall silent.

When was the last time any chief executive, let alone the bloke running the International Chamber of Commerce, discussed the agency costs of activist chief executives?

When did any of them last mention the importance of rules that govern how managers spend other people’s money?

Talking about such matters is painfully dull compared with setting out your vision for ­humanity. But the bigger reason they don’t ­address this dry issue of agency costs is that it might cramp their activist style. If chief executives admit to the agency costs they have created for shareholders by spending shareholders’ money on issues that have nothing to do with running a company, they might have to stop doing what earns them applause from their friends. It could even jeopardise them receiving an AO or an AC on Australia Day.

There is a deadly serious issue. Soon after the earliest companies were formed, separating the ownership of business ventures from management, agency costs were recognised as a critical issue.

How do the owners of a ­company stop management using shareholders’ money to feather their own nest? Or to put it more simply, how do owners stop ­employees stealing from them?

While some agency costs might be inevitable, others are ­entirely avoidable.

Doctrines of fiduciary duty evolved to regulate how managers use shareholders’ money. While managers learned they shouldn’t use shareholders’ money for their own benefit, they grew more creative about how they used shareholders’ money.

It was clearly wrong to take money from the petty cash tin and use it to buy yourself a new TV. And it was equally wrong for a manager to use the petty cash tin to pay for a romantic dinner with a lover. But what if the manager used shareholders’ money to pay for a big party for employees? This was probably legitimate because keeping employees happy makes for a more successful business. Similarly, using shareholders’ money to sponsor a local football or netball team might be good advertising, buying local goodwill that helps a business thrive.

But, of course, that way danger lay. As shareholders’ money began to be used in a wider range of ways, it became even clearer that some red-line rules were needed to separate legitimate uses of shareholders’ money from ­illegitimate ones.

To deal with these agency costs, company law established some sensible rules for managers, imposing duties on them to act in the best interests of shareholders, and the company, and basically preventing them from using other people’s money to line their own pockets.

Importantly, English and Australian common law dating back to the 19th century recognised that managers needed some flexibility to use shareholders money in a way that doesn’t directly benefit shareholders but does benefit the business, and thus shareholders, indirectly.

Courts apply the notion of shareholder primacy to separate legitimate from illegitimate uses of shareholders’ money by management. It means that the financial benefit to shareholders of expenditure for social purposes does not need to be immediate or direct or even terribly obvious — but it does need to exist, and be able to be demonstrated.

It is a deliberate furphy when activist chief executives and their spruikers claim that shareholder primacy must be dismantled because it ­requires managers to seek short-term profits. That is a straw man concocted by those who want no rules restraining chief executives from their glorious plans for the world.

The other straw man put up by activist chief executives is the claim that capitalism needs a clean-out. In fact, the clean-out is needed among the vainglorious chief executives, and their chamber of commerce boosters, who are creating a new, and egregious, set of agency costs for shareholders.

They want free rein to use other people’s money, not to line their pockets but to warm their hearts, and to earn kudos from other people like them.

Frankly, it is theft — idealistic theft, perhaps — but still theft. The fact Robin Hood stole money for noble purposes did not change the nature of his act: taking money from others without their consent.

Managers could ask shareholders to donate the profits they receive as dividends to a climate change fund. But to simply use company money on management’s pet causes without so much as a “by your leave” from shareholders is theft.

If activist chief executives think society should be putting more money into climate change or other noble causes, they should use their own money rather than shoving their sticky fingers into the retirement nest eggs of superannuants and ­investors.

And let’s be honest here. Much of the confiscation of shareholders’ money is done not for noble causes. There is a sizeable bullshit factor where chief executives seek self-aggrandisement rather than tangible outcomes.

It is not at all sexy to talk about rules that manage, and minimise, agency costs inherent in a public company where ownership is divorced from control. But this is a critical issue. And not just to protect today’s shareholders from a new form of theft.

If we allow chief executives and other activists to chip away at these foundations, they will end up destroying the company as a proven way to pool money from many people in order to do business.

SOURCE  






Not learning to teach

As students returned to school recently, a new crop of graduate teachers was well-equipped to talk to them about the politics of diversity and the deconstruction of traditional education.

Sociology, diversity in education and debates over education funding have taken precedence over the teaching of literacy, numeracy and basic classroom management skills for new teachers.

At UTS, cultural competence is the chief goal of Beyond Culture: Diversity in Context. The subject analyses different features of culture like multiculturalism, indigeneity and disability which it claims are vital to the practice of teaching.

Critical Studies in Education and Practice at Charles Sturt University critiques traditional education methods through the prism of sexuality, ethics, citizenship and social sustainability. These are all put forward as necessary ways to modernise education.

Similarly, Teachers as Educational Innovators and Agents of Change at the University of Queensland tells students they need to bring a technological edge to their role as innovators of change. The outline states that this is a vital part of being “a future educational innovator and agent of change in classrooms and schools”.

These are just some of the baseline requirements universities have deemed essential for teacher education degrees across the country.

Before the 1990s, teachers were educated in specialist institutions before they were absorbed by the university sector.

Salisbury Teachers College – now part of the University of South Australia – outlined the necessities of teaching in the student handbook of 1968. The only time social institutions are mentioned is in the context of class management and child interaction.

In the course outline of 1960, Newcastle Teachers College summarised the importance of good social development of kids, child pedagogy and perception. It also looks at how to avoid straining the attention of young children for too long.

The modern belief that technology, cultural diversity, learning needs or even globalisation has changed the nature of teaching is fundamentally misguided.

The only thing that has changed is Australian universities and the decision to minimise the importance of teaching methods that work. This has reduced the quality of teaching degrees and with it the quality of teachers themselves.

SOURCE 





Viewers unload on Eddie McGuire for DEFENDING Sam Newman over his blackface stunt

Viewers of a documentary featuring AFL great Adam Goodes have slammed Eddie McGuire for defending Sam Newman's infamous Footy Show blackface stunt. 

The Australian Dream, which had its television premiere on the ABC on Sunday night, focused on Goodes, who turned his back on the game after he retired in 2015 in the wake of an ugly racism row and years of booing from opposition fans.

The film includes a clip from a 1999 episode of the AFL Footy Show showing Newman with his face painted black as he imitated St Kilda champion Nicky Winmar, who had failed to turn up for a guest slot.

In the documentary, McGuire defended his long-time friend and colleague, who was born in 1945. 'He [Newman] didn't understand the nuance. He was a product of those times,' he said. 'He was a 60s 70s vaudevillian who was sending up Nicky Winmar because he didn't turn up on the show that night.'

McGuire's defense of Newman was criticised by some viewers on Sunday night. 'Sam Newman is disgusting, but Eddie McGuire is equally vile. Making excuses for his behaviour creates space for it to exist. Gutless to the end,' Seb Conway said on Twitter.

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 February, 2020

Shocking standard of new teachers

They don't know primary school stuff, let alone show any benefit of a university education.  It's a tremendous revelation of non-existent school standards.  The blind are leading the blind.  No wonder so many parents send kids to private schools

Clare Masters

GRADUATE teachers are leaving university, without basic literacy skills, including spelling and grammar, and are increasingly needing tutoring to pass the literacy portion of their qualifying exam.

Tutoring agencies are seeing a rise in the number of graduates seeking help to pass the Federal Government's Literacy and Numeracy Tests for the Initial Teacher Education (LANTITE) test, required to become a teacher, and experts are saying the test should be done as an entrance' exam to weed out unsuccessful candidates.

Some agencies say students are struggling with basic skills like fractions, grammar and even knowing the number of weeks in a year. "We have been surprised by the number of university students studying to be teachers who are seeking assistance with their literacy skills to pass their LANTITE, and who may have already failed this test a number of times," said Dr Selina Samuels, chief learning officer at tutoring service Cluey. She said there had been over 750 inquiries for LANTITE support in just four months.

Teacher Melinda Wood, from The Tutoring Academy, said many of her students were missing basic foundation skills. "With literacy, they don't know the simple rules for grammar, punctuation and how to spell or do fractions.

"I had one student who didn't attend primary school in her own country and came to Year 8 in Australia and has difficulty reading. She is doing a Masters of Education and she is struggling a lot."

Ms Wood gave one example of a question that asked students to estimate an annual income from weekly pays and said students were failing it in practice tests as they "don't know how many weeks are in a year".

"They use spell check and stuff at home to help them but the. second they are in exam conditions they don't know how to cope."

The recent PISA scores show Australian students are falling behind and Centre for Independent Studies' Blaise Joseph said a teacher's core skills needed to be high. "Evidence shows it is really important teachers be high achievers. Over the years we have lowered the bar for entry standard for teacher education degrees," he said.

"We have about one in five Australian students below the minimum standard for literacy and that is going to be reflected in new teacher intakes. It defies common sense you have uni students who don't have basic literacy and numeracy skills who are then going to be responsible for teaching literacy and numeracy to children."

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 24/2/20





Great Australian Bight: Equinor abandons plans to drill for oil

Norwegian oil company announces it has scrapped its $200m plan to deepwater drill in Great Australian Bight Marine Park

After extensive Greenie harassment

Norwegian oil giant Equinor has abandoned plans to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight, declaring the controversial project did not make commercial sense.

The company said on Tuesday it had told federal, South Australian and local authorities it had decided to scrap the $200m project to deepwater drill in the Great Australian Bight Marine Park.

It is the third major oil company to abandon plans to drill in the bight, following BP and Chevron.

“Following a holistic review of its exploration portfolio, Equinor has concluded that the project’s potential is not commercially competitive compared with other exploration opportunities in the company,’’ the company’s country manager for Australia, Jone Stangeland, said in a statement.

The decision is a significant win for environment groups and other opponents of the project, including Indigenous elders and local councils. The proposal sparked protests supported by tens of thousands of people opposed to fossil fuel extraction in a marine wilderness area.

Equinor’s announcement comes shortly after the proposed Stromlo-1 well site, in water more than 2.2km deep and nearly 400km off the South Australian coast, was granted environmental approval by the federal offshore petroleum regulator. The Wilderness Society launched legal action challenging the decision last month, arguing opponents had not been properly consulted.

Peter Owen, the Wilderness Society’s South Australian director, welcomed Equinor’s decision to “responsibly withdraw” from the project.

“It’s been a while coming, but the right decision is the right decision, and we have no doubt that the hundreds of thousands of people that have supported the campaign to fight for the Bight will be both delighted and relieved to hear this news,” he said.

Owen called on the Morrison government to “listen to the people and permanently protect the unique waters of the Great Australian Bight from drilling for good”.

The federal minister for resources, Keith Pitt, said the government was disappointed about Equinor’s decision, but pleased the company had made clear it would still be part of the oil and gas industry in Australia. It said the decision would be “particularly hard for South Australia”.

He said the government remained committed to “encouraging the safe development of Australia’s offshore petroleum resources. “The Bight basin remains one of Australia’s frontier basins and any proposals for new oil and gas fields in this area will be assessed fairly and independently,” he said.

Equinor was granted a petroleum title over areas in the Bight in 2011. In December, it cleared the second of four regulatory hurdles it needed to pass before it could start drilling, when the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, known as Nopsema, granted its environmental approval.

The company described the decision as an important milestone that followed more than 400 meetings with community and other organisations. Environmentalists, local councils and elders of the traditional owners of the Bight, the Mirning people, denied they had been properly consulted and vowed to continue to fight the project.

Industry body the Australian Petroleum and Production and Exploration Association said the company’s decision to drop the project was disappointing for South Australians, who would have benefited economically, and for the “wider Australian community”, which needed new energy supplies.

Matthew Doman, the association’s chief executive, said: “The proposed exploration activity had been subject to an extreme campaign of false and exaggerated claims that deliberately overstated the risks and ignored the potential benefits.”

Greenpeace Australia Pacific’s chief executive, David Ritter, said the decision was an “incredible win for people power and nature”. He said it followed years of relentless campaigning by coastal communities, Indigenous traditional owners, surfers, the seafood industry, tourism operators and local businesses.

“Never doubt the power and determination of the Australian people,” Ritter said.

Sarah Hanson Young, the Greens environment spokeswoman and a South Australian senator, called on other parties to back Greens’ legislation that would put the Bight forward for world heritage protection.

“Opening a new fossil fuel basin in the middle of our ocean was always madness,” she said. Moving to net zero emissions by 2050 means we must reduce pollution now, not give the green light to new polluting projects.”

Noah Schultz-Byard, South Australian director of the Australia Institute, said polling suggested an overwhelming majority of people would support world heritage listing for the Bight.

Stangeland said Equinor said it still held an offshore exploration permit in Western Australia and would maintain “other ongoing interests and activities in Australia”.

SOURCE  






‘Secretive’ GetUp angers volunteers

A feeding trough for a Leftist elite?

GetUp faces rising dissent in its ranks from supporters who claim the left-wing campaign group’s leadership is “secretive” about how it spends millions of dollars raised from public donations, and no real power is allowed to so-called “members” in running the organisation.

Longtime GetUp volunteers who have worked in senior campaign roles said the group’s senior executives disliked criticism, and questions about operations were often rebuffed.

“GetUp is terribly secretive,” a former volunteer said. “They seem to take the view that new people are coming in all the time, so it doesn’t matter if they lose others.”

The Australian has obtained internal correspondence between GetUp’s economic fairness campaigns director, Ed Miller, and several disillusioned supporters who claim the group “lacks transparency” and has not addressed “specific concerns about where and how funds are spent”.

Other disillusioned GetUp ­activists gave the example of $250,000 allegedly raised in donations as part of GetUp’s “protect the ABC” campaign, yet they had no evidence the money was used for campaign billboards or ads.

The Australian reported on Monday that GetUp spent more than 70 per cent of the $12.4m in public donations it raised last year on staff salaries, administration costs and travel, despite telling supporters in its online appeals for funds that “every dollar” would be used to build a fairer Australia “with spending on billboards, hard-hitting TV ads and rallies”.

GetUp devoted $3.6m of its annual donations total to “campaign expenses” while outlaying $7.2m on salaries, according to the group’s audited 2019 financial report. Another $1.4m was spent on administration, $806,000 on rent and more than $500,000 on travel.

GetUp, however, says 89 per cent or $12.4m of total expenditure was “related” to campaigns, including the $7.2m “wages for the staff”. It says its expenditure should not be compared with charities delivering social services.

Disillusioned GetUp followers complain the group gives no breakdown of spending on each campaign and rebuffs attempts to gain such information.

A longtime GetUp activist from Brisbane told Mr Miller in internal online communications that his concern, shared by others, related to a “lack of transparency”. “Despite what you say, an outsider cannot easily obtain the ­information,” he wrote.

The complainant also claimed volunteers helping GetUp’s unsuccessful campaign to oust minister Peter Dutton from his Queensland seat of Dickson at last May’s election stormed off “in ­despair” on polling day because voting cards were “so off-topic and irrelevant to local voters”. “All this dysfunction contributes to the sense of unease about GetUp’s ­attitude to their volunteer base,” the complainant said.

Mr Miller responded that he was “genuinely really sorry” the GetUp volunteer felt aggrieved, and conceded many staff and volunteers were feeling “burned out” after the election because of “strategic errors”. Another volunteer from the NSW central coast joined the online conversation. “Yes, we had the same experience during election day,” he said.

The Brisbane complainant later directed criticism at GetUp national director Paul Oosting, disputing his claims during a recent National Press Club address about the group’s “responsiveness and responsibility to its members’ input”.

Mr Oosting has repeatedly declined to respond to questions from The Australian about whether some concerns had been raised internally about spending.

He has also declined to disclose salaries for GetUp executives, including himself, or how GetUp’s donations income-to-spending ratio compares with other groups in the charity and not-for-profit sector. Mr Oosting defended the $7.2m in salaries, saying GetUp’s strategists, campaigners, organisers and developers were some of its “greatest assets” and the “driving force”. A GetUp spokeswoman said she was not aware of internal concerns about GetUp.

As a not-for-profit company, GetUp does not pay income tax because its financial reports show annual deficits. GetUp says it did not launch a “bushfire relief efforts” appeal, or directly raise funds for bushfire relief, instead referring members to the NSW Rural Fire Service or Red Cross.

SOURCE  





Desperate white South African farmers who rushed for protection visas in Australia have their claims rejected

It's a lot easier if you are an Afghan or an Iranian

A surge of South Africans seeking protection in Australia have been disappointed as no visas have yet been approved.

Rejection letters to the families applying for protection and humanitarian visas have said they are not refugees because the violence in South Africa is widespread, random and opportunistic.

'The risk of murder and serious physical/sexual assaults is one faced by the population of the country generally and not by the applicants personally,' said the letter, quoted in The Australian newspaper.

South Africa's minority white farmers say there has been a concerted campaign to drive them off their land, and violent murders - some involving horrific rape and torture - have been forcing them to leave.

Liberal National Party member Savanna Labuschagne, herself a migrant from South Africa, said some people had their skin ironed off and holes drilled through their knee caps.

'An elderly couple had boiling water poured down their throats. I could go on for days. How do we help our people?' she told The Australian.

Ms Labuschagne said both blacks and whites had suffered from the South African government's 'corruption'.

She also shared some of the racial hatred that has been directed at the white minority by black South Africans on Facebook.

One black South African man had posted to social media that it was his duty and the duty of others to 'eliminate every white person in South Africa'. 

'The only way to end racism and the oppression of my people is to destroy the white race. This must be done as quickly as possible,' his post read.

Ms Labuschagne along with fellow LNP member Patti Maher, also a South African migrant, said they were feeling frustrated as South Africans were prevented from receiving assistance by the bureaucracy.  

South Africa has been divided by deep racial grievances since the apartheid system of racial segregation ended in 1994, and this has been worsened by an economic gulf between rich and poor.

White people, who are less than 9 percent of the population, own most of the farmland in South Africa.

They are vastly outnumbered by black people who make up 80 per cent of the country's 57.7 million population, but who have the least amount of land ownership.

South Africa's ruling party the African National Congress, led by Cyril Ramaphosa, plans to take land without compensation from minority white farmers, who own most of the farmland, and redistribute it to black South Africans.

South Africa's parliament voted in 2018 to amend the constitution to allow land seizures, and has issued a proposed land expropriation bill on which the public comment period is open until 29 February, Business Tech reported.

In March 2018, Mr Dutton suggested white farmers were being persecuted and deserved special attention under Australia's humanitarian program.

He instructed his department to consider claims from persecuted South African farmers, alongside people from Asia, the Middle East and other African countries.

Liberal politicians pushed for up to 10,000 South Africans to come to Australia.

South Africans responded with a surge of 220 claims for humanitarian visas made in the last two years, almost triple the previous rate.

South Africans had previously made just 350 applications for humanitarian visas from 2008 to 2010, an average of 35 per year. 

However most of the visa applications have so far been denied leaving South Africans disappointed.

Of the 570 humanitarian visa applications since 2008, only 41 were granted and 340 are still to be finalised, The Australian reported.

Protection visa applications have also failed with 97 rejected in the past three months.

Of 33 protection visa applications lodged since November, none have been approved.

A Home Affairs spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia on Monday that anyone who makes a claim for protection will be considered under the humanitarian program, and that there are many other visas available to South Africans such as the skilled, temporary and family visas.

'Almost 80,000 visas have been granted to South Africans since July 2018, allowing them to come to Australia,' the spokesperson said.

'South Africa is the 9th largest source country of permanent migrants in Australia.'

To be considered a refugee, a person must have a well-founded fear they will be seriously harmed because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a social group, the Home Affairs Department says on its website.

The serious harm can be to their life and liberty, or the denial of a capacity to earn a livelihood to survive.

Australia's Refugee Review Tribunal wrote in 2011 that despite concerns among white South Africans that they were being targeted for race, most evidence pointed to other motivations such as financial gain.

Crime is widespread in South Africa where 14 million people live in extreme poverty, and farmers are isolated and thus can be seen as easy targets.

In 2018, South Africa suffered almost 20,000 murders with most of the victims being black victims of black violence, while only 62 were farm murders - not all of them white, according to government figures quoted by investigative journalist James Pogue writing in Harper's Magazine. 

Mr Pogue wrote that the brutality of the torture inflicted on some of the white victims does indicate a level of racial vitriol in the attacks.

In May last year, South African activist Annette Kennealy, 51, who spoke out against attacks on white farmers was found stabbed and beaten to death on her own farm in Limpopo province.

Kennealy was a public supporter of the white Afrikaner community and in her last Facebook post, she shared a link alleging that 10 farm attacks, including one murder, had been reported in just four days in 2019.

She also routinely shared links and stories relating to politics in South Africa, and the government's plans to start expropriating farms from white land-owners.

The South African Human Rights Commission has said black farmers have given evidence that farm safety isn't the preserve of any one racial group, although it does not dispute that there are attacks motivated by racial hatred.

SOURCE  








25 February, 2020

‘Don’t bastardise all men… these things happen’: Pauline Hanson says cowardly dad who murdered his entire family may have been ‘driven to do it’

It's good that we have sensible women such as Pauline Hanson and Bettina Arndt to speak up against the hateful and totally unreasonable feminist claim that Hannah Clarke was murdered by her estranged husband because that is what "men" do. Baxter's maleness has been given as the sole explanation for his evil deeds. 

That millions of women are NOT murdered by their partner is ignored.  It is surely the vast non-murdering majority of men who tell you what "men" do. But feminists are so full of hate that they cannot see that.

So why did Baxter really do it?  Unless we know that, how are we supposed to prevent similar deeds by other troubled men?

Until we are given the full facts about the family history involved we cannot know for sure how it all worked out but from my point of view as a psychologist there is one highly likely explanation for the tragedy:  Baxter was a bully.

He was a common bully type, physically imposing and very egotistical.  The combination of a strong body and a big ego can be very problematical.  We see it in schoolyards all the time.  Some stronger kid will pick on some weak and "loser" kid.  In the course of a schooling that behaviour will usually be suppressed in some way, partly by teachers, partly by parents and partly by other students. 

I remember a question I once asked my well-built son when he was in High School  I asked him whether any other kids picked on him.  He said "No. I'm too big for them.  And if I see them picking on some smaller kid, I put myself in between them".  So the corrective role of other students should not be ignored.

Sometimes, however, the bully gets away with a lot and forms behaviour patterns that last into adulthood.  But such patterns are very limiting in adulthood.  The bully will find himself avoided if not ostracized.  The bully of course sees this and endeavours to change his ways at least superficially.  He practices being "nice". But that pretence periodically breaks down.  His real motivation comes out in hostility of some sort.

So in the end he will be mistrusted and socially excluded.  And for anyone that is very grievous.  Among Aborigines, social exclusion is the mechanism behind a wrongdoer being "sung" to death.  So the bully in any society has usually been locked into a behaviour pattern that badly hurts him emotionally. 

And when that hurts too much he may strike out fatally at the one whose disapproval hurts him the most.  He blames the other  person -- such as his ex-wife --  for his own deep unhappiness rather than himself. He sees that his life has been a failure and there is nothing left in it for him.  So death seems to him to be welcome.  So murder-suicide ensues.

So what can be done?  Just one thing:  Bullying has to be stopped at its source.  It has to be stopped during the bully's schooldays.  All Education Departments have high-sounding policies that claim to do that but enforcement is very lax.  So we cannot look at the existing system for hope.  A firmer approach is needed.

I would advocate sending bullies to a special school where bullying behavior is vigilantly watched for and heavily punished.  Bullying must be negatively reinforced, to use psychologist's jargon.  And talk is no good.  The bully has to be subjected to treatment that is a replica of what he normally does to others.


Politician Pauline Hanson has defended controversial comments about the horrific Brisbane murder-suicide, saying 'these things happen'.

In a crime which rocked Australia on Wednesday, Hannah Clarke, 31, was murdered by her estranged husband along with her three young children.

Aaliyah, 6, Laianah, 4, and Trey, 3, were burned alive by their own father on their way to school after he poured petrol in their car and lit a flame.

But Ms Hanson said the cowardly murders shouldn't lead to people 'bastardising all men' - saying Baxter could have been 'driven to it'. 'Don't bastardise all men out there, or women for that matter, because these things happen,' she said on Monday morning.

Speaking about domestic violence murders, she added that: 'A lot of people are driven to this, to do these acts for one reason or another.'

The killings have led to calls for more protection for domestic violence victims, after Ms Clarke was emotionally, sexually and financially abused by Baxter for years.

Speaking on Today, Ms Hanson said the murders have been in the news more than if it was committed by a woman - and that Baxter may have been 'driven to it'.

'You know, this has been for a week we have been in the news nearly every day about this horrific tragedy,' she said on Today on Monday morning. 

'But we don't hear much about it when a woman has murdered her children by driving a  car into a tree, she threw out a suicide note. 'Or the woman who doused her husband with fuel and set him alight an said she was possibly driven to it.

'Hopefully the family law inquiry will get to the bottom of it.'

She also defended commentator Bettina Arndt, who made controversial comments about the Baxter murders.

Some MPs want Arndt to be stripped of her Order of Australia, after she praised a Queensland police officer for saying Baxter may have been 'driven too far'. Queensland detective Mark Thompson was taken off the case after making the comments.

'Congratulations to the Queensland police for keeping an open mind and awaiting proper evidence, including the possibility that Rowan Baxter might have been 'driven too far'," Ms Arndt wrote on Twitter. 'But note the misplaced outrage. How dare police deviate from the feminist script of seeking excuses and explanations when women stab their partners to death, or drive their children into dams but immediately judging a man in these circumstances as simply representing the evil violence that is in all men.'

Speaking about Ms Arndt's comments, Ms Hanson said she should not be stripped of her Australia Day honour.

'It was a horrendous act of what he did to his children,' she said. 'It was a tragedy and I am very deeply sorry for everyone.

'But Bettina Arndt should not be stripped of her Order of Australia. She is clearly stating what she thinks and what a police officer said.

'This is why I have pushed for the family law inquiry to get behind what is happening on this.'

The mum-of-three had desperately tried to keep her young family safe from their evil dad, but was struggling after her domestic violence protection order was watered down. 

It has since emerged that he subjected Hannah to years of domestic violence, prompting the brave mum to finally leave him last November.

There was a domestic violence order (DVO) in place, but she expressed frustration that the conditions wouldn't be enough to keep her family safe.

Despite being stalked every day by her monstrous ex, the DVO was watered down to allow her husband to be a close as 100 metres from her.

'I have to go back to court and had to drop off an application today to get the DVO conditions changed as he keeps turning up where I am,' the mother-of-three said in text message to a friend, sent on January 30.

'He got the DVO adjourned and when they did that they took off the no contact and made it just 100m from my home so technically he’s not doing anything wrong … hence why we need it changed!'

Even the female police officer who helped Hannah lodge her DVO last year told her it would do little to protect her from her evil husband.

SOURCE  






The domestic violence double standard

Bettina Arndt

Across Australia, we reeled when we heard news that former Rugby League player, Rowan Baxter had set fire to his car, killing his ex-wife and three young children, and then stabbed himself to death. Unthinkable acts that chilled everyone to the bone.

Then came the press conference from the Queensland police, a very strange event where the police spokesman, Detective Inspector Mark Thompson, suggested it was important to keep an open mind and compile proper information about what had happened. “Is this an issue of a woman suffering significant domestic violence and her and her children perishing at the hands of the husband, or is it an instance of a husband being driven too far by issues he’s suffered by certain circumstances into committing acts of this form,” he said.

It was an extraordinary statement, given the pressure the police are under to simply promote the violent man narrative, ignoring any inconvenient truths that muddy the waters. Thompson looked most uncomfortable, suggesting he was privy to much more information.

My initial reaction was to stay out of it, given the battering I have taken on recent weeks. But then I discovered that even though I had made no public comment about the case,  I was trending on twitter as my enemies used this tragedy as a means of beating me up, claiming I was misguided to challenge the feminist narrative on domestic violence. Baxter was proof that men are dangerous, posing immense risks to women and children.

Immediately our media fell into line, using this tragic case to promote the need to protect women from violent men. And slamming Detective Inspector Thompson for daring to suggest that men can ever be “driven” into acting this way.

Learning more

Then, out of the blue, I heard from a woman who was close to the Baxter family, telling me that many in the community were alarmed that the truth of what happened was being so distorted. I had a long phone call with her where she explained the background to Baxter’s actions – information I hope will be revealed in the coroner’s inquiry. The people with real knowledge of the case are naturally nervous now of speaking publicly, although I hope they will eventually be willing to give media interviews.

It led to a sleepless night as I wrestled with the knowledge of what would happen if I got involved in this explosive issue versus my reluctance to allow the bastards to win. That would be the result if I was cowered into silence, avoiding public engagement on an issue which is at the heart of over a decade of my writing about the way domestic violence is being misrepresented to demonize men.

In the end I decided I have nothing to lose - and the truth matters. Someone reminded me of James Baldwin’s quote about “the most dangerous creation of any society is the man who has nothing to lose.”  Man or woman. Despite the attempts to damage to my public reputation through media pile-ons, I’m still standing and will keep fighting.

So, this morning I posted a few carefully written social media comments

Next I pointed out how differently we treat women who commit similarly horrible acts, immediately searching for reasons, asking what drove them to it. I posted this blog, which outlines some of the cases where women have committed violent acts, murdering their partners and children.

We’ve seen many cases of women committing homicide or filicide, where the press coverage is entirely focussed on explanations for her behaviour. See this article about a Cairns woman who killed 8 children.

I’ve also posted research showing both men and women commit such crimes such as this comprehensive study published in 2009 by Nielsen et al in the Medical Journal of Australia, looking at all cases of child homicide in NSW between 1991 and 2005. It found that, in cases of family homicide/revenge/homicide-suicide like the Rowan Baxter case, men were the perpetrators of child homicide in 10 cases, while women were the perpetrators in seven cases. Yes, tiny numbers. There’s no epidemic of these violent acts, thank goodness. But men certainly aren’t the only perpetrators.  

The filicide evidence shows children are killed by mothers and fathers at roughly similar rates. The most recent figures covering 2000 – 2012 show 76% of the 284 victims were killed by a custodial parent—46% by a custodial mother & 29% by a custodial father.

Pissing in the wind?

Maybe it is stupid to even try to counter the mighty onslaught from the domestic violence industry, who are cynically using this tragedy to recruit politicians and prominent people to call for more funding to protect women and children. This is after many, many millions have been spent on our feminist domestic violence policies which so clearly are failing to address the complexities of the problem.

It is just amazing that the media is so united in constructing a careful narrative of a battered woman and controlling man, with violence orders failing to protect a vulnerable family from his murderous rage. This video of Baxter rough-housing with his children is being used to demonstrate his dangerous toxic masculinity – despite the obvious delight of his children and the fact they keep coming back for more.

How come not a single journalist has the courage to investigate what drove police officer, Mark Thompson, to risk his career by voicing concerns about the complexity of the case? Now Thompson has been forced to step down from the investigation, apologising for his “ill-chosen” words.

This is Stasiland in action. Police across the country must be shuddering at the fate of this brave colleague who paid the price for doing his job with professionalism and honesty. Look at this article from the Courier Mail.

I am calling on people to write to the Queensland Police asking that he be reinstated to his position in the investigation. And please write also to your local MP, asking that they resist the cynical push for more money for domestic violence policies which fail to address the real issues.

A public inquiry

If the coronial inquest into this case reveals the truth, it could make a strong case for a public inquiry into how this happened. Why can’t we ask the hard questions that we would have asked if it was a female perpetrator? Like:

How did he get to such a state of irrationality, despair and desperation that he could do such a thing?

Why wasn’t he seeking support? Is there any support available for men in his situation?

What could we as a society have done better to prevent this?

That does not mean we are victim blaming or seeking justification. Merely a deeper understanding. Why is this so unacceptable simply because we are talking about a man?

Well, that’s it for now. I will keep you informed as this important issue develops, Tina

Via email from Bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au





Gang rapist Mohammed Skaf loses latest parole bid

In a sense Skaf is a victim of his Satanic Muslim religion, which teaches that women are things secondary to men

Notorious gang rapist Mohammed Skaf will remain behind bars for the rest of the year after his bid for freedom was knocked back for a third time by the NSW State Parole Authority.

Skaf, who was convicted alongside his brother Bilal over a terrifying series of rapes in Sydney in 2000 that shocked Australia, became eligible for parole in January 2017.

The parole authority has repeatedly rejected the now 36-year-old’s pleas for release, citing the fact that he has continued to blame his victims for his offending after being convicted.

Former District Court judge, Michael Finnane, QC, who presided over the “Skaf trials” said the series of gang rapes amounted to a crime “worse than murder”.

“In the worst case, a girl was raped 40 times by 14 men in four hours,” Mr Finnane told The Australian. “To be kidnapped and raped, and to be raped by a gang, only to find another gang turns up ... I doubt they will ever get over that.”

Mohammed Skaf was originally sentenced to 31 years in jail by Mr Finnane but his sentence was later reduced on appeal to 22 years with a non-parole period of 18 years.

Skaf can next apply for parole in November this year, and Mr Finnane said the community would likely be safer if the rapist is released on parole before his sentence expires in January 2024.

“At some point, he will be released,” Mr Finnane said. “That’s what is staring parole authorities in the face, this man is going to be released. “It’s better to put someone on parole and put them on tough conditions then just let them walk out at the end of their sentence,” he said.

Skaf can still apply to have this latest decision reviewed but if that application is rejected then the order to refuse parole will stand.

In one attack, Skaf tricked a 16-year-old school friend into going to Greenacre’s Gosling Park.

At the park, she was pinned down by her arms and legs and raped by Mohammed’s brother Bilal and one other man while twelve other men watched who were “standing around, laughing and talking”.

The second man held a gun to her head and kicked her violently in the stomach before she was able to escape.

Bilal Skaf led and orchestrated the sadistic attacks by using SMS and mobile phones in a “military style” operation, Mr Finnane said.

They called ahead to other attackers in a bid to co-ordinate the transport of gang members to the locations where women were being held.

“The victims were passed from group to group and each group was called by mobile phone. It was a calculated crime and I’ve never seen anything like it before or since,” he said.

A pre-release report compiled by Corrective Services in 2018 said Skaf “has demonstrated no change in his attitude toward his offences since the beginning of his sentence” and “continues to blame the victims.”

SOURCE  







Frogs be dammed … Australia needs more water

It is no surprise that with a continent as dry as Australia our most precious resource would be water.

If that is a given, how is it that it is well nigh impossible to build a dam in this country? We had a brilliant start with the Snowy River Scheme, but it is almost as if we completed that and decided to rest on our laurels.

Those laurels are getting pretty parched now. It is a forlorn task to find a site for a new dam that the Greens might support. Greens opposition to new dams is implacable and, when combined with the understandable hysteria of those who will be displaced because their properties lie within the area to be flooded to create the new dam, you have the perfect confluence of forces to create the big media campaigns that can terrify governments and send them weak at the knees. Too many pollies run at the first whiff of grapeshot and opportunities are lost.

Michael McCormack, the leader of the Nationals, and Barnaby Joyce, the man who wants to be leader of the Nationals, and Matt Canavan, the man who should be leader of the Nationals, are the only politicians who seem to have any interest in building more dams. The Greens can always find an endangered frog that should be saved at the expense of human ­beings’ need for clean water, so there are guaranteed to be plenty of citizens death-riding any plans to construct a dam.

I hope we find someone in power somewhere prepared to tell the nay-sayers where to get off. It would be wonderful if Scott Morrison could find the courage to build a dam as well as finance a new coal-fired power station on the east coast of Australia. If he showed that kind of courage, Anthony Albanese would be flat out ever beating him.

Any pollie with the ticker to defy the noisy frontline of demonstrators that opposes building almost anything and go ahead with real nation-building infrastructure projects will experience a surge in support. The punters love action but they don’t get much of it. Australians are getting to the point, after a period of stable economic growth, to look for a leader prepared to drag us back up towards the top of the developed world’s list of countries that make things happen.

Gladys Berejiklian has shown us the way on infrastructure and that is why she is winning. Whether it’s road or rail, her government has plans in place that, once implemented, will keep NSW ahead of the game in the decades to come. The big plays do matter and she gets it that every parent has an eye on the kind of future being built for their children.

SOURCE 

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













24 February, 2020

Dam operator to defend its role in 2011 Brisbane flood catastrophe

This whole affair was a disgrace to the Queensland Labor government of Anna Bligh and her bureaucrats. Anna was basically an emptyhead and the bureaucrats thought they could do no wrong.

A Conservative government had built a big flood-control dam at Wivenhoe that should have ended Brisbane floods for good.  But it was not proof against opportunistic politicians and inert bureaucrats. 

To avoid building a new dam, the "Green" Labor government proceeded to use the flood compartment of the dam to store water.  Then the bureaucrats managing the dam just stuck to their regulations and saw no need to do anything when the floodwater came surging into the dam.  They ignored all approaches to open the floodgates until it was too late and flood it did.

People died in the resultant flood, to say nothing of property damage and loss

In the circumstances, it is no  wonder that the insurers are denying liability.  They did not ensure aginst irresponsible politicians or brainless bureaucrats.  They will no doubt claim that the dam operators followed the book so are not liable.

The plaintiffs need to show that following the book was irresponsible when the whole of the flood compartment was not available


THOUSANDS of victims of the 2011 Queensland floods face losing compensation payouts after state-owned dam operator Seqwater confirmed it will appeal a landmark class action result. The confirmation comes a week ahead of a deadline for parties to seek leave to appeal to the NSW Supreme Court.

The Queensland Government has ruled out an appeal but as The Courier-Mail revealed in December, both Seqwater and Sunwater were planning to appeal. Sunwater has not yet confirmed whether it will go ahead with its appeal. Seqwater chief executive Neil Brennan said the decision to appeal had been taken after advice from its insurers.

"The decision to appeal has not been taken lightly," Mr Brennan said in a written statement. "It has followed an extensive review of the judgment and consultation with its insurers."

Natural Resources Minister Anthony Lynham hit out at Seqwater's decision. "I am disappointed that Seqwater's insurers did not heed our call not to appeal," Dr Lynham said. "As the Treasurer and I said at the time, if a Ministerial Direction could be given to Seqwater to not appeal, it would not bind their insurers. Further, it may compromise Seqwater's insurance policies."

But Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington said the Government could have prevented the appeal. "(Premier) Annastacia Palaszczuk had the power to direct these government-owned  corporations to not undertake this cruel action, but she failed to act," she said. "Seqwater will now slug taxpayers to defend itself in Court"

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers principal lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan, who is representing the victims, also called for the state to step in. "These appeals and disputes mean real justice is a long way off for our clients, who have won their case and deserve to be paid for what they lost when the dam operators flooded them," she said.

"The only way to bring this to an end is for the state to step in with a whole-of-government approach."

Former Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, whose Goodna home was flooded in 2011, said the move would add to the distress of flood victims. "Flood victims have endured nine long and tortuous years," he said. "This could drag out another two years in the court of appeal and the High Court of Australia. "These insurance companies are toying with people's lives and futures."

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 22/2/20






The strange saga of Fireman Paul

Volunteer firefighters, like volunteer life savers, hold an almost sacred status in the Australian community and the hearts and minds of its citizens.

Nobody forces or even asks them to do what they do, nor do they gain any material reward. Instead they sacrifice their time and sometimes even their lives to save others. And they do it purely because they choose to.

Little wonder that they are so universally venerated and little wonder that they almost always awkwardly eschew it.

Even though they are the ones who are most literally on the ground and are almost always characterised as “down to earth” they are also seen to float above politics and personal pride. They are the closest we have to real-life superheroes.

It is for this reason that Rural Fire Service member Paul Parker’s expletive-laden spray against the Prime Minister was so shocking – despite also being pretty forgivable.

Parker was obviously a man under an enormous amount of stress – even as his own home was damaged by the bushfires that ravaged NSW he was out saving others, fighting the flames to the point of exhaustion. He is also obviously something of a character – a vital prerequisite for an unlimited bar tab.

But it is equally understandable that many of his comrades were angry and felt he had brought the unimpeachable status of volunteer firefighters into momentary disrepute.

It is, after all, a fiercely protected convention in Australia that uniformed personnel such as police and military officers are never seen to be remotely political or partisan. And so having a member of the RFS – which is arguably held in even higher regard – tell the Prime Minister to “get f***ed” is clearly pretty jarring.

But obviously not to everybody.

Through no fault of his own, Fireman Paul was instantly elevated to Messianic status by green-left social media warriors who seemed to see him as some kind of revolutionary hero. And then when he claimed this week to have been sacked by the RFS it was instantly seized as further proof he was a glorious martyr to the cause.

The only catch was that within 24 hours it emerged that the cause Paul Parker was fighting for wasn’t the Greens but One Nation.

As Nine’s political editor Chris Uhlmann so archly observed while posting a more fulsome interview with the man, the only politician Parker didn’t think should “get f***ed” was Pauline Hanson.

This, needless to say, caused a bit of cognitive dissonance with the hard left social media warriors who had ridden the #IStandWithFiremanPaul hashtag like drunken bar room cowboys on a broken mechanical bull.

Of course it had never occurred to any of them that Parker was attacking the PM from the opposite end of the political spectrum. It’s easy to forget that a conservative has enemies on both sides when you define a fascist as anyone who sits to the right of Fidel Castro.

As a result the groundswell of woke activist support for poor Fireman Paul has now disintegrated – so much for solidarity forever.

And yet the hard left unquestioningly flocked in their thousands to support him purely because he publicly swore at the PM only to just as quickly desert him when it emerged his politics didn’t match theirs. This tells you everything you need to know about both their intellect and their loyalty.

Again, for all their talk of solidarity, loyalty has never been the hard left’s strong point – just ask Comrade Trotsky.

For even the most passingly critical mind it was obvious from the outset that this story was crude, inconsistent and illogical and yet it was swallowed wholesale. No wonder it is so easy for the Hansons of this world to cry “fake news”. And no wonder the #IStandWithFiremanPaul movement sank beneath the waves quicker than a Swedish surfer.

All of this is just more evidence, were any needed, of the aching stupidity of so much of the social media commentariat and the tidal lunar idiocy of hashtag activism. All it took was a supporter of the far right to tell the PM to “get f***ed” and the far left just assumed he must be one of them. It’s hardly a Mensa-level entry threshold.

SOURCE  






Pumped hydro project in  South Australia dies

Pumped hydro is a great Greenie dream but is very costly.  To be viable you have to find two big holes in the ground that are near to one another but at different levels.  Such sites are rare -- with big mines being the only likely source.

AGL had planned a 250MW pumped hydro storage for a SA copper mine site

The mining company had been due to hand part of its Kanmantoo mine over to energy company AGL, but changed its mind after discovering more copper ore nearby.

The ore could only be accessed via tunnels from the bottom of the mine's giant pit, which would become impossible when AGL filled the pit with water for its hydro-electric project.

AGL planned to store water in a dam at the mine site, allow it to flow down into the pit to generate electricity when power prices are high, then pump it back up when prices are low.

The facility would perform the same function as a battery: providing extra power to stabilise the energy network at short notice.


In April 2019, Hillgrove announced it had entered into binding agreements with AGL Energy Limited (AGL), to sell the right to develop, own and operate the Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) project at the Kanmantoo mine site.

The sale was subject to the satisfaction of a number of conditions which needed to be satisfied within specified timeframes. Several of those conditions remain unsatisfied.

After a period of extensive negotiations, Hillgrove and AGL have mutually agreed to terminate the PHES Project Agreement and associated project documents and effect a clean break without any further obligations on either party.

Since signing the Project Agreement, Hillgrove has conducted work on an underground mining project below the Giant Pit. As announced 30 October 2019, Hillgrove undertook a limited drilling programme, which resulted in the preparation of a new Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the Central and East Kavanagh underground area in accordance with the JORC Code 2012 Edition.

The resource estimate is constrained by the extent of the drilling and not by the geology, in both the along strike and down dip directions.

As announced 31 January 2020, Hillgrove received the regulatory approval to commence underground mining. The approval includes expanded capacity of the tailings storage facility, providing optionality for future mining within haulage distance to the Kanmantoo processing and tailings complex.

However, Hillgrove and AGL could not reach agreement on a way forward that enabled Hillgrove to commence underground mining and AGL to progress development of the PHES simultaneously.

SOURCE  






Public School bans parents from entering grounds

Parents have simultaneously been outraged and baffled after a school on the NSW Central Coast banned them from entering the grounds to drop off or pick up their children.

Wamberal Public School has instead set up designated family meeting areas for parents, citing security reasons for the decision.

It comes amid concerns about violent outbursts by parents at schools across the country.

The change was announced in the school’s first newsletter of the year which said meeting areas for parents would be established at both entrances.  “Parents are encouraged to use these areas to minimise disruption to teaching and learning, increase safety for students & reduce pedestrian track in congested areas,” the newsletter read.

Each morning, teachers are stationed at both gates “to supervise and care for students”.

Parents accompanying children have been “asked to not proceed into other areas of the school” and “are encouraged to say goodbye at the gate where their child can enter”.

The school said the areas were introduced following parent feedback and consultation with “the Wamberal P&C, the Department’s Health and Safety, School Safety and Security experts, and our Project Reference Group”.

Angry parents fronted a Parents and Citizens meeting on Monday to get the ban reversed, the Daily Telegraph reported.

They argued they were never consulted about the change and students have grown anxious or stressed about navigating the grounds alone.

In a more recent newsletter, school principal Paul Miller addressed the issue.  “We value and appreciate feedback from our community,” he said.

“This year we are trialling new ways to make sure the school day starts and ends smoothly. The changes take into account our school’s growth, safety, community feedback and the school’s unique physical layout.”

Parents have been encouraged to complete a survey to share their thoughts regarding the family meeting area.

SOURCE  

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





23 February, 2020

RSL branch bans Aboriginal flag and welcome to country at ceremonies

ANZAC day is when Australians remember family members who have died in war.  Intruding other concerns into that solemn occasion is offensive

A state branch of the RSL has taken the extraordinary step of banning the Aboriginal flag and traditional indigenous ceremonies on Anzac Day.

The Western Australian branch of the RSL has taken the extraordinary step of banning the Aboriginal flag and performance of welcome to country at its ceremonies honouring war heroes.

A report by the ABC today claimed that some RSL members last year were upset after an Aboriginal professor read the Ode of Remembrance, traditionally recited on Remembrance Day ceremonies, in an indigenous language last year.

The reading on last year’s Anzac Day ceremony by Professor Len Collard in the Noongar language reportedly sparked the change in rules. Professor Collard had translated the Ode himself. Members told John McCourt, the chief executive of the RSLWA, that reading poem in another language wasn’t appropriate.

After receiving complaints the RSLWA board developed new policies to control Anzac and Remembrance Day ceremonies held in the state.

“While having utmost respect for the traditional owners of land upon which such sites and memorials are located, RSLWA does not view it appropriate that a Welcome to Country is used at sites that were specifically established to pay homage to those who died and who came from a wide range of cultural backgrounds,” the new policy reads.

The new policy includes guidelines that all content be delivered in English (except the New Zealand National Anthem); only flying the Australian, New Zealand and WA flags and; having no welcome to country ceremonies.

The policy, which outlines rules for the RSL’s commemorations regarding “culture”, recognises Australia as a diverse and multicultural nation, before going on to acknowledge a “trend among sectors of the Australian community to seek to include specific cultural and ethnic elements into major commemorative events” including Anzac and Remembrance Day.

“While it is important to recognise cultural and ethnic contributions to the defence of Australia, it is also important to maintain Anzac Day and Remembrance Day as occasions to express unity, a time when all Australians – irrespective of race, culture or religion – come together to remember and reflect.”

A welcome to country is performed at the beginning of events in Australia to bring awareness about the traditional history and cultural owners of an area. A welcome to country is usually performed by an indigenous elder.

Mr McCourt said these ceremonies are only banned on Anzac and Remembrance Day. “All the RSL is asking for is two days,” he told the ABC.

He said the RSLWA “remains appalled” at the discriminatory treatment of indigenous Australians who returned after serving in World War I.

SOURCE  





Anthony Albanese bets leadership on zero emissions

Labor has decided to live or die by climate change. Anthony Albanese has bet his leadership and the Labor Party on the bushfires shifting our political culture such that the public accepts the gains from net zero carbon emissions by 2050 outweigh the losses.

Labor asks people to accept this act of faith. It is a tactical gamble by Albanese that the summer has shifted Australian values. The 2050 target is transformational in its consequences. Its logic is a carbon price but Labor rejects that.

Albanese pledges the target without a plan, guidelines, implications for industry and regions or the slightest explanation on how to manage the millions of winners and losers, what compensation — if any — he envisages, and how it would be financed. The big emitters have yet to embrace this target.

The detail will come before the next election. This means Labor must build its economic policy around its climate change agenda, an epic step. Albanese seeks to prevail where Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten failed.

The upshot is the Morrison government and the Business Council of Australia will release their own road maps for this 2050 journey before Labor.

By this decision Labor pins its future as a party on climate change and its economics. Albanese has doubled down on Shorten’s 2019 stance but adopted a more distant 2050 target to minimise the upfront electoral damage.

The tactic makes sense but is high risk. Setting a 2050 benchmark to transform the economy, energy markets, prices and emissions is a grand hoax without any of the policy mechanisms to achieve it.

Telling the Australian people that the scientists, economists and modelling experts can show that net zero at 2050 will be a nirvana of more jobs and cleaner energy might not be as easy a sell to a cynical electorate as Labor thinks.

Albanese is following the Kevin Rudd method from 2007 — elevate climate change to define yourself as a leader of the future as opposed to Scott Morrison (or John Howard then). This must constitute a political threat to Morrison. And Albanese will have plenty of allies.

The 2050 benchmark is winning global and local acceptance. It has international momentum. It is backed by global finance, multinationals, the Australian states, the business council, banks, corporates, environmental groups and the progressive media. There will be rebel Liberals who want to sign up, a disciplinary test for Morrison’s side.

But Albanese will face immediate pressure on the question: is his pledge credible? This is because, as the UN points out, many nations pledge net zero by 2050 but have no game plan to get there.

Morrison unleashed an immediate attack: Albanese can’t say what it costs, what industry will be affected, how many jobs will be lost. The prospect of Morrison pledging the 2050 target this term — he has it under review — is now even more unlikely. The climate change war will continue.

Albanese invokes Ross Garnaut’s idea of Australia as a clean energy superpower. His vision is Australia at 2050 with more jobs, lower emissions and lower energy prices. He bets the Australian people will now decide “the cost of inaction is too great”.

Labor, it seems, took this decision influenced by the bushfires, the polls and the belief that sentiment had changed decisively on climate change. It is, however, highly unlikely this summer’s mood will be permanent.

SOURCE  





Unions at root of Holden death spin

If it sounds too good to be true then it probably is, and eventually the artifice crumbles.

This week, the utter folly that is enterprise bargaining claimed another high-profile victim. Another business cuts its losses, sacks all the staff, turns the lights off and leaves the country. In this sorry situation there are no winners.

Looking back, the wages and conditions granted by managers at Holden were irresponsible and absurd. Restrictive, old-fashioned, totally out of touch with reality, too good (for the unions) to be true, and so here we are, at the point where we were always going to arrive; after billions of dollars and so much wasted time and effort, the cupboard is bare and the air is thick with angry grief.

Back in 2013, this column exposed, in a series, the embarrassing detail of various enterprise agreements in the car manufacturing sector. At the time, the federal government was deliberating the issue of further support. The Productivity Commission had recommended against it, and after the columns were printed, senior car industry types appeared before various politicians in Canberra, red-faced and spluttering.

As The Weekend Australian had provided links to the enterprise agreements, everyone could read them. There was no hiding from the ludicrous details.

It may make sense to subsidise an industry, for security or economic reasons, or it may not. That is for policymakers to ponder. However, when subsidies are granted, it does makes sense to scrutinise how the money is spent or wasted.

Way back in the old days, before enterprise bargaining at Holden began, the wage of an entry-level process worker was $462.80 a week. In 1992, enterprise bargaining began, and by 2013 a worker at that same classification level had a base rate of $1194.50 a week.

This represented a 158 per cent increase, or a compound increase of 4.4 per cent year on year for 22 years. By 2013, wage rates for process workers were in the $60,000 to $80,000 a year range, while modern award rates for such workers were in the $37,000 to $42,000 range.

By 2013, union privileges were beyond the pale. The union controlled Holden sites, it vetted who was employed and dismissed, how they worked and how much they were paid. Union delegates worked full time for the union on the company’s time and acted as paid onsite enforcers for the rules. To hone their skills, Holden was compelled to pay them to attend 10 days of union training a year. The best two delegates, as nominated by the union, were entitled to one paid month off to “further their industrial and/or leadership development”.

An ex-employee from Adelaide was interviewed and described the workforce as “over-managed”, with one team leader for every six workers on the production line, when one for every 25 workers would suffice. He admitted their work was worth about “20 bucks an hour” and detailed how, years earlier, some of his mates had taken redundancy packages in the order of “$280k plus”.

Today, the foolish arrangements at Holden continue. The latest GM Holden Warehousing Operations Enterprise Agreement 2018, available on the Fair Work Commission website, does show that in the past three years (2017-2020) the base rate increases moderated to 2 per cent a year. However, the plethora of other payments and restrictive arrangements make for sorry reading. The document, more than 140 pages, is a case study in how enterprise bargaining will kill a business.

All enterprises with fluctuating workflow need to hire casuals or agency staff in the peaks to supplement their permanent workforce. People are called on as the need arises, but at Holden a staggering list of requirements — more than one page long — must be met before the company can even consider hiring an extra body.

Providing the criteria are met, a shift plan must be given to the union, which must give its agreement before extra people can be hired. If a casual is hired and works full-time hours continuously for three months, Holden is compelled to give them a permanent job.

The union has to agree on which labour-hire company can be used — this is a clear pathway to potential corruption as union officials can set up labour-hire companies, take part-ownership or just demand kickbacks.

Holden’s provisions for forced redundancies are staggering in their largesse. Separation payments of four weeks’ pay per completed year of service are capped at 90 weeks’ pay. On top of this, add four weeks’ notice, another week’s additional separation payment per week of service, uncapped, a maximum of eight weeks’ unused sick leave payment, and pro rata long service leave payments from five years.

To put it simply, long-term employees can expect redundancy payments of two years’ pay or more. In stark contrast, Australia’s National Employment Standards provide redundancy payouts of no more than 21 weeks’ pay.

Perhaps the most telling section of the agreement is labelled “Information Sharing”. In a stunning display of idiocy and delusion, Holden management is compelled to provide updates for union officials four times a year, covering its business plan, business plan performance, key forward activities and events, continuous improvement activities, meetings of state committees and union meetings in each facility.

Considering a handful of union officials were running Holden, they should pack their bags and leave with the rest of the executive team.

SOURCE  




 
New wave of coral bleaching raises concerns for Great Barrier Reef

Given the Greenie lies about the last bleaching  -- Peter Ridd won a court case over his criticisms of them --  this report is fit only to be ignored

Perhaps the most amusing part of the previous scare was when the Federal minister visited the reef to see for herself how bad it was.  She found it looked fine.  We read:  "The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has supported Environment Minister Sussan Ley's appraisal that the reef is "good" and has "a vibrant future"."

They completely walked back their cries of doom.  I guess not all Greenies are crooks but most of them seem to be


Another wave of coral bleaching is hitting the Great Barrier Reef as temperature levels surge above average.

The federal government’s lead reef protection agency on Wednesday discovered significant bleaching on three reefs in the far north of the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem.

“That is the first time we’ve seen significant bleaching so far this summer,” said David Wachenfeld, chief scientist with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

“It is a confirmation of our growing concern about what is happening out on the reef at the moment.” Heat stress that has built up on the far northern, central and southern parts of the reef over the summer has intensified over the last week. “These levels of heat stress are definitely capable of causing coral bleaching and we are now at a heightened level of alertness for what is happening out there in the park,” Dr Wachenfeld said.

A bleaching warning has been issued for large parts of the Torres Strait and far northern management areas of the marine park, where significant bleaching across multiple hot spots is likely.

Most of the area covered by the marine park was 0.5 to 1.5C above average as of February 11, with some central and southern parts being 2 to 3C warmer. “February is the hottest month of the year on the reef so these anomalies are really very concerning,” Dr Wachenfeld said.

The reef authority has been told of bleaching in other areas and is sending staff to survey the damage.

Further heat stress is expected over the next few weeks as temperatures remain 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




21 February, 2020

State government to block new coal-fired power station?

The Greenies are happy.  See below. But Qld. Premier Palaszczuk is facing an election in October and blocking the Collinsville proposal would lose her the whole of the North.  She would be out on her ear. So she won't do it.  Coal mining is popular in the North -- which is why Scott Morrison won federally

Premier Anastascia Palaszczuk is absolutely right to question the impacts of a coal fired power station on the Great Barrier Reef says the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS).

The Premier echoed the sentiment of Labor Federal leader Anthony Albanese when she said she was open to blocking a planned coal-fired power station at Collinsville.

AMCS Great Barrier Reef spokesperson Shani Tager said: “The Premier is right to highlight the impact that coal-fired power stations have on our Reef. The single greatest threat to our beautiful Reef is climate change and coal fired power stations are a big part of the problem.

“Our Reef supports 64,000 jobs and is home to thousands of incredible animals, let’s not throw them down the drain for an uneconomic, unwanted and polluting coal fired power station when we could be building clean, renewable energy.

“It would be absolutely irresponsible to build a new coal fired power station at a time when we need to be moving beyond coal to give our Reef a fighting chance.

"Our Reef is still a dynamic, vibrant, awesome place but it’s in deep trouble and it’s time for politicians of all stripes to be standing up and taking steps to protect our Reef.”

Email.  Contact: Jo Manning 0405 567 228 / jomanning@amcs.org.au





Government waste over disability scheme

THOUSANDS of dollars a day stolen from vulnerable clients on the National Disability Insurance Scheme are automatically reimbursed without being investigated, a whistle-blower has revealed.

Former senior fraud investigator John Higgins, who spent decades working for the Australian Federal Police, has spoken exclusively to The Sunday Mail to blow the whistle on the extent of fraud dogging the multibillion-dollar agency.

Mr Higgins was one of a dwindling number of full-time fraud investigators chasing crooks ripping off the NDIS when he left the agency last year, frustrated by inaction.

He said investigators were swamped with tip-offs they did not have the resources to chase as dodgy providers bill clients on a daily basis for services they do not provide.

In 2018, the Federal Government established the NDIS Fraud Taskforce to tackle serious fraud, which NDIS Minister Stuart Robert says is proof of the Government's commitment to finding scammers. "Perpetrators can and will be dealt with through the criminal justice system," Mr Robert said.

But Mr Higgins said the taskforce focused on large-scale corruption and investigators were failing to deal with hundreds of smaller scams happening each day. In one case he said a so-called provider was invoicing a client for two hours of cleaning to drop off a loaf of bread and a packet of cigarettes.

"These are not geniuses doing this - it is so simple to rip off," he said. "People have got (assistance) plans worth hundreds of thousands of dollars ... but the money isn't going to those who need it."

Mr Higgins said clients who noticed money missing from their plan were automatically reimbursed and the missing money was rarely chased up. "There are almost no checks and balances," he said.

Mr Higgins claimed in cases where scammers were pursued, investigators were improperly using what was known as section 55 orders to obtain documents such as bank statements and pay slips. Section 55s can be used to gather evidence for compliance issues, but not if it ultimately ends up as evidence in a criminal matter.

The NDIS said its taskforce did not obtain evidence under section 55 of the NDIS Act for criminal investigation. But it was unable to say how many investigators it had on staff, how much was lost to fraud last year or reveal the on-going operation cost of the fraud taskforce.

From Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 16 Feb., 2020






Labor party rediscovering the workers

Joel Fitzgibbon and Anthony Albane­se met at a Young Labor conference in 1985. Both were elected to federal parliament on March 2, 1996, the day that John Howard became prime minister.

Even though they hail from differen­t ends of the party, as is often the way with MPs elected at the same time, Albanese and Fitzgibbon­ became and remain friends. Despite everything.

That “everything” includes the dinner for 20 right-wing Labor MPs — held at Kokomo’s in Canberra­, not Otis — on the Sunday­ in between sitting weeks, now cast as a sub-faction to pursue the interests of workers, residing­ within the party explicitly created to pursue the interests of workers, raising all sorts of questions for modern Labor.

Attendees have since told colleagu­es they thought it was an invitation to socialise or that they were trying to find ways of helping the Opposition Leader, something Albanese has struggled to see. They also insisted it was not driven by malice, there was no intent to undermine Albanese, and nor did they mean for it to become public.

It leaked because of the accid­ental inclusion of a government staffer on a group email. Oops. The idea for the group originated at a much more intimate dinner at Otis, the favourite restaurant of powerbroker Don Farrell.

The group subsequently opted to call itself after the venue where it was conceived, rather than after the more funky Kokomo’s, both in the hope of avoiding the puns and word games which could flow from a classic cock-up rather than conspiracy, and because the founders have a serious mission which they want taken seriously.

Revelation of their existence became a mitigated disaster. Both sides of politics took comfort from the other’s misery. Labor MPs were consoled by the fact that at least they weren’t plotting to get rid of their leader or his deputy while Coalition MPs rejoiced that at last Labor’s differences had erupted to the surface.

If anything good has come out of the exposure for Labor (and many senior opposition figures say none has) courtesy of The Australian’s Peter van Onselen, who broke the news on the Ten Network, it is that Albanese has got the message. Because if he hasn’t by now, he never will.

Sensible Laborites see clearly where the party went wrong. They saw what happened with Bill Shorten, a deeply flawed politician with flawed policies to match. They saw what happened with Jeremy Corbyn, also a flawed politician with flawed policies. And they can foretell Bernie Sanders’s fate if he wins the Democrat nomination.

They are entitled to ask how many suicide missions do there have to be before progressive-socialist leaders accept they have strayed too far from the centre, desertin­g the workers their parties were born to represent.

In the wake of the bushfires, Australians profess to care more about climate change and are less wedded to coal. But at the ballot box last May they showed they care more about their hip pockets, their jobs, their tax, their cost of living and their economic security.

Otherwise Shorten, regardless of his shortcomings, would have been elected. Labor would have won Higgins and Kooyong, Kerryn­ Phelps would have held on to Wentworth and perhaps Trevor Evans would have been turfed out of Brisbane. They cared about climate, but not enough to choose higher taxes and a leader they neithe­r liked nor trusted.

This is what Albanese’s colleagues, including Fitzgibbon, have been trying to tell him, believing that while sentiment in some parts of Australia has streng­th­ened, in other parts it hasn’t.

The right worries that despite its greater numbers in caucus it has lost its clout, and Albanese will be more susceptible to the arguments of his natural allies in the left.

Reflecting the tensions, Alban­ese has struggled to articulate a convincing position on coal. Early in his leadership he flew to Queensland to begin the tricky task of repositioning, trying to sound more accepting of it. Yet when Fran Kelly asked last week if he would support a coal-fired power station funded by industry, he replied: “You may as well ask me, Fran, if I support unicorns.”

Albanese risks being branded by the government as Bob-Each-Way Albo, or as Mr Inbetween, the likeable hit man on the TV series who tricked up a horse to look like a unicorn so he could impress his daughter.

Morrison, his authority weakened by his sorry summer, is trying to reweight his arguments with greater emphasis on climate change and less on coal. Thanks to the pressure from rebel Nationals, and his fight to save Michael ­McCormack’s leadership, he faces greater risks in the short and medium­ term.

SOURCE  






Women denied final step in cancer surgery

When they rely on public hospitals

SCARRED cancer survivors who have waited eight years for a breast reconstruction are among nearly 4000 Queenslanders in the queue for plastic surgery, as short-staffed hospitals hunt for surgeons overseas.

In a devastating Sunday Mail expose, brave women reveal their scars and their souls, telling how they have been left in limbo by Cairns Base Hospital, the epicentre of the surgery delays.

The State Government has been aware of the problems in Cairns, where at one point well over 100 women were on the waiting list In 2017 the Health Depart-ment injected $4 million into the hospital to clear the list. Brisbane surgeons were flown in but in the end they only cleared the assessment list, leaving many women still without surgery appointments.

The Sunday Mail has spoken to four of the forgotten women left hanging for a shocking number of years. They feel ugly, lonely, depressed and on the scrap heap as they are desperate for the healing surgery so they can feel whole again.

Single mother-of-two Kate Yeoman, who has been on the waiting list for eight years, considered selling her home to pay for private surgery but chose to put her kids first. "I've waited so long that I sometimes think I should just live my life without them (my breasts), but my kids are growing up and I have got my life back, I deserve to feel like a whole woman," she said.

"Women left without breasts feel unfeminine, uncomfortable and vulnerable, unable to complete the healing process. In the end I realised that my children's future was more important than raising the $25,000 needed for the double breast reconstruction surgery so I stayed on the waiting list. "It's now been eight years and I still live with the scars that remind me every day of the trauma of breast cancer."

Ms Yeoman appealed to Health Minister Steven Miles last year and was sent a letter from the Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service (CHHS) in November stating that while the delay was "regrettable", her condition was not life-threatening and therefore not urgent

"In Queensland, there are only a small number of highly skilled plastic and reconstructive surgeons who work in the public system and their priority is the patients with life-threatening conditions or who require the reconstruction surgery to restore function," the director of intensive care, women and perioperative services, Susan Henderson, wrote on Queensland Government letterhead.

"Due to increasing demand, coupled with the subsequent unsuccessful attempts to recruit to this specialty over many years, patients like you have experienced delays while waiting for an appointment/ surgery, which is regrettable.

"I recognise that you have been on the waiting list for a considerable time and I apologise that you have not received the breast reconstruction surgery you require. I am also sorry I am unable to offer you an appointment at this time."

The letter reveals the Cairns Base Hospital hired an extra surgeon last September and recruited another from overseas, who cannot start work until August this year "due to registration and medical requirements for international medical graduates".

Ms Yeoman has now received a surgical consultation appointment for next week. She is one of 56,176 Queenslanders on the surgical waiting list, which has grown by 7 per cent in the past two years despite record spending on public hospitals.

Health Departinent data reveals 3807 Queenslanders are still waiting for plastic and reconstructive surgery after accidents or cancer surgery.

From Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 16 Feb., 2020

 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 February, 2020

UN, WHO, Lancet report says every Australian child under threat from climate, poor diet

This is just more Green/Left propaganda from the usual suspects.  It's an enchiridion of Green/Left moans.  "The Lancet" is highly political. It criticized the Iraq war and is very "Green". And the less said about the UN the better.

If Australia is such an unhealthy environment, how come we have one of the world's longest life-expectancies?  That's the bottom line

Australia has been singled out for scathing criticism by the World Health Organisation for threatening the future of its children through disproportionately high carbon emissions, undermining positive scores in child health, socio-economic equity and education.

A major joint report by the WHO, UNICEF and the scientific journal The Lancet concludes the future of children around the world, including Australia, is being threatened by ecological degradation, climate change and predatory marketing practices that drive obesity.

Australia’s children were ranked 20th in the world on a ‘flourishing’ index, which takes into account poverty, health, education and protection from violence, but Australia’s performance on an index of sustainability was dire, with a rank of 174 out of 180 countries.

The poor sustainability rank was driven by high CO2 emissions per head of population, with the WHO estimating that Australia’s emissions would be 524 per cent above a global target by 2030.

It’s the first time the WHO has included a country’s sustainability score as a measure of the future wellbeing of children. The report says if global warming exceeds 4 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 in line with current projections, “it would lead to devastating health consequences for children, due to rising ocean levels, heatwaves, proliferation of diseases like malaria and dengue, and malnutrition.”

The nations ranked top in the world on the score of child flourishing were Norway, South Korea and the Netherlands. The flourishing index measures the mortality of children younger than five years old, access to child and maternal health services, basic hygiene and sanitation, growth and nutrition, prevalence of extreme poverty and educational achievement.

However, the report – compiled by a Commission of 40 child and adolescent health experts from around the world – found that no single country is adequately protecting children’s health, their environment and their futures.

Co-chair of the Commission, former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark, said children were facing future “existential threats”.

“Despite improvements in child and adolescent health over the past 20 years, progress has stalled, and is set to reverse,” Ms Clark said. “Every child worldwide now faces existential threats from climate change and commercial pressures.

“Countries need to overhaul their approach to child and adolescent health, to ensure that we not only look after our children today but protect the world they will inherit in the future.”

Australian academic Peter Sly, Director of the Children’s Health and Environment Program from the University of Queensland, was a local author of the report. He singled out excessive exposure of Australian children to fast food and gambling advertisements for particular criticism.

The report found children’s exposure to predatory commercial marketing of junk food and sugary beverages is associated with purchase of unhealthy foods and overweight and obesity. The number of obese children and adolescents increased from 11 million in 1975 to 124 million in 2016 – an 11-fold increase, with dire individual and societal costs. An estimated 28 per cent of Australian children are overweight or obese.

“The various governments and regulators responsible need to impose restrictions that truly protect children,” Professor Sly said. “Self-regulation is not working and did not work with the tobacco industry. A complete ban on advertising for all forms of alcohol and all forms of gaming during any program, including all sporting events likely to be watched by children, broadcast before 8:30 pm will be required to protect children. We did it for tobacco, so why not alcohol and gambling?”

The Director-General of the WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said the landmark report was a “wake-up call”.

“This report shows that the world’s decision makers are failing today’s children and youth: failing to protect their health, failing to protect their rights, and failing to protect their planet,” Dr Tedros said. “This must be a wakeup call for countries to invest in child health and development, ensure their voices are heard, protect their rights, and build a future that is fit for children.”

Local academics responded to the report by saying Australia had been “disgraced” on the world stage.

Anthony Okely, a researcher in child health and education at the University of Wollongong, said the report should concern Australian politicians.

“While we like to believe we are putting our children first and meeting their needs, our ranking on the Sustainability Index shows that our actions are not meeting our words,” Professor Okely said.” Australia’s very low score on this index is eroding many of the advances we have made in ensuring our children are flourishing.

“Our children are growing up in environments that are not supporting their right to an active, healthy life. The high levels of child obesity testify to this. Children are living more sedentary lifestyles, spending large amounts of time using electronic media for entertainment. This exposes them to marketing of unhealthy foods, displaces time they could spend being physically active, and compromises healthy sleep patterns.”

Liz Hanna, an academic at the Australian National University who also chairs the Environmental Health Working Group at the World Federation of Public Health Associations, said it was no wonder young people around the world were organising mass protests.

“This rigorous study married the voices of children with global metrics,” Dr Hanna said. “It further explains why the world’s children are uprising, demanding governments protect their future.

“Australia’s poor ranking provides powerful evidence that Australia has lost its way. Ranking 174th out of 180 countries on the Sustainability Index is as shameful as it is stupid.

“Decades of wilful neglect of the environment and the erosion of compassion have transformed the lucky country to an international laggard that is failing its children. By taking our natural advantages for granted, Australia is squandering its opportunities to secure a safe and healthy future for our children.

“Pandering to the sugar industry, and refusing a sugar tax, needlessly renders children at high risk of obesity, diabetes and a life plagued by chronic disease and disability.

“Similarly, steadfastly clinging to fossil fuel industries, against solid scientific evidence, unfolding climatic crises and environmental degradation knowingly accelerates climate change and robs children of their future.”

SOURCE  







Students of Western Civ will have to see through a mash of diversity propaganda

Let’s start with good news. Something truly remarkable will happen during the next fortnight. Students at two Australian universities will begin a bachelor of arts in Western civilisation. The aim is for students at the University of Wollongong and the University of Queensland to learn what past generations of university students in Australia have never learned on campus. Even more remarkably, the narky union for academics that launched, then withdrew, legal action last year over the Western civilisation course has settled down.

So they should. There is nothing objectionable, or threatening, about students learning about Western civilisation in a chronologically ordered fashion, undertaking a philosophical adventure through the major periods and epochs of intellectual and artistic change in the West. The list of subjects in the curriculum is impressive and brave, a grand intellectual sweeping story from ancient Greece to the Bible, taking in Western masterpieces in art and architecture, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, and the philosophy of democracy.

This is what all publicly funded Australian universities should be doing. Instead, this gaping vacuum in Australia’s tertiary education sector is being filled with five-year bachelor degrees at two universities offered to 60 students and funded by a private bequest by businessman Paul Ramsay through the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation.

The University of Wollongong’s curriculum guide for this degree in Western civilisation says its aim is to “create articulate graduates who are critical, creative thinkers that embrace and respect open inquiry. Our students will become well-rounded, free thinkers with … the intellectual skills and social virtues needed for conducting reasoned discussion, analysis and argument … (skills) necessary for all capable future leaders and good citizens.”

Make no mistake, the intention of the Ramsay Centre is to shake up the entire university sector. When students see a tremendous new degree at a few universities, they will demand that same impressive education at more.

This could be a groundbreaking degree, a shard of intellectual light in a dismally stupid period of Western self-loathing when even Yale University is pulling its famous course, Introduction to Art History: Renaissance to the Present. Course instructor Tim Barringer told the Yale Daily News that it is now problematic to put European art on a pedestal. Barringer’s new syllabus note says the course will now cover art in relation to “questions of gender, class and race and its involvement with Western capitalism”. “Its relationship with climate change will be a key theme,” Barringer wrote.

Now for the bad news. The fingerprints of the diversity and inclusion police, who are deeply anti-Western, wedded to identity politics and afraid of freethinking students, are all over the curriculum design document for Western civilisation degree at the University of Wollongong.

Why are they hanging their hat on this awful and confusing document? The curriculum guide reads like a narrative of a fierce battle between two forces. On one side are those promising a “bold, innovative initiative” that will offer students a “degree … unlike any other program of study currently offered at UOW”. On the frontline of the opposing side are diversity and inclusion police and other entrenched interests who seem determined to unwind, before it even starts, an exciting and new way to educate students about the story of Western civilisation.

For every short sentence in the curriculum that talks about a degree that “focuses centrally on the study of great works of Western civilisation” there are long paragraphs trying to refocus this degree on non-Western under-represented voices and perspec­tives. From a feminist retelling of the Iliad to the “golden age of Islam” there will apparently be myriad “opportunities for students to examine contemporary thinking on gender, race and class”. After another short sentence that promises “the BA WCiv’s predominant focus is on studying exemplary masterpieces of the West”, another 13 paragraphs promise to turn this innovative degree into the study about other cultures — something already on offer at just about every major Australian university.

One reference, in particular, blows the lid on how anti-Western ideologues aim to emasculate this new degree in Western civilisation. Drawing on the idea of a “great conversation” by American philosopher Robert Hutchins, the curriculum design document says it is “trying to cultivate sympathy in many ways”.

No serious high school history teacher, let alone a university professor, would talk about history in terms of trying to cultivate sympathy. At my public school in Adelaide I was lucky enough to have a brilliant history teacher in Year 10 who taught me that there is a world of difference between sympathy and empathy. History is not about feelings, he said. It is a study of people, ideas, facts and events to gain a sense of empathy about the past and its people. Empathy, not sympathy, provides a deep understanding of our history.

Maybe all this diversity and inclusion bumf was included as a superficial, and overblown, nod to placate the forces who tried to derail the course in a courtroom last year. Only time will tell.

But the very good people, the heroes, at Wollongong University who fought to bring this new degree to students should not misjudge the insidious influence of diversity activists embedded in university bureaucracies and academe. Neither should the Ramsay Centre and its board. Wollongong University’s Diversity and Inclusivity website says the school of liberal arts is fully committed to promoting diversity and inclusion in both its staff appointments and curriculum. It promises that the Ramsay-funded degree will “bring diverse voices and perspectives into the great conversation in half of the mandatory subjects … rather than relegating diverse voices to elective subjects”.

More superficial kowtowing? Once again, we will wait and watch. But it pays to remember that at universities across the country their history curriculums are saturated with teaching “diversity and inclusion” to the Orwellian point where they exclude, and denigrate, the teaching of Western civilisation in any kind of comprehensive, integrated, chrono­logically ordered program.

University of Sydney provost and deputy vice-chancellor Stephen Garton tried to make this point when negotiating with academics opposed to a Ramsay-funded degree in Western civilisation. But facts and reason were no match for the dogmatic zeal of his campus opponents.

In a statement last December, Ramsay Centre chief executive Simon Haines announced the end to negotiations after Sydney University’s revised attempt to secure $50m in funding. Haines said “the centre and its board had misgivings about the level of commitment of key stakeholders within the university in supporting the implementation of the curriculum and the associated scholarship program”.

Haines is not a man who resorts to hyperbole. His careful words are an indictment of the intellectual leadership of Sydney University vice-chancellor Mich­ael Spence.

No one should underestimate oppositional forces at UOW and UQ, or the intellectual leadership required at both universities to ensure that students embarking on this new degree are not subjected to the same tediously anti-Western dogma that drives the diversity and inclusion police. The peak union body for academics may be quiet now, but there are already signs that diversity and inclusion ideologues stand ready to sully these degrees. If they succeed, the Ramsay Centre will need to seriously rethink its noble aim to change things from within Australian universities.

SOURCE  






Greens will preference Coalition not Labor in NT

Greens could be responsible for electing conservatives!

A FIGHT about onshore gas fracking will see the Greens direct preferences to the Coalition ahead of Labor in a Northern Territory by-election later this month.

Greens leader Adam Bandt confirmed the controversial decision to put the ALP last 'below conservative parties Territory Alliance and the Country Liberal Party (CLP) but said it was a decision of the state branch.

Labor slammed the move, describing it as "petty" and called on Mr Bandt to intervene in the decision. "The Greens are putting petty politics ahead of real action on climate change," Labor MP Pat Conroy said. "The CLP sit with Barnaby Joyce in Canberra, by not intervening Adam Bandt is saying Labor is worse than Joyce and his ilk."

The Greens argue the decision to dump the longstanding policy of preferencing the Labor Party above conservative parties was due to the ALP's decision to lift the moratorium on gas fracking. "Fracking the Betaloo Basin is like building the Adani mine and people in the NT are angry at Labor lighting the fuse on this giant carbon bomb," Mr Bandt said. He said the outcome of the by-election would not change the territory's government.

From Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 16 Feb., 2020







Anti-dam policy coming in Queensland

A chunk of Queensland could be subject to strict new environmental protections under a State Government proposal that the LNP says would stop its New Bradfield Scheme in its tracks.

The Government is looking to impose new environmental standards in the south-west of the state in a move that the Opposition has warned will make it harder to build dams.

The proposed strategic environinental area in the Lake Eyre Basin would mean that water storage projects in the region would have to meet a set of criteria before they could get the go-ahead.

LNP leader Deb Frecklington has hit out at the proposal, claiming it would prevent new dams and irrigation projects in what could be "one of the most fertile regions of the country".

"There is no bigger issue in Queensland than water security and it is shameful that Labor are trying to stop the LNP's NeW Bradfield Scheme in its tracks," she said. "Queensland needs a stronger economy and the only way to deliver that is to back our regions and build job creating infrastructure like The New Bradfield Scheme.  "The LNP will unlock the potential of the outback, but all Labor wants to do is lock it up and throw away the key."

Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch insisted it would still be possible to apply to build a dam in a strategic environmental area.  The proposed environmental area is being considered as part of consultation with stakeholders she said.

From Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 16 Feb., 2020

 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 February 2019

Greens’ deal pie in sky

Greens leader Adam Bandt wrote this week to leaders of business groups calling for support for a local version of a New Green Deal to revive the Australian economy and reshape our industrial base.

To receive a letter from Bandt was a pleasant and welcome surprise. The Greens’ dialogue with industry has traditionally been sporadic, haphazard and not particularly rewarding.

The letter was a bold attempt to reframe the debate and discussion on energy, climate and industry policy for the next 10 years. It lacked one clear thing — any prior discussion or understanding with industry to determine where the economy is at, what change it can bear and where it should be in a decade.

Bandt recognises the importance a stronger economy is to lifting the living standards and environmental sustainability of Australians. Too often, environmentally minded leaders seem indifferent to the economy or oppose growth. Were the Greens on board, the prospects of a path that is pro-growth and pro-environment would be greater.

Bandt’s letter is extraordinarily prescriptive. Some elements appear to be ambit claims rather than goals to be pursued.

A 10-year timeframe to phase out fossil fuels across the economy is staggeringly unachievable. It would cause economic disruption and alienate significant sections of our community.

READ MORE:Bandt bids to woo big business|Greens are off with the fairies|Greens attack dog takes the helm
It means not only retiring the overwhelming bulk of our existing electricity generation cap­acity and replacing it with a mix of variable and flexible new resources but also retiring our existing steel industry and replacing it with new technologies that haven’t been used at commercial scale anywhere. It would mean replacing today’s passenger and road freight fleets. Taken literally, this is not a crash program but a program for a crash.

Bandt’s letter is conspicuously silent on how Australia’s emissions reductions can contribute to the international effort required to meet the Paris temperature ambitions. What matters for an economy that contributes less than 2 per cent of global emissions is to have our contributions leverage sufficient international effort to solve the climate problem. Without this dimension, unilateral action of the scale and speed implied by some of Bandt’s proposals is extraordinarily risky.

The widely supported goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 will require substantial technological change across the economy. All of today’s power stations will retire. All of today’s cars and trucks will be replaced. Australia could have enormous opportunity in a decarbonised world. The idea of a dramatic 10-year effort to accelerate this transition through technology, investment and reform is being seriously discussed in the US and implemented in Europe. But 10 years to complete the transition is a slogan, not a plan.

Australian climate effort needs to be compatible with a dynamic, innovative and profitable business sector. We need to do climate policy efficiently and we need to do taxation, workplace relations, regulation and skills development more efficiently.

Of course, as Bandt puts it, “we cannot allow Australian businesses to be decimated by the climate emergency”. We have had a bitter foretaste of the climate-related impacts we all want to avoid. But neither can we allow businesses and jobs to be trashed by hasty, ill-conceived responses.

There are gaps and anomalies in Bandt’s letter, but an opening is not an ending. Those concerns should not prevent us from welcoming his offer to work more closely on how to achieve environmentally sustainable ad­vances in living standards. We’ll all learn from each other in the process. But for any dialogue to succeed there must be room to compromise. The question for the Greens is what they’d be prepared to give ground on. History tells us not much.

Innes Willox is chief executive of the Australian Industry Group.

SOURCE  





Matt Canavan prepared to cross the floor, calling zero CO2 emissions target ‘fantastical’

Nationals Senator Matt Canavan has warned he would cross the floor and vote against the Liberals on key issues like climate and energy, calling a target of zero net emissions by 2050 being explored by the government “fantastical”.

The former resources minister, who quit the Nationals front bench amid leadership ructions last week, said he had the right to challenge legislation that was not in the interests of his constituents.

“Every backbench member of the coalition has the right to form their own position on legislation … if it is against the interests of my constituents,” Senator Canavan told Sky News on Sunday.

“I would ever only cross the floor if it was a severe issue that was against the interests of the people of Queensland.

“I have crossed the floor before, I don’t do it lightly though. It just depends – hopefully it doesn’t get to that situation but … while I’m on the backbench I’m not intending to take a back seat.”

Asked about the target of net zero emissions by 2050 the government is reportedly considering ahead of a UN climate summit in Glasgow at the end of the year, Senator Canavan was scathing, calling it a ploy “to try and hoodwink people that they might do something”.

“How as a country can we commit to net zero emissions in 30 years time, where we’ll receive our last diesel submarine in 35 years time? I mean it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense,

“I haven’t looked at the modelling or costs and benefits of net zero emissions closely because it just seems so fantastical to me. It seems like the kind of things that governments say, because they’re not doing much today but they’d like to try and hoodwink people that they might do something in 30 years time,

“It’s exactly the same as saying ‘look, I’m going to lose 10 kilos in 10 years’ time but I’m not going to do anything about it today, I’m not going to go for a jog, I’m not going to go down to the gym, but trust me, in 10 years time I’ll do something’. It doesn’t really sound real to me.

“Obviously that doesn’t work across the world. If every country signed up to net zero by 2050 who are you going to buy the credits from? Mars?

Nationals leader Michael McCormack also blasted the idea of the government committing to net zero emissions by 2050, the target recommended by the International Panel on Climate Change, saying Australia is “not run by international organisations”.

“The IPCC is not governing Australia. The Liberals and Nationals are,” Mr McCormack told the ABC on Sunday.

“We took all of the emissions policies to the election last May and we were re-elected. The Australian people have spoken. We’re not run by international organisations. We’re run by Australians. We’re run by Scott Morrison and we’re run by myself.

“Of course you’ve got to listen to the scientists but what you’ve also got to do is listen to the workers. Listen to the workers who put on a high-vis vest in a coalmine.”

Mr McCormack, who is under pressure following a failed bid to oust him from the leadership last week, denied he would be stepping aside to make way for deputy David Littleproud to take over, insisting he would lead the Nationals to the next election.

“I’ve now put myself to the party room as a leader three times in less than two years. And three times in less than two years, I’ve been endorsed as the party’s leader. That should be enough to draw a line under that discussion.”

“Barnaby Joyce has stated that he will support me. Matt Canavan has...I always believe country people when they look me in the eye and say something. And you’ve got to take people on their word.

Asked if he should have promoted Nationals who voted against him in the party’s recent spill to ease their dissatisfaction with him, Mr McCormack said: “I think that that might look self indulgent and me trying to protect the leadership.”

“More inclusivity needs to happen. And my door is always open to my colleagues. My door is always open.”

“When it comes to the front bench, I’m very happy with those who I selected for those ministerial roles. And certainly, they are going to do a good job. I’m blessed with talent in the National Party room, and I’m very thankful for that. I’ve got some tremendous people.

Senator Canavan, who quit cabinet to support Mr Joyce’s challenge against Mr McCormack said the party had “moved on.”

“It’s been a rough couple of weeks. But a decision was made in the party room and I said the day of the decision that Michael has my support. He’s the elected leader of the party room, and that’s what we’ve got to move forward with.

“Now I think it’s always the case that it takes longer for the media to move on from these kinds of events than it does political parties because the media loves to keep reporting on it. David Littleproud is a great bloke, he’s a nice fella. But Michael McCormack is leader of the Nationals party and I expect that to remain so,” Senator Canavan said.

However Senator Canavan refused to rule out supporting a different leader over Mr McCormack if another leadership spill was called.

“I’m not going to predict events in the future but I cannot see that happening. Michael has our full support and we’re getting on with it.

“We’ve now got a campaign against having one coal fired-power station in North Queensland (a proposed site in Collinsville) … In light of that we really do need to fight for it.

SOURCE  





Coalition may use government contracts to crack down on environment protests

The Coalition is considering using federal government building contracts to pressure companies not to engage in or to cave in to environmental boycotts.

In a sign the government is looking for innovative ways to implement Scott Morrison’s threat to crack down on environmental protests, the attorney general, Christian Porter, has sought views on whether the federal building code could be used to “prevent multiple secondary/environmental boycott demands and behaviour”.

The question is contained in an industrial relations discussion paper on the code, released on Tuesday.

The code, last updated in 2016, governs the federal government’s engagement with construction companies and is usually used to influence industrial conditions and the role of unions, rather than environmental groups.

It has been used to ban union flags on worksites, to force employers to reject clauses allowing unions access to worksites for inductions, and to ban clauses limiting the use of contractors.

The paper notes the code already requires companies to report “actual or threatened industrial action and secondary boycott demands as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours”.

Although the code directly applies only to companies bidding for government work, those companies must adopt preferred work practices in all their private sector agreements and impose the same conditions on subcontractors in order to comply.

If the code were used to prevent secondary or environmental boycotts, the government could potentially put pressure on a company to build a rail line to Adani’s Carmichael coalmine or lose all its government work, for example.

Asked about the proposal at a press conference in Melbourne, Porter incorrectly claimed the word “environmental” did not appear in the paper, before conceding the government is interested in how to combat “secondary boycotts which would include any number of different reasons” for boycotts.

“We have come across a range of instances where businesses have been damaged by behaviour that could be described as secondary boycotts,” he said.

“In the context of the Commonwealth as a purchaser of construction services … we’re interested in hearing from all of the parties if there is a role for the code to ensure businesses don’t get damaged by unfair secondary boycott behaviour.”

Porter agreed that companies losing work for engaging in or caving in to a secondary boycott were “all possible options”.

A wide range of businesses have been targeted for Adani-related boycotts including banks, such as Westpac, and many other companies outside the construction sector.

In January Greyhound ruled out any extension of work on the controversial Adani coal project after it was targeted for providing transport to workers for the construction company BMD, which is building the railway to take the coal to Adani’s Abbot Point port.

In November Morrison branded environmental protesters “anarchists” and threatened a radical crackdown on the right to protest in a speech to the Queensland Resources Council, claiming progressives were seeking to “deny the liberties of Australians”.

Porter explained that a crackdown could include moves to limit access to litigation funding and environmental litigation and to prevent secondary boycotts by groups such as Market Forces.

He accused the group of attempting to “impose their political will on companies across the country through widespread, coordinated harassment and threats of boycotts”.

The Competition and Consumer Act already contains civil penalties for secondary boycotts, which target one business in order to prevent provision of goods or services to another, including if they cause “substantial loss or damage” or substantially lessen competition.

However, secondary boycotts for the “dominant purpose” of environmental protection or consumer protection are permitted.

SOURCE  






Australian public broadcaster loses legal challenge on free speech grounds

Australia's national broadcaster has lost its legal challenge to controversial police raids on its Sydney newsroom last year.

In June, police searched the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the home of a newspaper journalist over articles which relied on leaks from government whistleblowers.

The raids sparked a public outcry and protests across the nation's media.

However, the Federal Court of Australia has ruled the searches were legal.

ABC's managing director David Anderson said the decision was "disappointing". He said the raids had been a high-profile "attempt to intimidate journalists for doing their job".

Why did police raid newsrooms?

Australian Federal Police alleged the stories and reporters at the centre of its searches had breached national security laws.

In the raid last year, they seized thousands of documents over a 2017 ABC investigation which alleged Australian armed forces had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

Police also raided the home of News Corp reporter Annika Smethurst. In 2018, she had reported an alleged attempt by a government agency to spy on Australian citizens.

Australia's conservative government tightened its security laws in 2018 to make it a criminal offence for journalists to receive classified information from military or intelligence sources.

Canberra has previously said it backs press freedom but that "no one was above the law".

What was the ABC's challenge?

The ABC tried to challenge the legality of the police search warrant, arguing that it breached an implied constitutional right for free speech on political matters.

However, the court rejected that argument. It said "the purpose of the warrant in this case was entirely legitimate" as police had been investigating "valid" national security offences.

The court also said the few legal protections for journalists' sources were not applicable in this case.

The industry's union, the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance said the case's dismissal showed "ongoing and serious threats to the public's right to know".

Mr Anderson, from the ABC, said the ruling was "a blow for public interest journalism".

Police have not ruled out prosecuting Ms Smethurst, and ABC reporters Sam Clarke and Dan Oakes over their stories.

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 February, 2020

Female tradies want their OWN range of hi-vis workwear - saying being 'forced' to wear men's clothes is DANGEROUS

Quick! Call the feminists.  Men and women are the same!

Female tradeswomen say the male-oriented clothing used on work sites is not only ill-fitting but could put them in danger.

Research from Bisley Workwear has found nine out of ten tradeswomen have struggled to find protective workwear which fits properly.

Major issues include loose clothing snagging on ladders and frustrations around trying to remove a pair of overalls from inside a portaloo.  

Of the women surveyed, a third felt they couldn't work as hard in poorly-fitting uniforms.

Nearly half of all workers resorted to wearing their own casual clothing to worksites rather than proper workwear.

Former Block contestent Kara Demmich told the Today Show when she first showed up she was excited by the clothing options but soon encountered problems.

'I was given a bag of clothes and I thought we had hit the jackpot with free clothes but they didn't fit me. They were a bit big and when you're on a work site and climbing over joists you want something that fits and is not going to get caught,' she said.

Female landscaper Coralie Stuart said the lifespan of clothing had also been an issue for her.

'If you have to climb a ladder and if you're not wearing gear that fits properly it's dangerous,' she said.

'And the clothing I was wearing through it in the space of a couple of months and the menswear doesn't fit. So it's good to have something that is fitted to my body not going to get caught on anything and tear things.'

The research also found about 45 per cent of women surveyed felt self-conscious wearing uniforms which weren't designed for the female body. 

The rising number of women working in trades and research around workwear has prompted changes to the uniforms.

New gear has been created that is more form fitting with a feminine design twist to eliminate the risks associated with women wearing men's workwear.

The managing director of Bisley, David Gazal told the Australian that women's clothing is traditionally adapted from men's with very few changes.

'So we then got a men's silhouette and a men's garment and we put in nips and tucks and called it a women's style. It still didn't fit but we called it a ladies style.'

But he said the company's new female workwear was designed for women from the ground up.

'When we put this range together, we put it together knowing that the garment needs a completely different silhouette, and completely different fabric,' Mr Gazal said.

'Fabric needs stretch, it needs wearability, and functionality in the workplace. It needs to be durable and not be restrictive.'

SOURCE  






Bandt has Labor in awkward corner

Would Richard Marles welcome a New Australian coal-fired power station? The ABC’s David Speers asked the question of Labor’s deputy leader at least a dozen times last week before giving up and answering himself.

“So that’s a maybe?” he suggested. Marles voiced no dissent.

The place called “maybe” is dangerous terrain for an opposition, particularly on an issue on which passions run high. Just ask Jeremy Corbyn whose maybe/maybe not policy on leaving the EU is the principal reason the British Labour Party is looking for a new leader.

It is a while until our next federal election but we can already predict that climate policy will be one of Labor’s principal sources of grief, just as it has been at every election since 2010, when Julia Gillard received a mandate not to ­introduce the carbon tax she promptly did.

In last year’s election campaign, inviting Bill Shorten to share the costings on his 45 per cent emissions target was the surest way to make him lose his rag. His unsteady performance on the issue was one reason voters considered him shifty or worse.

His climate platform has been repudiated by his successor, leaving a great dollop of jelly where Labor’s policy ought to be.

Today Labor faces its own divisions while the Coalition, at least around the cabinet table, is united on climate and energy, probably for the first time since John Howard was in government.

Labor has spawned a ginger group that brands itself the friends of coal. They meet at Otis (the restaurant, not the elevator) in an ­attempt to move Labor back to the sensible centre.

That is the point on the spectrum where every Labor politician who aspires to win the next election wants to be, armed with a policy that unites the Collinsville miners and the knitting nannas of Marrickville in one happy family.

A cool, damp summer might have given Labor some breathing space. Instead, the climate debate has been charged with a new ferocity. Anthony Albanese is being challenged from within his party to hitch his wagon to the climate emergency.

He has wisely resisted, knowing that the moral argument is not one Labor can easily win.

Labor’s discomfort

Adam Bandt’s elevation as the Greens leader has increased Labor’s discomfort. Bandt is taking the Greens further towards the extreme as he shapes a clearer divide between the parties of the left.

“Ultimately Labor’s got to ­decide where it stands,” Bandt told Michelle Grattan recently. “If Labor thinks it can continue to walk both sides of the fence, they’re going to stay in opposition for a very long time. The script that we saw playing out at the last election will just play itself out at the next election.”

Last week, after the existence of the Otis Group was revealed by the media, Albanese retreated further into maybe land. His claim that the party “is united in our position that climate change is real, that we need to act on lowering our emissions” these days counts as a motherhood statement. It puts him on a unity ticket with both the Coalition and the Greens while being slightly less convincing than either.

His rhetoric on coal, that it will continue to play a part in Australia’s economy for decades to come, is almost identical to Tony ­Abbott’s, as Bandt delights in pointing out. Brand differentiation is all but impossible.

The Coalition is offering Labor few favours by charting a steadier course on energy policy.

Malcolm Turnbull’s departure relieved much of the tension in the Liberals’ partyroom, while Scott Morrison’s anointing of Angus Taylor as the minister for bringing down ­energy prices gave a practical sense of direction to the policy challenge that has been lacking for more than decade.

A vocal group in the partyroom wishes the Prime Minister was driven less by the Paris target. Another vocal section urges him to do more. Yet the party has seldom been more comfortable in its own skin on climate policy, having re­framed the question in economic rather than scientific terms.

Crucially, the energy policy challenge has evolved in the past three years since the closure of coal-fired power stations in South Australia and Victoria brought home the vulnerabilities of wind and solar.

The gap in the market is now supply that backs up renewables, rather than baseload, reducing the reliance on coal and putting the focus on the supply of gas. Labor shows no signs of coming to terms with this development.

The government is at last starting to parade its achievements, dispelling the myth that it has been sitting on its hands.

Labor had expected to contain emissions at 635 million tonnes by now by imposing a carbon tax. The Coali­tion has managed to reduce emissions to 532 million tonnes without one. Wholesale electricity prices are down 35 per cent year on year. The retail price has fallen for four consecutive quarters. The carbon footprint of the average Australian is well on its way to being half as big as it was in 2005.

It makes it almost impossible for Labor to take a position sufficiently different from the Coali­tion to make a fight of it. Entering a bidding war with the Greens, as it tried to do last time, would put blue-collar seats in danger.

It is little wonder that a growing group in Labor is urging Albanese to sue for peace by adopting policies close to those of the ­government and seeking a bipartisan solution.

A couple of years ago the Coali­tion would have jumped at the chance to neutralise climate as an election issue. Its elevation as a party-political issue in the first place puts Australia at odds with most other Western democracies.

Right now, however, there is little enthusiasm in the Coalition for extending an olive branch. Much better to watch the opposition squirm.

SOURCE  





Qld Labor MP condemns Jackie Trad, Premier Palaszczuk ahead of caucus meeting

Trad is a Lebanese wheeler-dealer

Queensland’s longest-serving Labor MP and former Police Minister Jo-Ann Miller has unloaded on Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk and Deputy Premier Jackie Trad, accusing them of ostracising her, saying “Trad is a four-letter word”.

Labor MPs are due to meet this afternoon for a caucus meeting where they’ve been encouraged to share any concerns they have about Ms Trad’s leadership and role in cabinet, amid backbench angst that her ongoing presence is dragging down the government’s popularity.

In a radio interview this morning, Bundamba MP Ms Miller – who has been in Queensland parliament for 20 years – said Ms Palaszczuk had not spoken to her on the phone since she was forced to quit cabinet as Police Minister in 2015.

“Certainly I believe the Labor Party has ostracised me because I had the temerity, so to speak, to do this (raise corruption concerns about Ipswich City Council),” Ms Miller told ABC Radio Brisbane, in an interview recorded a week ago.

“In the Labor Party there appears to be a view that it’s OK to call out corruption and misconduct with the LNP, or the Tories, but it’s not OK to call it out if it’s on your own side.

“Labor people should be better than that, and it’s up to Labor people to always call out corruption, misconduct, bad behaviour, on their own side, because that’s expected of us.”

Asked by interviewer Rebecca Levingston whether Ms Trad had “damaged Annastacia Palaszczuk’s chances of a third-term in parliament,” Ms Miller answered: “Well, Trad is a four-letter word, isn’t it? Maybe I should leave it at that.”

Ms Miller said she did not have much of a relationship with Ms Palaszczuk since she left cabinet.

“Well, she doesn’t speak to me very often,” Ms Miller said. “I think that when she made it very clear that I had to go as Police Minister, after raising these issues of corruption, I think there was an expectation, certainly I was told to leave the parliament, as well.”

“So that morning I was told to get out, I was told to get out of not only being the Police Minister, but also of the parliament, but I refused to get out of the parliament.”

Before her resignation, parliament’s ethics committee found Ms Miller had demonstrated a pattern of reckless conduct which did not meet ministerial or parliamentary standards, relating to her disposal of confidential documents.

Trad responds

Outside this afternoon’s left faction meeting, Ms Trad was asked to respond to Ms Miller’s comments, that her surname was a “four-letter word”.

“Can I say that I think Queenslanders are sick of politicians talking about politicians? I think they want us to be focused on making sure they have the jobs, the roads, the hospitals, and the schools for their children, and that’s what I’m focused on, putting this budget together.”

Labor’s factions are meeting this afternoon, ahead of the caucus meeting. Both sets of meetings are typical for a Monday afternoon ahead of a parliamentary sitting.

‘Go and have a cold shower’

Ms Palaszczuk has warned disaffected Labor MPs to stop focusing on Deputy Premier Jackie Trad’s job and focus on their own futures, ahead of a crucial caucus meeting.

Ms Palaszczuk said if MPs had concerns to raise, they should do it in this afternoon’s caucus meeting, but said she was certain Ms Trad would remain Deputy Premier at the end of it.

“Look, as I said on Friday and I’ll say it again, caucus is the place where MPs can raise any issues they have. I expect it to be a very calm meeting today … (Ms Trad) will be Deputy Premier (at the end of it),” Ms Palaszczuk said.

“I think everyone should go and have a cold shower, it’s pretty hot out there.”

Of backbencher Jo-Ann Miller’s comment in a radio interview, broadcast on Monday morning, that “Trad is a four-letter word,” Ms Palaszczuk said MPs should have higher standards of behaviour.

“I don’t think MPs should be speaking about other MPs like that … (Ms Miller) is just over there,” she said. “I think people should have a higher standard of behaviour and everyone should be respectful to each other.”

She said she still said “hello” to Ms Miller at events, and her office was in contact with the rebel backbencher during the last sitting of parliament.

But she said Ms Miller had disappointed Labor MPs when she was photographed hugging Pauline Hanson during the last state election campaign.

“I think a lot of people were very disappointed when Jo-Ann went and embraced Pauline Hanson during the last state campaign, and I was disappointed in that as well,” Ms Palaszczuk said.

Ms Palaszczuk said she would not be distracted by the backbencher angst over Ms Trad’s political future. “I will not be distracted by it, and I’ll give a very blunt message to everybody today: get focused on your job and not worrying about everyone else’s jobs,” she said.

SOURCE  





Joaquin, Osher, Greta and Jane show ignorance can be blissfully rewarding

First they came for the coal, then they wanted our milk. While the demonisation of coal ignores how this mineral has probably done more for human prosperity and progress than any other, we at least can comprehend why climate activists have turned on coal — even if their plans are reckless and impractical.

Extinction Rebellion protesters are so committed to shutting down the coal industry that they lie on polystyrene foam mats made from fossil fuels while they use acrylic resins made from fossil fuels to super-glue themselves to the road with chains and pipes manufactured with coal-fired energy. Soon they’ll be doing the same in dairies.

Because now the woke are turning on milk. They want to make us guilty for feeding milk to our kids.

“We feel entitled to artificially inseminate a cow and steal her baby, even though her cries of ­anguish are unmistakeable,” Holly­wood actor Joaquin Phoenix said accepting his Oscar on Monday. “Then we take her milk that’s intended for her calf and we put it in our coffee and our cereal.” Perhaps he was trying to distract from how he makes millions eliciting cries of anguish from filmgoers as he glorifies a fictional serial killer.

While Scott Morrison is pilloried for waving a lump of coal around in parliament, heaven help the next leader caught supping on a glass of pasteurised full-cream. Apparently we are heartless, arrogant bigots against other species, we are speciesists who steal milk from cows, and we need to be told.

Remember when fashionable political stances could be summarised as a resistance to instruction, a push for freedom? There was a libertarian approach, embraced especially by the young and focused on the rights of individuals — they railed against young men being conscripted to serve in Vietnam, disrupted social norms and demanded equal rights for women and indigenous Australians.

Activists defied and challenged edicts handed down by moralising church leaders, conservative institutions or paternalistic governments. There was a healthy disdain for anyone telling others how to live their lives.

But now the fashion goes with the zeitgeist, advocates for groupthink and shames individuals into conforming. Now the woke are the preachy ones.

Who are we to decide how to run our lives when there are Hollywood A-listers prepared to set an example by wearing the same designer tuxedo to more than one awards dinner? Why should we enjoy breakfast when an actor equates the rights of people, countries, races and genders with the rights of individual ­species?

“We’re talking about the fight against the belief that one nation, one people, one race, one gender, one species, has the right to dominate, use and control another with impunity,” said Phoenix. Presumably he will boycott next year’s Academy Awards because in all their history they have not so much as nominated a single other species; it’s been a Homo sapiens clean sweep.

And once Phoenix succeeds in his equal pay battle for the full cast of Doctor Dolittle, perhaps he could head to the Serengeti to campaign against lions imposing their will on wildebeest, a clear-cut case of speciesist exploitation if ever I saw one.

“We go into the natural world and we plunder it for its resources,” the actor said. “We fear the idea of personal change because we think we need to sacrifice something, to give something up.”

He ought to know. After all, the poor bloke was wearing the same suit he had worn a week or so ­earlier. Jane Fonda too made a virtue of wearing a dress she had worn six years earlier. As if that weren’t hardship enough, after she was glammed up by her spartan team of just three stylists (hair, dress and make-up), Fonda posted on social media that she was wearing ­“Pomellato jewellery because it only uses respon­sible, ethically harvested gold and sus­tainable ­diamonds”.

Ah, sustainable diamonds, the thinking woman’s carbon sink. Mother Teresa has nothing on these people. This year’s Nobel Peace Prize will be hard to pick.

We get much of the same closer to home, of course. On the ABC’s Q&A this week, one of their panellists was reality television host Osher Gunsberg (he fronts The Bachelor) who was chosen, wouldn’t you know, because he proselytises for climate action and claims to practise what he ­preaches.

“I wouldn’t call it sacrifice at all,” Gunsberg said of his vegan, non-internal combustion and ­carbon-conscious lifestyle. “The benefits that I get in my life for the choices that I make around my impact on the world are extraordinary … I’ve been driving electric cars since 2011, and they’re an extraordinarily exciting … they’re really fun to drive. I have an electric bike as well, a moped that I get around on. It’s super fun.”

This is nirvana, all the fun of the carnival and saving the planet at the same time. I don’t know Gunsberg’s travel habits so can’t say whether he is a globetrotting climate hypocrite like Prince Harry, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore and so many others, but I did find some articles featuring him with his pet dog — now this is a carbon extravagance. Studies show pet dogs can have the annual carbon footprint of a car, so surely any climate radical with a pet is a fraud.

Naturally enough I reckon Gunsberg is free to live his life as he likes, and back any cause he chooses. But it is the preaching that grates, and exposes him, along with the way the media (in this case the ABC) then presents him as an authority.

He suggested to the Q&A audience that Australia’s export coal market would soon collapse, which is just not true.

International Energy Agency figures show our coal exports have reached record levels and are set to plateau or ­increase slightly into the future.

Just in our two largest markets there are more than 100 new coal-fired power stations under construction in China and more than a dozen in Japan. I look forward to The Bachelor episode where they explain how these generators will function without coal.

Preaching is everywhere. This week Greta Thunberg admonished the entire global population when she tweeted about record carbon dioxide levels and said, “no one understands the full meaning” because this is the “crisis that’s never been treated as a crisis”.

The 17-year-old, who has yet to finish her schooling, also tweeted that “Indigenous rights = climate justice”.

Then, right on cue, the BBC announced it would be producing a TV science series with Thunberg. Again, this teenager should feel free to spruik her views wherever she likes but the worry is how her silly hectoring is ­embraced and amplified by adults, politicians and public broadcasters. It will be amusing when she loses one sandal and they all adopt that as a sign.

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy, admonished the nation for xenophobia and racism this week, referencing unspecified incidents directed against Chinese-Australians, apparently triggered by coronavirus panic. When I pressed for details Murphy referred to incidents “reflected widely on social media” and noted that “individual in­stances have not been recorded”.

Labor MP Andrew Giles called for a national anti-racism campaign suggesting the coronavirus was being used as an “excuse” for racism. Just like those who created an “I’ll ride with you” campaign based on a fabricated incident after the Lindt cafe siege, Giles was quick to think the worst of mainstream Australians — he wanted a publicly funded national lecturing campaign.

Like brainwashed cult members, the new woke left loves to receive instructions and be lectured. And, in turn, it likes to lecture us.

Fortunately, mainstream people in a host of Western democracies who are sick of sanctimony on climate change, energy, border protection, Brexit and, yes, even veganism have been able to express their will through the ballot box. Just because the so-called elites are enraptured by the sound of their own exhortations, it doesn’t mean they’re resonating.

SOURCE 

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






17 February, 2020

This fire season, areas of Australia have burnt that used to be too wet to burn

Australia is a land of natural climate extremes.  Always has been. And we had one of our periodic extremes recently. A combination of severe drought and unusually high temperatures  amplified our usual summer bushfires.

A historical perspective is missing in most commentary on it.  Claims that the 2019/20 fires were unprecedented simply show how short memories are. The area burnt, for instance, was much greater in 1974/75.  And who remembers that in the Sydney of 1790 (Yes. 1790, not 1970) bats and birds were falling out of the trees from heat exhaustion?

But weather is highly variable from place to place and time to time so some areas were drier than usual. Some areas had dried out that usually remained damp -- resulting in the events described below

I have deleted below all the claims that the fires were influenced by global warming.  The floods that have immediately followed the fires and put them out are also a great extreme.  Were they caused by global warming too?  Even Warmists have seen the incongruity of claiming that global warming could cause both drought and floods in quick succession so have generally gone silent about climate change.  But if climate change did not cause the floods, how can we know that it caused the drought? We cannot.

There is absolutely no way we can prove that climate change had any influence on the fires.  Claims that climate change did have an influence are mere assertion, mere opinion, mere propaganda.  There are well-established methods in science for establishing causes. None of them were applicable to the recent extreme events.  So there is no reason to believe that the recent events were anything more than normal variations


Binna Burra Lodge in the Gold Coast hinterland was 81-year-old Tony Groom’s life. His father founded the mountain hiking retreat in the 1930s, Tony ran it in the 60s and 70s, and his daughter, Lisa, 52, grew up there.

The lodge’s wooden cabins, bordered by rainforest on one side and eucalypts on the other, were a touchstone for people’s lives: for weddings, wakes and walks around the ancient world heritage forests of Lamington national park.

Next door, Tony and his late wife, Connie, lived for almost 40 years in Alcheringa, a stone-walled house with a deck where Lisa and her brother would dangle their feet out over the Coomera Valley

On the morning of 8 September 2019 the lodge, the heritage-listed cabins and the Grooms’ family homestead were razed to the ground by a bushfire. About 450 hectares of rainforest burned around Binna Burra that day – the kind of lush forest that doesn’t usually burn.

Firefighters use the forest fire danger index to tell them how bad conditions are. The index combines the key ingredients that influence a bushfire – temperature, wind speed, humidity and the dryness of the “fuel”, including grasses and fallen wood from trees.

The trends show not only that conditions are becoming more dangerous, but that the fire season is starting earlier.

The number of severe bushfire danger days has increased in spring for large parts of Australia

Australia’s spring months are September, October and November. The spring of 2019 was the worst year on record for high-risk bushfire weather in south-east Queensland, and for the entire country.

The conditions that helped a fire take hold at Sarabah, north-west of Binna Burra, had been building since the beginning of the year.

Rainfall was well below average, the ground was unusually dry and, in the days before the fire struck, daytime maximum temperatures were at near-record levels after months of hotter-than-average weather.

Then came the winds.

Australia’s devastating fire season of 2019 and 2020 has so far burned through more than 7.7 million hectares in the south-eastern states, claiming 33 lives and almost 3,000 homes. Firefighters have never experienced anything like it.

Neither has Australia. 2019 was the hottest and driest year on record.

The kind of conditions that have delivered devastating and deadly major bushfires in the recent past are going to increase, according to Dr Richard Thornton, the chief executive of the Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre.

“People tend to base their risk perception on what they’ve experienced before – a bushfire every 50 or 100 years,” Thornton says. “Their risk perception is based on history. But history is not a good predictor of the future.

As for the home at Alcheringa, and Binna Burra Lodge, there are plans to rebuild in a way that will minimise damage from future fires. But they know the future will be different.

SOURCE  






Everyone's got a victim story - so here's mine

Bettina Arndt

I have a strange little story, an interesting side-show to the bombardment I am receiving in the press.

The main accusation against me, from Victoria Attorney General Jill Hennessy, Rosie Batty and numerous media commentators, is that my views are an insult to victims of sexual abuse.

That’s pretty funny really because that’s exactly what I am – a victim of sexual abuse. Fifty years ago, as a nineteen-year old university student, I was one of many victims of a Canberra doctor who fiddled with me in his surgery and was eventually charged with molesting his patients.

I’ve never chosen to see myself as a victim, but I have had enough of people like Hennessy telling us how we are allowed to talk about such experiences. In 1997 I wrote a long newspaper article in the SMH talking about what that doctor did to me, outlining the complexities of his case, why a judge and then the full court determined he should not be charged, and how I felt about that.

Now selected quotes from that article are being used as part of the endless media pile-on, as feminists react to news of my award. The usual suspects, particularly Nina Funnell, have spent the past fortnight dishing out dirt about me. The story of the Canberra doctor is classic of their tactics – picking unrelated phrases from my writing to try and show me in the worst possible light.

So, this was a quote in an article about me, co-authored by Nina Funnell and published in New Matilda on Australia Day weekend:

In 1997 Ms Arndt defended a Canberra doctor who had molested multiple patients, including a 12 year old child, arguing that the sex offender should not be charged over the molestations, because in another context masturbating a person would be a “loving and pleasurable” act.

Notice how deceptively the authors fail to acknowledge I was a victim of this man – because that would have undermined their argument that my views are damaging to sex abuse victims.

Now let me tell you what actually happened. I went to see this unknown doctor because I thought I might be pregnant and picked a medical practitioner working on the other side of town from my parents, as teenage girls tend to do.

He suggested an orgasm might be just the thing to bring on my period and in a detached, professional manner he proceeded to try, unsuccessfully, to achieve just that with his fingers. I thought it was a bit odd at the time, but it wasn’t a big deal for me, and I barely thought about the experience until a quarter of a century later, when the first accusations appeared in the press about the doctor.

In 1994, 13 women laid sexual assault charges against him. A judge ultimately granted a permanent stay on the proceedings, noting that by then the man had retired from medical practice. The Judge said he would be prejudiced by the long delay and relevant medical records had been destroyed. A full court supported that decision.

Then, amazingly the doctor sent a written apology to two of the victims, expressing his grief that he had caused them pain and suffering. I ended up interviewing a number of his victims, some of whom said an apology was all they wanted from the man. That’s what my long, careful article was all about. What do victims want from a perpetrator? Is an apology ever enough? 

I urge everyone to please read it – it’s here, on my website. I agreed with some of the victims who said that because he’d given an apology, and was no longer in practice, that was enough for them. That said, I clearly spelt out in detail how important it is to prosecute and remove from practice doctors who betray their patients’ trust.

But I breached the feminist playbook by suggesting there’s a difference between violent rape and what this man did to me. That happens to be the truth as far as the outcome of such experiences on victims, as the research clearly shows.

Feminists are forcing us all to lie and pretend all sexual offences are equally damaging – even though the psychological literature clearly shows victim impact and recovery is very much related to the type of offence, as well as many other factors. It’s been wonderful this week to hear from so many psychologists applauding me for daring to speak out about the silencing of this type of research.

I’ve made a video about the Canberra doctor story. I have every right to define my own experiences and to write about them without zealots distorting what I say and shutting down conversations about these important topics. They are deliberately creating moral panic to fuel the outrage industry with their ill-informed, ideologically driven misinformation.  Here’s the video. Please help me circulate that.

Bettina@bettinaarndt.com.au






‘No place’ for ‘1950s professional sectarianism in corporate Australia’: Porter

Attorney-General Christian Porter is “resisting” a “push on” from devout leaders who want the government to go further with draft religion freedom legislation, Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell says.

“The Anglicans want the law firms and medical practices, corporate, to be able to discriminate, if you like, on the grounds of religion,” he said.

In response, Mr Porter said “enabling religious schools, hospitals and aged care centres to preference people from their own faith when making employment decision is a sensible measure that is supported in the draft of the Religious Discrimination Bill.”

“But the government does not support extending the same rights to private commercial organisations such as law firms and doctors surgeries, as some faith groups have faith groups have advocated."

Mr Porter described the suggestion as a “retrograde step” which could see “a return to the bad old days when young lawyers and other professionals were awarded opportunities on the basis of their religion, rather than their ability.

"There is no place for this sort of 1950s professional sectarianism in corporate Australia."

Attorney-General Christian Porter is “resisting” a “push on” from devout leaders who want the government to go further with draft religion freedom legislation, Sky News Political Editor Andrew Clennell says.

“The Anglicans want the law firms and medical practices, corporate, to be able to discriminate, if you like, on the grounds of religion,” he said.

In response, Mr Porter said “enabling religious schools, hospitals and aged care centres to preference people from their own faith when making employment decision is a sensible measure that is supported in the draft of the Religious Discrimination Bill.”

“But the government does not support extending the same rights to private commercial organisations such as law firms and doctors surgeries, as some faith groups have faith groups have advocated."

Mr Porter described the suggestion as a “retrograde step” which could see “a return to the bad old days when young lawyers and other professionals were awarded opportunities on the basis of their religion, rather than their ability.

"There is no place for this sort of 1950s professional sectarianism in corporate Australia."

SOURCE  






'What a pathetic joke... absolutely disgusting': Parents' fury as a Perth school bans CUPCAKES at birthday celebrations for 'cultural reasons'

Parents have lashed out at a primary school after its principal said students weren't able to bring cupcakes and lolly bags to class to celebrate their birthday. 

Arbor Grove Primary School in Ellenbrook, Perth issued a letter to parents saying the food would no longer be allowed due to health and cultural reasons.

Principal Glen Purdy said students who brought in unhealthy food items would have their stash confiscated by their teacher and returned at the end of the day.

In the lengthy letter warning parents of the new rule, Mr Purdy said the ban was due to an increasing amount of students with allergies as well as the 'cultural diversity' of its students.

'Whilst teachers at Arbor Grove are happy to celebrate the birthdays of students in the classroom, we must do so in the most inclusive, practical and appropriate way,' he said.

'During our deliberations we have been mindful of the increasing number of students with food allergies and intolerances, the cultural diversity of the school and the beliefs and traditions of these cultures.

'As of Monday 17 February we would ask that parents no longer send students with cupcakes, lolly bags or other unhealthy options for students to share with their classmates for their birthdays.'

The principal said that while it wasn't a 'universally popular decision' it would help avoid the risk of a child suffering a 'life threatening health issue' if they had any allergies.

Mr Purdy also said the rules were 'respectful to the cultural diversity within the school', which has students from 14 different nationalities.

The letter was flooded with criticism from parents, with some saying they should have been able to vote before the ban was put in place.

'Why didn’t they ask the parents to vote? Out of a school over 500 students, let’s say 125 are of cultural difference. What ever happened to majority rules. Man I’m p****d,' one mother said in a parents Facebook page for the school.

'Absolutely disgusting. There are a lot more important issues this school should be concerned about & trying to fix NOT STOPPING OUR KIDS FROM BEING KIDS,' another parent wrote.

'What a pathetic joke of a school. Bowing to the minorities once again!!! This school should be ashamed of itself!' someone commented.

Many were outraged that they had to change Australian traditions to meet those of other cultures.

'So we can send the kids to school with healthy/toy loot bags and that would still be deemed as breaching cultural diversities? I’m calling racism and unfairness on our Aussie traditions here and I am extremely offended by this action,' a father said.

'I don’t put my children through our Australian school to be told that we have to abide by other beliefs, traditions and cultures against and over our very own. It is bloody Australia and we have traditions of our own.'

'Don’t even get me started... so it’s okay to sell soft drinks at a school disco for fundraising but not ok to bring a cupcake to school for a birthday,' a mother wrote.

One parent suggested children be allowed to bring in non-food items like balls or coloured pencils. 'It would be a very sad day when a child is not allowed to celebrate their birthday at school,' they said.

SOURCE  

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





16 February, 2020

Finkel: Coal could be sidelined by a push for gas to serve as a transition fuel, and a move toward renewably produced hydrogen

I watched most of Finkel's speech on TV. It was politely received: No eruptions from critics in either direction.  His logic about the interim use of natural gas was basically irrefutable.

Where he went off the rails was in his advocacy of hydrogen as the ultimate fuel. That idea has been around for many years but stumbles on questions of cost and safety.  Basically you take a fuel that is usable in its own right and use its energy to produce a new fuel.  That is very inefficient and inevitably more costly than just using the fuel you already have to do other things

Finkel saw hydrogen as particularly good for powering motor vehicles.  That is again pie in the sky. You need a heavy pressure vessel to store hydrogen and that is both more costly, more tricky to deal with and more dangerous than the simple sheet metal tank that normal motor fuels require

Not gonna happen


Australia’s chief scientist, Alan Finkel, has come out in support of the government’s strategy of using gas as a transition fuel to generate electricity while the sector moves away from coal toward clean energy sources.

“We cannot abruptly cease our use of energy,” he told the National Press Club this week. “Make no mistake, this will be the biggest engineering challenge ever undertaken. The energy system is huge, and even with an internationally committed and focused effort, the transition will take many decades.”

“Ultimately, we will need to complement solar and wind with a range of other technologies such as high levels of storage, long-distance transmission, and much better efficiency in the way we use energy.”

“But while these technologies are being scaled up, we need an energy companion today that can react rapidly to changes in solar and wind output. An energy companion that is itself relatively low in emissions, and that only operates when needed. In the short-term, as the prime minister and Minister Angus Taylor have previously stated, natural gas will play that critical role.”

The strategy was first flagged in 2015 by the then-Minister for Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg but was picked up by Prime Minster Scott Morrison just last month, amid devastating bushfires, which climate scientists and bushfire experts have linked to Australia’s love affair with coal and other fossil fuels.

Since the Morrison government has shown a renewed interest in gas, some coalition MPs, most notably from the National Party and from areas that have for many years relied on exporting coal, have stepped up their defense of it and have begun petitioning for government subsidies for coal-fired power.

Australia’s incoming resources minister, Keith Pitt, hasn’t turned away from coal either, telling The Sydney Morning Herald that he will push for more exports. But Pitt also threw his support behind a plan to extract gas from an area in northern New South Wales following a landmark energy deal between the state and federal government, which would see an investment of $2 billion into the east coast market.

Gas is still a fossil fuel, but not all fossil fuels are created equal. Burning natural gas, for example, produces less than half as much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity compared to coal and reduces emissions by 33 percent when producing heat.

While natural gas produces less carbon dioxide during burning, it is around 30 times better at holding in the atmosphere, meaning that if enough methane leaks during production, it could be as detrimental to the environment as burning coal, if not worse.

In the northern New South Wales region of Narrabri, the proposed big gas project has been met by both stiff resistance and support from locals. Some argue that the environmental effect will be disastrous for the region’s farmers, while others claim that it is essential to create jobs and boost the economy.

The federal government’s backing revived hopes for the plan, which involves ambitions to extract gas from coal seams lying deep beneath the Pilliga Forest.

In return, the federal government asks that the state government set a target of delivering 70 petajoules a year of new gas into the market. Coincidentally, that’s precisely the estimated output of the Narrabri project.

The project is yet to secure the final state and environmental approvals, but gas giant Santos has already invested around $1.5 billion into it, and now with federal backing, it’s likely to pass all checks unabated.

Morrison has ruled out making any similar energy deal with the state of Victoria to help reduce its carbon emissions and lower power costs unless the state government ditches its longstanding ban on onshore gas exploration.

Siding with the federal government, and also seeing gas as a transition fuel, business groups such as the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and the Energy Users Association have urged the state government to expand conventional onshore gas extraction and lift the ban.

The deal would likely also include guarantees against “premature closures” of coal-powered fire stations in Victoria, which provide around 70 percent of the state’s energy. In return, federal investment would likely include power from the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme delivered to Melbourne, Ballarat, Shepparton, and other urban centers across the state.

Finkel, who helped prepare and release the National Hydrogen Strategy late last year, stressed that coal was not an option and tipped hydrogen as the way forward during his speech at the National Press Club. “Enter the hero, hydrogen,” he said, after discussing the perils of climate change.

Hydrogen carries more energy than natural gas and is carbon-free, so the burning of it does not contribute to climate change. Hydrogen can, however, be produced in two ways, through the process of electrolysis, using solar and wind, or through chemical process, using combusting fossil fuels like coal and gas.

For now, the hydrogen strategy has recognized the need to reduce emissions to combat climate change and is only considering options using fossil fuels if they come with carbon capture and storage, which involves pumping carbon emissions into underground cavities. According to the Australian Institute, carbon capture and storage projects have a poor track record of delivering on their promises, and now the industry is using the same “unsuccessful technology” to promote hydrogen.

Fears also remain that hydrogen is being used as a lifeline for coal. Prior to discussing the terms of the strategy with Finkel and state energy ministers, Angus Taylor, the federal minister for energy, suggested that hydrogen production should be “technology neutral,” indicating it could be done using coal.

SOURCE  





More education dollars don’t make sense

Australia’s four million school students may now be back in class, but it seems policymakers remain unschooled on education policy directions.

The new school year comes on the back of December’s disappointing results from the OECD-run Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) — which showed Australian students’ performance has dropped not only in relative terms to other countries, but also in absolute terms.

At the same time, new Productivity Commission figures released last week show taxpayer funding is higher than it’s ever been — and it’s even increasing faster than ever.

Still, the silence on education policy from federal parliament’s first sitting weeks of the year is deafening.

It appears policymakers see business as usual as the apparent fix to the ailing school system. However, spending more over again, and expecting a different outcome, must surely be the definition of policy insanity.

To achieve an improvement in student outcomes demands a change in performance culture throughout the system, root and branch. That’s because everywhere in education policy, performance has lamentably become a dirty word.

In the way of improvements are vested interests that’ve been crippling policymaking for years, particularly in terms of assessment, competition and performance management — much to the disservice of students, parents, taxpayers, and even teachers.

For students, performance can be revived with a high-expectations environment that welcomes, rather than fears, testing — much like exists in the cleverest countries in the world. Straightforward as it sounds, research shows that simply setting high expectations actually leads to higher achievement.

When it comes to schools, genuine competitive pressure about performance makes them accountable and provides assurance to parents and taxpayers. The jury is in that parents do value the transparency that comes with tools like the MySchool website. And OECD research is clear that school systems with more accountability do better.

Teachers suffer, too, from the anti-performance crusade. That’s because their performance is never consistently, independently or objectively assessed once they’re at the chalkface. This denies them the benefits of further development from the basic performance management practices enjoyed in just about any other Australian workplace. Principals have their hands are tied, meaning they can’t reward top performing teachers, and also can’t do much about those who don’t meet the bar.

If teachers aren’t working in an environment requiring, encouraging and helping them to meet high standards, is it any wonder that students don’t perform?

Before another $60 billion of public investment in schooling is made this year, policymakers would do well to shake up the approach to funding.

Yes, money matters when it comes to student outcomes — but only when it’s used to incentivise performance for teachers and schools. That requires a wholesale shift in funding from inputs to outcomes.

When it comes to spending the education dollar, it makes policy sense to reward rather than shirk performance.

SOURCE  





Paul Barry forgets the ABC of calling out media bias

His name is Paul Barry and if he is to be believed, he is leading the fight against bias in the Australian media. This week the Media Watch host presented an Australian Communications and Media Authority survey of around 2000 people which revealed 85 per cent of respondents had concerns that “news is reported from a particular point of view rather than being balanced or impartial”.

“That will come as no great surprise to fans of Media Watch, which regularly reveals how bad news and current affairs coverage can be,” proclaimed a self-congratulatory Barry. He then listed eight cases of what he claimed were examples of these breaches, two of which were from News Corp newspapers. Tellingly, he did not cite any from ABC.

Keen to point out this survey was not a reflection on “all journalism” (you know what’s coming next) he stated that “the ABC is praised by several respondents”. Of course. Referring to ACMA’s attempt to encourage the media to self-regulate, Barry was pessimistic. “What’s the chance of that,” he asked rhetorically. “Not much.”

If Barry is in the mood for self-regulation, he does not have to look far. The day after his bias denunciation, ABC Canberra radio presenter Adam Shirley hosted a panel to discuss the subjects “What makes a good man” and “When does a man become toxic”. Two of the three panellists were women. Not that the ABC is likely to discuss the subject of what makes a woman toxic, but if it did you can imagine the reaction from the sisters if a man were on the panel, let alone if men outnumbered the women.

But it gets even better. One woman was feminist, author and Sydney Morning Herald columnist Jane Caro. Just the night before, Barry, had slammed “presenters on current affairs shows who have an opinion on everything”. Presumably this does not extend to panellists.

The other woman was feminist and former ABC journalist Virginia Hausseger, now director of The 50/50 by 2030 Foundation. During the discussion she observed “I am disgusted at what I see in news media and popular culture now in terms of representation of women”.

Now think back to 2007 when Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan used the term “deliberately barren” to refer to the fact that then opposition deputy leader Julia Gillard did not have children. It was a sexist and stupid remark and he was right to apologise for it. That was not enough for Hausseger. Writing for the Canberra Times, she said he “deserves to be castrated”. Undoubtedly many readers would have been disgusted by what she – my bad, I had forgotten we were talking about toxic masculinity.

Shirley turned to what he referred to as “the bloke in the room”, journalist and author Phil Barker, who duly noted “Men are constrained by this performance of masculinity that results ultimately in horrific domestic violence and male suicide” You might remember Barker. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2017 spoke of his reaction to reports that journalist Tracey Spicer was about to release allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment against 60 figures in the media and entertainment industry. “’Oh my god it’s going to be a bloodbath!’ I shouted, delightedly,” he wrote.

Forget that this turned out to be the year’s biggest journalistic fizzer, and instead consider Barker’s language and fervour in that article. “In a war there’s always friendly fire, collateral damage,” he said gleefully, declaring to readers he was part of the “far left”. And finally: “So there’s no way around it. Some innocent men are going to get shot in the head. So be it.” Barker, incidentally, teaches male students about “positive masculinity”.

Now consider that ABC editorial policies require journalists to “present a diversity of perspectives” and “not unduly favour one perspective over another”. If that was a balanced panel, then my name is Beatrix Potter. We know the ABC holds that masculinity is inherently violent and misogynistic.

"We need to do the hard work and for all men to put their hands up and acknowledge their misogyny, acknowledge the fact that they are profiting from toxic masculinity in some way, even if they are not violent." @nicheholas #TheDrum pic.twitter.com/PN2xQshBk6

— ABC The Drum (@ABCthedrum) April 2, 2019
But would it be too much trouble for future ABC panels if the token male was someone other than the bloke who effusively parrots this misandrist drivel?

If Barry’s record of umpiring on his home turf is any indication, this carefree disregard of editorial policies is not likely to be mentioned on his show. In reviewing Media Watch’s Monday episodes for the latter half of 2019, I noted eight segments critical of ABC presenters compared with 24 in respect to News Corp columnists and presenters (this does not include Barry’s criticism of Fox News media).

That represents a disproportionate focus of three to one. That disparity increases even further when the focus shifts to Barry’s Twitter account as revealed by The Australian’s Associate Editor Chris Kenny on Sky News’ Kenny on Media this week. Of Barry’s last 300 tweets (those in which he was not replying to another user), 47 of them – around 15 per cent – targeted News Corp columnists and presenters. Conversely only two of them – 0.66 per cent – highlighted lapses by ABC presenters. Seventy-six of the sample – around 25 per cent – referred to climate change, a topic regularly seized on by Barry to castigate those portrayed as climate sceptics.

Barry also appears to have different rules for ABC programs compared to the standard he applies to commercial media. In October, he criticised Studio 10s Kerri-Anne Kennerley and Sky News’ Peta Credlin for joking about driving over Extinction Rebellion protesters who were blocking major intersections. “I think it’s time they got some new material and perhaps stopped making jokes about killing protesters,” said Barry. “Because some nutter out there might just take them up on it.

But Barry’s cease and desist notice was, well, noticeably absent when it came to covering ABC Q&A’s all-female panellists episode last November. During this debacle, feminist Mona Eltahawy asked “how many rapists must we kill” and indigenous activist Nayuka Gorrie declared that “violence is okay” to bring about change, urging people to “burn stuff”.

Barry’s response was to gently admonish Q&A host Fran Kelly for not challenging those views. “A bit more pushback was what Q&A needed,” he said, saving his condemnation for ABC’s decision to take the program down. Declaring it was “a massive over-reaction” and “a real failure of nerve,” he said it was “Q&A’s job to be confronting and at times offensive,” and “ABC management’s job to defend its right to be so.”

So, jokes on commercial television about using climate protesters as speed bumps must be stopped, but deadly serious panellists on the national broadcaster who call for extrajudicial killings and other violence as a means of effecting change require only “pushback”. Clear now?

Last August, Barry made positive mention of ABC presenter and activist Benjamin Law for donating $36 of his “hard-earned cash” to readers who cancelled their subscription to The Australian. This newspaper’s crime was to highlight alarming practices regarding children and teenagers diagnosed with “gender dysphoria”, particularly the health authorities’ embracement of the “affirmation model”. Barry claimed this coverage of this major public interest issue was “one-sided”.

Less than two weeks before, the ABC documentary “Waltzing the Dragon”, written and presented by Law, featured an interview with historian Dr Sophie Couchman regarding the Lambing Flat Riots in Burrangong, NSW in 1860. In that episode she noted reports that Australian miners had scalped their Chinese counterparts. However, what had been omitted from this screening was Couchman’s noting conflicting accounts that no scalping had occurred. Following the backlash, ABC subsequently apologised, acknowledging that an “error of judgment” had occurred in the editing process which had misrepresented Couchman. As for Barry and Media Watch, let’s just say a rather large dragon waltzed on by without them noticing.

And yet Barry would have us believe there is no entrenched bias at the ABC. Not so according to his predecessor Jonathan Holmes, who hosted Media Watch from 2008-13. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald in 2016, Holmes stated it was “undeniable” that ABC’s capital city radio presenters leaned more to the left than the right. “I say ‘undeniably’, but senior ABC managers for decades have chosen, if not to deny it, then to ignore it, and they’ve certainly failed to do anything about it,” he said.

When ABC presenters repeatedly fail to abide by the broadcaster’s statutory charter, it also falls on Barry to acknowledge and expose its cultural bias. What are the chances of that? Answer, not much.

Self regulation needs to get serious and do it properly. Stamp out blatant lies. Draw a line between news and ads. Wind back bias. Respect the facts.

— Paul Barry (@TheRealPBarry) February 10, 2020
Thanks Ben for bringing the @australian gender coverage to our attention.

— Paul Barry (@TheRealPBarry) August 19, 2019
THE MOCKER

SOURCE  






No vintage: Australian vineyards dump grape harvest as bushfire smoke takes its toll

It was late October when Adrian Sparks caught sight of the first smoke rising from the hilly horizon. Within days the haze evolved into drift smoke, which grew thicker as the mountain behind the Mount Pleasant winery in the Hunter Valley caught fire.

“It was full on,” Adrian says. “There was smoke all through November and December. A clear day would still be hazy. At its worst, some days our eyes would sting. We’d be coughing. You’d have to stay inside with the doors shut and the air conditioning going. It was like an apocalypse..”

Though the winery suffered no fire damage, the blanket of smoke that was its legacy has caused nightmares for it and the broader Hunter Valley wine industry, thanks to what is known as “smoke taint”.

Within the Hunter at least, the taint is forcing growers to confront the possibility that an entire year’s harvest will be dumped, with some vineyards choosing not to produce a 2020 vintage at all.

The phenomenon occurs when smoke binds to the skin of grapes, ruining the taste of wine made from the fruit. For an industry where perception equals success, the reputational damage caused by selling a vintage affected by smoke taint can be lethal.

Sparks had seen the effects of smoke on wine grapes before. Years earlier he encountered the problem while working as a winemaker in the Yarra Valley, around the time of the Black Saturday bushfires.

“It wasn’t as bad in 2009,” he says. “This is first time ever I’ve seen a company pull the pin on a vintage. I’ve been with the company for 20-odd years and I’ve never pulled the pin on an entire vintage.”

On 14 January the winery that ordinarily produces 30,000 cases of wine in a year decided it wouldn’t take the risk and scrapped its 2020 vintage entirely.

Mount Pleasant wasn’t alone. While vineyards further away from the fires escaped the worst, among the first to speak publicly about the issue was Bruce Tyrrell.

Tyrrell’s Wines – the family have operated in the Hunter Valley since 1858 – ordinarily harvests 1,200 tonnes of grapes but this year lost 80% of its crop.

“We didn’t have any immediate fire, we just had the smoke hanging around,” Tyrrell says. “We made the decision early, we weren’t going to take the risk with the brand. If a sommelier at a restaurant in New York opens a bottle of ours in 2030 and that wine has smoke taint, I’ve lost a whole lot of work.

“We’ve worked too long, too hard to build the reputation to get where we are to let it go in five minutes. We’ve been here for 160 years and I’d like to see the family here in another 160 years.”

Brokenwood Wines, Meerea Park Wines and Davis Wine Group have all made the similar difficult decisions about their harvests with some being left unpicked.

Christina Tulloch, the chief executive of Tulloch Wines and president of the Hunter Valley Wine and Tourism Association, says the full economic cost is yet to be known. The community is already hurting after the bushfires cost it $42m in lost tourism.

“That’s the economic loss based purely on visitation – people visiting cellar doors,” she says. “It is still too early to put a figure on the loss in production as we would normally be in the middle of vintage. We are hearing reports of between 50 to 90% of crop loss due to smoke taint.

“Overall, we’re saying the loss will be more likely to be around 80 to 90% in reduction of tonnage that is brought into wineries in the 2020 year.”

A similar story is playing out elsewhere. When bushfires tore through the Adelaide Hills before Christmas, a third of the wine-producing region was hit hard, as were grape growers on Kangaroo Island off the coast. Those who weren’t directly affected by the fires themselves watched the smoke linger over their fruit.

Anita Poddar, of Wine Australia, still says she is hopeful the worst may be avoided. Out of 64 wine-producing regions which make up the $6.25bn industry, just 1% have been affected by the fires. With authorities still assessing the direct and indirect damage, there is a chance some regions may escape unharmed.

“At this stage it is still too early to tell what the exact situation is,” Poddar says.

“We started doing research on smoke taint in 2003. What happens is when there’s fresh, heavy smoke, it lands on the outside of the grape, and specific compounds get into the skin, not the flesh. It’s a one-season thing – next season the vines are fine.”

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 February, 2020

Lunacy protects foreigners over us

More racism from the establishment

Chris Merritt

The lunacy at the heart of the latest decision by the High Court comes down to this: this is pure racism built upon an illegitimate exercise of judicial power.

By the narrowest of margins, the nation's highest court haS elevated a racial distinction to a position of constitutional privilege that would never be acceded if such a question were put to the people at a referendum.

Four of the court's seven judg es have preempted the people of this nation by injecting a new racist concept in the Constitution that can only be overturned by referendum or a future High Court.

This shameful ruling has punched a hole in the principle that everyone is equal before Australian law and has eroded the federal government's ability to protect the community from foreign criminals who have never tried to become citizens.

Even when born overseas and holding the citizenship of another country, foreign criminals with Aboriginal ancestry can no longer be treated as aliens for the purposes of migration law.

There will be those who will say the impact can be confined to the specific facts of the case. But a dreadful precedent has been set. In this case, the High Court majority has effectively created a new right for foreigners that comes at the expense of Australians who expect their governments to protect them from criminals, regardless of their race.

The majority has decided that foreign citizens with Aboriginal ancestry have such a special connection with Australia that it would be inconsistent with that special connection to treat them as aliens for the purposes of migration law.

This principle was applied even though the men who brought this challenge never tried to become Australian citizens.

Common sense has gone out the window. The majority has invented a new, illogical category in migration law that applies only to Aborigines who hold foreign citizenship: they can simultaneously be non-citizens and non-aliens.

Because a crucial part of the test for Aboriginality depends on the views of communities or their leaders, this means Aboriginal communities — and not parlia ment — will have the power to determine when the normal migration law will apply.

This was too much for Chief Justice Susan Kiefel, who differed strongly with the majority and pointed out that such a mechanism "would be to attribute to the group the kind of sovereignty which was implicitly rejected by (the Mabo decision)".

Kiefel's dissent goes a long way to limiting the damage to the court's reputation. Four judges went off on a frolic: Geoffrey Nettle, Michelle Gordon, James Edelman and Virginia Bell.  Kiefel was steadfast, backed by Stephen Gageler and Patrick Keane.

The Chief Justice points out in her dissent that it is settled law that it is up to parliament, relying on the Constitution, to create and define the concept of citizenship and determine who is an alien. She also argues that "questions of constitutional interpretation cannot depend on what the court perceives to be a desirable policy regarding the subject of who should be aliens and the desirability of Aboriginal non- citizens continuing to reside in Australia".

"In the absence of a relevant constitutional prohibition or exception, express or implied, it is not a proper function of a court to limit the method of exercise of legislative power," Kiefel wrote.

The great tragedy of this decision is that it will inevitably be used to attack the arguments of those, like this writer, who have argued for a constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal voice to federal parliament.

The judges in the majority are massively out of step with community values and the core principle of equality before the law. They have done a disservice to the legitimate aspirations of indigenous Australians.

From "The Australian" of 12 February, 2020






Pauline Hanson doubles down on her claim about 'lazy' Aboriginal parents - and says Australia is failing to protect indigenous children who get raped

This is all true and known to be true but you are not supposed to say it

Pauline Hanson has doubled down on her controversial rant about Aboriginal people and said children who get raped should be taken away from their communities.

The One National leader slammed the government's Closing the Gap initiative to improve Aboriginal communities in a fiery speech in the senate on Wednesday.

Labor and Greens senators called her racist after she suggested Aboriginal people were addicted to 'grog and drugs' and failed to turn up to work or take their children to school.

But in an interview with Sky News host Paul Murray later that night, Senator Hanson stood by her views and said government efforts were not working.

She recalled the case of a two-year-old girl who tested positive for an STD in the Northern Territory town of Tennant Creek after she was allegedly raped by a 24-year-old family friend in February 2018.

'We have problems with kids being raped. How can a two-year-old have an STD?' Senator Hanson said.

The two-year-old girl in this case was removed from her family's care by the Department of Child Protection South Australia.

But Senator Hanson said neglected and abused children should be taken from their communities more often. 'If that was happening in white society, Paul, they would take the children away and we don't,' she said.

'We turn our back, you can't get involved because of cultural issues, we're not protecting the children.'

Senator Hanson again said the Closing The Gap initiative was failing and that nothing has changed since her maiden speech in parliament in 1996.

'The inequality is still happening [even though] we are throwing tens of billions of dollars at this,' she said.

Urging the government to spend less on the initiative, she added: 'Closing the gap is about treating people equally.'

'We don't need any more organisations that are set up. They don't need any more programs. They need to be held account for the money that's been given to them.'

In her speech in the senate, Senator Hanson slammed the program as 'complete rubbish' and a 'joke'.

'The biggest problem facing Australian and Aboriginal Australians today is their own lack of commitment and responsibility to helping themselves,' she said.

Senator Hanson attacked indigenous mums and dads for being behind poor school attendances, noting one school with 400 children enrolled often had a 50 per cent attendance rate.

'Whose fault is that? Lazy parents. You can't blame the whites when it's your own negligence,' Senator Hanson said.

Labor frontbencher Jenny McAllister said Senator Hanson's speech was not OK. 'Her racist comments - and they are racist - have no place in this chamber,' she told the upper house.

Greens Senate leader Larissa Waters apologised to anyone listening to Senator Hanson, saying a code of conduct was needed to stop hate speech in parliament. 'It's the racism that we've come to expect from her and her party,' she said.  They don't reflect the sentiment of this chamber or vast majority of Australians.'

Senator Hanson insisted she was speaking on behalf of 'quiet Australians' and claimed her comments were echoed by many indigenous people that meet with her.

'When you spend billions of dollars a year on any group of people you expect outcomes but sadly those billions have gone to the non-productive, unrepentant aboriginal industry,' she said.

She said Closing the Gap was a marketing term used by politicians and bureaucrats to pretend they're doing something to 'lift remote First Nations people out of their self perpetuating hellholes.'

The One Nation leader said indigenous people should 'stop playing the victim.' 'If you want to close the gap start taking some responsibility for your own people,' Senator Hanson said.

'We've provided the schools - it's now up to you to send your own kids to school. We've provided the jobs but it's up to you to turn up when you're rostered on, not when it suits.

'It's up to the Aboriginals to stay off the grog and the drugs.'

Senator Hanson has been criticised throughout her career for racism but denies she discriminates against people.

SOURCE  





Mark Latham slams solar power as an 'irresponsible experiment' and claims it powered ZERO per cent of the grid after heavy rains left 150,000 without electricity

Mark Latham has slammed solar energy and claims it did nothing to help after the heaviest downpour in 30 years sparked widespread power outages.

The One Nation New South Wales leader blasted the renewable resource on Tuesday after severe wet weather battered New South Wales over the weekend.

He said 'solar bottoms out' and is the 'most irresponsible' public policy 'experiment' in Australia's history.

'When it does rain, it shows how ineffective solar panels can be,' Mr Latham wrote on Facebook.

'Currently in NSW, the energy grid is being powered up 93% by Black Coal, 4% hydro, 2% wind and ZERO solar.

'In truth, renewables are the wildest, most irresponsible experiment in the history of Australian public policy.'

Data from the Australian Energy Market Operator appears to support Latham's claim solar power played almost no role during the height of the deluge on Sunday afternoon.

At 6am on Sunday morning, according to the AEMO data, solar energy in New South Wales represented zero per cent of fuel usage.

Black coal usage sat at 83 per cent, with solar power generating 0MWh towards the state's consumption.

Later on in the day though, the data shows an increase in solar power usage to six per cent at 1pm and three per cent at 5pm as the storm continued to lash Sydney and surrounding regions.

The AEMO also pointed out their fuel mix graph did not include any power 'generated by rooftop solar' as it 'exists behind the meter'.

The NSW government has also reported the use of solar, wind and bioenergy power has more than doubled from four to nine per cent between 2013 and 2017.

Utility and large commercial solar operations - those over 100kW - have also shown large growth in that time period, according to a report by the state government.

In 2017, large operations generated 400MW of the state's solar output per year.

Total solar growth across all scales has grown nine-fold from 200MW per year in 2010 to 1800MW per year in 2017, the report said. 

Solar advocacy body Solar Citizens told Daily Mail Australia in response to the politician's comments Australians were tired of 'people like Mark Latham playing petty politics with energy'.

'It's time to get on with the transition to clean low cost fuels like wind and solar. Millions of Australian households investing in solar panels can't be wrong,' the body's national director Ellen Roberts said.

'Renewables enable a more stable energy supply during extreme weather events.

'Community microgrids, connecting local renewable energy sources, will mean that towns and communities to keep their electricity supply even if poles and wires are impacted by storms and fires.'

SOURCE  





Free speech: It’s time for a higher education shake-up

It is with much humility that I ­announce my candidature for the forthcoming vacancy of chief executive of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency.

TEQSA wields extraordinary power to decide what institution can call itself a university or college. It is responsible for enforcing the Higher Education Standards Framework, which includes requirements ranging from admissions and course design to facilities and infrastructure. This framework also requires that a university articulates “a commitment to and support for free intellectual inquiry in its academic endeavours”.

But in recent years TEQSA’s leadership has become a free-speech denier. It has repeatedly played down concerns from parliamentarians, academics, students and the broader public about the ability to express a wide array of opinion at our universities. Like practically every regulatory body, TEQSA has become captured by its sector and a certain left-wing, misnamed “progressive” perspective.

TEQSA chief executive Anthony McClaran will step down at the end of next month to take up the vice-chancellorship of St Mary’s University in London. The federal government must avoid simply appointing an individual from the sector, someone who will continue business as usual. It needs new leadership from outside the groupthink that epitomises higher education.

Across the English-speaking world, universities are becoming hotbeds of ideological extremists which reject the legitimacy of alternative perspectives. Across the past four years, in the Institute of Public Affairs’ Free Speech on Campus Audit, I have extensively catalogued how university policies and actions undermine freedom of expression. This has been acknowledged, even by its critics, as they point to the key report that first brought attention to free speech issues at universities.

Last year, the government released a review into free speech by former High Court chief justice Robert French. This report pointed to substantial issues within existing policies, including many previously raised by the IPA. It recommended universities adopt a model free-speech code, partly in the spirit of the University of Chicago. While some universities have acted, such as the University of Sydney, most have not. This is despite an IPA poll of university students last year finding that three in five students say they have been prevented from voicing their opinions on controversial ­issues by other students.

Nick Saunders, the chief commissioner of TEQSA, told Senate estimates last year that TEQSA would not be playing a “regulatory role, in the sense of imposing penalties” on universities that failed to adopt French’s code. Saunders also played down the possibility of future enforcement on the basis that he did not think freedom of expression on campus was an issue. All carrot and no stick (billions of dollars of public money without any responsibility) make for a ­pathetic lack of freedom of expression at our universities.

Last year, Peter Ridd was found to have had his freedom of speech impinged by James Cook University after it sacked him for criticising the quality of his colleagues’ work on the Great Barrier Reef. Ridd was awarded $1.2m after winning the unfair dismissal case. Despite the significance of the precedent-setting case, TEQSA has also yet to mention Ridd. TEQSA has also refused to issue a guidance note on freedom of expression or academic freedom, ­despite maintaining an extensive note on “diversity and equity”. This guidance typically focuses on every type of diversity other than diversity of viewpoint.

Free speech is not the only challenge facing our universities. They appear to be ferociously dependent on foreign funds, leading to substantial influence opportunities for the Chinese Communist Party. This is epitomised by the Confucius Centres and the slow reaction to thuggish pro-CCP students last year at Hong Kong democracy protests, particularly at the University of Queensland. There are also concerns that ­dependence on overseas students has lowered educational quality.

Gerd Schroder-Turk, an academic at Murdoch University, claimed universities, including his own, admitted international students who did not meet English language standards. “Admitting students who don’t have the right qualifications, or right prerequisites, or correct language capabilities, is setting them up for failure,” Schroder-Turk said. Academics are then pressured to pass these students, including many who stand accused of cheating, despite an inadequate quality of work.

Once again displaying the lack of tolerance for contrarian opinions, Schroder-Turk was sued by Murdoch University for daring to critique its approach. The response by TEQSA to these issues has been wholly inadequate.

Meanwhile, the “replication crisis” continues, with half of all published academic articles likely being unreplaceable and false. There are also concerns about students being sold degrees costing tens of thousands of dollars despite getting limited educational value or a high-paying job at the end. Many students simply drop out, leaving themselves with large debt and no degree to show for it.

The extent of red tape imposed by TEQSA makes it almost impossible to start up competitor universities that would bring real competition to the sector, thereby decreasing tuition costs and ­increasing educational quality.

The appointment of TEQSA’s next chief executive is a perfect opportunity for the Morrison government to give the Australian university sector a significant shake-up. And I am the person to do it.

SOURCE  






Blind spot in BoM’s seasonal forecast

They couldn't get the weather right a few months in advance but they still claim that they can predict how hot it will be in 80 years time



When the start of potentially drought-breaking rains finally came this month they were not predicted by the experts — but they should not have been a total ­surprise.

The bushfires that blazed across the landscape from November last year may well come to be seen in retrospect as the final act in a set of weather conditions that parched the continent and scorched the earth.

After years of below-average rainfall, the end of last year saw two systems wring the last gasp from a bone-dry land.

To the west, the Indian Ocean Dipole was in extreme territory. The IOD is the difference in ocean temperatures between the west and east tropical Indian Ocean. In a positive phase the IOD can shift moisture towards or away from Australia towards Africa. A positive IOD in 1982 coupled with an El Nino weather system in the ­Pacific produced southeast Australia’s driest year on record.

Alongside the extreme IOD system were record warm temperatures above Antarctica.

Apart from warming the ­Antarctic region, the higher temperatures shifted the Southern Ocean westerly winds towards the equator.

For subtropical Australia, which largely sits north of the main belt of westerlies, the shift results in reduced rainfall, clearer skies and warmer temperatures.

The strongest effects were felt in NSW and southern Queensland, where springtime temperatures increased, rainfall decreased, and heatwaves and fire risk rose.

When the two weather systems finally broke down at the end of last year they were replaced by a new set of conditions that, though shorter lived, have swamped the east coast of the nation.

Monsoon rains finally moved south and a low-pressure system along the east coast brought rough seas and heavy falls.

The breakdown of the IOD and Antarctic systems was noted by the Bureau of Meteorology in its forecasts for the first quarter of the new year.

However, the BoM did not foresee in its seasonal forecasts the extent of what was to follow.

Soaking rains have drenched the east of the continent from Queensland to south of Sydney with downpours of hundreds of millimetres recorded, mainly along the coastline.

Big waves have again played havoc with beachfront areas.

And for the first time in years, farmers have had something to celebrate. Several major rivers feeding the Murray-Darling Basin have started to flow, including the Condamine and Balonne in Queensland and the Namoi and Barwon in NSW.

Much of that water ultimately enters the Darling, which has not flowed solidly for years.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority says, among other revivals, the Moonie River in Queensland is flowing for the first time since April 2018. Parts of the Weir, Macintyre and Dumaresq rivers of the Queensland-NSW Border Rivers region also are flowing, while in NSW water is passing through large sections of the Gwydir, Castlereagh and Macquarie catchments.

Already there is controversy, with conservation groups outraged at the NSW government’s decision to allow big irrigators to take millions of litres of flood water from the Barwon-Darling river system.

The heaviest falls have been on the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range and will flow into the Pacific rather than inland.

And with a cyclone still brewing off the coast of Queensland the dramatic weather conditions are far from over.

Whether the drought has broken is an open question. Much will depend on follow-up rains.

In a letter to Simon Birmingham, the minister responsible for the BoM at the time, scientist Jennifer Marohasy said: “This, of course, provides an enormous range of actual outcomes where any given forecast can be regarded as ‘correct’ or successful from the perspective of the bureau.”

On the BoM’s more recent performance, Marohasy says it “could not bring itself to apologise for the wrong and totally misleading recent forecast” and this is “a reflection of the very sad state of affairs”.

“There needs to be some accountability. Australians deserve to know if the bureau has any capacity to provide skilful season rainfall forecasts or not,” she says.

SOURCE  





The compounding risk in Australia’s transition to new submarines

Two questions are frequently raised about the process that selected Australia’s preferred partner for the design and build of the future submarine.

The first is why the Defence Department didn’t pursue a ‘son of Collins’, that is, an evolution of the successful Collins design, with the questioner’s underlying assumption being that evolving an existing design should be cheaper and faster than starting an entirely new design. The second is why the Swedish shipbuilder Saab, which had acquired Kockums—the company that designed the Collins—wasn’t invited to participate in the competitive evaluation process (CEP), given that it (other than the Japanese) was the only entity with demonstrated experience in designing and building large conventional submarines.

It’s worth revisiting these questions because they’re relevant to the Collins life-of-type extension (LOTE) program, which is the key to Defence maintaining an effective submarine capability throughout the long transition to the Attack-class submarine.

The two questions are distinct but related. The Australian National Audit Office’s 2017 report on the CEP is silent on why Saab wasn’t offered the opportunity to participate in the competition. The report simply says that Defence determined that the three entities that were invited to participate (TKMS of Germany, the Japanese government, and the ultimately successful DCNS of France) were the only ones that met Defence’s requirement that the future submarine be ‘designed and built by a proven submarine designer with recent experience in designing and building diesel-electric submarines’. The report doesn’t assess whether that was an appropriate requirement or explain why Saab didn’t meet it.

But there was a more fulsome discussion at Senate estimates in February 2015, only two weeks after then Prime Minister Tony Abbott announced the CEP, followed by Defence’s written response to the Senate’s questions on notice. On the first issue, Defence testified that a study into the possibility of evolving the Collins ‘demonstrated that the design effort involved would be similar to a new design’. Ultimately Defence concluded that an evolved Collins ‘would not provide a beneficial, nor a low cost and low risk solution for the Future Submarine’.

On the second question, Defence officials repeatedly argued (pages 109 and 129, for example) that while the French and Germans had not designed or built a large conventional submarine, they along with the Japanese had demonstrated continuous submarine design and build activity.

In contrast, the Swedes, despite previously designing and building submarines both large and small, hadn’t completed a full design and build program since 1996–97. Even though they were well into the design of their own A26 class, had been involved in the build of the Collins into the 2000s, had an extensive record of major upgrade activities (including inserting entirely new ‘plug’ sections into submarines), and employed over 3,000 naval and submarine engineers, that hiatus was judged to be an unacceptable risk.

Whether or not you’re convinced by Defence’s reasoning to exclude the Swedes (for me, it is one of Defence’s most bizarre capability decisions), its argument is clear—submarine design, even modifications to an existing design, is difficult, and deep expertise is needed to undertake it successfully. There are no easy wins in submarine design, and mistakes create major cost, schedule and capability risks.

Which brings us to the Collins LOTE. To recap, the Collins submarines were meant to be progressively withdrawn from service every two years from 2026. Since it’s been clear for some time that the future submarine wouldn’t enter operational service until the 2030s, again on a two-yearly cycle, some of the Collins fleet would need to undergo a LOTE to avoid a capability gap. In essence, the LOTE is the mitigation strategy to address the schedule risk in the future submarine program.

It’s also been clear that the LOTE would be based on an additional full-cycle docking, which means taking a Collins boat out of the water for two years of deep maintenance and upgrades so it can keep operating for the next 10 years. What hasn’t been clear is how many of the six Collins would need to undergo a LOTE and what its scope would be.

As the future submarine schedule has developed, with the first Attack-class boat now not expected to be operational until 2034, Defence’s Senate estimates testimony has moved from saying one to three LOTEs would be required to five. Theoretically, doing all six Collins could mitigate a further two-year slide in the program, but beyond that total submarine numbers could fall below six.

Defence has also started to reveal the scope of the LOTE—see here (page 31) and here (pages 17–22). In addition to all the usual maintenance and obsolescence management of a full-cycle docking, Defence wants to replace the Collins’ main motor, diesel generators, and electrical conversion and distribution system with new hardware made by the suppliers for the future submarine.

Interestingly, Defence has also said that these are three of the five most important systems on the future submarine. It is also looking at mast and sensor updates (for example, replacing periscopes with modern digital optronics masts) as well as combat system updates.

In short, the LOTE concept is starting to look a lot like a son of Collins—which Defence told the Senate in 2015 wasn’t worth the cost and risk involved. This poses serious questions about Defence’s risk-mitigation strategy for the submarine transition.

First, the Collins maintenance cycle is a finely tuned process. Between full-cycle, mid-cycle and intermediate dockings, two of the six boats are almost always out of the water in deep maintenance. If the amount of work required for the LOTE exceeds the two-year window for full-cycle dockings, Defence will have to choose between having more than two boats out of the water—with a consequent impact on the number of boats available—or deferring LOTEs and continuing to operate 30-plus-year-old boats with mounting obsolescence and reliability issues. Can all the regular maintenance plus replacement of three of the submarine’s five major systems fit in that two-year window?

Second, this potentially poses second-order and third-order effects on the submarine transition. For example, to train the much larger uniformed workforce needed to operate the larger and more numerous future submarines, Defence needs boats in the water. If submarine numbers or availability falls, submariner numbers won’t increase at the rate required to transition to the eventual 12 boat future fleet.

Third, who has the design expertise to replace three of the five major systems on the Collins? ASC, which maintains the boats, is the design authority for the Collins, and has started early design work on the LOTE. But it has never done anything like this, and—as the government’s shipbuilding program ramps up—ASC has been losing its engineering workforce.

Since the LOTE will use systems made by the future submarine’s suppliers, then presumably Naval Group, the future submarine’s designer, will need to be involved. Defence may also need to involve Saab, which inherited Kockums’ Collins design pedigree, but Saab could have its hands full should it win the submarine programs it is bidding for in Europe. And if Defence’s original assessment that getting the Swedes to evolve the Collins wasn’t worth the risk, how confident should we be that this is a safer approach?

It may be that the LOTE will ultimately be a straightforward affair despite Defence’s testimony that even small changes to submarine designs can have great consequences. And commonality of key systems between the Collins and the future submarine is probably a good thing.

But the prospect of Defence pursuing something like a son of Collins to mitigate the risks involved in designing and delivering a new submarine from scratch does give pause for thought.

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 February, 2020

On cue — After droughts and fires, then come the floods

All the wise-heads said that Australia's drought was caused by global warming.  Where has that warming gone now that Australia has huge floods?  Has the warming ceased?  Or does warming cause floods too?  But something that causes everything probably causes nothing

By Joanne Nova

So much for the “hotter drier” Australian future they were warning us about 3 weeks ago.

As predicted, droughts in Australia often end in floods. It is the way it has always been. Today people are already being rescued from the rising water and possibly another 200 -300mm of rain may fall before Sunday warns the BOM. Many fires have been extinguished.

Climate change has made no difference to the drought trends in Australia in the last 178 years and climate models are totally skilless at rainfall. When will the climate modelers admit that these are natural cycles?

Forecasters become increasingly concerned that even more rain could fall even faster than expected as five people have been rescued from floods.

The NSW State Emergency Service issued a flood warning for Sydney’s metropolitan areas, saying forecast weather conditions were “likely to cause widespread flooding”.

Flooding has already occurred in Roseville in Sydney’s Upper North Shore and the north-western suburb of Putney, where commuters are advised to allow extra travel time.

Meteorologists have said they are increasingly worried about the unfolding weather events in New South Wales and have “great concerns” that “intense bursts” of rain could see hundreds more millimetres fall far quicker than originally expected.

The NSW Rural Fire Service said the heavy rain was welcome in bushfire-ravaged parts of the state.

“We were over the moon to see rain arrive across many parts of NSW, with decent falls in the state’s north,” the RFS said on Thursday night.

When will our climate experts and the ABC “Science ” team mention that the solar cycles and ocean currents are linked to rainfall all over the world, and their models contradict each other, show no skill and are useless at rainfall.

Five years after rain returns, climate modelers redo models and “predict” more, less, some, different or same rain

Australian – Asian rainfall linked to solar activity for last 6000 years

Sun controls half of the groundwater recharge rate in China for last 700 years

Solar effects seem to shift wind and rainfall patterns over last 3000 years in Chile

Climate Models: 100% right except for rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else

Delighted to hear it’s raining. Hoping everyone stays safe and its “well spread”.

SOURCE  







Nurse paying price for speaking to paper

A BRISBANE nurse with 40 years' exemplary service has been threatened with the sack after exposing flaws in the training of student nurses to The Sunday Mail. 

In a five page, heavy-handed "show cause" email from Metro North Hospital and Health Service, Margaret Gilbert, a duty manager at Prince Charles Hospital, was told she may have breached media regulations by making a comment about the dropping standards of bachelor nursing degrees and the decline of practical skills in student nurses.

The email alleges seven breaches by Ms Gilbert and states that if it is decided that disciplinary action should be taken, she faced losing her job, demotion, reprimand, re-deployment or a monetary penalty.

The email from Queensland Health has sparked unprecedented action by the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland. Ms Gilbert is a union delegate.

On Friday, the NPAQ commenced proceedings with the Industrial Relations Commission and it will be heard tomorrow. The NPAQ claims the media gag order and the threat of serious disciplinary action on Ms Gilbert is a breach of human rights.

It is believed this will be the first time the new Human Rights Act introduced on January 1 will be tested. "The fundamental role of a nurse is to be an advocate for their patients. If Margaret is denied the chance to speak out on the standard of nursing and the impact on patients, then other nurses will be scared to speak for fear of being sacked,' NPAQ president Phil Tsingos said.

"As a union delegate, Margaret was duty bound to raise issues publicly about matters such as 1ow levels of education and skill by nursing graduates."

Queensland Health alleges that Ms Gilbert did cause or could have caused the public to lose confidence in the nursing capability at the Prince Charles Hospital and that her comments in the 6 November edition of The Sunday Mail did or could have deterred potential candidates from joining the nursing profession.

It is also alleged she did or may have caused damage to the relationship between Metro North and partner universities. The freedom of speech case could have ramifications for all public servants who are scared to speak out about official wrongdoings, the union claims.

"We are going to throw everything at this case," Mr Tsingos said.

From the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 9 Feb., 2020







'An intellectual hypocrite': How the dumped PM used to say coal would be part of Australia's energy mix for DECADES - but now claims it's NUTS

Conservative broadcaster Alan Jones wants former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull expelled from the Liberal Party for opposing taxpayer-funded coal-fired power stations.

The Sydney radio 2GB breakfast show presenter is outraged that Mr Turnbull has spoken out against the idea of building a new plant in north Queensland with public money.

Jones, a former Liberal candidate with influence in conservative circles, urged the party to expel the former PM because he was undermining his successor Scott Morrison.

'You're the only one that's nuts, Malcolm, and you're an intellectual hypocrite,' he said on Tuesday morning. 'Simple as that and we've had a gutful of you.

'If any other person in the party made comments such as that, deliberately designed to damage, they would either be suspended or expelled from the party.

'Quite frankly, Turnbull should be expelled from the party. His only intention is to make sure that Scott Morrison is beaten.'

Jones failed to mention that two moderate Liberal MPs from inner-city Sydney, Trent Zimmerman and Dave Sharma, have also spoken out against the idea of building new coal-fired power stations with taxpayer funds.

They made the intervention on Monday after Energy Minister Angus Taylor, from the Liberal Party's right faction, announced the government would spend $4million on a feasibility study for a 1GW 'high efficiency, low emissions' coal plant at Collinsville, north-west of Mackay in north Queensland.

Mr Turnbull yesterday spoke out against the prospect of public money being used to build a new coal-fired power station during a media conference at Parliament House in Canberra.

'The fundamental economic reality is this: there is no economic basis on which to build a coal-fired power station in Australia any longer,' he told reporters.

'The cheapest form of new generation is a combination of renewables plus storage and literally that is no longer a remotely contentious proposition. 'Those people who are advocating that the government should fund coal-fired power are basically making a case for higher emissions and higher energy prices and that is nuts.'

Nationals MPs from regional Queensland - including renegade backbencher George Christensen and former resources minister Matt Canavan - have been pushing the idea of taxpayers funding a coal-fired power station.

Mr Turnbull acknowledged there was a divide in the government between regional MPs, whose constituents depended on mining riches, and Liberal MPs holding cosmopolitan capital city electorates, where voters are more concerned about combating climate change.

'It's been a faultline in the Coalition for a very long time,' he said.

Previously, as prime minister, Mr Turnbull had argued coal would be part of Australia's energy mix for a long time, telling the ABC in 2016 clean coal could help reduce Australia's emissions.

SOURCE  





Young African migrants in Australia go insane at a great rate

New research has found teenage and young African migrants in Australia have a 10 times higher risk of developing a psychotic disorder than those born in Australia.

A study carried out by advocacy group Orygen outlined the mental health risks of young African migrants such as adapting to a new country and the experience of seeking asylum or discrimination.

The Risk of Psychotic Disorders in Migrants to Australia report identifies arrivals from Kenya as being at most risk at 10 times higher than Australian-born young people.

They are followed by migrants from Sudan who are at seven times greater risk and Ethiopians at more than five times.

"From the data here we see that the migrants from war-torn countries have an increased risk of psychosis," Associate Professor Brian O'Donoghue said.

"And we know that experiences of early childhood trauma, loss and separation can be risk factors for psychosis."

In contrast, the research found first-generation migrants from Europe, New Zealand and the United States were at similar risk of developing psychosis to Australian-born youth.

The study looked at young people aged 15 to 24 who presented with their first episode of psychosis over a six-year period.

The findings of the report build on research from the United Kingdom which found specific migrant and ethnic minority groups were at elevated risk.

"This is the first study that can conclusively say which young migrants are at higher risk for developing a psychotic disorder," Mr O'Donoghue said.

He said the findings highlighted the need to provide sufficient funding and accessible mental health services to vulnerable migrant groups.

“Areas that have higher rates of migrants from certain countries should have services that are adequately resourced, equipped and staffed for that,” he said.

He said research also indicates that young African migrants who are developing a psychotic disorder have longer delays in accessing appropriate services and treatment.

“So one of the immediate things that can be done is to improve the knowledge and awareness of the early signs of psychosis in the people who are likely to be in contact with young African migrants, such as teachers, school counsellors and youth workers.”

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 February, 2020

Queenslanders stuck on public hospital waiting list

"Free" hospitals are no use if you can't get an appointment there

SICK Queenslanders are going blind and getting hooked on painkillers as they wait for years to have surgery in public hospitals.

Elderly patients are waiting longer for eye surgery and hip and knee replacements due to a major blowout in surgical waiting lists in Queensland. Waiting times have ballooned to more  than a year for one in every 30 Queenslanders requiring cataract surgery and one in 36 needing a hip or knee replacement.

An investigation by The Sunday Mail into waiting lists has revealed: 

*  Elderly patients have gone blind waiting for cataract surgery; 

*  Children are living on pureed food as they wait months for a tonsil operation, and; 

*  Patients have become hooked on dangerously addictive drugs to deal with the pain as they wait for back surgery, or hip or knee replacements.

Hotspots for long waiting times include the retiree hubs of the Sunshine Coast, Gold Coast and Hervey Bay, as well as Cairns and Townsville. Queensland Health data reveals 56,176 Queenslanders are in the queue for surgery —an increase of 7 per cent in two years despite record spending on hospitals. As many as 876 patients died while waiting for elective surgery last year.

Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Queensland chairman Dr Bruce Willett, warned delays were making patients sicker. "Cataract surgery delays can be very tough on old people," he said. "They can't see, so they can't read and they can't watch TV and become very isolated. Some may end up with a fall or hurt themselves, compounding the health problems."

Australian Medical Association president Dr Tony Bartone warned patients were becoming "dependent" on drugs to ease their pain if they waited too long for an operation. "People are becoming very dependent on painkillers because they've got no other option," he said. Dr Bartone said record funding was failing to keep pace with demand for surgery. "Not only are we living longer, but we've got an ageing population with more complications," he said.

At the new $1.5 billion Queensland Children's Hospi-tal, one in 10 kids needing an eye operation, and one in eight needing general surgery, are waiting longer than the clinically recommended time for an operation.

Sick children are waiting longer for tonsillectomies and ear grommets, eye operations and orthopaedic surgery. One in 30 sick children had to wait at least a year for an eye operation or bone surgery. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data reveals the proportion of patients waiting more than a year for surgery in Queensland's public hospitals has trebled in the past two years. One in every 75 patients waited more than a year for surgery in 2018-19, compared to one in every 250 pa-tients in 2016-17.  And more than 14,000 patients queuing for surgery were moved between hospital waiting lists in 2018-19.

AIHW data shows that for orthopaedic surgery, waiting times have doubled in past five years, with 90 per cent of patients now queuing up to 344 days for orthopaedic surgery. At Caloundra hospital, one in eight cataract patients has been forced to wait longer than a year for surgery. The median wait for orthopaedic surgery has more than trebled at the Gold Coast University Hospital  

At Queensland's biggest hospital, the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, the median wait for ear, nose and throat operations — including tonsil removal — has nearly doubled to 42 days, with one in 17 patients waiting longer than a year. The wait for orthopaedic surgery exceeds a year for one in every 15 patients.

From the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 9 Feb., 2020






African gang raids a Melbourne Woolworths and menaces shoppers and staff with knives and bats

The frightening moment hooded thugs armed with baseball bats and a kitchen knife stormed a Woolworths has been caught on camera.

The video showed the gang of youths as they terrorised customers and employees at Lyndhurst Woolworths on Thompsons Road, in Melbourne's south east, just before 9pm on Sunday.

Scared workers screamed with their arms in the air as the offenders shouted from across the room and began counting back from five before throwing an object over the counter.

One man then approached an employee and struck her with a baseball bat.

Local man Rob was on his way to buy cigarettes when saw the gang trying to escape via the carpark with a trolley full of groceries. He saw the offenders assault a female employee and acted 'without thinking'. 'I saw them assault a lady that tried to stop theft, I chased them and then defended myself,' he told Daily Mail Australia.

Rob knocked two weaponless offenders to the ground before onlookers helped him against the remaining two.

One thug pulled a large kitchen knife before retreating to their car.

'I felt sick to the stomach because my girlfriend was nearby,' he said.

Another witness posted a screenshot on social media of a series of text messages they sent as the chaos unfolded.

'Five-six guys attacked this guy at the front of the store. I think they had bats and a knife,' the message read. 'The store is locked down.'

Woolworths confirmed no staff members were injured. 'There is no place for this aggression and violence anywhere in our community and our thoughts are with those caught up in the incident,' a spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia.

We thank our team for acting quickly to lock down the store in line with our safety procedures. 'We've been supporting Victoria Police with its investigations and will continue to help in any way we can.' 'We've also moved to strengthen the security presence at the store.' 

Victoria Police spokeswoman Belinda Batty said the men escaped with a trolley of goods.

'Police have been told a knife was produced and several customers attempted to intervene,' she said.

'No one required medical treatment. The group left the scene in a vehicle and are yet to be located at this stage.'

SOURCE  






How 60 Minutes 'ignored' a crucial factor as to why Australia suffered such a hellish bushfire season - leaving the show accused of left-wing bias

As I pointed out yesterday

Viewers have slammed the 60 Minutes program for barely addressing the issue of hazard reduction burns during a one-sided debate about Australia's summer bushfire crisis.

The Nine Network's flagship current affairs show instead featured three eminent panellists ganging up on former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce and accusing him of downplaying the science of climate change.

Mr Joyce, a former Nationals leader, repeatedly acknowledged that global warming was occurring, even though he remains staunchly opposed to a carbon price on emissions.

Despite that, he was accused of being a climate change sceptic during a panel discussion on the bushfires moderated by 60 Minutes reporter Tara Brown.

Addressing Mr Joyce, visiting American climate scientist Professor Michael Mann accused Prime Minister Scott Morrison's Coalition government of failing to meet its own emissions targets.

'In all fairness, Barnaby, Scott Morrison and his government have played a destructive role in global negotiations to act on climate,' he said.

'They have literally dismissed the connection between climate change and these unprecedented bushfires that we're experiencing and the scientific community has spoken authoritatively on this matter.'

Social media critics slammed 60 Minutes for dedicating little time to discussing the merits of hazard reduction burns.

'The real issue is land management and the resources needed to deal with that,' Bob Bradley tweeted. 'Better aerial resources needed. Climate change is totally irrelevant.'

Craig Lapsley, Victoria's former emergency services commissioner, briefly touched upon the topic as he argued insufficient hazard reduction burns and green groups weren't responsible for the bushfires.

'Our bushfires are driven by weather,' he said during the 60 Minutes debate.

'They're not driven by fuel, they're not driven by arsonists, they're not driven by greenies stopping us doing burning, they're driven by extreme weather.'

During the 35-minute pre-recorded segment, there was little mention of hazard reduction burns – a role performed by state government-funded Rural and Country Fire services.

Mr Joyce briefly mentioned the issue of fire breaks when asked during the debate if he accepted that climate change was the cause of the extreme bushfires.

'We've had a massive change in the climate, I can see it in my own area,' he said of his New England electorate in northern New South Wales. 'That is not my argument. My argument is one of immediate efficacy: we got to put back in our fire breaks, we gonna make sure we build central watering points so no truck has to travel more than 20km. 'These are the things that I want to concentrate on.'

Professor Mann briefly mentioned flammable conditions but this was in the context of global warming.

'When you turn the entire continent or large parts of it into a tinder box, there's really no amount of fire suppressant or back burning that's going to get you out of the problem,' he said.

With hazard reduction burns barely debated on 60 Minutes, there were plenty of critics on Twitter and Facebook accusing Nine of bias.

'You threw Barnaby Joyce under the bus last night,' one woman said. 'Very unfair and unprofessional journalism! Barnaby had no chance of putting his side across. It was extremely one-sided.'

Another woman criticised the program for focusing on climate change instead of examining fire management practices.

'If we blame it all on climate change and ignore the more tangible factors such as fuel loads, mismanagement of national parks, restrictions on firebreaks and incompetence of local councils- what is going to change?,' she asked.

'There will be another bushfire season next year and we will be facing the very same problems again.'

One man accused 60 Minutes of left-wing bias and compared the program to the ABC. 'What a disgraceful program that was,'  he said. 'I thought I was tuned to the ABC watching Four Corners.

'Those three muppets spoke over the top of Barnaby every time he attempted to say something, anything.'

SOURCE  






PM reinforces coal commitment

Scott Morrison has used question time to firmly back coal jobs, as Labor attacked the government on the proposed Collinsville power plant and the divisions in the Coalition over climate change.

The Prime Minister sustained multiple attacks from the Opposition on his handling of the economy and climate divisions.

When asked if he would give the Collinsville plant indemnity against climate risk if it ever goes ahead, Mr Morrison said that he would back any jobs that come out of a coal-fired power station.

“I know where Collinsville is, you mightn’t. I know where the jobs are in Collinsville also,” he told the House. “They are the jobs you want to take away.

“Our government believes in jobs. We believe in jobs in North Queensland. We believe in jobs in northern Tasmania. We believe in jobs in Western Australia.

“And I can tell the House that we are united on the need to ensure that we meet our emissions reduction targets, not by increasing taxes on people, not by putting up people’s electricity prices, and not by walking away from the jobs of Australians in rural and regional areas.”

Labor spent most of question time hitting the government on sluggish economic growth and Opposition treasury spokesman Jim Chalmers questioned its stance that coronavirus and the bushfires were behind the deterioration in the economy.

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 February, 2020

Prominent Australian conservative lets fly during heated debate over coal and bushfires as climate expert tells him Australia faces 'unimaginable' blaze seasons

Michael Mann is a pseudo-scientist.  He is so nervous about the quality of the data underlying his research reports that he opted to lose a court case rather than reveal his data.  Such a breach of basic scientific principles makes all his words unproven nasturtiums

Barnaby is perfectly correct to say that adopting stricter CO2 policies would do nothing to extinguish the fires.  The fires will burn as long as the fuel to burn is there and dry.  No fuel no fire.  Lots of dry fuel, lots of fire.  That's the essence of it and nothing else much matters.  Control the fuel buildup and you control the fires.  Laws of any kind passed in parliament are irrelevant to that


Barnaby Joyce has gone up against a climatologist in a heated debate about coal, bushfires and Australia's climate change policies.

During a 60 Minutes panel discussion between the Nationals MP and former fire chiefs, renowned US climate expert Professor Michael Mann said the country's bushfires will continue to worsen if the Coalition doesn't step up.

But Joyce hit back, saying that despite recognising the climate is changing, 'we're not going to [put out fires] by having this incredible debate in Canberra'. 

Joyce said he believes Prime Minister Scott Morrison thinks Australia 'has got to do its part and is doing its part' to combat climate change and the growing fire threat.

Prof Mann shot down the outspoken MP's views, saying: 'In all fairness Barnaby, Scott Morrison and his government have played a destructive role in global negotiations to act on climate.

'[The Coalition] have literally dismissed the connection between climate change and these unprecedented bushfires that we're experiencing. 'The scientific community has spoken authoritatively on this matter.'

But when asked if he accepted that the fires have been driven by global warming, Joyce admitted climate change had played a role.

'I can absolutely accept that we've had a massive change in the climate. That is not my argument. My argument is one of immediate efficacy,' he said.

'We're going to put back into our fire breaks, we're going to make sure we build central watering points so that no [fire] truck has to travel more than 20km. 'These are the things that I want to concentrate on.'

Prof Mann fired back, saying politicians 'can't solve the problem if they refuse to accept the cause of the problem'. 

Mr Joyce argued Australia has complied with international agreements.

'No that's not true,' Prof Mann responded. 

Mr Joyce then went on to spruik the importance of exporting coal, and noted it's one of Australia's biggest exports next to iron ore.

'Therefore the money that comes from that - whether you like it or not - supports our hospitals, our schools, our defence force,' he said. '[We aren't going to] say to the Australian people "we're going to get rid of that income stream and you've got to accept that this money is not going to turn up".

'And I'll tell you what happens in politics if you do that - you lose the election.'

60 Minutes host Tara Brown asked Mr Joyce if he was overstating the wealth of coal to Australia, and reminded him the coal industry is just 2.2 per cent of the GDP and only employs 0.4 per cent of the population.

Prof Munn then doubled down on his views: 'How about the hundreds of millions of dollars being lost in tourism, the damage that's been done in these unprecedented bushfires?. 'The cost of climate inaction far outweighs the modest cost of taking action.'

But again, Joyce hit back. 'Are you saying that if Australia changes its domestic policies then the climate will change?.  'This idea that Australia unilaterally will make a decision that is going to change the climate is absurd.'

Prof Mann said there are a number of politicians around the world who are 'basically sabotaging climate action for the entire planet'.

'You can count [these countries] on the fingers of your hand. It's Saudi Arabia, it's Russia, it's the United States and Brazil. Does Australia want to be part of that family?'

But Joyce said Australians will lose their 'dignity' if Australia's economy becomes weakened if it stops exporting coal. 'If you want to sell this program, you have to say to [the Australian people] how you're going to make their lives more affordable and put dignity back into their lives,' he said.

His remarks angered retired Army General Major General Peter Dunn, who then went toe-to-toe with the former deputy prime minister. 'But what dignity have you got, Barnaby, when you are standing in the middle of rubble and saying "how on earth did this fire happen?",' he said.

He said the 'head of the serpent' fuelling bushfires is climate change. 'This country wants politicians to step up. It is the existential issue that the public have raised,' he said.

'It defeats me as to why you won't step up to it. All [scientists'] predictions have, damn it, turned out to be right.'

Prof Mann said the effects of climate change are 'actually worse than we predicted'.  'Here in Australia we are seeing an unimaginable crisis take place,' he said.

'We're not seeing the sort of action we need to be seeing here in Australia and around the world to avert truly catastrophic climate change.'

Former Victorian Fire Commissioner Craig Lapsley advised climate change deniers to 'go to the science'. 

Prof Mann, who works at Pennsylvania State University, claimed Australia's future bushfire seasons will be even worse than what the country endured this summer. '(Fires) will become more intense, they become faster spreading, they become more extensive,' he said.

'When you turn the entire continent or large parts of it into a tinderbox, there's really no amount of fire suppression or backburning that's going to get you out of the problem.

'People ask me, is this a new normal for Australia? It's worse than that.'

Maj Gen Dunn, who lives in bushfire-ravaged Conjola on the NSW south coast, echoed Prof Munn's sentiments. 'What happened here? It was like a nuclear explosion. It was terrifying. It's a monster,' he said.

'We've really got to think about these sorts of things; how we manage bushfire fighting. The traditional approach has been well and truly proven to be ineffective.'

So far, 33 people have died in the horror infernos and millions of hectares of land has been destroyed.

SOURCE  






70% of refugees are parasites

The federal government plans to set up English classes in refugee camps to give potential immigrants a better shot at getting a job when they get to Australia.

Acting Immigration Minister and Minister for Population Alan Tudge has decried a link between unacceptably high rates of unemployment amongst refugees and a lack of English skills.

'Long-term welfare dependence is debilitating for anyone, be they a refugee, long-term citizen or anyone else. We have to do better,' Mr Tudge will say in a speech at the Menzies Research Centre in Melbourne, The Australian reported on Friday.

'Data shows that when identifying reasons for finding it difficult to get a job, close to 60 per cent of humanitarian entrants said 'my English isn't good enough yet'.'

A trial of English-language classes in overseas camps to upskill refugees before they arrive in Australia is due to begin on July 1.

More than 70 per cent of refugees are unemployed a year after arriving in Australia, the government says.

SOURCE  






High Court ruling restricts free speech for government employees in Australia

It has long been possible for people to give up their right to free speech for some purpose -- in this case to get a government job.  And in this case that was part of the employment contract that people sign to get a federal government job in Australia.  And Ms Banerji knew that, which is why she posted anonymously.

But there is no "out" for anonymous posting.  Ms Banerrji used knowledge she gained as part of her employment to criticize the government.  And that was a clear breach of her contract -- one which exposed the government to criticism.  The damage was done even though it was done sneakily.

One could argue that the government should be more open to criticism but we will undoubtedly wait a long time for that to happen.  Governments of both Left and Right like their secrecy. Confidentiality clauses are common in contracts for employment by private firms so the government is not doing anything unusual by insisting on confidentiality and penalizing breaches of it

This has no implications for free speech in general in Australia.  And even public servants have free speech as long as they keep their mouths shut about their job or matters to do with their job



The High Court has ruled that a public servant should have been sacked after making comments that were critical of the federal government on an anonymous social media account outside work hours.

Michaela Banerji was sacked from her job at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in 2013 when it was found she had been operating a Twitter account called @LaLegale that posted opinions criticising the government's immigration policies and treatment of asylum seekers.

Unofficial public comment tests limits of free speech
Even though Ms Banerji posted her opinions under a pseudonym and did so outside of work hours on her personal phone, the department said she had breached Australian Public Service Code of Conduct terms which aim to maintain an apolitical public service.

The public service argued she had breached guidelines on the use of social media and making public comments, even in an unofficial capacity.

Freedom of political communication and the right to free speech
Ms Banerji applied to Comcare for compensation for PTSD. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found her sacking had impeded her implied right to freedom of political communication, contained in the Constitution, and ruled in her favour.

Comcare appealed to the High Court which ruled against Ms Banerji, saying the implied freedom of political communication is not a personal right of free speech and her dismissal was reasonable. (See Comcare v Banerji [2019] HCA 23, 7 August 2019.)

The High Court found that Ms Banerji had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, which was a condition of her employment, in that she had failed to uphold public service "values" and its "good reputation". The judges stated that a representative and responsible government must have an apolitical and professional public service.

The High Court decision is likely to have consequences beyond the Commonwealth public service.

With two million people employed in federal, state and local governments, the ruling will certainly impact their private out-of-work expression of political or social opinion.

It also throws into doubt the rights of everyone who is on a government payroll. Can teachers speak out about education policy? Can hospital workers complain of work conditions? Can scientists report flaws in climate change policy?

The implication of this ruling is that any employee who is critical of their employer's position on some political or social issue could risk being sacked. This is especially the case if a business has a policy against employees making comments regarding their workplace on social media.

The judgement may even have a bearing on cases like that of Israel Folau, who was sacked by the Australian Rugby Union for making homophobic comments on social media that breached his contract.

Following this ruling, does Australia have free speech?
After the Banerji sacking, the government tightened employment guidelines even further, stating that even liking or sharing a social media post could breach the rules.

SOURCE  




Mother is horrified after discovering her four-year-old daughter's gruelling preschool schedule - complete with 'progressive' meals, meditation and lessons in maths and engineering

A mother who sends her four-year-old daughter to a $125-a-day preschool has been left shocked after discovering her gruelling daily schedule.

The Australian mother-of-two had dropped her daughter off at school when she decided to ask her teacher how she was performing in class, only to be told 'she has no concentration in all subjects'.

Confused at the teacher's response, the mother found the 'preschool routines' where she noticed an intense timetable listing the strict requirements her daughter had to follow between 7am to 6.30pm.

Her daily subjects included history, maths and engineering, creative arts, science and technology and PDHPE from 9am to 12.40pm.

After her 'progressive lunch', the students head into a meditation between 1.30pm to 2pm before they learn about 'news, letters and booklet' from 2.05pm to 3.45pm.

Some daycare centres offer 'progressive' mealtimes, where there are no strict eating schedules and children have food when they're hungry.

The kids get a 'free discussion time between 3.45pm to 4pm, a 'progressive afternoon tea' from 4pm to 4.30pm, and 'after school care' until 6.30pm.

'Is this what preschoolers are meant to be learning in a long day centre every day in their class? Or is it just me thinking this is really ridiculous,' the mother said in a Facebook group.

'Yesterday as I was dropping off my four year old, I asked the new hired head teacher with primary education degree how my daughter is going. She kept shaking her head, and said: "She's not doing well at all".

'And I said "oh really? In what ways and in which subjects?" And the teacher replied: "In all subjects. She has no concentration in all subjects".'

The mother said she was 'shocked' to hear the feedback, especially 'from a long day care and preschool where I pay $125 a day'.

But everything made sense once she saw her daughter's 'routine'.

'I looked at her schedule and no wonder why my four-year-old has no concentration,' the mother said.

Some daycare centres offer 'progressive' mealtimes, where there are no strict eating schedules and children have food when they're hungry.

During progressive morning or afternoon teas, children are given the option to eat snacks in a small, intimate group setting.

Teachers usually announce that snacks are available to eat, they place them on a table and allow children to come, sit down and eat items when they want them. A lot of children actually eat more food this way when their play isn't directly interrupted.

Other parents were shocked to see the extensive schedule, with many comparing the timetable to high school where students are aged between 12 to 18.

Many said children under the age of five should be focusing on 'play-based learning'. 'It's preschool, let them play,' one mother said.

Another said: 'This is a bulls*** routine. When do they get to be kids?'

One said: 'The teacher has forgotten where she is teaching. This looks like my high school kids' timetable.'

And another said: 'A four-year-old has limited concentration anyway, that's a harsh routine. I'm all for kids going to school at four to five, but they should be learning to socialise, interact, learn through play and enjoy their early school years. This looks ridiculous to me.'

Other parents who work in preschools described the routine as a 'joke'.

'I am an early childhood teacher and I have no words. Play play play play. Children need play... I would seriously consider providing this feedback to the director, and changing centres. Please,' one said.

Another preschool teacher who works at a daycare centre said their daily routine looks like 'nothing like that' as they only focus on 'basic learning'. 'Poor kids must be so confused and exhausted,' she said.

SOURCE  

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






10 February, 2012

Is the Christian story antisemitic?

The Gospels make crystal clear that the Jewish leadership of the day were responsible for Christ's execution.  It is a sad day when that tale can no longer be told.  It is the central event of the Christian faith

To say that Jewish leaders of today are responsible in any way for their predecessors of 2000 years ago is simply childish but the current Jewish leadership in Australia seems to have heard that message in what is just another retelling of that 2000 year old tale


In an age of social media, when facts and interpretation are often melded into the same narrative, the result can become a nasty mixture, as Gerry Riviere, a chaplain at a Baptist school in Melbourne, has found.

Riviere had to apologise for his remarks in a Christmas school newsletter about the role of the Jewish elders in Jesus’ crucifixion.

The furious reaction of Anti-Defamation Commission chairman Dvir Abramovich, followed by an apology from the school, was based on a perception of anti-Semitism.

There are two separate issues here. First, whether Riviere’s remarks, published in this newspaper and online, were in fact anti-Semitic or simply based on an interpretation of a viewpoint that deemed it anti-Semitic.

Second, in a broader context, since we live in an age of outrage, due especially to social media, if any accusation, whether an alleged breach of standards or even a contrary view to current ideological “right-think”, is always a matter of guilty as charged.

This is part of what the unfortunate chaplain wrote of the Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus: “Whilst Rome was the dominant political power, the religious power within Judaism belonged to those in leadership. The leaders had misinterpreted who God was and what he was like, and so when the people looked to their religious leaders for some comfort and encouragement, they found neither.

“The religious leaders were intoxicated with the power their system afforded them. Thus, neither the political nor the religious systems gave the people any hope.

“Jesus entered that environment to bring a message of hope and love. “He challenged the thinking and actions of the religious leaders who, rather than accepting they were wrong, constantly challenged him, and finally, in an attempt to silence him, placed him upon a cross.”

When I read this I thought the reaction from Abramovich seemed puzzlingly over-the-top. Riviere’s statements were, he said, “beyond belief … inflammatory and outrageous” and, not willing to stop there, “full of classic anti-Semitic slurs”.

To be fair, the vehemence of this reaction forces one to ask if, at first glance, this seemingly anodyne little message in a school newsletter is not anti-Semitic, then why does Abramovich, a respected Hebrew scholar, who wants to promote ecumenism, believe it is? In a democracy it is important to explore all points of view, even religious questions.

The statement that the Jewish leaders misinterpreted “who God was” could be viewed as anti-Jewish. The perception of God in Judaism hasn’t changed too much across thousands of years. Hence it appears an attack on the basis of the religion. Also, in a religion that relies so much on continuity of interpretation the notion of religious leaders “misinterpreting” God then, as now, could be construed as an attack on some elements of Jewish biblical scholarship.

Likewise the characterisation of the leaders of that time as “intox­icated with power” is not a particularly pleasant portrait. How­ever, one doesn’t have to examine the gospel accounts too forensically to see that they did indeed seem to be keen to hang on to their power and, more important, their teaching authority. That, to my mind, is a basic human flaw, not a peculiarly Jewish one.

However, the most controversial element of the post that annoyed Jewish critics was the idea of Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ death, which in the past led to the idea of collective Jewish guilt. As Abramovich points out, this notion has been debunked by many theologians and popes. Nevertheless, he sees the last sentence as indicative of that lingering notion.

It is true that for many hundreds of years the idea of Jewish responsibility as a whole and the responsibility of the leadership of that time was conflated.

However, in recent times as many scholars note, even in the gospels it is clear that Jesus had prominent followers within the rich social and religious hierarchy.

The story of Jesus’ passion and death with slight variations in the narrative depending on which of the gospels is used, is read and enacted with great drama in Catholic churches, every Passion (Palm) Sunday. Another version is read on Good Friday. It is harrowing, dramatic and very interesting too. In every gospel version the basic outline of the story is that the dominant Jewish elders in the council had been plotting against Jesus for some time and are the ones who deliver him to his ultimate death by the Roman civil authority.

Curiously, even though in general the grasp of religious issues by the mass of the Australian population is a great well of ignorance, the online commentary is favourable to the chaplain. Most commentators know that Jesus was not a civil leader, he was a spiritual one, and as for his crucifixion most of the commentary on this subject has relied on the gospel narrative as the factual basis for a defence of the chaplain against the charge of anti-Semitism.

One wonders why the children of Carey Baptist Grammar School wouldn’t think the same way. It is, after all, a Christian school. Riviere was obviously subjected to intimidation by his principal, who in turn was intimidated by the reaction from the Anti-Defamation Commission, particularly since the school takes Jewish students.

It is well to remember that this storm in a teacup is all because of a particular interpretation about a religious historical matter.

At a time when we are considering a religious discrimination bill, this incident is a pointer to future problems. We live in an age of outrage, when accusations can become fact, and a chain of false subjective interpretation, followed by intimidation, happens when anyone says anything that is deemed controversial.

This isn’t just about religion. The combination of social media commentary and prescribed orthodoxies about everything from sexual identity and relationships to climate change and immigration means that perception of fact and real facts can be clouded. Sometimes, especially via social media, this can be the result of deliberate misinterpretation. Then the problems begin when the ensuing muddle becomes the “real” narrative — and the entire basis for an argument.

SOURCE  





How do we attract men back to teaching?

The start of the new school year, and amid a flurry of shiny new shoes, unsullied lunch boxes, scraped back ponytails and short back and sides there’s the anguish that a favourite teacher has left my youngest son’s small primary. Oh, loss! It’s a man, so the absence feels particularly grievous; they’re a rare breed in these parts and my boy was hoping that this year, finally, he’d land him. But it’s not to be. He’s upped sticks. Shifted his gentle, thoughtful presence to another locality along with his talent with computers, his musical abilities in a school that has no music lessons in its curriculum and his raucously popular ukulele club. It’s a void keenly felt among parents and pupils.

But for young Australian men, teaching as a career is no longer the lure it once was. The number of male teachers in our primary system has been steadily declining since the early ’80s, when about 30 per cent were men. Researcher Kevin McGrath conducted Australia’s first longitudinal study of teacher numbers, the workplace data on gender imbalances in schools and their leadership positions. His conclusion: “Our schools are set to run out of male principals in the next 20 years, and the male teacher will be extinct in the next 40.” In some schools, says McGrath, there are already no male teachers, no male principal, and the only male on staff is the cleaner or maintenance man.

Gabbie Stroud is a former teacher who wrote about her experiences in the bestseller, Teacher. Her newly released book, Dear Parents, is presented as a series of clandestine teacher emails to mums and dads over the course of a school year. It’s illuminating about what teachers really think of us, the obsessive, demanding parents; about the frustrating, overburdened system of admin teachers endure around face-to-face time with kids; and about the conundrum of the male teacher. “Derek [a young fictional teacher in Stroud’s fictional school] will have his work cut out… to establish himself as an approachable male teacher without being pegged as being too familiar, a weirdo or too strict,” she writes. “I’ve seen parents erode male teachers out of teaching positions in less than 10 weeks. He’s a brave guy to join the profession in the current climate… Then there’s the issue of pay. Whether you believe it or not, parents, for the amount of work required a primary teacher’s pay is pretty ordinary. I think that keeps a lot of blokes away.”

So how to attract males to this profession, and keep them there? Because their presence is vital. I want a diverse teaching environment for my kids, one that reflects real life. “Schools are a microcosm of society, they tell students a lot about the role of men in society,” McGrath told the ABC. “Parents and children want male and female teachers and they want teachers from a range of different groups.”

Stroud concludes her latest tome with a plea for understanding: “Do you remember a teacher that made a difference for you? Who was that teacher? What did they do that made them so memorable? … I’m sure if you took a minute to think, you’ll realise that they made you feel good about yourself. They made you feel like you had something to offer the world. That’s what teachers do.”

So here’s to Mr Rice, my Year 5 teacher at Keiraville Public School and the only man who taught me in primary. He made me believe in myself all those decades ago, made me believe I could be a writer. His generous, nurturing spirit ignited a flame that’s burned in me strongly ever since. So this is my thankyou to him – and my lament that there aren’t more men like him in the system now.

SOURCE  





We won’t block new coal projects: Labor

A future Labor government will not stand in the way of a new coal-fired power station or coal mine if it meets “normal environmental approvals”, deputy leader Richard Marles has conceded.

But Mr Marles, who once said the collapse of the global thermal coal market was a “good thing”, refused to say whether he had a personal objection to new coal mines.

“This is a matter for the market,” Mr Marles told the ABC on Sunday. “The normal environmental approvals should apply.”

The Morrison government on Saturday announced it had signed off on up to $4m to support Shine Energy’s feasibility study for a high-efficiency, low emissions coal plant at Collinsville in Queensland.

Mr Marles said it was obvious government should not be subsidising coal and instead leaving it to the market to decide if projects were possible.

If the industry chose to build a coal-fired power station, it would have to meet government environmental approvals before being given the green light.

“A Labor government will have the normal environmental approvals for power stations,” Mr Marles said.

“A Labor government is not going to put a cent into subsidising coal-fired power. And that is the practical question as to whether or not it happens.”

Labor’s equivocation on the Adani coal mine in the Galilee Basin and ambitious climate change policies were considered critical to its 2019 election loss, which led to a disastrous result in Queensland and big swings against the part in coal mining seats.

Mr Marles acknowledged on Sunday coal miners played a “very significant” economic role and the industry would continue “for decades to come”.

“We have been seeking bipartisanship for a long time in relation to this. But to get bipartisanship, we actually need to have a side that we can talk to,” Mr Marles said.

SOURCE  





Intellectual freedom at Australian universities? Only if your values are ‘aligned’

The university year began with a rumbling noise that all is not well with intellectual freedom in this country. What started as a small story at a Queensland campus has become a very big one that demands attention if we care about the future of the current generation of young Australians, the next generation, and the trajectory of freedom in this country.

Generation Liberty is home to a group of young Australians, part of the Institute of Public Affairs, who are committed to understanding and promoting the way in which freedom has enriched people across the history of civilisation. As a board member and now chairman of the IPA, I have come to know many members.

They are an eclectic bunch mostly under 25. So good luck to those creepy fiends of identity politics who try to filter these young people by sex, sexual orientation, racial and religious traits. This futile search will throw up these common threads only: they are curious contrarians. They engage in furious debates, don’t take themselves too seriously and are willing to listen to others. They want to learn things they haven’t always been taught at school or at university, the history of Western civilisation, warts and all, the ebbs and flows of freedoms and its impact on people.

Last month, Gen Lib, as we call it, applied to have a stall at Market Week, an extended part of O Week at Queensland University of Technology, which runs in late February. By email in late January, Alisha Pritchard from QUT’s student guild declined Gen Lib’s application, telling it the committee had “decided that your brand does not align with our values”.

In the days that followed, Drew Pavlou, a student who sits on the University of Queensland’s senate, started a petition to ban Gen Lib from UQ’s market day activities too. Pavlou describes himself as a human rights campaigner. He has tweeted a video of himself supporting Hong Kong protesters at UQ. Alas, his lack of support for intellectual freedom at home creates a serious credibility problem for him. In other social media posts Pavlou has called for crushing dissent, burning books and said Gen Lib members “need to be bullied into submission.”

What on earth are they afraid of? This year, Gen Lib intends to run a book club for students that will include Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, Lord of the Flies, by William Golding, Albert Camus’s The Stranger, Mark Twain’s The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg, A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens, and Homage to Catalonia by George Orwell. Gen Lib also will chat about what we call Big Fat Books, including The Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Atlas Shrug­ged by Ayn Rand and Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom.

Federal Education Minister Dan Tehan has the authority to direct the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency in the exercise and performance of its powers. Picture: AAP
Which book frightens QUT’s student guild or the student representative on the UQ senate’s peak governing body so much that they don’t want students knowing about Gen Lib?

When news broke of this censorship of Gen Lib, QUT’s student guild ran for the hills, claiming a litany of other reasons for Gen Lib’s exclusion. But remember its first response to Gen Lib: “Your brand does not align with our values.”

At one level, this is a story about a group of students who have not been taught about the empowering forces of intellectual freedom, let alone the history of freedom across a few thousand years of Western civilisation.

But it is part of a much bigger story that includes a vice-chancellor, too. Following questions from this newspaper to the Education Minister, QUT vice-chancellor Margaret Sheil released a statement last week saying that O Week gives priority to guild-affiliated clubs, and Gen Lib could affiliate and apply next year. In any case, “the available area for stalls during O Week is currently at capacity”, she said.

Then came some pure puffery. “QUT does not operate on the basis of left or right-wing bias: the effectiveness of all we do here relies upon remaining open to a variety of contesting viewpoints and to the merits of evidence,” Sheil said.

Was Sheil misinformed about the facts or was she being disingenuous? Either way, the university’s leader failed to address the fact that the student guild at QUT rejected Gen Lib’s application for Market Week, not O Week, and on the basis that its brand did not align with their values.

On Wednesday afternoon, QUT backed away from its first statement. Peter Gatbonton, QUT’s manager of student engagement, emailed an invitation to Gen Lib’s Theodora Pantelich, inviting them to be part of O Week.

What happened to no space? Maybe like a late guest pulling out from a wedding reception the chaps from the Socialist Alternative couldn’t make it after all.

Seriously, are we meant to be grateful that QUT administrators caved in to pressure and managed, after all, to find space for the ideas of freedom at QUT’s O Week?

Perhaps, in her private moments, the vice-chancellor of QUT wonders how the heck it reached this dismal state of affairs among her students. In truth, the responsibility rests with university administrators like her. Rarely from the goodness of their hearts or the brilliance of their minds do VCs defend intellectual freedom. They tend to do it once forced, when exposed, and shamed. Like here.

Vice-chancellors love talking about deliberately ambiguous concepts such as “diversity” and “inclusion” rather than a bedrock principle called intellectual freedom. Worse, they have overseen the cementing of these woolly words on campus to shut down div­erse views and students who challenge the orthodoxy feel excluded.

We know this from a survey of students conducted by the IPA last year. Rather than listening to the public exhortations of VCs, we asked students about their experience at universities. Forty-one per cent of them said they felt unable to express their opinions at university. This is what transforms a small story about a student guild at QUT into a very big story about the strangulation of intellectual freedom. The story gets bigger still. It includes a set of laws that are lame and a regulator that has had no discernible impact on improving intellectual freedom at Australian universities.

Start with the Higher Education Support Act 2003. As a condition of receiving federal money from taxpayers, it provides that “a higher education provider … must have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching, and research”. Then there is the HES Framework 2015 that says: “The higher education provider has a clearly articulated higher education purpose that includes a commitment to and support for free intellectual inquiry in its academic endeavours.” This framework requires a university “governing body … to develop and maintain an institutional environment in which freedom of intellectual inquiry is upheld and protected”.

Now for the regulator. The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency is empowered to enforce the HES Act and the HEC Framework so taxpayers and students know publicly funded universities are carrying out their core mission to educate their students.

TEQSA’s own report card is woeful. Like VCs around the country, TEQSA’s chief commissioner, Nick Saunders, has mentioned intellectual freedom, including when asked at a Senate estimates inquiry, but there is scant evidence of a regulator genuinely committed to holding universities to their core mission of intellectual freedom. If this is yet another rogue bureaucracy ignoring its remit from government, the government has a chance to appoint a new kind of bureaucrat. TEQSA chief executive Anthony McClaran is leaving his role at the end of next month. The search for a new boss may be the chance to boost the heft of this body.

But, then again, maybe the law needs reforming. After all, requiring a policy on paper about intellectual freedom is meaningless; what matters is enforcement. This story, then, is also about the federal government. A series of them, in fact. Intellectual freedom has been on the slide for decades, going back to the atrocious treatment of Geoffrey Blainey at the University of Melbourne in 1984 when he aired his view that the Hawke government’s 40 per cent intake of poor immigrants from Asia could threaten the country’s social cohesion unless managed properly. He was hounded off campus as a racist. Blainey is not a racist; he is one of Australia’s finest historians.

There has sometimes been a bit of talk from politicians, prime ministers too, and a bit of legislative tinkering such as Julia Gillard’s changes to the HES Act in 2011. But still, today, too many university campuses are not known as places of learning where intellectual freedom thrives. If they were, a student guild running stalls for new students wouldn’t dream of banning a Gen Lib stall on the basis that its brand did not align with the guild’s values. If intellectual freedom were taken seriously, a vice-chancellor would not put up with this baloney on their campus. And neither would the regulator or our government.

The Education Minister has the authority to direct TEQSA in the exercise and performance of its powers. Isn’t it time then for a ministerial kick up the regulator’s backside? If not now, when? What will it take for that to happen?

Remember, too, that thousands of Australians are still waiting for the Morrison government to support intellectual freedom by supporting Peter Ridd, who was sacked by James Cook University for challenging the quality of climate science.

Instead, Education Minister Dan Tehan has plans to tweak this, and tinker with that, tightening up the government’s “compact” with each publicly funded university to include universities reporting on their approaches to supporting freedom of intellectual inquiry on campus. That’ll fix things, then.

Another more difficult, but not impossible, route to intellectual freedom is to remove sources of public funding from universities that fail at that core mission.

A baker’s mission is to bake. A lawyer gives legal advice. A plumber will fix your plumbing. Yet we need laws, regulators, compacts and codes to convince university administrators their core job is to offer intellectual freedom on campus.

No wonder Generation Liberty is thriving, attracting curious young people hungry for what publicly funded universities fail to offer them. It is a safe bet that, far away from student guilds and VC offices, our values about freedom align very closely with millions of Australians.

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 February 2019

Sandstone statue in Aboriginal Stolen Generation Memorial is vandalised in vile attack causing $50,000 in damage

A memorial to a lie.  It should be erased.  Leftists tear down statues to real events and real people.  A statue to a lie should all the more be torn down

The "stolen generation" is a fiction invented by Leftist historians.  White social workers in the '30s did their job and sometimes removed endangered children from severely dysfunctional black families and sometimes fostered the children into white families for their own safety.  THAT is the so called stolen generation

And if a "generation" were removed, there should be thousands ready to tell their story.  There are in fact at most a handful.  The thing is a lie from beginning to end


A Sydney memorial for the indigenous Stolen Generations has been vandalised, with the damage bill estimated to be $50,000.

Police were called to the Australian Botanical Garden at Mount Annan in southwest Sydney on Thursday, after reports a sandstone statue in the Aboriginal Stolen Generation Memorial was deliberately damaged.

Police believe the memorial was targeted between 10am on Wednesday and 10.45am on Thursday.

SOURCE  






Confused Australian Marxists

They are afraid to admit their authoritarian impulses

Andrew Bolt

I'm SO glad Marxists will again hold their annual conference at Melbourne University. When you check out Marxism 2020, you'll stop worrying and start laughing. "A world to win!" its website declares, promising a discussion on "revolutionary struggle across the globe today".

To illustrate this "revolutionary struggle", it shows a picture of one of last year's massive protests in Hong Kong. Wait!! Those protesters weren't struggling for Marxism but against it. They were fighting for their freedom from China, which is, er, Marxist

Hmm. When Marxists praise the people struggling against their tyrannical creed, it's clear they're not the sharpest sickles in the shed. But this isn't the only sign in this conference that Marxism is in decay. I know, this isn't the impression you've got from the media Left or from protests on our streets.

In fact, you've probably fretted that Marxism seems much more in your face. Last October, for instance, Marxists from the Socialist Alliance battled police in Melbourne for days outside a mining conference. Just last week, the Queensland University of Technology student union said it would allow the Marxist Socialist Alternative to set up a recruiting stall for orientation week, but banned Generation Liberty, a youth arm of the libertarian Institute of Public Affairs.

And last year the ABC's youth network announced "young people are losing faith in capitalism and embracing socialism" ... well, at least in America.

But Marxism 2020 should put your fears to rest. For a start, the quality of the speakers is appalling.

When I checked the 2014 Marxism conference I found 12 speakers were at least academics (which was alarming). But this year's conference boasts just four academics, including the ubiquitous Roz Ward, who designed the controversial "Safe Schools" program for Victoria's Labor Government.  Another, Rick Kuhn, is now half out the door as an honorary associate professor at the Australian National University.

It seems Marxist academics are getting rarer. Most of this year's speakers are instead ageing street radicals, imported nonentities from the US, and some excitable youngsters from student politics and "refugee" politics. This intellectual decline shows in the crass early-bird special — book now and get your "F--k ScoMo" T-shirt.

Marxists must be thick or blind not to realise Marxism has led to tyranny in every place it's been tried — Russia, China, Cambodia, Poland, Cuba ... But Marxism 2020 seems to be organised by people so dumb that they've planned a session to praise the "contribution of early Korean women revolutionaries and communists" but none to discuss what a hellhole those communists actually created in North Korea.

Instead, there are two sessions to make excuses for Marxism's unbroken record of bloody failure. You know all those Marxist regimes that created all that misery? They weren't Marxist at all! They got hijaCked! Student activist Jairnine Duff will explain that "the Russian Revolution is the closest that the world has ever come to achieving socialism", until it was eventually crushed" by terrible Mr Stalin.

Attention, Jasmine: Russia's revolution was rotten from the start when it was led by nice Mr. Lenin, Stalin's boss. Just one year after the Bolsheviks overthrew Russia's elected government in 1917, Lenin was already issuing orders like this:

"Introduce at once mass terror"; "Hang (absolutely hang, in full view of the people) no fewer than one hundred known ... filthy rich men."

But the Marxism 2020 speakers seen unable to accept that a political theory which calls for a workers' "dictatorship" is the enemy of freedom and the creed of thugs.

They seem torn between knowing violence looks bad yet wanting to use it "We oppose terrorism and acts of individual violence as a strategy for change," says one speaker. On the other hand: "Marxists are not pacifists ... there will need to be an insurrection led by a revolutionary party ... seizure of power ... dictatorship of the proletariat" As for the police who'd defend our democracy: "Abolish them."

Notice how police are most likely to get hurt at Marxist protests? Such a history of failure, such an itch for violenCe and such ignorance.

Be glad Marxists are dying out, at least according to a survey last year by the United States Studies Centre and YouGov. "Older Australians use more positive words to describe socialism than younger people," it found.

How reassuring. The young are more woke to Marxism than their elders, and Marxism 2020 will just add one more nail to the coffin of that stinking corpse.

From the "Courier Mail" of 3 February, 2020






Police and firefighters’ representatives take big slice of union pay

Bloodsuckers

Emergency services union leaders are the country’s highest-paid unionists, and more than 20 CFMEU officials earn over $220,000 a year, exceeding the pay of ACTU secretary Sally McManus and president Michele O’Neil.

Six employer representatives receive more than $230,000 a year, led by former Victorian Chamber of Commerce and ­Industry chief Mark Stone, who was paid $469,763 last financial year, the highest individual ­remuneration declared to the government’s Registered Organisations Commission.

Analysis by The Weekend Australian of salary disclosures by registered union and employer groups show four officials from the Police Association of Victoria receive more than $200,000 a year, including secretary Wayne Gatt, on $292,326, and his deputy, Bruce McKenzie, on $286,159.

The country’s highest-paid union leader is United Firefighters Union secretary Peter Marshall, whose remuneration of $419,697, plus $8580 in car and income­-protection allowances, is believed to be double the amount paid to Ms McManus.

Of the 59 employer representatives and union officials who ­declared annual remuneration of more than $200,000, half work for the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union, with national mining division president Tony Maher topping the union’s list at $287,470.

CFMEU mining general secretary Grahame Kelly received $275,046, followed by NSW president Rita Mallia on $253,728, Queensland construction secretary Michael Ravbar on $244,017 and NSW secretary ­Darren Greenfield on $240,826.

CFMEU national secretary Michael O’Connor was paid $239,065 and Victorian construction secretary John Setka ­received $229,842 plus a car ­allowance of $18,773.

Five of the top 11 declared earners were employer representatives, including Pharmacy Guild national president George Tambassis ($387,931), National ­Electrical Contractors Association secretary Suresh Manickam ($260,577), NECA NSW secretary Oliver Judd ($251,850) and Aust­ralian Security Industry Association chief executive Bryan de Caires ($244,583).

While Mr Stone, who finished as chief executive of the Victorian chamber in December, had the top declared remuneration, many employer­ organisations are not ­required to declare remuneration of senior employees to the commissi­on.

Industry figures said several chief executives for national ­employer organisations earned significantly more than Mr Stone.

The ACTU, which is not obliged to declare the remuneration of senior officials to the commission, declined to reveal specific remuneration details on Friday but is it understood Ms McManus receives about $210,000 in remunera­tion annually.

“The leadership of the ACTU is paid less than half of what (Mr Stone) is paid,” an ACTU spokesman said.

“Apart from small percentage adjustments each year, the ­remuneration arrangements have not significantly changed during the last nine years, and remains lower than the lowest-paid federal parliamentarian.”

Union sources said the ­remun­eration declared by CFMEU offici­als, which included superannuation, was commensurate with industry wages.

However, officials said the ­remuneration received by Mr Marshall and Police Association of Victoria officials was significantly higher than the pay of most ­members.

A qualified Victorian firefighter, on completion of three years of service and a certificate of proficiency, earns a base pay of $86,060 and receives nine weeks’ annual leave a year.

Mr Marshall did not respond to requests for comment.

As well as Mr Gatt and Mr McKenzie being among the top four union earners, commission records show the association’s ­industrial relations manager, Chris Kennedy, received $236,019, and president John Laird got $215,189. Mary McNicoll, the association­’s corporate service manager, received $195,825.

About half of Victorian Police’s 15,115 full-time-equivalent employees as of last July were senior constables earning base pay rangin­g from $85,279 to $104,685. Another 22.8 per cent were constables earning $69,836 to $77,735, while sergeants made up 17.3 per cent receiving base pay ranging from $106,859 to $116,452.

Other Victorian union leaders were among the nation’s highest-paid, including state secretary of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation Lisa Fitzpatrick, who declared remuneration of $241,782, while her state deputy, Paula Carew, received $207,836.

John Berger, the Victorian and Tasmanian secretary of the Transport Workers Union, received $234,764, and his deputy, Chris Fennell, declared $201,767 in ­annual remuneration.

The commission has not yet published all disclosure statements filed by unions.

SOURCE  






Outcomes before inputs in education

Each new school year elicits mixed emotions for parents and children, ranging from excitement to anxiety. For policymakers, the new year needs to be greeted with a steely-eyed determination to lift schooling performance for the benefit of the four million Australian students in school, and ultimately for the national good.

That means putting aside the habitual mudslinging, buck-passing and tinkering at the edges by policymakers of both parties and at each level of government. Too often, politics has clouded education policy — perhaps more so than any other major portfolio — much to the disservice of students, families and educators.

The way forward must necessarily start with a candid, sober understanding of what has gone on in the past and be followed by a clear vision for the future. Holding up a mirror to the school system will be confronting but it’s past time for an honest accounting of success and failure.

Any serious introspection will note the inconvenient truth that, everywhere in education policy, performance has become a dirty word — for students, schools and teachers — while productivity and getting education bang for the buck are long gone as policy priorities.

Last year the OECD-run Program for International Student Assessment revealed that Australian students’ test results, particularly in mathematics, have continued to slump considerably. All the while, education ministers across the country have boasted about providing “record funding” to schooling.

It is easy to see that a cabal of vested interests and the same old players hold tight control of policymaking, particularly in relation to assessment, competition and performance management. The losers every time are students, taxpayers and even teachers.

It’s no secret that student assessment isn’t what it used to be, and PISA shows we’re certainly a class below high-performing countries when it comes to setting high expectations at school. There is a national commitment to “learning progressions” — which privilege students making progress rather than achieving to an expected standard.

That means those who start behind the curve are likelier to lag behind their peers and have their career opportunities hindered — since employers will invariably want the best candidate for the job, not the most improved.

There is also a push to do away with end-of-school examinations and exit scores on the basis that testing is simply too stressful and ranking a student’s performance might shatter their fragile confidence. But tests are just that — a test of performance under pressure, much like what happens daily in adult life and work.

National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy reporting remains under constant fire. Its opponents say it’s unfair to measure a school’s performance according to such arbitrary and summative measures as test results in basic literacy and numeracy. State education ministers routinely flirt with the idea of scrapping the tests altogether or hiding the results from the public.

However, watering down competition around performance is no recipe for improvement. Quite the opposite: it licenses an accountability-free protection racket, ripe for slackers.

But it is teachers who may be most let down by an inadequate performance management system. Once in the classroom, staff performance is not assessed consistently, independently or objectively, and principals often feel their hands are tied — both for teachers who exceed expectations and for those who don’t meet the bar. Teachers don’t enjoy the benefits of further development from the basic performance management practices found in just about any other Australian workplace.

There is virtually no nexus between pay and performance for teachers, and wage increases are doled out across the board, thanks to centrally determined pay deals with the unions.

If teachers aren’t working in an environment requiring, encouraging and helping them to meet high standards, is it any wonder that students don’t perform?

An aspiration for school policy, characterised by an unapologetic and unrelenting drive for higher performance and productivity, should be an obvious imperative, no matter one’s political persuasion. It also means putting to bed the naive assumption that simply spending more will deliver better outcomes. We’ve already tried that, to no avail.

If doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity then repeatedly spending more money on the same thing for the same results makes policymakers look utterly braindead. All the Gonski “needs-based” funding in the world won’t improve education outcomes without a change in performance culture throughout the system, root and branch.

A new vision for school funding should be outcomes-based. Simply dishing out funding based on inputs (the number and demographics of students), rather than outcomes, doesn’t make for a productive education nation.

Market-based incentives can be used to cultivate greater competition, stimulating the drive for better performance and productivity.

Most school funding goes to paying staff. If this pay were performance-based (particularly in terms of student achievement), it could revolutionise the culture within schools. A renewed focus on performance would flow through to students’ attitudes towards learning and assessment. It’s well documented that highly motivated students, with high expectations set for them, are much likelier to do well.

It’s often said that a country’s education system is a predictor of its future economic prosperity, since human capital is key to national productivity. Last month’s national accounts revealed a persistent, long-term slide in Australia’s labour productivity results, spelling bad news for future economic capacity. It’s no coincidence that productivity has collapsed, as the education system has shirked performance for too long.

The new year is as good a time as any to chart a new policy course. At a national level, the interests of the country and its students must finally be put ahead of the unaccountable, vested interests that have been a dead weight on Australian schooling. For the sake of our future productivity and prosperity, education policy in 2020 needs a jolt of market-based reform — accountability with high expectations, competition, and performance management.

Glenn Fahey is an education research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and was an expert witness to the Inquiry into Measurement

SOURCE  







Bushfire politicking latest trick in Green New Squeal

Climate politics in this country are so wacky that informed adults ought to scoff at them and move on. But with Labor, the Greens, much of the media and some Liberal moderates caught up in this nuttiness, Scott Morrison is confronted by a serious challenge.

The climate election should have settled all this but, alas, the climate saga is alive again. The Prime Minister should accept this long-running policy schism as a useful opportunity that can give shape to his agenda and put the government on a positive footing — he should relish the climate wars.

To get a sense of how ludicrous this debate has become, consider this: Inexperienced, soc­ialist US Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes a radical climate and redistributive agenda dubbed the Green New Deal. It sets the practically impossible and economically destructive goal of having the US reach zero net emissions in a decade.

It will never happen, of course, but the revolutionary agenda and catchy phrase have been adopted by the new leader of the Australian Greens, Adam Bandt.

While Bandt and Ocasio-Cortez are the sort of politicians who are one soy latte away from gluing themselves to the road, there is another prominent political figure who has adopted this slogan. Writing in Guardian Australia, former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull said this country should have its “own green new deal” to deliver zero net emissions.

And before we dismiss him as an embittered former leader exacting revenge on his former colleagues — true as that might be — it is worth reminding ourselves that many of his supporters are still in the Liberal partyroom and acted up this week demanding more climate action.

Never mind that cautious climate policies got them into government and allowed them to stay in power; never mind the Coalition is committed to the Paris climate targets; never mind that Australia’s emissions effort is incapable of having any impact because global emissions are rising; and never mind that we just had an election on these issues, these opportunists are spooked by the bushfire politics and want to go closer to matching Labor and Greens climate gestures. At this rate there will be Liberal MPs supergluing themselves to the partyroom carpet.

Driven by the public broadcasters and woke elements of the Canberra press gallery, the media is relentlessly alarmist. There is a McCarthyist zeal to their gotcha questions that distil a vast array of complex scientific modelling, observations and possible policy responses into a banal binary: Do you believe in human-induced climate change?

Aside from the ridiculous conscription of belief into science, the point about this question is that nothing turns on it — except perhaps political humiliation for anyone who considers the wrong answer. What matters is not what our politicians believe but what they do, their policy responses.

In this emotive climate there is widespread reluctance or refusal to discuss practical policy options and their costs and benefits. The hysterical, ugly and deceptive pointscoring over our horrific summer bushfires had Greens, Labor and media activists linking the Coalition’s emissions reduction policies to the fire conditions.

As I argued from November last year, when former NSW fire commissioner Greg Mullins and other climate activists positioned themselves to make political points out of inevitable bushfire challenges, the linking of Australian emissions reduction policies to global climate trends is a science-denying absurdity.

We know this country will always experience catastrophic fire conditions and if they have or will become more prevalent because of global warming, then the role of our emissions, one way or the other, is nil or infinitesimal.

Even Chief Scientist Alan Finkel publicly declared that if we took all of Australia’s annual emissions out of the atmosphere it would do “virtually nothing” to the climate. Yet still the vicious and absurd attempts to blame the terrible fire season on the Coalition continue.

While relevant facts are deliberately ignored by the public broadcasters, social media and a largely progressive journalistic groupthink, none of this changes the facts. As Winston Churchill said of the truth, “Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”

This week Labor MP Matt Thistlethwaite joined me on television and sought to make the now familiar political attack against the Morrison government over the bushfire season. This raised the question about what climate policies could possibly have done to make things less severe, so I asked Thistlethwaite whether Labor would be taking climate policies to the next election that would ameliorate the bushfire threat in Australia.

It is nonsense, obviously, that any national emissions reduction policy could influence our fire weather. Thistlethwaite could do no more than dodge a direct answer. So I asked him if it was possible for national climate policies to reduce our bushfire threat. Again, a non-answer.

I persisted, asking whether Australia’s emissions reduction policies could lower our bushfire risk. Despite being implored to give a yes or no answer, he continued to talk around the issue.

The only truthful answer to these questions is no.

But if Labor, the Greens, activists and campaigning journalists were to answer this question honestly they would effectively be admitting that their entire political pile-on against the Coalition was baseless.

Members of the green-left often point to “the science” but they are not interested in science-based, factual analysis of policy costs and benefits. They demand climate gestures as a political ploy or as a form of virtue signalling but have nothing to say on practical outcomes or costs.

Imagine if we tried to assess the practical and economic costs of Australia shifting to zero emissions within a decade and compared them with the environmental benefits. Clearly, the costs would be too immense and complex to quantify accurately, and the benefits would be too small to identify.

This is not my argument for doing nothing — although that is a perfectly rational position — but it is my case for doing our bit under Paris and not a tonne of emissions more until we see more concerted global action and firmer scientific cost-benefit analysis.

Morrison needs to embrace this debate and avoid offering head nods to the activist left by pretending our policies will improve the climate, even while global emissions rise.

Members of the left don’t thank him for Paris, they just up the ante. They don’t thank Don­ald Trump for lowering US fixed-energy emissions or promising to plant a trillion trees.

The climate evangelists cannot be reasoned with and they must be defeated in a blunt and factual debate.

Even within his own party the Prime Minister faces weathervane moderates who think they can trade deeper emissions for holding leafy Liberal seats. Such pathetic politicking should have no place in a serious policy debate that presumes to encompass the future of our national economy and the planet itself.

There is nothing about the climate debate in Australia that is normal. The level of misinformation is disturbing and deliberate. The amplification of the issue’s significance in this country by environmental, media and political activists is inversely proportional to the nation’s global role in the solution.

A moderately important policy issue has been elevated to an existential threat and almost two decades of partisan polarisation, drowning out much more pressing policy debates. From this, surely, springs Morrison’s main opportunity.

He deftly charted a centrist course on climate in the lead-up to the election and beyond, sticking with the Paris emissions reduction commitments. But now he must fight against the alarmists and demolish arguments to inflict further economic pain.

Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis wrote last week that “climate change is capitalism’s Waterloo”. He said we could not achieve “restabilisation of the climate” and maintain “capitalism’s main pillars”.

His piece was highlighted on Twitter by the ABC’s Jonathan Green, who commented: “The great truth we are circling.” This is an argument the left and its allies will continue to pursue relentlessly, for all kinds of reasons — and it must be defeated.

Green’s tweet demonstrates the institutional jaundice the Coalition and the Prime Minister are up against.

This is not a minor battle. It is a crucial social, environmental and economic debate that demands a rational, ideological and political campaign.

Morrison must fight back against the climate madness. The country needs it, the economy needs it, and the contest will give shape to a Coalition agenda that looks a little anaemic.

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 February 2019

Taking sides over ‘Dark Emu’

Lawyer Russel Marks gives below as much evidence as anyone would need to identify Bruce Pascoe's claims about Aboriginal history as false.

Yet he also attacks people who have brought Pascoe's lies to public attention.  He finds it objectionable that the critics are "right wing".  He says that the right’s mission is "to extinguish the basis for Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination". 

That is an extravagant conclusion to draw from criticisms of  one stupid book and completely ignores the much more obvious conclusions to be drawn from the criticisms:  That the critics object to lies as the basis for history.  Since when is exposing liars wrong?

Marks is however writing for a Marxist organ so being "anti-Right" is probably his ticket to being published there.  His essay is very long winded so I have abbreviated it below, but I give the link to the full article for use by anyone interested in a string of irrelevancies and bigoted assertions


It wasn’t until the NSW Premier’s Literary Awards’ judges voted Dark Emu its book of the year in May 2016 that it began to attract major attention. The book was adapted by the Bangarra Dance Theatre in mid 2018, by Pascoe himself for children (as Young Dark Emu) in June 2019, and as an ABC documentary by Rachel Perkins’ Blackfella Films (planned to be screened this year). These last two adaptations in particular brought Dark Emu to the attention of Australia’s reactionary right, which has now built a sizeable echo chamber inside such institutions as Quadrant, Spectator Australia and the Fox News–styled Murdoch stable, including Sky News Australia and, of course, The Australian.

Andrew Bolt, who rose to prominence during the early 2000s by attacking the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s 1997 Bringing them Home report into the Stolen Generations, wrote his first Dark Emu column for the Herald Sun on November 17, 2019. In it and many since, Bolt relies heavily on an anonymous website, Dark Emu Exposed, which purports to “expose” and “debunk” what it asserts are the book’s many myths, exaggerations and “fabrications”. In the same vein, regular Quadrant contributor Peter O’Brien produced a book – Bitter Harvest: The Illusion of Aboriginal Agriculture in Bruce Pascoe’s Dark Emu – published in December 2019 by Quadrant Books.

But all this attacking and leaping and defending doesn’t do much to resolve the issues. And there are issues. Dark Emu rests on a foundational truth: that the European explorers saw things (and, from within their own worldview, wrote them down) that the first settlers (and the institutions that supported them) didn’t want known (because they were busy expanding the colonial frontier, which necessarily meant acting illegally), and that subsequent settlers couldn’t see (because those things were no longer in evidence). Had Dark Emu merely made this point by quoting explorers’ journals, the right’s attack would have no force.

But throughout Dark Emu, Pascoe regularly exaggerates and embellishes. One example: he quotes Thomas Mitchell’s description of large, circular, chimneyed huts Mitchell observed near Mount Arapiles, in western Victoria, on July 26, 1836, but leaves out the words “which were of a very different construction from those of the aborigines in general”. Pascoe adds his own commentary: Mitchell “recorded his astonishment at the size of the villages”; he “counts the houses, and estimates a population of over one thousand”; and “the evidence is everywhere that they have used the place for a very long time”. But in his own journal, Mitchell doesn’t express astonishment, he doesn’t count and he doesn’t estimate a population size. Nor does he present any evidence that would support a conclusion about longevity of residence.

Granville Stapylton, Mitchell’s second-in-command, recorded seeing one hut “capable of containing at least 40 persons and of very superior construction” on July 26. Pascoe includes this, but not the rest of Stapylton’s sentence: “and appearantly the work of A White Man it is A known fact that A runaway Convict has been for years amongst these tribes.” That could be a reference to the well-known escapee William Buckley (who was found by John Batman the previous July), or it could be a racist myth. The point is that Pascoe simply left it out.

By themselves, examples like these split hairs. But they’re all the way through Dark Emu. Together, such selective quoting creates an impression of societies with a sturdiness, permanence, sedentarism and technical sophistication that’s not supported by the source material. In speeches and interviews Pascoe is known to reach even further. And far too often Pascoe relies on secondary sources, including those obviously pushing ideological barrows.

My observations here will no doubt be seized upon with glee by Bolt, O’Brien and co as further proof of their accusations against Pascoe. It may even be seized upon by those instinctively defending Pascoe’s reputation as evidence that I’ve gone to the dark side. None of these reactions would be helpful, though they would reflect the way we conduct public debate now: “facts” matter much less than “values” and the identities they both draw from and support.

Warrimay woman and lawyer Josephine Cashman’s Twitter stream is divisible into two distinct periods – let’s call them “Before Bolt” (BB) and “After Bolt” (AB) – with the demarcation point on November 20, 2019. The BB stream shows Cashman’s personal brand management. As managing director of her own Big River Consulting company, she was rapidly building a national profile with which she spoke about issues facing Aboriginal people in contemporary Australia. She had chaired a subcommittee of the Prime Minister’s Indigenous Advisory Council from late 2013 and had just been appointed an inaugural member of Minister for Indigenous Australians Ken Wyatt’s Senior Advisory Group alongside Marcia Langton and Tom Calma. She appeared on ABC’s The Drum at least six times during 2019.

Then on November 20, Cashman retweeted Bolt’s third column relating to Dark Emu and added: “Mr Pascoe is not an Aboriginal person or accepted by community.” And: “We call for a NSW database.” She was referring to a database of people officially registered as Aboriginal. Canada has had one since 1951. Most Aboriginal leaders in Australia have historically rejected the concept of registration, after the terrible ways governments used classification and registration systems during the “protection” era.

The driver of Cashman’s public interventions during her AB period has been, apparently, an urgent need to expose Pascoe’s claim to Aboriginal heritage, which she is convinced is fraudulent. Bolt is convinced too. He notoriously lost a racial discrimination case in 2011 brought by nine fair-skinned Aboriginal people after he had written columns accusing them of having “chosen” to identify as Aboriginal to advance their careers. Pascoe was one of those accused, but he didn’t join the legal action, later writing that Bolt “would have had a field day”. Bolt’s certainty derives mostly from Dark Emu Exposed, which has published what it says are the relevant birth, death and marriage records that show Pascoe’s entire family tree originated in England.

Fraudulent claims to Aboriginal identity are taken very seriously by Aboriginal communities, and not just because of the measures available to Aboriginal people – from legal services to literary prizes to academic positions – in recognition of specific needs and to promote affirmative action. Fraudulent identity claims are often experienced as disrespectful and hurtful. “My son is Yuin,” Cashman tweeted on November 24, “and his father doesn’t know who [Pascoe] is.”

Pascoe’s defenders want to see Cashman’s repeated misfires as proof of his bona fides, as listed in his profile in Dark Emu’s 2018 edition.

But Pascoe’s bio for an essay in the 66th issue of Griffith Review, published in early November 2019, dropped his claim to Tasmanian ancestry. That was after he was confronted by Tasmanian Aboriginal women at a language conference in Victoria. By the end of that month he would need to drop the Bunurong claim as well, after Jason Briggs, chair of the Boonwurrung Land and Sea Council, sent a letter to Bolt stating Pascoe had no ancestry there either “to the best of our knowledge and research”. On January 22, activist and lawyer Michael Mansell, who had famously alleged mass identity fraud during the 1996 elections of the now defunct Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, published a long letter in the Tasmanian Times in his capacity as chairperson of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania. Respectfully and carefully, Mansell said he understood why people have leapt to Pascoe’s defence “in the face of attack by the likes of right-wingers” such as Bolt. But Pascoe’s defenders, Mansell wrote, “have rolled two separate and distinct issues – Aboriginality of the author, and what he writes” – into one. Pascoe is not Tasmanian Aboriginal, Mansell wrote.

Regarding his claims to Yuin heritage, at least four senior members of the Yuin nation have publicly confirmed Pascoe’s membership, and one has expressed disappointment at Cashman’s Twitter campaign.

The publication of Sally Morgan’s My Place in 1987 encouraged many Australians who had been raised “white” to wonder and to seek details about their heritage. Some found Indigenous ancestry; many didn’t. It was around this time that Pascoe began his own search. To dismiss his claims as “fabrication”, as the right does, may be far too harsh, though it’s unclear why Pascoe made public claims to Bunurong and Tasmanian ancestry without, apparently, first confirming it with those communities. People are complicated. Pascoe himself has denounced non-Indigenous writers who falsely claim Indigenous identities in order to enter Indigenous-specific literary awards.

For all its problems, Dark Emu is not merely weathering the attacks. It charged back up the nonfiction bestsellers’ list and has occupied the number 3 spot for the past fortnight.

Pascoe himself has lately stayed away from the limelight; wisely, given the rancour. Most of his energies over the summer have been concentrated on defending his home from bushfires. As with most public debates in the age of Twitter and Fox News, there seems little possibility of kindness or compassion or shared understanding here.

Since it reorganised to protect settler Australia’s colonial legacy, the right has been on a permanent seek-and-destroy mission, setting its coterie of mainstay attack-dog columnists and narrowcasters on what they see as objectionable individuals with relatively brief and middling influence. For Cashman to have hitched her wagon to the right’s stampeding horses seems unwise in the extreme, given the right’s mission: to extinguish the basis for Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination.

SOURCE  






‘Heaviest rain in years’ hitting Australia’s east coast

If the drought proved global warming, what does this prove?  Global cooling?

All it proves is that Australian rainfall is mostly very inconvenient. We get a lot of it but it doesn't fall at nicely spaced intervals.  Except in a few areas, it is highly unpredictable.  At the beginning of the bushfire season, the BOM, for instance, predicted that there would be no substantial rain until April or May. 

So that must be just a light mist we are having.  Perhaps I am imagining the gutters outside my house running like rivers

As Australian poet Dorothea MacKellar wrote in 1908:


“I love a sunburnt country,

A land of sweeping plains

Of ragged mountain ranges

Of droughts and flooding rains”


She knew the Australian pattern.  It is a pattern that makes Australia heavily reliant on dams

All we have been seeing lately is typical Australian weather. Global warming has got nothing to do with it



A major rain event is expected to move from southeast Queensland into northeast New South Wales in coming days. Meteorologists predict the rainfall to extinguish the bushfires...

A 2000km stretch of heavy rain has flooded Brisbane and southeast Queensland, causing chaos on the roads, and it’s sweeping down the east coast of Australia.

Flood warnings have been issued for New South Wales and Queensland, with experts fearing an incredible 500mm of rain could be dumped on some areas over eight straight days.

There’s already chaos on the roads in Brisbane — where emergency services are currently responding to two crashes south of the city and a red alert being issued due to flash flooding.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads issued the alert saying, “due to water over the road on Vulture Street, East Brisbane, traffic has been diverted onto Grey Street.

“All approaches from the eastern suburbs experiencing long delays”

Parts of Queensland are forecast to receive 500mm of rain after totals of almost 350mm in less than 24 hours.

The Wide Bay region was hardest hit, with Mount Elliott recorded 342mm between 6pm Tuesday and 1am today.

Meanwhile, the massive wet front is dumping rain on parts of drought-ravaged NSW with authorities concerned heavier downpours in the north of the state could lead to flash flooding.

Collarenebri in NSW’s northwest recorded 45 millimetres in the 24 hours to 9am on Thursday which was the highest total over the past day.

Sky News Weather Chief Meteorologist Tom Saunders said the “heaviest rain in years” is starting to fall across many parts of the NSW coast this morning after lashing southeast Queensland over the past 24 hours.

“This major weather event will continue into the weekend,” he said. “Moisture from this system has been spreading south over the last 24 hours, even reaching the Victorian border.”

Queensland was the first to cop a hammering overnight. Tin Can Bay, in the Gympie Region for example, has already had 300mm of rain.

He said the rain is being caused by a very humid north-easterly air stream that’s “pumping” moisture to inland areas and even providing some “major drought relief” from some stricken towns.

For today and tomorrow, that means the north coast of NSW will be hit with possible flash and river flooding with up to 500mm tipped to hit.

The system is then forecast to veer south and spread over the length of the NSW coast.

Mr Saunders said it should be the wettest week for Sydney since March last year.

The downpour could also mark the heaviest February 24-hour rainfall in Sydney since 2002 – when 130mm of rain was recorded on February 5.

“There’s going to be a huge amount of rain,” he said. “It’s enough to extinguish some of the larger bushfires but not hard enough to fill up the dams, considering how dry the catchment has been.”

As of 11pm last night, there were still 62 fires burning across NSW. The RFS warned the fire season is not over, despite the widespread rain.

In Queensland, the wet weather will persist for the next eight days, with the southeast being the worst hit.

Many areas, particularly the coast, will see well over 100mm of rain over the next seven days.

SOURCE  





Angus Taylor: AFP drops investigation into doctored documents scandal

Australian federal police says no evidence energy minister ‘was involved in falsifying information’ he used to attack Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore’s record on climate change

The Australian federal police has dropped its investigation into a doctored document used by energy minister Angus Taylor to attack Sydney lord mayor Clover Moore’s record on climate change.

On Thursday the AFP confirmed it had finalised the matter because it had “determined it is unlikely further investigation will result in obtaining sufficient evidence to substantiate a commonwealth offence”.

“The AFP assessment of this matter identified there is no evidence to indicate the minister for energy and emissions reduction was involved in falsifying information,” an AFP spokesman said.

“The low level of harm and the apology made by the [minister] to the Lord Mayor of Sydney, along with the significant level of resources required to investigate were also factored into the decision not to pursue this matter.”

Taylor welcomed the news and accused Labor of a “track record of using police referrals as a political tool”.

“The leader of the opposition [Anthony Albanese] and shadow attorney-general [Mark Dreyfus]’s pursuit of this matter is a shameful abuse of their office and a waste of our policing agencies’ time,” he said in a statement.

But Dreyfus and shadow climate change minister Mark Butler said that “serious questions remain unanswered” about the scandal because “two police investigations have now failed to clarify where Angus Taylor got his dodgy figures from”.

Clover Moore said: “I am shocked and disappointed the AFP will not further investigate the matter and shed light on a situation that has further eroded the community’s faith in the federal government.”

SOURCE  






Josh Frydenberg accuses Anthony Albanese of hypocrisy over sports rorts scandal

The Morrison government has accused Anthony Albanese of “hypocrisy” over the sport rorts scandal, pointing to an Auditor-General’s report which found then-minister Albanese administered a grants program which “disproportionately” gave money to Labor seats.

An ANAO report in 2011 found ministers “waived” the eligibility criteria for projects funded by Labor’s Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, and that a significant number of projects from Coalition seats did not get funding.

“Whilst the majority of applications received related to projects located in a Coalition held electorate (55 per cent of all applications), the significant majority (some 82 per cent) of these were not approved for funding,” the 2011 ANAO report reads.

“Whilst 40.3 per cent of all applications related to a project in an ALP held electorate, just under 60 per cent of approved projects were in an ALP held electorate. The approval rate for these applications was 42.1 per cent, which was more than twice that of projects located in a Coalition held electorate.”

“Projects located in electorates held by the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Independent Members were more successful at being awarded funding than those located in electorates held by the Coalition parties.”

It also found that Mr Albanese’s office had set out the projects by electorate, similar to the colour-coded spreadsheets former minister Bridget McKenzie used for the controversial sports grant scheme.

“In addition to the data originally provided by the department, two new columns were added to the worksheet to identify the electorate in which the project was located, and the political party that held that electorate. The individual project risk assessments provided to the Minister’s Office by the department on 15 April 2009 had identified the electorate in which each shortlisted project was located.”

Mr Albanese has for weeks accused the government of “corruption” for handing out sport grants disproportionately to Coalition target seats.

The 2011 report into the infrastructure grants does not mention the same distribution bias towards marginal seats as the most recent ANAO report into the sports grants scheme.

Josh Frydenberg has used the report in federal parliament to attack the now-Opposition Leader and accused him of hypocrisy.

“I’m reminded that there was an ANAO report number 3, 10-11, into a $550 million infrastructure program,” the Treasurer said.

“Which said on page 38, and I quote, ‘Ministers made an explicit decision to approve an application that was known to be otherwise ineligible under the guidelines.’ And also went on to say, ‘The equitable situation of all applicants was not evidence in the processes employed.’

“The Auditor-General went on to say on page 48 and I quote, ‘The awarding of funding to projects disproportionately favoured ALP seats.’ In fact, the Auditor-General found when it came to funding ALP electorates had a success rate almost three times the Coalition.

“Who was the responsible minister overseeing this $550 million grant program? None other than the member for Grayndler ... Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor.”

Mr Albanese’s office has been contacted for comment. In 2011, he defended the infrastructure program and said the spread of the grants was proportionate to the number of seats Labor held.

“As well as leaving a lasting legacy in communities nationwide, this Program kept thousands of local tradespeople working and many local businesses operating during the worst global recession in 75 years,” he said at the time.

“The ANAO also found the allocation of funding across federal electorates was in line with the political makeup of the House of Representatives.

“Put simply, Labor MPs held 55.3 per cent of the electorates and their local councils secured 56.7 per cent of the funding from the Program’s Strategic Projects component.

“What’s more, the four largest grants, totalling more than $83 million, or 15 per cent of the available funding, went to projects in electorates held by Coalition or Independent MPs.”

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 February, 2020

EDITORIAL: Stand firm and do not bow to radicals

AT some point in recent times we entered an age where corporations, both big and small, became hypersensitive about their reputations. This metamorphosis is not an inherently bad phenomena as businesses should be responsible for the consequences of their actions beyond what number features in bold print at the bottom of a balance sheet.

Yet too often since the age of "woke" individuals descended upon us, Australian corporations have demonstrated just how thoroughly ill prepared they are when required to respond calmly and deliberately to a mob whipped up on social media.

Their inexperienced public relations hacks hit the panic button at the first sign of trouble, creating a contagion within a business that prompts its board and chief executive to react in a way that is not in the interests of either customers or shareholders.

Another glaring example of this occurred on Tuesday when bus company Greyhound announced it would no longer transport contract workers employed to build miner Adani's railway line.

It was another illustration of how these extremists like to invoke science when it suits but ignore the real world implications of what they're demanding in the process.

Individuals and organisations who do not subscribe completely — and unquestionably — to their dogma are simply denounced as "climate change deniers".

News Corporation, publisher of The Courier-Mail, has been targeted in much the same way because — apparently — hosting debates on our opinion pages that allow commentary from all sides of an argument is unacceptable.

As a news organisation we take our responsibility to our readers seriously. That means delivering news stories that contain the facts as well as the uncensored views of experts. And that, in turn, means hosting debates, as opposed to the conga line of "woke" media outlets who marvel at themselves and their own.moral superiority for only using the term "climate crisis".

Australia - as an energy-intensive export economy — needs to be a leader and play a role transitioning to cleaner energy sources if it wants to have a seat at the table in the vitally important global debates to come.

However, arguing the merits of the case, for an orderly transition - one that does not wreck our economy, cost jobs and cause unprecedented social upheaval (as we have done consistently on this page) should not be reason for anyone to be labelled a denier.

Now, that will not stop the progressive elites, self-appointed climate evangelists and everyday blowhards from screaming into the echo chamber of social media in an effort to amplify their minority —and unyielding -- views to force corporations to yield to their purist approach to what are critical matters.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 30 January, 2020






ABC’s leading journos out of touch with Australia’s key issues

It is just four months since the ABC’s mission to Bankstown in southwest Sydney. Led by ABC chairwoman Ita Buttrose and managing director David Anderson, dozens of the ABC family headed to the outer suburbs for a planning workshop aimed at making content that was more relevant to average Australians than what had previously been on offer. That’s how ABC management described the mission at the time.

Gaven Morris (ABC director news, analysis and investigations) told Nine Entertainment newspapers there were “some parts of the community that we don’t serve as well as we could”. This implied the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster was in search of the “quiet Australians” to whom Scott Morrison had referred to immediately after the May 18 election last year.

The Coalition’s victory had stunned many journalists, but none more so than the ABC’s key political commentators — virtually all of whom got the result wrong. So certain was 7.30 political correspondent Laura Tingle that she told 7.30 presenter Leigh Sales on the eve of the election the Labor Party “will” win and dismissed the possibility of a Coalition victory with a laugh.

It is not clear what, if anything, the ABC learned from the mission to Bankstown of recent memory. Maybe only that it is a long way from its head office in the inner-Sydney suburb of Ultimo. Certainly the ABC is just as much a conservative-free zone as it ever was — perhaps even more so.

In any event, on Wednesday 7.30 used the term quiet Australians, popularised by the Prime Minister, to report on a climate change demonstration in Sydney.

This time ABC reporter Tracy Bowden did not make it to the southwest suburbs. She did not even go north over the Harbour Bridge. Instead the 7.30 crew travelled a few suburbs from Ultimo to Edge­cliff, which abuts Double Bay — one of the most fashionable, and expensive, parts of Sydney’s eastern suburbs.

When Morrison praised the quiet Australians on election night last year, he certainly did not have in mind the good, and primarily well-off, people of Sydney’s eastern suburbs.

You’ve heard about the doctors’ wives phenomenon, used to portray the wealthy spouses of professional men who do not vote in accordance with their perceived economic interests but flirt with green-left causes. On Wednesday, 7.30 came across the phenomenon of doctors’ husbands.

It turned out that 7.30 was interested in a planned silent vigil for climate action scheduled for 9.30am last Saturday outside the Edgecliff office of Dave Sharma, the Liberal Party member for Wentworth. The organisers were semi-retired lawyer Rod Cunich and his medical doctor wife Margot Cunich.

Early in Bowden’s report, the Cuniches are filmed posting flyers on shop walls stating “Quiet Australians stand-up: Silent vigil for climate change”. The couple blamed climate change, and only climate change, for the bushfires they had experienced when holidaying in December on the NSW south coast.

All up, Bowden interviewed five critics of the Morrison government’s policy on climate change. Namely Margot Cunich, Rod Cunich, Erin Remblance (who was presented as a mother of three), Rob Henderson (no relation) and Kirsten Dreese. David Evans of market research firm Ipsos commented on his company’s research on changing attitudes of Australians to the environment.

As is familiar with many an ABC program, only one dissenting voice was heard — and only briefly. Daniel Wild (from the Melbourne-based Institute of Public Affairs) said Australia had the deepest cuts to emissions on a per capita basis of any nation under the Paris Agreement. Towards the end of the segment, Bowden told viewers “Rod and Margot are planning quiet monthly protests and are urging others across the country to follow their example”. She gave the impression that it would be good for ABC viewers to join in.

Needless to say, no one who was interviewed by 7.30 had any idea how Australia, which is responsible for 1.3 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, could do anything to thwart climate change. And no one spoke about the need to reduce fuel loads in fire-prone areas, especially during drought and excessive heat.

Moreover, no one expressed any concern about the impact of reducing emissions, beyond that to which the Morrison government is committed, on the jobs of the less well-off who live in the outer suburbs, towns and regions far away from Sydney’s affluent eastern suburbs. As it came to pass, there was a modest turnout at Edgecliff last Saturday. The occasion would have had no impact — without coverage by the ABC.

On Wednesday’s 7.30, Sales also introduced a segment on the Prime Minister’s address to the National Press Club earlier that day by saying Tingle would explain that “in the short term Prime Minister Morrison has some pressing matters to deal with”. Tingle mentioned the response to the bushfire emergency and climate change, then showed footage of herself cross-examining Morrison on the sports grants controversy.

Certainly the bushfires are pressing matters. But so is the coronavirus outbreak, which has the capacity to adversely affect not only the health of Australians but also Australia’s mineral and service industries. Tingle did not mention this in her report of Morrison’s address, even though he had covered the issue in detail.

It was much the same during question time at the National Press Club. There was only one question on handling the bushfire emergency (ABC’s Sabra Lane) and one on the coronavirus (The Australian’s Greg Brown).

Certainly a couple of questions on the sport grants controversy involving Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie would have been warranted. But watching the occasion on television, it seemed that, once again, so many of Australia’s leading journalists are out of touch with the public’s interest in matters such as how to clean up after a disaster and how to prevent a possible medical emergency.

Perhaps another mission to the outer suburbs, by the ABC and others, is warranted.

SOURCE  





Addicts skip jail in prison proposal

DRUG abusers and fine dodgers could sidestep jail under reforms being considered by the State Government to avoid the cost of building new prisons.

Treasurer Jackie Trad last night confnned  the Government had rejected a Queensland Productivity Commission recommendation to decriminalise drugs but would consider the use of more diversionary methods for small-time users.

The commission's 516-page report into imprisonment and recidivism, due to be released today, warned the prison population was exploding and the 'Government would have to spend $3.6 billion in the next five years to increase the capacity of its corrections facilities.

The report found each prisoner cost taxpayers $111,000 in direct costs and a further $48,000 a year in indirect costs and drug users made up an increasing percentage of the prison population.

It recommended moving away from a criminal approach to drug use and devolving responsibility to indigenous communities to curb incarceration rates among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

"These reforms, if adopted, could reduce the prison population by up to 30 per cent and save around $270 million per year in prison costs, without compromising community safety," the report states.

Ms Trad said the commission's proposal for the wholesale decriminalisation of illicit drugs was off the table. But the Government would consult experts about ways of expanding sentencing options so few people who committed minor drug and traffic offences were sent to jail:

"People who commit serious crimes should go to jail — no questions asked," she said. "But given the cost of keeping prisoners in prison, we need to examine whether that is the best option for people who repeatedly fail to pay fines, or are repeatedly arrested with small amounts of drugs for personal use. That's especially true if that prison sentence pushes a small-time offender towards a life of more crime, rather than rehabilitation."

The commission report found Queensland's per-head prison population had increased more than 160 per cent since 1992 and credited improved police detedion methods and tougher justice policies for the rapid rise. It said if the growth continued, Queensland would need to house 4200 additional inmates within five years.

While the Government had to weigh the cost of this rise, Ms Trad insisted community safety was the top priority. "But before we spend another $3 billion on prisons, we need to be absolutely certain doing so is the best way to make Queenslanders safer," she said.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 31 January, 2020




 
Restriction on noisy leaf blowers sought

LEAF blowers would banned all morning during public holidays — and destroyed if they're used — under a push from a group of Brisbane residents who are fed up with the noisy devices. A petition lodged with Bris-bane City Council has called for the use of leaf blowers and other noisy powered yard tools to be restricted to the PM hours on public holidays so residents can "enjoy their days off in peace".....

Any deviation from the regulation would lead to the confiscation and destruction of the instrument, according to the petition, which could be debated in the council chamber.

New figures reveal the council received about 350 noise complaints about "regulated devices" in 2019 — or about one every day — which included gripes with devices like lawnmowers, leaf blowers, mulchers and power tools.

The LNP administration's, Community, Arts and Lifestyle Chair Peter Matic said the council would always listen to community feedback, but "at this stage" had no plans to introduce local laws about leaf blowers.

"The use of leaf blowers is regulated by the State Government and they would need to act on any changes to their laws," he said. So far the petition has managed to attract only 41 signatures.

Labor's Lord mayoral candidate Patrick Condren said it would take significantly more signatures to convince him to introduce such a ban. "I think given the broad scope of it, it runs the risk of destroying the weekend cacophony of suburban Brisbane," he said. "Where does it end — no power tools? It comes down to, at the end of the day, common sense. And if you want to get along with your neighbours, don't antagonise them with loud noises early in the morning."

Greens councillor for the Gabba Ward Jonathan Sri said he personally thought leaf blowers were "pretty stupid" and said that he did not like being woken up by them. "But I also hate how much interference council has in our lives and I'm sick of over regulation from local government," he said. 'What I would like is for residents to use common sense and learn how to be respectful of one another rather than council having to impose more top down rules. "I worry that this issue is a bit of a distraction from the much bigger questions that our city needs to be grappling with."

Regulated devices can be used on public holidays from 8am to 7pm, but no clearly audible noise is allowed outside of those times.

From the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of 26 January, 2020

 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 February, 2020

Super League club Catalans left ‘reeling’ by reaction to Israel Folau signing

Homosexuals have benefited greatly from tolerance.  How contemptible of them to refuse tolerance to devout Christians

The angry backlash to Israel Folau’s Super League lifeline has forced his new club Catalans to pull out of their first public move with him.

Catalans Dragons have reportedly changed their mind about unveiling new signing Israel Folau in front of the world’s media because of the severe backlash that has erupted over the cross-code star’s move to the Super League.

Rugby Australia (RA) sacked Folau for anti-gay social media posts, including one in which he said “hell awaits” homosexuals, and the two parties went to war before legal proceedings ended with them settling for a confidential amount late last year.

Folau left with some of the millions he was seeking after filing a lawsuit against RA for unlawful termination but his rugby career Down Under was over. However, French club Catalans offered him a lifeline and announced they’d lured him back to league — the game he first turned professional in.

But Folau’s arrival was met with outrage in the footy world, which is reportedly part of the reason why Catalans have opted against a public unveiling of their prize recruit, according to ITV’s Steve Scott.

Catalans have reportedly been taken aback by the negative reaction to Folau’s latest move and imposed a media lockout on queries involving the 30-year-old.

Dragons President Bernard Guasch said he did not support Folau’s anti-gay stance or previous comments but offered him an olive branch because he had already served his punishment by being banished from the 15-a-side game in Australia.

“When we learned that Folau was on the market and that he was finished with the legal proceedings in Australia and he made his apologies to the rugby union authorities, I decided that we were going to recruit a rugby player,” Guasch said.

“I do not want to get into any controversy at all. I think the player has already paid for his comments since he was fired from the Waratahs and he was not able to play in the World Cup.”

Many have come out and slammed the Dragons’ decision to give Folau a contract. The executive chairman of Europe’s Super League said in a statement the majority of “informed voices connected to our game … share my disappointment that one of our clubs has chosen to sign him”.

“There is a strong feeling that the decision to sign him lets down many people connected to our sport,” Robert Elstone said. “I made Catalans Dragons aware of those views.”

Wakefield Trinity chief executive Michael Carter argued Folau’s registration “should have been refused” and said “his views are abhorrent in the modern world”.

Wakefield player Keegan Hirst, the first British rugby league player to come out as gay, said on Twitter he was “shocked and disappointed” by Folau’s arrival in Super League.

“Our great game is tasked with fighting against homophobia and standing up for the values it puts such high stock in,” he tweeted. “It shows none of the bravery, camaraderie or integrity RFL expects from its players, staff and fans.”

English club Wigan Warriors also jumped on social media to take aim at Folau. “Wigan Warriors can confirm that their round six game against Catalans Dragons on Sunday 22nd March will now be Pride Day, as the Warriors look support the LGBTQ+ community,” the club wrote on Twitter.

League Weekly reports Folau’s signing has led to concerns sponsors could be scared away not just from Catalans but from the Super League entirely.

Carter told the publication: “So many people are vehemently against it and, for a club like ours, this could have major financial repercussions throughout our organisation.”

SOURCE  






Big business ‘killing people’: New Greens leader Adam Bandt’s slams action on climate change

Bandt is a former Trotskyite. He joined the Greens out of convenience.  Trotskyites think even Communists are too Right-wing

Hours after being elected unopposed, the new leader of the Australian Greens has accused big business of “killing people and endangering people’s safety” and claimed Scott Morrison’s action on climate change will lead to “three times as many deaths” as the 2019-20 bushfire crisis in which 33 people lost their lives.

Declaring he wanted to “turf this government out”, Adam Bandt said Australia under the Prime Minister’s leadership was on track to warm by three degrees and the biggest barrier to climate action was coal.

“Big business that makes its money by killing people and endangering people’s safety should be worried. Anyone who makes a profit by putting people’s lives at risk should be worried because their days are gone,” Mr Bandt said in his first press conference as leader.

“Our message is also there is a role in a manufacturing renaissance in this country for businesses to sell the rest of the world things that are powered by the sun and the wind.

Business model ‘threatens human life’

“If you’re a coal company or a gas company or an oil company then our message to you is very simple – your business model is unsustainable. Your business model is predicated on threatening human life and they have to go. They have to go in a way that looks after workers and that looks after communities but they have to go.”

Mr Bandt, who said he was not unhappy with the description of himself as a “Greens social democrat”, said the country needed a “carbon price plus” to reduce emissions and tackle global warming.

“Scott Morrison has got us on track for three degrees of global warming and that is a catastrophe and you can’t have it both ways, you can’t say you accept the science of climate change but then refuse to accept what the science is that you need to do,” he said.

“These catastrophic bushfires have happened at one degree, Scott Morrison’s plan is for at least three times as much pain, three times as much suffering and three times as many deaths at least because that is what is in store for us if we keep on going the way the government has us going.

“If the government says ‘oh look, we don’t want a price on carbon but we’re prepared to look at a staged, orderly exit of coal-fired power stations’, then of course we’ll look at that but in fact they’re doing the opposite.

They’re saying how can we use public money to prop up coal-fired power stations? They’re doing a feasibility study about a new coal-fired power station.”

The Greens have a plan to phase out thermal coal exports and domestic use by 2030.

Mr Bandt was elected Greens leader at a partyroom meeting on Tuesday unopposed alongside co-deputy leader and Queensland senator Larissa Waters, who will also be Senate leader.

Mr Bandt will be the first Greens leader in the party’s history not to sit in the upper house. He will succeed retiring Victorian senator Richard Di Natale.

SOURCE  






Alan Jones accuses ABC's Q&A program of being 'out of touch' and 'biased' after conservative senator  was heckled during a climate change debate

Molan is a retired general.  He is not an expert on science.  Putting him up against a top Warmist was bound to make him look bad

Broadcaster Alan Jones has labelled Q&A 'out of touch' and 'clearly biased' after a fiery episode discussing climate change and the bushfire crisis on Monday night.

Liberal senator Jim Molan was laughed at and heckled by the show's audience as he admitted he was not convinced humans were causing climate change.

Q&A host Hamish Macdonald also pressed Mr Molan for evidence changes in the climate was not human-induced, to which the latter responded 'I'm not relying on evidence.'

But Jones hit out at Macdonald's line of questioning in his debut show, saying the senator was a politician and should not be expected to have detailed evidence.

'Jim Molan is not a climate scientist so why would he be expected to have detailed scientific knowledge of the "evidence" relied on by climate scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change?' Jones wrote on his Facebook page on Tuesday.

Molan's response that he was not relying on evidence had prompted laughter and looks of disbelief from the studio audience.

Jones added Macdonald had not lived up to the 'even-handed approach' Q&A executive producer Erin Vincent had paid tribute to in the days before the episode aired.

'Why conservatives agree to appear on this clearly biased program I have no idea,' Jones wrote. 'Last night guest senator Jim Molan was set up as the clay pigeon for the studio audience and panel to target.'

Macdonald had to twice step in to quieten the audience so Mr Molan, a 69-year-old former general, could be heard.

Following the exchanges of the night before, Jones on Tuesday morning said it was time for the ABC to stop pretending it was impartial and admit to being biased.

'Q&A and its unrepresentative studio audiences remain profoundly out of touch with mainstream Australia,' the 2GB host wrote as he concluded his post.

Jones' comments followed a testing first episode of the year for the new host, which was filmed in Queanbeyan.

In a section on climate change, American panellist Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said: 'Climate change is real and human caused.' 'It's already leading to disastrous impacts here in Australia and around the rest of the world. And it will get much worse if we don't act.'

Hamish MacDonald then asked Senator Molan if he agreed with the scientists.

The senator replied: 'I accept the climate is changing. It has changed and it will change… and what it's producing is hotter and drier weather and a hotter and drier country.'

Macdonald pressed him, saying: 'What's causing that?'

Senator Molan continued: 'As to whether it is human-induced climate change is...'

At that point he was cut off by frustrated jeers and boos from the crowd.

Mr Molan hushed to crowd by saying: 'Thank you, thank you' before Macdonald helped him by shushing the audience.

He went on to say he respected 'scientific opinion' but 'every day across my desk comes enough information for me to say that there are other opinions.'

Macdonald asked him to outline exactly what opinions he was referring to but Mr Molan repeatedly dodged the question.

Macdonald pressed him again, saying: 'You haven't answered the question. You said you get information across your desk every day which leads you to doubt or be open-minded about the science.'

Mr Molan replied: 'I am open minded' before Macdonald said: 'What is that information?'

'It's a range of information which goes,' Mr Molan said before he was cut off by heckling.

Macdonald tried to tame the crowd, saying: 'Sorry. Could we just respectfully listen to this question.

He then asked the senator once more to explain his position: 'What is the evidence that you are relying on?'

Mr Molan replied: 'I'm not relying on evidence, Hamish,' prompting laughter from the crowd.

As the crowd laughed, Dr Mann said: 'You said it. You said it.'

Dr Mann then put on an Australian accent and said: 'Come on now, mate.'

Prompting a huge laugh from the audience, he added: 'You should keep an open mind but not so open that your brain falls out.'

Later, the scientist said: 'When it comes to human caused climate change, it is literally the consensus of the world's scientists that it's human caused... natural factors would be pushing us in the opposite direction.'

It is literally the consensus of the world's scientists that climate change is human caused

Molan was mocked online for being unable to explain why he doubted climate change was human caused.

Even Tasmania senator Jacqui Lambie piled in, writing: 'Oh dear @JimMolan it's gone from a car crash to a train wreck #qanda #ClimateEmergency.'

SOURCE  







Andrew Bolt returns to the fake history issue

Bruce Pascoe is just a fantasist

HOW can we trust Indigenous Australians Minister Ken Wyatt, when he sacks an adviser who's told him the truth? Incredibly, Wyatt has sacked whistleblower Josephine Cashman, who'd told him "Aboriginal historian" Bruce Pascoe was not actually Aboriginal, which actually seems obvious.

Pascoe is the author of the bestseller Dark Emu, which already makes him hard to believe, given Pascoe cites false sources to claim Aborigines were actually farmers, living in towns of 1000 people.

True, some people want to believe this so badly that Pascoe won the Indigenous Writers Prize at the NSW Premier's Literary Awards and the ABC will give him a two-part series this year.

But surely harder to swallow is Pascoe's claim to be Aboriginal, descended from the Yuin from NSW, Victoria's Boonwurrung and a tribe from Tasmania. Genealogical records uncovered on dark-emu-exposed.org show all Pascoe's ancestors are of British descent.

Sure, there could be a mistake and I've twice asked Pascoe to
explain it He won't and refuses to release the birth certificates he claims prove he's Aboriginal.

Yet people from the three tribes or areas Pascoe says he's connected to don't think he's Aboriginal either. Michael Mansell, head of the Aboriginal Land Council of Tasmania, says "he has no Aboriginal heritage and his claim is absurd". Jason Briggs, chairman of the Boonwurrung Land & Sea Council, says "we do not accept Mr Bruce Pascoe as possessing any Boonwurrung ancestry at all".

And there's Cashman, an Aboriginal businesswoman and inaugural member of the Prime Minister's Indigenous Advisory Council. Cashman says Pascoe is not Yuin either, although a few welcomed him into the tribe and she demanded the Morrison government investigate his Aboriginality.

That triggered a federal police inquiry which last week cleared Pascoe of any Commonwealth offence, reportedly leading Wyatt to conclude Cashman now had to be sacked from the advisory group advising Wyatt on — ironically —reconciliation. Never mind that the Australian Federal Police admitted it hadn't actually checked if Pascoe was indeed Aboriginal.

On Tuesday, Wyatt told Cashman: "Your membership of the Senior Advisory Group is no longer tenable for the collaborative and consultative approach needed to progress the important codesign process for an Indigenous voice." Seriously? An Aboriginal woman who says a white bloke isn't Aboriginal can't work on an Aboriginal body? Don't we expect more respect for truth from a Minister?

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 30 January, 2020






Thinking for ourselves — precious and threatened

Seventy-five years ago, as the war raged with unrelenting ferocity, Australia’s daily papers reported, typically in a snippet at the bottom of page 4, that on what is now Australia Day a “terrible concentration camp” had been captured at Oswiecim, in southwestern Poland.

According to Reuters, “tens of thousands of people were tortured” in the camp, while “thousands more were shot”.

In reality, 1.1 million people were killed at Auschwitz, of whom 960,000 were Jews. But the scale of the horror only began to become apparent months later, as other camps were liberated and the first newsreels were released, including a film, showing piled corpses and gaunt survivors, projected throughout Australia in May of that year.

Worldwide, the shock was enormous, including to those who had no illusions about the Nazi regime.

“We expected anything from that bunch,” Hannah Arendt, who had narrowly escaped deportation to the death camps, told Gunter Grass in an interview on German television in 1964. “But this was different. It really was as if an abyss had opened.”

Suddenly it became evident “that things which for thousands of years the human imagination had banished to a realm beyond human competence can be manufactured right here on Earth, that Hell and Purgatory, and even a shadow of their perpetual duration, can be established by the most modern methods of destruction”.

“We had the idea that amends could somehow be made for just about everything. But not for this. Something happened there to which we cannot reconcile ourselves. None of us ever can.”

At first, in trying to make sense of the incomprehensible, Arendt thought that perhaps Kant was right; perhaps there lurks, within the human mind, a capacity for “radical evil”, which acts with a diabolic force that can neither be explained nor understood by the conventional “evil motives of self-interest, greed, covetousness, resentment, lust for power, and cowardice”.

But as she reflected on the sheer scale of what had been done, Arendt found Kant’s account unsatisfactory. There were, for sure, plenty of monsters among the murderers; but vicious hatred was far less evident than might have been expected among the tens of thousands of people implicated in the killing machine. “At every level, the Nazis produced more evil, with less malice, than civilisation had previously known.”

That “banality of evil”, she argued, was only possible because so many Germans had suspended their sense of judgment: the capacity, when the accepted norms have evaporated and the guidance of tradition has broken down, to think critically for oneself.

The faculty of judgment “will not find out, once and for all, what ‘the good’ is” but “when the worst have lost their fear and the best have lost their hope, and everybody is swept away unthinkingly by what everybody else does and believes in”, the criterion it imposes — “whether I shall be able to live with myself in peace when the time has come to reflect on my deeds and words” — is all that stands between humanity and catastrophe.

And it was the courage to act on that criterion, and the conviction that their actions, however modest they might be, would form part of “the enduring chronicle of mankind”, that prompted ordinary people, such as Wehrmacht sergeant Anton Schmid, to risk their own lives to save those of others.

A devout Roman Catholic, Schmid hid Jews in his apartment, obtained work permits to save Jews from massacres, transferred Jews to safer locations, and aided the underground. It is estimated that he saved as many as 300 Jews before he was arrested, tortured and executed.

“The moral of such stories,” wrote Arendt, “is simple and within everybody’s grasp: it is that under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation.”

Whether, if tested, we would live up to that standard, we cannot know, and hopefully will never need to learn. Nor can we know what new and dreadful evils mankind, in its infinite inventiveness, reserves for the future.

What we do know is that the moral strength to think for ourselves remains as precious and as threatened as ever.

To say that is not to suggest that the dangers we face are in any way comparable to those braved by Schmid and the other “Righteous Among the Nations”. However, it is undeniable that the pressures to bow to mass opinion grow stronger every day, as does the hysteria that assails those who dare question the self-images of the age.

Those pressures do not come from the fear of disappearing into the “Nacht und Nebel” (night and fog) the Nazis promised their opponents. But as Alexis de Tocqueville warned nearly two centuries ago, it is rarely the thug who says “you will think as I do or die” who poses the greatest threat to liberal democracy.

Rather, it is the voice that proclaims: “You are free not to think as I do; but from this day forth you shall be a stranger among us. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they too, be shunned in turn.”

No doubt, our democracy will find a way of coping with those pressures, as it has with so many others. Whatever their defects, Australians retain a down-to-earth practicality that has always inoculated them both to promises of a Second Coming and to claims of an impending apocalypse. And they still have that sardonic sense of humour that has made them notoriously unreceptive to humourless, conceited ratbags and tinhorn demagogues.

But each people must win their liberty every day afresh — a liberty to which nothing is more inimical than the godlike certainty that muzzles the voice of others, stops all discussion and reduces social relationships to an ant heap.

Seventy-five years after its liberation, Auschwitz’s last survivors are passing away; each anniversary, the commemorations become more of a diplomatic formality, in which ritual replaces memory.

Inexorably, the morning hangings, the specially designed benches on which inmates were whipped until every bone was broken, the cages in which prisoners were starved to death, the operating theatres where children were deliberately infected with disease, the gas chambers and crematoriums, are fading into history. For the sake of our common humanity, the lessons must not.

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 February, 2020

Scientists sign open letter to Australian Government urging action on climate change

We learnt from the replication crisis that up to 60% of scientists are crooked so this tells us nothing.  If they had told us just one of the facts that the government is ignoring that might have been interesting. But they mention no climate facts at all -- just unverifiable speculation about recent weather events

And 270 scientists is insignificant. It is not even the full staff of one of Australia's many universities.  Most academics are Leftists so they could have done a lot better if their letter was seen as important by all its potential signatories


More than 270 scientists have signed an open letter to Australia's leaders calling on them to abandon partisan politics and take action on climate change.

The scientists, who have expertise in climate, fire and meteorology, are calling for urgent action to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions and for Canberra to engage constructively in international agreements.

"The thick, choking smoke haze of this summer is nothing compared to the policy smokescreen that continues in Australia," University of NSW climate scientist Katrin Meissner said in a statement on Monday.

"We need a clear, non-partisan path to reduce Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions in line with what the scientific evidence demands, and the commitment from our leaders to push for meaningful global action to combat climate change."

The scientists warned an increase in bushfires was just one part of a deadly equation that suggested the impacts of climate change were coming faster, stronger and more regularly.

Heatwaves on land and in the oceans were longer, hotter and more frequent, they said.

Australian National University climate scientist Nerilie Abram said the letter was the product of scientists' despair as they witnessed the deadly fire season unfold.

"Scientists have been warning policymakers for decades that climate change would worsen Australia's fire risk and yet these warnings have been ignored," Professor Abram said.

Separately, Oxfam said the Government must demonstrate it had fully grasped the lessons of this "horrific" bushfire season.

"In spite of the scientific evidence and the extreme weather we're living through — bushfires, hailstorms and drought — the Government still hasn't joined the dots and taken action to tackle the root causes of the crisis," Oxfam chief executive Lyn Morgain said in a statement.

She said Australia must dramatically strengthen emissions reduction targets and move beyond fossil fuels.

"The Government's narrow-minded focus on adaptation and resilience simply does not go far enough," she said.

She said Australia could wield great authority and leverage globally if it changed its policies.

"If we led by example and immediately strengthened our own emissions reduction commitments, and if we linked our own crisis with those escalating around the world, we could be a great catalyst for stronger international action," she said.

SOURCE  





We don’t have money to burn on green mania

Bjorn Lomborg

Scenes of devastation from Australia’s fires have been heartbreaking. How do we stop this suffering? For many campaigners and politicians, the answer is clear-cut: drastic climate policies. When we examine the evidence, this simple answer falls short.

Australia is the world’s most fire-prone continent. In 1900, 11 per cent of its surface burned annually. These days, 5 per cent of the country burns every year. By the end of the century, if we do not stop climate change, higher temperatures and an increase in aridity will likely mean a 0.7 percentage point increase in burnt area, an increase from 5.3 per cent of Australia to 6 per cent.

This increase is not trivial and it is an argument for effective climate change action. By far the most practical policy, with the most impact, is a dramatic increase in investment in low and zero-carbon energy innovation.

That’s because, for decades to come, solar and wind energy will be neither cheap enough nor effective enough to replace fossil fuels. Today, they make up only 1.1 per cent of global energy use and the International Energy Agency estimates that even after we spend $US3 trillion ($4.47 trillion) more on subsidies, they will not even reach 5 per cent by 2040. Innovation is needed to bring down the price of green energy. We need to find breakthroughs for batteries, nuclear, carbon capture and a plethora of other promising technologies. Innovation can solve our climate challenge.

Unfortunately, many reports on Australia’s fires have exploited the carnage to push a specific agenda, resting on three ideas: that bushfires are worse than ever, that this is caused by global warming, and that the only solution is for political leaders to make even bigger carbon-cut promises.

Globally, bushfires burn less land than it used to. Since 1900, global burnt area has reduced by more than one-third because of agriculture, fire suppression and forest management. In the satellite era, NASA and other groups document significant decreases.

Surprisingly, this decrease is even true for Australia. Satellites show that from 1997 to 2018 the burnt area declined by one-third. Australia’s current fire season has seen less area burned than in previous years. Up to January 26, bushfires burned 19.4 million hectares in Australia — about half the average burn over the similar timeframe of 37 million hectares in the satellite record. (Actually the satellites show 46 million hectares burnt, but 9 million hectares are likely from prescribed burns.)

When the media suggests Australia’s fires are “unprecedented in scale”, it is wrong. Australia’s burnt area declined by more than a third from 1900 to 2000, and has declined across the satellite period. This fire season, at the time of writing, 2.5 per cent of Australia’s area has burned compared with the past 10 years’ 4.8 per cent average by this point.

What is different this year is that fires have been mostly in NSW and Victoria. These are important states with a little more than half the country’s population — and many of its media outlets.

But suggesting fires are caused by global warming rests on cherrypicking these two regions with more fire and ignoring the remaining 87 per cent of Australia’s landmass, where burned area has declined.

Peer-reviewed estimates of the future of Australia’s fire threat see a long-term increase in burnt area because of global warming. But these estimates show the effect of climate change does not increase Australia’s burnt area until the 2030s or 2040s.

A new review of available data suggests it’s not actually possible to detect a link between global warming and fire for Australia today. An increase will become detectable only in the 2040s. The images coming from Australia are shocking, but images should not trump science. Along with many other campaigners, the Australian Greens argue that preventing fires is about “rapidly transitioning to a renewable energy economy”. Carbon-cutting promises from politicians are not going to do a thing.

Across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand is aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. The government’s own commissioned report shows this will cost 16 per cent of the nation’s annual economy, or $US5 trillion across the century. It will reduce temperatures by only four-thousandths of a degree by 2100.

Replicate those costs across Australian states and around the world; taxpayers are just not going to withstand that kind of pain, regardless of the intention.

The world’s poor countries are never going to be able to afford to follow through. The costs alone make this “solution” to climate change wishful thinking.

Moreover, even if Australia were dramatically to change its climate policy overnight, the impact on fires would be effectively zero. If Australia had completely ended its fossil fuel use way back in 2012, the UN standard climate model shows the impact on fires this year would be literally immeasurable.

Even if Australia could somehow be entirely fossil fuel-free for the entire century, burnt area in 2100 would be 5.997 per cent instead of 6 per cent.

This feeble, flawed response is pathetic. We need to spend far more resources on green energy research and development to develop medium-term solutions to climate change. And we also should focus on the many straightforward measures that would help now.

Bushfire scientists have consistently told us forest fuel levels keep increasing, making extreme bushfires much more likely. Controlled burns cheaply and effectively reduce high-intensity wildfires. Other sensible policies include better building codes, mechanical thinning, safer powerlines, reducing the potential for spread of lightning-caused bushfires, campaigns to reduce deliberate ignitions, and fuel reduction around the perimeter of human settlements.

The compassionate, effective response to Australia’s tragedy is to focus on the policies that could actually help.

SOURCE  






Forget EU: Aussies set to cash in on an Brexit bonanza as Scott Morrison moves to finalise a trade deal with Boris Johnson by the end of the year

Australians are set to cash in on a post-Brexit deal as Scott Morrison moves to finalise a promising agreement with Boris Johnson by the end of the year.

With the UK agreement to finally leave the European Union is passed by its parliament on Friday, Australia looks set to secure a free trade deal by December.

And Australia's wine industry looks likely be the biggest winner once the deal is signed, along with other exporters, as the government is hoping to finalise a deal with low or no tariffs and no quotas.

Australia was a casualty of the UK's entry into the European Economic Community, with beef and sheep exports dropping significantly.

Despite it being unlikely for any new deals to result in Australia returning to one of Britain's top suppliers, it would result in better numbers for primary producers, former trade minister Andrew Robb told The Australian.

'The UK won't return to being our third-largest trading partner but we should aspire for it to re-enter the top 10,' he said.

By removing tariffs, quotas and non-tariff barriers more options will be created - which can only be a good thing for Australia, Mr Robb said.

Economists are predicting the wine industry to be the biggest winner, with demand already high despite the current traffics in place, which European wines don't have.

'The success of Australian wine sales to the UK, where one in five bottles sold is Australian wine, demonstrates that there remains a hunger in the UK market for safe, high quality Australian produce,' Mr Robb said.

CommSec's Craig James told AAP the end of uncertainty over Brexit would allow business to start spending, investing and hiring again.

There was speculation the deal would give Australians the right to live and work in the UK longer-term without a visa, like they do when travelling to New Zealand, however, Australian Trade Minister Simon Birmingham said that was unlikely.

It is understood there is a chance the Youth Mobility visa may be tweaked to allow people under 30 two stints in the UK, meaning person could live in London in their earlier 20s and work in a pub then go back as a professional later.

However, University of South Australia researcher Professor Jimmy Donaghey said Australia was unlikely to reap big benefits from Brexit.

'The geographic distance between the two countries has always been a restriction on trade, but essentially Australia's biggest export earners, things like coal and iron ore, are not in demand by the UK,' he said.

Trade Minister Simon Birmingham wants the deal concluded this year and believes the UK has a similar aim.

A team of EU officials will meet their Australian counterparts in Canberra from February 10 to 14 for the sixth round of negotiations towards the EU-Australia free trade agreement.  

Australia is party to 11 free trade deals that eliminate import tariffs between trading partners.

Bilateral arrangements have been signed with New Zealand (1983), Singapore (2003), the US (2005), Thailand (2005), Chile (2009), Malaysia (2013), South Korea (2014), Japan (2015) and China (2015).

Separate multilateral arrangements were made with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 2010 and the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2018.

SOURCE  






It's time to step on the gas'

SHUTTING down Australia's coal mines will not reduce emissions or global demand for the resource, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said in a speech pitched at regional Australia — and his backbench. He defended his Government's approach to climate change, saying gas reserves would be necessary to any transition to a clean economy, while investing in technology was key to meeting emissions reduction targets.

But Labor took aim at him for failing to take action on "the summer of damage" climate change was causing. Mr Morrison indicated Australia's emissions reductions targets would not be shifting, despite comments earlier this month his Government's climate policies would be evolving.

He said "taxes and increased global bureaucracy" would not lower emissions, but practical change driven by technology would. "You will also not reduce the number of coal-fired stations in the world today by forcing the shutdown of Australian coal mines and Australian jobs that go with them," Mr Morrison said.

"Other countries will just buy the coal from somewhere else, often poorer quality with greater environmental and climate impacts." He said a transition to lower emissions could be done "with-out sending jobs offshore".

In good news for Queensland's $1 billion petroleum and
coal seam gas industry, Mr Morrison said gas reserves would be key to any transition to more renewable energy in the electricity market. "Gas can help us bridge the gap while our investments in batteries, hydrogen and pumped hydro energy storage bring these technologies to economic parity with traditional energy sources. So right now, we've got to get the gas," Mr Morrison said.

"There are plenty of other medium or long-term fuel arrangements and prospects, but they will not be commercially scalable or available for at least a decade is our advice."

As well as taking "practical steps" in lowering emissions, Mr Morrison said adaptation would be necessary to deal with "the new norm" of longer, hotter and drier summers.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 30 January, 2020





Greenies hate rock climbers

Parks Victoria has vastly overstated the impact of cultural and environmental damage at national park sites amid fresh doubts about the campaign against Australia’s rock climbers.

For months men and women with clipboards, hard hats and hi-vis jackets have been quietly deliberating among the cliffs in the back blocks of the Grampians National Park, low-key participants in what has become Australia’s seminal public land access dispute.

With specialist surveying tools, the groups have been examining the environmental and cultural heritage impacts of well over a century of white Australian influence in a grand bush setting known to Aboriginal tribes for 22,000 years.

It is widely accepted that Parks Victoria and its predecessors have dropped the environmental ball in recent decades in the outer areas of the park, allowing the Grampians to be degraded by vandalism and at times cavalier behaviour that has alarmed indigenous and green groups.

However, just who committed much of the harm is wide open to debate, given the cross-section of people who visit the park every year from local towns, cities and overseas, arriving on foot, motorbikes, four-wheel drives and even from the air.

At the same time, Parks Victoria has picked an unprecedented fight with the Australian rock climbing fraternity, which has broad implications for recreational access to national and state parks across the country.

The impact, while not as symbolically significant as the end of climbing at Uluru, has the potential to snowball across Australia’s parks, ski fields, mountain biking tracks and climbing theatres as greater power is handed to indigenous co-managers.

With workers in the final stages of surveying large tracts of the Grampians land, Parks Victoria and the traditional owners are planning what sort of access climbers and others will have to the area, potentially maintaining or even widening the effective climbing ban on 500sq km of the park.

Within the current ban areas lie some of the world’s best rock climbing sites. Local businesses such as Mount Zero Log Cabins in the northern Grampians are ­reporting dramatic cuts in revenue, in the order of 25 per cent.

“I’ve got to tell you, I was a bit pissed off about the way Parks Victoria went about it,’’ businessman Neil Heaney tells The Weekend Australian. “They are picking on the wrong people … They (the climbers) are deeply respectful people.’’

There is broad acceptance in the climbing community that there is capacity for its members to overhaul some practices and a willingness to help address core ­issues such as the undermining of vegetation and the need to remove chalk remnants in key areas.

‘Smear campaign’

But there is also growing concern that the Parks Victoria narrative has been bolstered by a series of ­legally unverifiable, anti-climbing claims that included the false ­assertion that a climbing bolt had been put through art. In fact, it was past government workers who desecrated the site.

Valid questions are being asked about whether Environment Minister Lily D’Ambrosio has been ­accurately briefed about who is ­responsible for the most serious harm and whether or not climbers are victims of an excessive spin campaign.

Simon Carter, a climbing photographer with a global following, believes climbers are victims of a sophisticated campaign of vilification. “I believe climbers have been scapegoated to distract from far, far more serious impacts that are occurring to the cultural and environmental values of the park, appalling mismanagement and a sneaky move towards the commercialisation and commodification of our national parks,’’ he says.

“The legal determination ­behind it (the climbing bans) is based on observations and research undertaken at other locations, not based on anything that has actually occurred in the Grampians.

“Rock climbers have been wrongly vilified by parks staff or consultants in what I can only ­describe as a smear campaign based on absolute falsehoods.

“For example, rock climbers were accused of placing safety bolts into Aboriginal rock art. Climbers had done no such thing, not even close, but then Parks published a ‘bolt-in-rock-art’ photo on its website as some ‘evidence’ of climbers’ impacts. But the bolt had been placed by land managers, not climbers. It was a fabrication.

“And photos sent by Parks Victoria in briefing papers to the Minister for the Environment show chain-sawing of trees, fireplaces and other impacts that almost certainly had nothing to do with rock climbers.’’

Evidence doubts

Last March D’Ambrosio was sent a series of photographs from Parks Victoria chief executive Matthew Jackson purporting to show evidence of climber damage, except many of the photos Jackson sent to his minister failed to meet any serious legal test. Instead, what D’Ambrosio received was a series of pictures in which environmental harm had occurred, but with no actual proof of who committed the harm.

Yet this was crucial timing, ­occurring when the government had doubled down on the climbing community.

While different scenarios, the incident is similar to the photographs released by the Howard government in 2001 during the children overboard crisis. In this, there were photos showing that something had happened, but no serious evidence that supported the government’s narrative.

Of the eight images sent to D’Ambrosio, only one shows verifiable harm by climbers; this is of persistent use of chalk at one ­location to help people negotiate a climbing route.

No one would doubt this as climber damage; the rest show a fireplace with nobody around it, a log that had been cut with a chainsaw by an unknown person and some stone stacks created by someone who is not in the picture.

Several other images are of damage to vegetation at Venus Baths, near Hall’s Gap, which has become a popular site for the climbing discipline called bouldering.

What should have been articulated to the minister is that Venus Baths also happens to be one of the most visited tourism hot spots in the Grampians, three hours’ drive west of Melbourne. It is an easy walk for parents with young families, who have trampled through the area for many decades because it is in close proximity to the main town in the park.

Without addressing specific questions on the accuracy of the photographs showing climbing damage, Jackson said in an email: “Information and updates are regularly provided to the Minister for Environment as per standard briefing processes.’’

On the question of who is ­responsible for the damage, he said: “Parks Victoria has continually provided updates on direct recreational impacts in the Grampians to members of the rock climbing roundtable, including updates from independent experts of the impacts of rock climbing at sensitive rock art sites.

“Parks Victoria has specifically informed members of the rock climbing roundtable that not all recreational impacts are caused by rock climbers.”

Assault on art

Parks Victoria has been savaged by climbers and some local businesses for the unilateral bans, which were imposed without any meaningful warning, partly on the basis that the Grampians contain as much as 90 per cent of the indigenous rock art in southeastern Australia.

The Grampians’ Mount Arapiles — Australia’s rock climbing mecca — has just had a major outcrop declared out of bounds ­because of unspecified cultural heritage discoveries. Taylor’s Rock is one of the cradles of rock climbing education in Australia and is a key part of the adventure sport economy that underpins the nearby Natimuk community, 330km northwest of Melbourne.

Ben Gunn, an archaeologist and rock art specialist who recently wrote a paper on the effects of climbing in the Grampians, says he has no doubt who causes the most damage in the park. He also acknowledges that much of the ­indigenous art can’t even be seen with the naked eye and damage may be inadvertent.

“With the explosion of rock climbers in recent years, it is they who currently pose the greatest human threat to cultural heritage sites within the Grampians National Park and surrounding sandstone ranges and potentially to other national and state parks elsewhere in Australia,’’ he wrote with several authors including Jake Goodes, brother of football great Adam Goodes.

Gunn has outraged climbers by claiming that some in their midst were behind graffiti in parts of the wider park; again, climbers want to see the proof of this to a legal standard.

“Much of the graffiti in the Greater Gariwerd (Grampians) has not been produced by rock climbers,’’ Gunn wrote.

“In other instances, particularly at Lil-Lil, it is all too apparent that rock climbers are at fault. At Lil-Lil, some graffiti has been deliberately placed over rock art and the damage is permanent.

“Others have been racially offensive or, through the production of pseudo rock art, deprecating to Aboriginal people and the majority of non-Aboriginal Australians.’’

Chalking, he wrote, was classed as damage comparable to graffiti. Whether this claim about chalking as graffiti passes the legal test is questionable, particularly if people do not know there is art where they are climbing.

Australian Climbing Association Victoria president Mike Tomkins is open to overhauling some climbing practices to protect indigenous art, but says accusations of climbers writing over art and carving words into rock walls are false and unverifiable. “You can’t prove it. You cannot pin that on climbers. All the locations have been visited before there were even climbers,’’ Tomkins says.

While the climbing community has been divided about how to deal with the crisis, there is deep angst about the way the pursuit has been characterised. Climbers have congregated for decades at the Grampians and Mount Arapiles has traditionally been strongly green and sympathetic to the indigenous plight.

Others are highly sceptical, also, about figures used by Parks to suggest an unprecedented rise in climber numbers in recent years, arguing that while there is an uplift in interest, Parks Victoria has greatly exaggerated the number of extra climbers by misreading the statistics.

Uncle Ron Marks, a Wotjobaluk elder with close ties to Mount Arapiles and the Grampians, has worked in cultural education for decades, teaching about indigenous history. He wants a pragmatic approach that protects heritage, but enables people to go about their business in the knowledge that at Mount Arapiles, for example, the indigenous connection is long-running.

He warns the “kerfuffle’’ affecting climbing at both locations is having a clear impact. “You look at it from a business point of view, people are suffering,’’ he tells The Weekend Australian.

Meanwhile, climbers are locked in a form of political purgatory, with no clear line of sight to when the ascension to higher ground will be guaranteed.

SOURCE  

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








3 February 2019

Melbourne will RUN OUT of fresh water by 2050 if nothing is done about global warming

Another prime example of how a total lack of thinking on the part of Greenies gets things backwards  Global warming would HELP Melbourne's water supply. 

I don't know how much longer I will have the heart to repeat it but we have known at least since the ancient Greeks that warming water gives off water vapour (steam). And two thirds of the "planet" (to use the Greenie term) is covered by water. So global warming would warm that water and increase its tendency to give off water vapour.  And what happens to that water once it is evaporated off?  It comes down again.  We call it "rain".  So a warmer world would be a rainier world.

Why do Warmists keep ignoring something they should have known since Grade school?  It shows that they are not thinking at all.  They just pump out propaganda according to a simple recipe: "Warming bad".  They are not honest debaters


Melbourne will be at risk of running dry by 2050 if no measures are taken to slow global warming and improve water security, a study has found.

The city ranked fifth in a list of global cities that will be most affected by climate change in 30 years' time. The list - which measures sea-level rising, water shortages and weather changes - was compiled by accommodation website Nestpick based on existing climate data.

Perth ranked 56th and Sydney was 66th but no other Australian cities were in the top 100.

Melbourne was ranked so high because its demand for water is predicted to vastly outweigh current supply as its population soars.

In 2018, the Australian Bureau of Statistics predicted that Melbourne will become the largest city in Australia by 2031 - and will have a population of 12.2million by 2066. 

Jono La Nauze, CEO of Environment Victoria, said Nestpick's results are roughly accurate - but that drought in Melbourne can be avoided by sensible policies.

'It certainly stacks up with what the climate science is showing will happen, if you don't do anything about it,' he told radio 3AW on Thursday.

'But the key messages is that these are risks we can manage - both in terms of stopping the planet getting any hotter but also by making sure we have secure drinking water supplies whatever happens.'

Melbourne's water is supplied from ten reservoirs which are topped up by rain and a desalination plant that removes salt from seawater.

The Victorian Desalination Plant at Dalyston on the Bass Coast in southern Victoria opened in 2012 after the Millennium Drought and now supplies one third of the city's water.

For the 2019-20 financial year, the Minister for Water ordered 125 billion litres from the Desalination Plant, the largest order that has been made to date.

At the moment, Melbourne is not in danger of drought.

The city's total storage capacity is at 62.6 per cent and its largest reservoir, the Thomson Dam which can hold 1,069 megalitres of water, is 55.8 per cent full. 

But experts are generally agreed that the city will need to shore up its water security as its population expands.

There are three main ways to do this: by building more dams, creating more desalination plants, and by recycling water for drinking purposes.

Recycling water for drinking is already done in Namibia, South Africa and the US but the only Australian city that currently follows suit is Perth. Melbourne has two recycling plants but the recycled water is not used for drinking.

State ministers could follow Brisbane's lead after the city in 2010 designed the Western Corridor Recycled Water Scheme to recycle almost all of its water.

The scheme has not been needed but if stores drop below 40 per cent it could be recommissioned.

In September federal Water Resources Minister David Littleproud said more dams should be built - but Victorian ministers rejected the idea.

He said the federal government has offered $1.3bn for new infrastructure projects but state governments are too reluctant to build dams due to cost and environmental issues.

'They're just not keeping up with their growing populations,' he told The Australian.

But Victorian Water Minister Lisa Neville hit back, saying there was no point building new dams because there is very rarely enough rain to fill them.

'The dams we have already are in the best places to collect a high yield of water - any new dams would be unlikely to capture enough water to be worth it,' she told the newspaper.

'For Minister Littleproud to suggest otherwise demonstrates a complete lack of understanding when it comes to water and climate change, especially in Victoria.'

Ms Neville pointed out that Victoria's Thomson Dam has only filled three times since it was built in 1984, most recently in 1996.

She said a better alternative is to expand the state's desalination plant even though this would increase water bills by at least $10 per household because desalination uses lots of electricity.

SOURCE  






Submitting to climate activists helps no-one

GROW a spine. Show some ticker. That's what many "quiet" Australians would be thinking right now after Greyhound buses decided to sever its ties with the Adani coal mine; the controversial mining project that has become the symbol .of evil for the woke brigade.

Greyhound Australia's decision follows German technology company Siemens not buckling to pressure and keeping its $30m relationship with Adani. So far.

The engineering firm GHD ended a l0-year association with Adani in December after that company was also targeted by campaigners. There are others who have quietly slunk away. Cowards who would rather take their riding instructions from eco-vandals who use extortion as their tool of trade.

What Greyhound is effectively telegraphing with this decision is that it supports ratbaggery over jobs. It supports aggressive climate change activism over Queensland prosperity. It supports mediocrity over aspiration.

Let's dissect those that are perpetually outraged over the belief that coal is bad. These are invariably professional agitators, many unemployed, with no purpose in life other than gluing themselves to roads, bridges and train tracks to get their message across.

Their selfish, arrogant behaviour impinges upon the lives of others. Many people are late to work because of CBD traffic jams. They cost corporations millions of dollars by whipping up impressionable young people into believing companies supporting coal are the anti-Christ.

They even protested yesterday at the offices of The Courier-Mail. One of my colleagues whispered to me, and he's a champion of Australia's commitment to the Paris Agreement and cutting greenhouse emissions: "Do they realise how pathetic they look?" he said.

The answer is no. Because they can't understand other people's views, or accept that their warped ideology will send Australia broke, they have no idea that their stupid, boorish behaviour in fact does nothing for their cause. It's the modern-day cult of the woke. Pass me that vegan burger, please.

The same can be said for Greyhound.The carrier company decided to cut its ties with Adani after climate change groups vowed that it would boycott Greyhound as a protest. Greyhound knew what it was getting itself into by taking the Adani contract. In fact, it had written to staff warning they could be caught "in the crossfire" of anti-Adani campaigners after the company took a three-month contract at the coal project, with an option to extend. But the comments yesterday by the protesters sum up why they've got this so hopelessly wrong.

A spokesperson for Galilee Blockade said: "Greyhound took a stupid risk but quickly saw sense. Most Australians don't want the Adani mine and every single company with a retail brand has listened to their customers and dumped Adani."

You did see the May18 election result? SCott Morrison won. He's that guy from the LNP, you know the one that supports Paris targets but not 50 per cent renewables by 2030, which you and your cronies are addicted to.  It was Bill Shorten's inability to come  clean with Central Queensland miners over the future of their jobs that cost Labor Queensland. When they lost Queensland they lost the election.

When the Green's titular swami, Bob Brown, rolled into Clermont with his anti-Adani blockade - telling locals to go get  another job — they became angry. The LNP won the Clermont booth — mostly miners voting — with an 80 per cent primary.It's usually the other way round with Labor winning that booth comfortably.

Throw in Deputy Premier Jackie Trad's comment that miners need to "re-skill" and you had the perfect anti-Labor storm. The fact is most Australians support coal because it is Australia's international passport to a better life and standard of living.

It beggars belief that these protesters offer up the stop coal mining ideology without any plan or discussion around how it will impact the economy. When Shorten was asked to explain the cost of shutting down mining, he couldn't or wouldn't go there. The voters punished him for it.

Corporate blackmail and extortion is the only tool of trade these eco-vandals now have after May18. They remain stung by the result. They remain in denial.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 30 January, 2020






Joe Hildebrand on Australia’s strengths

A week ago I was in Mexico City, a vast sprawling metropolis of crumbling concrete and silver skyscrapers that is home to some 22 million souls – almost the entire population of the Australian continent.

A few of these souls are sickeningly rich; the vast majority are sickeningly poor.

It is a place of staggering beauty and dynamism and staggering atrophy and decay. Culture, wealth, paucity and poverty sit cheek to jowl, separated only by invisible class barriers and ten-foot walls.

I was there to see an old friend, and accompany him and his two sons back home to Australia. For the few days I was there, as he packed up his life and said goodbye to his brotherhood, we were bombarded with wellwishers.

And they weren’t just wishing him well, but the whole of Australia. News of the ferocious flames that had consumed so much of our bushland had spread there like, well, wildfire. His many Mexican friends offered our country their deepest condolences.

And, frankly, it made him sick.

It was not that he was ungrateful to them or unworried by his fire-ravaged home. It was simply that he could not accept sympathy from people who lived in a poverty almost no Australian could imagine. For all the grief and loss and sorrow that the fires have caused, he knew that our country, our lives, were so much more fortunate than theirs.

I was contemplating this the morning after we arrived home. It happened to be Australia Day and, like most Australia Days, I had barely even noticed.

I am not exactly the flag-waving kind, nor do I need any encouragement from a calendar to get drunk and laugh with friends. But I am accidentally reminded on January 26, like most other days of the year, just how lucky we are to live in this country.

It certainly doesn’t mean that we are free from problems, nor that everyone in this country shares that luck.

But even among all the tragedy, violence and mistakes both well-meaning and malevolent, Australia remains, by almost any measure, the luckiest nation on earth.

This is not because of race or the patterns on a flag. There is no pride in being born in a certain place any more than there is being born in a certain skin. It is because of a series of stands taken by lawmakers and community leaders that have crosshatched into the most stable, generous and prosperous foundations of any liberal democracy.

The delicate balance of our political institutions protects us from the volatility of the UK’s first-past-the-post approach and the US’s incongruous electoral college vote. Our preferential voting system means we don’t always get the best government but we do get the least worst.

Within that framework we have woven into the national fabric social bulwarks like free education, free healthcare and a welfare safety net – many not entirely free but more free than most.

And we have strong workplace laws and a minimum wage, a justice system almost entirely untainted by corruption. And a political culture where elections are free and fair and come with a sausage at the end.

Plus we have an economy that even in its moments of weakness, has withstood the global turbulence of the last quarter century, forces which have plunged other nations into levels of recession and unemployment that our young Australians would scarcely recognise.

Again, none of these things is perfect – just as nothing in the world is perfect – but it is almost impossible to live in or even consider any other nation and not conclude that Australia is a remarkable triumph of good luck and good will.

Of course we must eternally strive to make it better. We must close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, we must work to stop wages flatlining and give people the dignity and security of having their own home, and we must do everything at all times to get people out of poverty – paradoxically both by jobs growth and a liveable dole.

But you have to wonder when you see some of the more hysterical laments of the commentariat if there is any real sense of just how lucky we are. Indeed, it often seems like the luckier they are the more they lament.

Australia, as it stands now, is a land beset by fire and flood and killer flu. You could be forgiven for thinking the end of days really is upon us.

And yet we are also a land beset by decency and kindness and common sense – in our laws, our culture and our nature. We are less perfect than imagined nirvanas but as good as any real nation on earth.

And I still believe that these strengths will overcome all disasters – be they natural or human – because our whole nation is built on the scandalous assumption that we are natural and human ourselves.

SOURCE  





Democracy may be messy but the alternative is chaos

Bills of Rights can go badly wrong.  Much depends on who drafts them.  They can very easily express a Leftist agenda

Janet Albrechtsen

The rights activists could not be more wrong. The latest bid for an Australian charter or bill of rights launched this week by Amnesty International fails at the most fundamental hurdle: the one about who should make laws in a democracy.

Should it be the Australian people? Or a handful of judges empowered by a bill or a charter of rights and egged on by lawyers in search of work and other impatient activists?

The activists, including legal academic George Williams, are trying to harness new recruits in the media to an old cause. Riding the slipstream of the media’s Right to Know campaign, they claim the only way to truly protect the media’s ability to report matters of public interest is with a complete legal overhaul. Simple tinkering will not do, they say.

It’s all very curious. These people weren’t free-speech fans when it came to repealing section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Nor are they the least bit interested in a religious freedom law. But the Right to Know campaign? That, apparently, demands a new law to protect freedom.

Except it’s not new. They have been flogging this same old dead horse for years and it is deeply anti-democratic. Even a charter of rights passed by our federal parliament as a mere legislative instrument is a ruse, a way to warm us up for the finale, a real lawyers’ picnic: a constitutionally entrenched charter.

If that all sounds rather dramatic, while in Canada these past four weeks I saw the perfect proof of why Amnesty is wrong and why we should steer clear of any kind of charter of rights. It involves one of the most fundamental rights imaginable: a person’s right to decide when to end their life.

In Canada the courts call the shots about this issue. In Australia, we, the people, decide these laws. And you don’t need a legal degree, let alone a doctorate in constitutional law, to work out which is more democratic and which model carries more legitimacy with the people.

Recall the history of assisted dying laws in Australia. The Northern Territory Legislative Assembly passed the world’s first law to legalise euthanasia in May 1995. Then, in March 1997, the federal Senate passed another law, rendering that law invalid.

It was a highly contested issue. More than 20 years later two Australian states, Western Australia and Victoria, have passed assisted dying laws because our elected representatives have undertaken the messy, long and laborious process known as democracy.

It involves considering, investigating, discussing, calling for submissions from lay folk as well as medical experts, drafting, deliberating over changes and, finally, passing these laws.

As Western Australia’s Health Minister Roger Cook said after the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill passed in the state’s parliament last year: “We are at the end of a very long process, a momentous process for the West Australian parliament and West Australian public.”

Two years earlier Victoria’s parliament passed a similar law after an equally gruelling process.

Meanwhile, democracy led the NSW parliament to consider the same issue and reject it in 2017.

The ACT government has responded to, and largely agreed to, an end of life report, even though it lacks the power to enact such laws. Queensland’s parliament undertook an inquiry in 2018, extending it until March this year. South Australian Premier Steven Marshall also has committed that state’s parliament to an inquiry, with public submissions concluding last year.

Contrast our long, carefully considered and, yes, messy but very democratic path to assisted dying laws with Canada’s route.

There, a lovely sounding charter of rights and freedoms has turned a vibrant people’s democracy into a guided democracy with the Supreme Court of Canada playing the part of Lee Kuan Yew. In this and other major policy areas the real decision-maker in Canada is a judicial aristocracy, an unelected, unaccountable and unsackable body that treats elected parliaments with disdain, if not contempt.

It was not always thus. Canada, like Australian states and territories, historically followed a centuries-old legal principle embodied in section 241 of Canada’s Criminal Code. That law, enacted by parliament, provided that assisting someone to commit suicide was a crime. Indeed, even Canada’s Supreme Court, in a 1993 decision called Rodriguez, upheld that position despite the addition of the charter of rights and freedoms to the Canadian Constitution in 1982.

But then fashions changed. By 2015 the Supreme Court, in a case called Carter, decided the charter of rights and freedoms did, indeed, confer a right to assisted suicide for those with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition, including an illness, disease or disability, that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition”.

How did they decide? It was nothing short of a court assuming the role of philosopher king.

Somewhat condescendingly the Supreme Court gave the Canadian parliament 12 months to draft a law complying with the court’s ruling.

The government had to go to court to grovel for an extension but eventually parliament did what the court ordered it to do.

Or did it? Last September a single judge in a lower court, Justice Christine Baudouin of the Quebec Superior Court, marked parliament’s exam paper with F for fail. The judge decided that it breached Canada’s charter for the parliament to insert a limitation requiring that death be “reasonably foreseeable” before a patient was eligible for voluntary assisted death.

Activists cheered Bau­douin. And they are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of further judicial activism over two other aspects of the parliament’s law on assisted dying.

Parliament has prohibited minors from accessing assisted dying and also prohibited “advance directives”, preferring to demand that consent be given for assisted dying in the moments right before death.

If activists can find a few agreeable judges they can override the will of the people here, too.

Note that a single judge with no special expertise in relevant medical, social, or economic policy areas has widened the boundaries of a deeply complicated issue without access to all the analytic, expert and research resources of parliament, or the benefit of full, public consultation. And neither should courts have access to these resources. After all, they are not meant to be politicians.

Yet Canadian courts run the country in key areas because they can. And parliaments must dance to their tune.

Apologists for the Canadian charter will point to what is called the “notwithstanding” clause as rescuing parliamentary sovereignty. While it is true there is a theoretical ability for parliaments to override the courts, they can do so only for a limited period and some critical charter rights cannot be overridden, even temporarily. Proof that this is a useless fetter on the court’s ability to tell the parliament what to do is that the federal parliament has never once tried to use the “notwithstanding” clause.

Making all this worse, when the Supreme Court of Canada in the Carter case overruled its own Rodriguez decision it made stare decisis (the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent) a dead letter and effectively invited lower courts to ignore legal precedents and get in on the lawmaking act.

Canada’s key social policies are hostage not merely to the latest fads sweeping the Supreme Court but also the policy fashions of judges in myriad lower courts.

And that is the other inherent flaw in the case for an Australian bill of rights to protect our basic freedoms. Like Williams, charter fans claim it is the only way to deal with issues that parliament squibs.

What the advocates and activists won’t mention is that they are simply impatient with old-fashioned democratic processes and often deeply scornful of its results.

A bill of rights is the undemocratic fast-track to laws they prefer. It gives judges a set of human rights laws that are vaguely drafted, inviting them to decide big policy issues and allowing them to inject their personal biases into judgments.

There is a reason the Americans call it an end-run around democracy. It’s how to run right past democratic processes without getting bogged down by the people or the politicians who represent them.

This battle between parliament and the courts is not confined to Canada. This week, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern backed euthanasia laws. If passed by the parliament, it will be only a matter of time before a few judges in that country use the New Zealand bill of rights to meddle in this controversial issue.

A fortnight ago, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he was concerned that judicial review had become a way of “conducting politics by another means”. While judicial review is, indeed, a vital cornerstone of our legal system and a fundamental protection for the citizen against an over-mighty government, there is a pretty strong argument it has gone too far.

Judicial review was intended to prevent abuses of process and patently untenable decisions. Today, spurred by like-minded activists who head to court, judges increasingly are using their unelected pulpits to implement their personal policy preferences over those of elected and accountable politicians.

In Australia, we should never take for granted that Australian laws are still made by parliaments elected by, and accountable to, Australian voters.

SOURCE  






ABC’s 7.30 runs yet another Dismissal conspiracy story

Once upon a time the left in Australia alleged that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a role in the decision of Governor-General Sir John Kerr to dismiss Gough Whitlam’s Labor government on 11 November 1975. Now the left is alleging that it was Buckingham Palace which was involved in some form of conspiracy to the same effect. Both views are baseless and not supported by evidence, nearly half a century after the event.

Emeritus Professor Jenny Hocking seems to be the official historian of the Australian left – with biographies on Labor prime minister Gough Whitlam, Labor attorney-general and later High Court justice Lionel Murphy and one-time Communist Party operative Frank Hardy.

The evidence suggests that Dr Hocking has ready access to the ABC. So it came as no surprise that she got another run on the taxpayer funded broadcaster last night in a story presented by 7.30’s Ashlynne McGhee.

Currently Professor Hocking is involved in a legal action to compel the Australian Archives to release correspondence between Sir John and Queen Elizabeth II which took place in late 1975. It concerned the decision by the Coalition in opposition led by Malcolm Fraser to block supply – and the determination by the Labor government led by Gough Whitlam to govern without supply.

In the event, Kerr dismissed Whitlam and commissioned Fraser to form a caretaker government subsequent to the holding of a double dissolution election. The Coalition won the December 1975 election in a landslide.

Gerard Henderson reviewed a number of recent books on this issue – by Paul Kelly & Troy Bramston and Jenny Hocking along with a collection of essays edited by Sybil Nolan in The Sydney Institute Review Online, (Issue 2), 2 February, 2016.

Jenny Hocking’s application for special leave to appeal against a Federal Court decision not to release Sir John’s correspondence with The Palace will be heard by the High Court of Australia next week.

In the late 1980s, John Kerr showed Gerard Henderson some of his late 1975 correspondence with the Palace – but did not allow him to copy it. It appears that Kerr used this correspondence to write what he wrote about the Dismissal in his book Matters for Judgment (1978). Consequently it is most unlikely that there will be any discoveries about The Dismissal when – or rather if – the correspondence is released.

Henderson is of the view that it would be best if the entire correspondence were to be released – since this would put an end to Hocking’s conspiracy theory. But it is a difficult issue in view of Kerr’s rights with respect to what he regarded as personal correspondence and the rights claimed by Buckingham Palace.

Last night 7.30 interviewed Jenny Hocking about her case. Her views were contrasted with those of Philip Benwell, the British-born head of the quaint and old fashioned Australian Monarchist League.

7.30 chose not to speak to individuals with a similar knowledge of the subject as Hocking. For example the likes of Paul Kelly, Troy Bramston and Gerard Henderson. It was a familiar ABC tactic of interviewing a soft target who disagrees with a position favoured by ABC journalists and producers.

Benwell was interviewed sitting in a chair – behind him was old fashioned antique furniture. Whereas there was footage of Hocking walking actively around the State Library of Victoria – including footage of her seated in a high chair, alone in a large hall, viewing film about Whitlam and Kerr.

In a series of Twitter posts yesterday Troy Bramston documented a number of factual errors in Ashlynne McGhee’s report. The RMIT-ABC Fact Check Unit checks the facts of others – but does not fact-check ABC programs before they go to air.

There is no evidence that the Queen or the Palace intervened with respect to the Dismissal. Why would she or it? Ms McGhee made much of the fact that the Palace does not want the letters sent by Kerr to the Queen released and that it allegedly advised Kerr to omit key material about the Palace from his memoirs. But that’s a typical response by the Queen’s advisers. The historian Julia Baird had difficulty getting Buckingham Palace to release material relating to Queen Victoria who died in 1901.

What Jenny Hocking cannot accept is that Kerr resolved the stand-off between two determined and arrogant men at a time when supply was running out and the Commonwealth was finding it increasingly difficult to pay its bills, including public services salaries.

In the end, the conflict was resolved by a vote of the Australian electorate without any obvious input from either Buckingham Palace or the CIA. This fact was omitted from the 7.30 story last night.

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 February, 2020

Gas investment will drive more extreme weather

So says the self-appointed Climate Council below.  Natural gas gives off much less CO2 when burnt than coal does so you would think the climate council would welcome it.  But like all Greenies, they know no compromise. They want it all now.

Their claim that renewables are cheaper is misleading.  It is cheap in some ways only because it receives large subsidies.  It is tax powered.

And the claim that CO2 drives extreme weather is just an assertion.  The U.N., among others, says there is no proof of that

The bushfires are the result of negligent forest management, nothing more


SCOTT MORRISON, just days after addressing the nation with ‘climate action now’, has today announced a significant investment in new fossil fuels, with the New South Wales Government.

“Fossil fuels are the problem. Burning coal, oil, and gas is driving climate change, which is making Australia’s extremes, more extreme,” said the Climate Council’s CEO, Amanda McKenzie. “Every dollar toward fossil fuel projects is a dollar toward making heatwaves worse and fires more damaging. It is just crazy, given everything we have lost this summer to even suggest opening new fossil fuel reserves,” said McKenzie.

“More gas isn’t a climate policy it is a pollution policy. While fires are still threatening lives and properties - why is the Government investing in making the problem worse,” she said.

“You don’t reduce emissions by increasing investment in fossil fuels,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert, Greg Bourne. “The idea that gas will reduce prices is nonsensical. Gas is the reason power prices are so high along the east coast of Australia. Renewables are the cheapest form of new generation. Cheaper than coal, oil and gas,” said Climate Councillor and energy expert, Greg Bourne.

“Investing in gas will ensure power prices keep rising, and Australia spews out even more greenhouse gas emissions, contributing to pushing climate change to new and terrifying extremes,” said Bourne.

 “We have just witnessed an unprecedented bushfire crisis. Lives, homes, wildlife and millions of hectares of Australia simply burnt and gone. The Prime Ministers’ job is to protect Australians but he's making the problem worse,” said McKenzie.

Via email. Contact Communications Advisor, Brianna Hudson on 0455 238 875.





Struggling public hospital REFUSES to accept a $15M donation - because it was made by a coal mining company

Destructive Greenie fanaticism again

A struggling hospital has been accused of 'ideological grandstanding' after turning down a $15million cash injection - because it came from a coal mining company. 

Wyong Hospital, on the New South Wales Central Coast, has been dogged by complaints over low nurse numbers and emergency wait times - and last October sent a one-year-old home with a fractured neck without staff ordering scans. 

But the hospital board has refused Wallarah 2 Coal Project's offer to donate $14.8million over the mine's 28-year life span because of 'community sentiment' and 'public health effects'.

The project, due to begin in 2022, has been approved by the state ­government and the ­independent planning commission, which takes into consideration pollution and health impacts. 

Wyong Coal Wallarah 2 general manager Peter ­Allonby and site manager Kenny Barry claimed a board member said hospital board members compared the handout to 'taking money from a tobacco company', The Daily Telegraph reported.

Central Coast Local Health District boss Andrew Montague released a statement this week stating the offer was not appropriate 'to accept at this stage'.

'[This is] due to current community sentiment and potential public health effects, particularly in relation to air quality and noise pollution,' he said.

It is common for mining companies to pour money into local community infrastructure, and the state government alone rakes in $2billion from industry royalties annually.

The contribution would be an average of $528,000 a year - or the wages of at least six nurses.

According to the Department of Planning and Environment, the $800million mine is expected to create more than 1,700 direct and indirect jobs. 

The hospital board's decision to reject the funds has been criticised by officials, but many within the community have launched online petition to stop the mine.

Deputy Premier John Barilaro said the decision would impact the Wyong community.

'For them to reject what is a very generous donation from a company wanting to be a good corporate citizen is a slap in the face for that community,' he said.

The father of the one-year-old sent home with a fractured neck last year also described the refusal to accept the offer as a 'slap in the face'.

SOURCE  







Federal Government chooses Kimba farm on the Eyre Peninsula for nuclear dump

The Federal Government has selected a farm on South Australia's Eyre Peninsula as the site of a controversial nuclear waste dump.

The decision to use the 160-hectare area for what the Government calls a "disposal and storage facility" was made after four years of consultation.

Nearly 62 per cent of people voted in favour of the site being used in November, while a site near Hawker in the Flinders Ranges was opposed by Aboriginal traditional owners and residents.

The Federal Government said the $200 million facility would boost the region's economy and create about 45 jobs during construction.

It comes with a $31 million community development package to give local businesses and workers skills to build and run the dump. "I am satisfied a facility at Napandee will safely and securely manage radioactive waste and that the local community has shown broad community support for the project and economic benefits it will bring," Resources Minister Matt Canavan said.

Dump to consolidate nuclear waste

Local federal Liberal MP Rowan Ramsey said waste would come in from more than 100 sites around Australia, such as hospitals and universities, and the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor in Sydney.

Processed medium-level nuclear fuel rods from Lucas Heights will be temporarily stored at Kimba while a permanent site is found for them, he said.

Mr Ramsey, who tried to nominate his own property near Kimba for the dump but was barred as a federal MP, said there would be no fly-in, fly-out workers at the facility. "All of those things should provide a long-term economic benefit to the community," he said.

SOURCE  





MP Amanda Stoker taking fight to transgender activists

A free speech champion and rising star of conservative politics, Amanda Stoker, has launched a petition to build support for a stand against the “dangerous and radical ideas” and “completely unreasonable” demands of the transgender activist agenda.

The Queensland Liberal senator has quietly joined this toxic identity politics debate with a preamble on her personal webpage saying most Australians recognise the freedom of others “to live their life the way they want.”

“But that doesn’t mean we abandon truth. It doesn’t mean we abandon common sense or our understanding of basic biology,” she writes.

“You do have a right to teach your children they are born as either a boy or a girl and that gender isn’t something we can choose.

“You do have a right to keep women’s sport for women.

“You do have a right to know what your child is being taught about gender and sexuality in school.

“You do have a right to protect children from hormone treatment and surgical procedures.

“I will continue to stand up for common sense and objective truth — but I need to know I have your support.”

Senator Stoker, 37, a former barrister and prosecutor, and outspoken Christian, took the Senate spot of former attorney-general George Brandis in 2018. In her maiden speech, she defended liberty of conscience, thought and speech.

Critics of trans activism — and of “gender affirming” hormone treatment and surgery for under-18s who feel “born in the wrong body” — face denunciation as “hateful transphobes”, vexatious complaints and online harassment, as well as real-world intimidation.

The latest target is Oxford University professor of history, Selina Todd, who has been given security guards to take her to lectures after students alerted her to trans activist threats. She defends the sex-based rights and protections of women from biologically intact men who declare a female “gender identity”.

Trans activists argue trans people are vulnerable and victimised, and that opposition to their rights is driven by rightwing religious bigotry.

Critics of medicalised gender transition of children include Christians and conservatives but also atheist psychiatrists, young adults who regret hormonal treatment and surgery, former gender clinic staff, parents with progressive politics, anti-queer theory lesbians and gay men, radical feminists, and mothers who were tom boys.

Not all activists for trans rights are trans themselves, and there are trans adults who deplore the aggressive tactics and oppose medical interventions with “gender non-conforming” children.

Senator Stoker told The Australian everyone was entitled to support and respect, but inclusion of trans-identifying adults could not “mean we neglect our duties to children.

“Providing chemical, hormonal or surgical treatments to children without the capacity to truly understand their implications and provide their consent, is wrong,” she said.

“There is a lack of research showing these treatments are the best way to deal with gender issues, and a growing body of evidence that they are harmful.

“The trend of treating any speech which questions the wisdom of gender-transitioning treatments for children as ‘discrimination’, has the perverse effect of denying people with gender issues the best treatment that research, medicine and psychology could deliver.

“The scientific method should prevail here, not hard gender ideology.”

Teenage trans

Practitioners disagree how to respond to a surge in teenagers, mostly girls, who turn up at gender clinics claiming to be boys, often with a host of problems including mental illness, autism, awkward same-sex attraction and family trauma.

The influential pro-trans “affirmative” approach regards children as “experts” in their gender identity, encourages gender change and sometimes medical intervention to mimic the opposite-sex body. Sceptics of the affirmative model say the trans declarations of troubled under-18s may mask the real issues.

Next week, a parliamentary committee in Queensland will hold a public hearing into a draft law that would criminalise “conversion therapy”.

The term conjures up images of coercive, hurtful attempts to change the fixed sexual orientation of an adult.

Queensland’s bill extends this to any perceived attempt to change a child’s feelings of gender, which may be at odds with biological sex. Psychology sees youth identity as a work in progress marked by experimentation and influence, especially around puberty.

Worried health practitioners, Christians and women opposed to “gender ideology” accuse Queensland’s Palaszczuk government of using the spectre of past conversion therapy as cover to mandate the affirmative model with its risky medical interventions.

The ban on conversion therapy would not apply to hormonal interventions and surgery that “affirm” a child’s transgender shift.

Advocates for the affirmative model, which has been endorsed by medical bodies, say its treatments are “life-saving” for suicidal trans youth, whose high rates of mental illness reflect their stigma in a transphobic world.

State Health Minister Steven Miles said there was “overwhelming evidence that conversion therapy is harmful and that it correlates with high rates of suicide”, and the government rejected the view that “being LGBTIQ is a disorder that requires correction”.

But Senator Stoker said the bill was an attempt to “silence dissent” and “entrench hard-left gender ideology”.

“No reasonable person supports what comes to mind when the words ‘conversion therapy’ are used — but this law goes much further,” she told The Australian.

She cited “credible minds in medicine, psychology and law” who complain the bill is a threat to ethical and necessary exploration of personal problems and social pressures that may help explain the recent teen epidemic of gender dysphoria (the distress of feeling “born in the wrong body”).

A submission to the committee from a GP with many years’ experience in adolescent mental health and gender issues says: “I can scarcely believe that the state government would threaten me — in the area that I specialise (in) — that good quality medicine could be punished with 18 months of prison.”

The GP, whose name was withheld, says a majority of young patients recover from gender dysphoria with professional care, supportive counselling and treatment of co-existing mental illness or help with autism.

“If you were to pass this law, I would feel compelled by force of law to discharge all of (these) patients from my care, and would not be able to take on new patients,” the GP says.

“Non-harmful, sensitive, respectful, patient-centred counselling should never be made illegal; to criminalise this would be an abuse of government authority and massive overreach.”

Before the post-2000 spike in teen dysphoria, the condition was typically diagnosed in a small number of pre-school boys and the vast majority grew out of it, following cautious psychotherapy or “watchful waiting”, and many emerged as young gay or bisexual adults comfortable in their bodies.

“The drastic medical interventions that accompany a gender affirmative approach and which are being applied to ‘transition’ many young people who would otherwise go on to identify as gay or lesbian would be more rightly be regarded as the ultimate ‘conversion therapy’,” the Sydney-based Feminist Legal Clinic says in its submission on the Queensland bill.

After mainstream medical bodies were blindsided by consultation on the bill being staged during the Christmas-New Year break, there has been confusion about whether or not late submissions will be allowed, or who will be asked to testify at a state parliamentary committee hearing pushed back from February 3 to February 7. The Australian sought clarification from the committee.

Meanwhile, after years of scant media reporting, the intensifying global debate over the affirmative model is getting more mainstream attention.

Last Wednesday, The Washington Post carried a front-page report on South Dakota in the US leading a “wave” of Republican-led state bills that could make medical transition of minors illegal.

In the UK last week, 23-year-old Keira Bell, who regrets taking hormone suppression drugs that interfere with puberty, joined a High Court case arguing under-18 patients at the NHS Tavistock gender clinic cannot give informed consent to this “experimental” treatment.

“I believe that the current affirmative system put in place by the Tavistock is inadequate as it does not allow for exploration of these gender dysphoric feelings, nor does it seek to find the underlying causes of this condition,” she said.

SOURCE  






Schooling at home becomes more popular

THE number of Queensland kids being homeschooled has almost doubled over the past five years and thousands more could be illegally flying under the radar.

Education Queensland data reveals that 3411 school-aged children and teenagers are being homeschooled — up from 1770 in 2015.

But Queensland University Technology home education expert Dr Rebecca English said it did not show the true numbers. She said.research suggested there could be thousands more illegally homeschooling. "They're still homeschooling but just don't tell the department about it which I believe is quite worrying." She said.  A change in the departmental process to register as a home educator became more difficult in 2018.

However, a department of education spokesman said parents had a legal obligation to ensure their school-aged child was enrolled in school or registered in home education. "The parent's application must be accompanied by documentation verifying the identity of the parent, the identity and age of the child and a summary of proposed educational program that shows evidence of high-quality education," he said.

Ipswich mother Kathryn McGowan said instead of sending her son Patrick to mainstream school, she had enrolled him in distance education because home education registration was too. complicated.

As a teacher, Ms McGowan said she knew her five-year-old son was not ready for mainstream school.

From the Brisbane "Courier Mail" of 30 January, 2020

 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?



My son Joe


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/